HomeMy WebLinkAbout0716 MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - JULY 16, 2002
.. 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson
Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson
Sabby Jonathan
Dave Tschopp
Members Absent: Jim Lopez
Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney
Steve Smith, Planning Manager
Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner
Tony Bagato, Planning Tech
Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer
Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Consideration of the June 18, 2002 meeting minutes.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, to approve the June 18, 2002 meeting minutes as submitted.
Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained).
%no'
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
3
Chairperson Finerty asked for a show of hands from the audience to see how
many people were present for Public Hearing Item D relating to Palm Desert
Greens. (The majority of the audience raised their hands.) Chairperson Finerty
requested a motion to reorder the agenda items to bring Item D up first.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, reordering the agenda items and bringing Public Hearing Item #D up
as the first hearing item. Motion carried 4-0.
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
Mr. Drell summarized pertinent items from the July 11 , 2002 City Council
meeting.
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
s
t
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
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.
D. Case No. C/Z 02-03 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for consideration of recommendation of approval to the
City Council of the prezoning of Palm Desert Greens located on
the north side of Country Club Drive and east side of Monterey
Avenue PR-5 (Planned Residential, five dwelling units per acre)
for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the city
of Palm Desert and approve a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact pertaining thereto.
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
`ow
Mr. Drell explained to the audience that the item before the Planning
Commission was not the annexation of the territory nor would the commission
have any direct input or be a decision-making body on that question. The item
on the agenda tonight was simply if the area ever became annexed by the
City, what the land use designation would be. Any comments other than
relating to the respective land use would not be relevant to the hearing before
the commission tonight. There would be no discussion by the Planning
Commission or input as to whether or not Palm Desert Greens becomes
annexed. It was a land use question on what the land use would be if Palm
Desert Greens became annexed. Any comments or discussions relative to the
actual annexation of the area should be directed to the Local Agency
Formation Commission and they would be having their own hearings sometime
in the future. The City of Palm Desert did not initiate the annexation and was
not an applicant to the annexation. Therefore, all the deliberations on how that
application is processed would be occurring before the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) in Riverside.
Mr. Smith indicated that in 1992 the City prezoned Suncrest Country Club. A
�.r subsequent annexation application was rejected at that time. That prezoning
is still in place. It had been in hibernation for the last ten years.
Palm Desert Greens is currently designated in the City's General Plan low
density residential, three to five dwelling units per acre. The City is proposing
to prezone this area consistent with the General Plan designation.
Subsequently, LAFCO would process annexation pursuant to a petition they
anticipate receiving in the near future. Mr. Smith explained that the area is
within the City's adopted Sphere of Influence.
In order for LAFCO to proceed, it required the City to first adopt the
appropriate prezoning. Tonight they were looking at doing the first step. Staff
was suggesting the area be prezoned PR-5 which would allow up to five
dwelling units per acre based on the gross acreage. They were looking at an
area with 423 acres and 1,922 existing lots. That came out to approximately
4.54 or 4.55 units per acre on the gross. PR-5 zoning is the closest zoning
the City has to recognizing what is there currently. It is a golf course
community with residential units.
Mr. Smith explained that the prezoning would only become effective if and
when the area is ever annexed to the city. He noted that there were in excess
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
j
J
of 2,100 legal notices mailed out. From that notice, staff received three letters
from residents which were included with the staff report. As well, there were
letters distributed to the commission earlier today and two additional letters
were received just prior to the meeting (from Monte Post and Frank
Gottschalk) and they were passed to the commission for their review.
The action by the City was not in response to any request by Palm Desert
Greens. Mr. Smith explained the City was acting at the request of LAFCO.
Objections to the annexation should be directed to LAFCO who would hold
appropriate hearings as part of its process.
Environmentally, annexation of the property into the city would not alter the
present or future use of the land nor would it effect the rate of development
because the site is essentially built out. The prezoning is consistent with the
existing developed condition and no additional entitlements or development
would occur as a result of this action.
Accordingly, the Director of Community Development determined that the
prezoning and subsequent annexation, should it ever occur, would not have an
adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact had been prepared and was recommended for
certification.
Staff's recommendation was that Planning Commission recommend to City
Council approval of the prezoning by approving Case No. C/Z 02-03. Mr. Smith
asked for any questions.
Commissioner Campbell noted that Suncrest Country Club is zoned PR-7 and
asked for clarification that Palm Desert Greens would be PR-5. Mr. Smith said
staff was suggesting PR-5.
Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that there was not an existing
prezoning from when the matter was addressed previously. Mr. Smith stated
that the application in 1992 only related to Suncrest Country Club.
Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and stressed that the
opportunity to speak for or against annexation would be at a later date.
Tonight people would be allowed to speak for or against prezoning. That was
the only issue under consideration. She stated that anyone who wished to
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
tow
speak would be limited to five minutes. The speaker should come up to the
lectern and give their name and address for the record.
Chairperson Finerty invited anyone who wished to address the commission in
FAVOR of the prezoning to PR-5 to come to the lectern.
MS. VERNA SMITH, President of the Board of Directors at Palm Desert
Greens Country Club, thanked the commission for their time and for
putting this on the agenda so they could move forward with the
annexation process through LAFCO. This was something the City had
to do and they appreciated the City taking the time to do it. She felt a
zoning of PR-5 was appropriate and said they looked forward to working
with them in the future.
Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the
proposed prezoning.
MR. FRANK OAKDEN, 39-697 Morongo Canyon in Palm Desert Greens,
�.. informed the commission that he has been a homeowner there for 13
years. He was a former member of the Board of Directors. He said he
had a prepared speech but had been shot down. Most of his interest
and a lot of the people at the meeting were concerned with the
annexation process.
Chairperson Finerty explained that they were only going to discuss the
prezoning tonight.
Mr. Oakden said he understood that. He said he would summarize his
speech. One week ago he delivered to the City Manager 62 pages of a
petition containing 452 homeowner signatures who are against
annexation. Copies of the petition would also be submitted to LAFCO.
There were still two and a half months remaining to collect additional
homeowner signatures in the time allotted under the LAFCO rules.
On Tuesday he said he spoke with Steve Smith with the City Planning
Department regarding the mailing and the language it contained. "if you
challenge the proposed actions in court you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the
%how
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearing." He said Mr.
Smith informed him that this zone change is only a preliminary step in
the event that Palm Desert Greens is actually annexed to the city. Mr.
Smith also told him that their neighbor (Suncrest Country Club) had a
zone change to PR-7 years ago and it still remains in the RT zone of the
unincorporated area of the County.
Mr. Oakden noted that the PR zoning for PR-5 is for residential
dwellings. The County has them in a TR-1 zone which is for mobile
homes/trailers. Now it is called manufactured housing. He asked Mr.
Smith what that zoning would entail in terms of residences inside of
their community. He asked if it would open it up to stick builts and so
forth of if they have any designation in the city for a subdivision like
theirs.
Mr. Smith said it was his understanding there were only eight to ten vacant
lots. Whether it was a stick built or a mobile home, the City would process
an application as recommended by the Palm Desert Greens architectural
commission or architectural advisory committee if they have one, or the
homeowner's association.
Mr. Oakden said he thought under the County now stick built houses
would be allowed in their development although it had not come to
pass.
Mr. Drell explained that the City has its own specialty manufactured mobile
home zoning which they adopted in 1975. Subsequently, the State has passed
amended legislation which has removed any legal distinction between a
manufactured house and a stick built house. It didn't allow the City to
discriminate from one to the other. They had to consider each as being equal.
He said they had stick built homes built in Portola Country Club which is a
similar subdivision. As far as the City's position, they could not discriminate
any more. Therefore, that zone was kind of obsolete. Regardless of the zoning,
the City could not prohibit a stick built home or a manufactured home.
Mr. Oakden asked Mr. Smith if the City Manager gave him the copy of
their petition.
Mr. Smith said he hadn't seen it.
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Now
Mr. Oakden requested that Mr. Smith contact the City Manager because
it is a submittal for the Planning Department. He wanted that added to
his list of comments from people. Also, he had a copy of his letter he
wanted to present to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Oakden noted that this annexation issue with Palm Desert has been
going on for many years and they were very concerned as a community
as to the effects it would have on their residences. They have people
who are elderly, living on their social security with not much funding
and able to survive there because they are one of the cheapest places
in the city. He concluded by requesting that the City hold off on any
annexation process, including the proposed zone change, until a vote
could be taken in accordance with the Palm Desert Greens bylaws and
when all of their homeowners will be present in January or February of
2003.
Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to address the commission
against the prezoning. She requested that they not repeat the same points.
r.. MS. BARBARA RAMIREZ, of 39-240 Hidden Water Place in Palm Desert
Greens, addressed the commission. She said she had some questions
regarding the zoning. They were talking about doing a prezoning as PR-5
and staff said they could not distinguish between stick homes and
manufactured homes, no matter what zone they picked.
Mr. Drell said that was correct.
Ms. Ramirez said that if they were annexed into the city and it was
zoned PR-5, she wanted to know if there were restrictions within the
zoning that would prevent two-story homes from being built in certain
zones so they could have a better feel on whether to say this was a
good zone to pick.
Mr. Drell said that in the PR zone there is a development plan that is adopted.
When a zoning is adopted for a previously developed area, they were adopting
the existing development plan. In this case it would be the standards which
have been applied historically. Those would be the standards Palm Desert
would apply. With manufactured housing in the past, they couldn't have two
stories. So they still couldn't have two stories. They never permitted two
taw
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002 a
stories adjacent to one story and since everything was already one story, they
would not permit two stories.
Ms. Ramirez said that the only definition they were given for PR-5
zoning is that it is residential zoning.
Mr. Drell explained that it is residential zoning, five units per acre. Then there
is an adopted precise plan. The precise plan is the plan that has already been
adopted for them by the County which the City would inherit. So the same
standards which applied to them under the County would apply to them under
the City.
Ms. Ramirez asked if the Planning Commission voted in the PR zoning
as a prezoning to possible annexation, which is the only reason they are
doing it right now, if they voted that in as a PR-5 and then it came into
question that it didn't fit the needs of Palm Desert Greens, she asked
what it would take to change that zoning. She asked if it would be up
to the Planning Commission to do that again or if someone else would
have to present that to the City. She asked how often a residential area
got rezoned.
Mr. Drell said it was unusual for a developed property to ever get a zone
change. He didn't recall that ever being requested. The homeowner's
association requesting it could ask for a different zoning, but it has never
happened before.
Ms. Ramirez said she was asking that because it didn't seem like
anyone came to the meeting prepared to say they wanted the
commission to vote for the PR-5, or even knowing what it means,
versus the PR-7 that Suncrest has. That was why she was asking. If
the City chose to vote to accept PR-5 and then some people did some
research and thought there was a better zone for their area and they
could come to the City and recommend that, she thought that might be
better for them to do. She thanked the commission for letting her ask
her questions.
MR. RICHARD LE BLANC, 39-830 Desert Greens Drive East, thanked
the commission for their time. He asked what their current zoning was
if the City was planning to use PR-5.
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
(Someone speaking from the audience said it is TR-1 .)
Mr. Le Blanc asked if that was one per acre.
Mr. Drell explained that it was a County zone so the numbers meant
something different. He said that originally zones were created to restrict
development in these areas to manufactured housing. Since manufactured
housing was prohibited in all other traditional residential zones, they had an
exclusive zone which only allowed manufactured housing. Since the legal
distinction had been taken away, staff would probably eliminate that zone
when the Zoning Ordinance was redone.
Mr. Le Blanc asked if any action by the Planning Commission tonight or
LAFCO in the future for annexation which may or may not take place,
should any of those things happen, he asked if that would in any way
effect how their homes are currently taxed. Many of them were on
tags. Many were on real property tax. He asked if that would have an
impact one way or another on that.
Mr. Drell said no.
MS. PATTY IMIOLA, 38-181 Desert Greens Drive West, addressed the
commission. She said she would like to clarify a few things. Having
been involved in a situation a few years back where there were mobile
homes and then stick homes suddenly appeared, she asked if their
current zoning strictly allowed only mobile homes.
Mr. Drell said that was the zoning that was applied, but that was superseded
by State laws which say that if someone wanted to build a stick built home
in their development, they as an association via the CC&R's might be able to
stop them. The City couldn't stop them.
Ms. Imiola asked for confirmation that there was no zoning available to
assure the people of Palm Desert Greens, who have spent a great deal
of money on their mobile homes, that there wouldn't be a stick home
built next door to her and if there was no zoning to protect them.
Mr. Drell confirmed there was no zoning that would protect them and there
was no zoning under the County that would protect them. The County was
tow
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
y
..r
subject to the same State law as the City that says they cannot discriminate
between one form of construction and another.
Ms. Imiola said that changing it now would make no difference. In other
words, what he was telling her was that if someone wanted to come in
next door to her and do this, unless their board or committee stopped
it, it would happen. She asked if that was what Mr. Drell was saying.
Mr. Drell concurred. The City did not have the power to stop it.
Ms. Imiola thanked the commission.
Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval of the
prezoning.
Action: 1
s
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner r.ri
Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff.
Chairperson Finerty asked if there was any further discussion.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if anything out there now that was not in
conformance with the PR-5 zone would be grandfathered in. Mr. Smith said
that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the CC&R's would still
retain control over architectural and other issues for the Palm Desert Greens
area. Mr. Smith said yes, if they were in there now.
Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2137, recommending
to City Council approval of C/Z 02-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried
4-0.
CHAIRPERSON FINERTY CALLED FOR A TWO-MINUTE RECESS AT 7:31 . THE MEETING
WAS RECONVENED AT 7:33 P.M. i
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
A. Case No. CUP 02-11 - STEWART ROBERTS FOR THE OASIS CHURCH
LIFE TRAINING CENTER, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 12,360
square foot church facility in the former Gold's Gym building
located at 39-605 Entrepreneur Lane.
Mr. Smith explained that the Oasis Church Life Training Center wished to
relocate. They were currently located on Velie Way. He noted that Planning
Commission approved an expansion of their facility on Velie approximately a
year ago. Now they wish to relocate to Entrepreneur Lane. The proposed
facility was most recently occupied by Gold's Gym. The site has 52 parking
spaces.
The main concern with this type of use typically was the adequacy of the
parking. The sanctuary layout would have seating for 250 persons. Code
prescribes 83 parking spaces. There were 52 spaces onsite resulting in a
shortfall of 31 spaces. There were 44 parking spaces available in the
immediate vicinity on the street. That is within 300 feet in either direction.
When this building was occupied by Gold's Gym there were hundreds of
vehicles parked on the street in this area from morning until night.
The proposed use would have its highest demand on Sundays when the rest
of the industrial park would basically be empty and then in the evenings during
the week. Staff felt this was an acceptable use to replace the gym facility.
For purposes of CEQA, the project was a Class 3 Categorical Exemption. Staff
recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions
contained in the draft resolution. He asked for any questions.
Chairperson Finerty noted that the request from the church asked for services
on Sundays at 9:00 a.m., 11 :00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Condition of approval
No. 1 limited them to Sundays at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. She asked if
there was a reason why. Staff explained it was an error and would be
corrected. Commissioner Campbell asked which was correct. Mr. Smith
clarified they would have full use of the facility on Sunday, so it would be
9:00 a.m., 1 1 :00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
tow
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Referring to the staff report, Commissioner Jonathan noted that the application
was for a 12,360 square foot facility. Mr. Smith said that was correct.
Commissioner Jonathan indicated that in the current proposal, staff listed the
uses as 3,200 square feet for the sanctuary, a 1,000 square foot children's
ministry room, an 850 square foot children's ministry room, a youth room of
600 square feet and a 1 ,000 square foot fellowship area. When that was
added up, it was only about half of the 12,360. Mr. Smith noted that on the
back page of the staff report, it showed the areas with square footages from
the applicant. He didn't get it on the restroom facilities, the hospitality area or
the offices. Commissioner Jonathan said that in addition to the list in the staff
report, there were restrooms, hospitality, offices, a nursery and storage. Mr.
Smith said that was correct.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the parking calculation was based on the
3,200 square feet of sanctuary space. Mr. Smith clarified it was based on the
250 seats in the sanctuary space. Commissioner Jonathan said that was
basically assuming that three people shared a ride. Mr. Smith confirmed it was
one per three. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they should assume the other
9,000 square feet would not be in use in terms of the parking calculation. He
asked if that area required parking. Mr. Smith said that on churches staff
typically has not required it; they assume that the 250 people in the sanctuary
are bringing along the youth and the ones who would occupy the youth areas
and children's ministry areas. Commissioner Jonathan said that in addition to
the 250 maximum people sitting in the sanctuary, there was another potential
for 25 kids in the children's ministry area one, another 25 kids in the children's
ministry area two, a possible number of people in the fellowship area, a youth
area which is presumably used for education or youth services for an unknown
number of kids, and then the possible hospitality, offices, kitchen and those
kinds of service areas which could have employees, service people, audio
people, television people, etc., and the parking calculation that staff was
recommending ignored that as a matter of policy. Mr. Smith said that is how
they have treated all the other churches. Mr. Drell said it wasn't simply a
matter of policy. It was a certain logic that they could change, but the
assumption would be that children don't drive cars, they are dropped off by
adults that drive cars and those adults are the ones that are sitting in the main
sanctuary and they have dropped their children off. While they might have
activities with the children that are happening outside the sanctuary, the
sanctuary would be empty. The peak demand occurs for the Sunday service 3
when they have adults there, who come, park, and their kids are in Sunday
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
School. So in terms of the number of cars it was dependent on the number of
adults who are going to that service. He wasn't sure if we've been proven
wrong, but that is how they have treated churches based on that logic.
Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't mean to debate the logic. He could
argue both ways and appreciated the argument. What he was trying to ask is
sometimes we have a very clear ordinance that says if there is an office use
the parking requirement is four parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. For
Service Industrial it is two per 1 ,000. He said he wanted to understand the
basis for the staff calculation. He asked if there was a specific calculation
called for. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it only
addressed sanctuary seating capacity. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner
Jonathan said if that was the case it was a site issue and thought that would
warrant some revisiting. In this particular case only one quarter of the total
facility is devoted to sanctuary so they have three quarters of the facility that
isn't addressed in terms of calculations for parking called for in the ordinance.
Mr. Drell read the ordinance as follows, "one for each three fixed seats within
the main auditorium or for every 35 feet of seating area within the main
6W auditorium where there are no fixed seats Commissioner Jonathan
thanked staff.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that the commission previously requested a
study to determine if the assumption that three people per vehicle attending
a church service was still valid. He asked if staff was still looking into that. Mr.
Drell said yes. As part of that analysis Commissioner Jonathan suggested
incorporating other possible uses within the structure. Mr. Drell agreed to
include ancillary activities in order to confirm if their assumptions were correct
or not.
Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
PASTOR STEWART ROBERTS, 9580 Lido Court in Desert Hot Springs,
addressed the commission. He explained that right now the restroom
facilities occupy about 840 square feet. On the men's locker room side
there were 840 square feet and on the women's locker room side there
were an additional 840 square feet.
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
The fellowship area was basically used primarily when service lets out
and people want to hang around and talk. In most cases the hospitality
area was used for when they have guest speakers and they come in and
need a place to be before services start. That is where they would sit
and study to prepare for a service. When they actually have services in
session that other 4,000 or 5,000 square feet of the building were not
really occupied by anyone because all the activities were happening in
the children's rooms, the youth facility and the main sanctuary.
They were looking at this site because they had a service oriented
ministry and they feed 100 families per month in Mecca. They feed
approximately 100 families per month in Mexicali. He said their ministry
needed to grow to facilitate all the activities they are active in. They
have on their calendar for 2003 that they are proposing to bring four
18-wheelers that are full of food and distribute food in four communities
in this area. So they needed a larger facility to be able to do all the
things on their calendar. He thanked the commission for listening.
a
Commissioner Jonathan asked about the locker rooms.
Pastor Roberts explained that the existing structure has locker rooms.
They were going to use those areas as restroom facilities only.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the locker rooms would be removed or just
kind of not be used.
Pastor Roberts said they wouldn't be used and at some time in the
future they might look at converting them. But initially the shower areas
were not going to be used.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a kitchen or if they would be
building a kitchen.
Pastor Roberts explained that there was a room designated by Gold's
Gym where they had a microwave. That was where they would
designate their kitchen area. They would put in a microwave and things
like that to heat coffee and eat donuts.
3
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Commissioner Jonathan asked if there would be a commercial type of kitchen
to facilitate weddings, celebrations or similar events.
Pastor Roberts said no. That was really complicated and they didn't
want to go there.
When talking in terms of feeding the hungry, Commissioner Jonathan asked
for confirmation that they don't prepare meals.
Pastor Roberts said they don't.
Commissioner Jonathan thought it sounded like there would be meals
prepared, an assembly line, trucks would come up to get loaded, etc.
Pastor Roberts said they purchase all the food and they assemble all the
food in boxes and then take it out to the community they are serving.
The residents of that community then come to wherever they are
located and then they are given a box full of food. But they weren't
making sandwiches or doing anything like that. When they had the 18
wheelers, the 18 wheeler would go to a particular place and everyone
would pick up their food there.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if there would be food pickup at the church as
well.
Pastor Roberts said no.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the ministry work in terms of feeding the
hungry, if that activity was not part of this facility.
Pastor Roberts explained it wasn't something they wanted to do onsite
because they always wanted to go where the need is and where the
people are. There were people that would have a problem getting from
Mecca to Palm Desert so they go to where they are and bring the food
to them.
Commissioner Jonathan thanked the applicant.
1r
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was
closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments.
Commissioner Campbell said that due to the day of the week they would have
most of their services on, she didn't think there would be a problem with the
parking since most of the businesses around them would be closed. She
moved for approval.
Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Chairperson Finerty
asked if there was any discussion.
Commissioner Jonathan said that he hoped the resolution passed, but he
would be voting against it, but only because of the parking situation. He
sincerely hoped his concerns would be proven wrong. His hope was that the
church would be successful. But there was a parking requirement of 83
parking spaces, there were only 52 onsite and that was a shortfall of 31
parking spaces. That was a significant shortfall. His guess was that a more
discerning analysis would indicate a requirement far in excess of 83 spaces by
the time they added in the other uses that might be ancillary and taking place
at the same time as services. They might need up to 100 or 120 required
spaces and there were only 52 available. He was concerned about the parking
shortfall, but sincerely hoped his concerns would be proven wrong.
Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner
Jonathan voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2138, approving Case
No. CUP 02-11 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner
Jonathan voted no).
Someone from the audience spoke up and asked when the commission would take oral
communications. Chairperson Finerty explained that had already been done.
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
B. Case No. CUP 02-12 - PATRICK LAUTERIO, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a
1 ,200 square foot Internet Stop providing 21 computer terminals
and classes at 74-390 Highway 1 1 1 , Suite B.
Mr. Tony Bagato explained that the applicant was at the meeting tonight
proposing an Internet Stop. He said they removed the word "Cafe" because
there wouldn't be any food associated with the project except for vending
machines so the applicant didn't want any confusion because of the name.
Mr. Bagato indicated the property is an existing retail strip along Highway 1 1 1 .
He showed the commission an existing floor plan. He explained that the
applicant was proposing to operate 21 computer terminals in the 1 ,200 square
foot complex. Services provided would include onsite computer classes, some
PC service and other internet uses.
The primary concern of staff was parking. Security was also another issue that
had come up around the L.A. area because of activities outside some internet
cafe shops.
Mr. Bagato said that with 21 computer terminals and two employees, staff
calculated a maximum parking demand of 23 parking spaces. Onsite there
were 27 parking spaces for the project to the rear of the building. All the other
businesses located around this use were morning uses and would be closed
during the evenings. During the day staff didn't expect direct competition with
the existing businesses and this use. In addition to the 27 parking spaces to
the rear, staff also looked at the frontage road along Highway 111 and
Alessandro to the rear of the parking lot. Staff calculated 24 parking spaces
on the frontage road and eight close to the project on Alessandro. Based on
the survey, there was a supply of 59 parking spaces. During the daytime
survey, the average vacant spaces were 30. He noted that it was summertime
and it would be busier during the season. Staff calculated that during the
season there would be a 20% to 30% increase and was proposing limited
hours since the other businesses were direct competition for the spaces during
the daytime. Staff was recommending hours between 4:00 p.m. and 12:00
a.m. Monday through Friday and opening at 8:00 a.m. on the weekends.
rr..
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
During the season, the applicant could request an amendment because during
the season staff could conduct another parking study that would better assess
the parking demand. The only evening business that would conflict would be
McCormick's, which was currently open on Fridays and Saturdays from 8:00
a.m. and 2:00 a.m. so it wouldn't be a problem during the summer. They were
open from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. weekdays and weekends during the
season. That was the only business Mr. Bagato said they would be concerned
about. They had their own parking on the west side of McCormick's that
shouldn't interfere with this project.
Regarding security, there had been some evidence in the news recently so
staff conditioned the project to provide a security plan satisfactory to the
Sheriff's Department.
For environmental review, this was a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for CEQA
purposes and no further environmental documentation was necessary.
Mr. Bagato stated that staff received 15 different form letters in favor of the
project. They all had names, but not all of them had addresses or phone
numbers. Staff also received one letter that expressed concern regarding the
parking along the frontage road from the owner of McCormick's. Mr. Bagato
explained that he spoke to the owner and informed him that staff did not
include McCormick's parking lot as part of the parking study for this project
and with the day time uses and the rear parking it should not affect his parking
lot to the west. Staff also received a letter today from the applicant
expressing concern about the security issue. The applicant didn't think there
would be a problem. Mr. Bagato indicated that the applicant could address that
issue when he addressed the commission.
As conditioned, staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the space in question is 1,200 square feet.
Mr. Bagato concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was
approximately equal in size to the other three spaces. Mr. Bagato said that was
correct. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that there
would be a maximum parking demand of 23 spaces and a shared 27-space
parking lot. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan pointed
out that the project's share of the parking lot would be about seven spaces.
Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that in
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
+ram.
terms of the potential shortage when comparing the maximum demand to the
actual onsite lot, they were looking at a maximum demand of 23 spaces
versus seven available onsite. Mr. Bagato said seven spaces that they were
anticipating between the peak hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The uses
around this use were morning uses. That is why staff was recommending
limited hours to not conflict with the other businesses in that location.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were more than 27 spaces onsite. Mr.
Bagato said no, there were only 27 onsite in the parking lot and then in front
of the property there was a frontage road that has available parking on
Highway 111 . Commissioner Jonathan clarified that he was asking about what
was available before they went to alternative parking on the street or side
roads, etc., looking at the parking lot that is associated with this property.
There are essentially seven spaces available and a peak requirement of 23,
leaving a shortage of 16. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. That was why
staff suggested evening hours. Currently the other businesses do not operate
after 5:00 p.m.
Commissioner Campbell noted that staff was recommending hours of
operation between 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. She asked if there were people
out there taking classes until midnight. Mr. Bagato explained that the
applicant originally requested 8:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Staff suggested the
later hours as a compromise since the business was geared toward college
students and some college students have classes until 9:00 p.m. and they
could possibly be there at 10:00 or 1 1 :00 p.m. if they needed to do some
research.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that the primary
activity would be internet gaming. Mr. Bagato agreed that was what he wrote
in his report, but according to the letter from the applicant, the applicant said
his primary use would be private instruction for college students, retired
persons, and others. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that instruction would
be in internet gaming or something else. Mr. Bagato said that if someone went
in to use the internet, they would be free to use it for gaming.
Commissioner Campbell asked for a definition of "gaming." Mr. Bagato said
online gaming included different video games that could be played on the
internet and people could play games with others from different states or
countries and compete against each other. It was a video game on the
computer. Online gaming was the new arcades. Commissioner Campbell
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
1
asked if it was gambling. Mr. Bagato said no. There would be no gambling
allowed. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that there was betting associated
with some internet gaming. Chairperson Finerty agreed. Mr. Bagato said that
they could place a condition requiring the applicant to install a firewall to block
out any of those web sites. Commissioner Jonathan clarified there was
gambling associated with internet gaming itself, not just internet gambling.
Players could bet against each other. Mr. Bagato agreed that was a possibility.
Commissioner Campbell asked why the applicant thought the security wasn't
needed. Mr. Bagato said the applicant pointed out that this would mainly be
for private instructions for college students, retired persons, etc., plus he and
his brother are teachers and felt they could handle the situation for 21
potential clients when they've handled larger classrooms. Commissioner
Campbell asked why staff included in the staff report that there is some
evidence that internet cafes can generate similar security problems experienced
by video arcades in the past. Mr. Bagato explained that conditional use permits
were added to video arcade uses because several years ago there were some
problems with some of the local video game locations. Recently there had
been some internet style cafes in the L.A. area that have problems with people
hanging out and causing trouble. One of the conditions was to address
security.
Commissioner Campbell asked why they called it an internet cafe. A cafe was
a place where a person sits down and drinks coffee, etc. This was just sitting
in front of a computer. She asked why it was called a cafe. Mr. Bagato didn't
know where the name came from. There were vending machines so people
could have something to drink.
Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any other businesses like this in Palm
Desert. Mr. Bagato said no. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any in the
Coachella Valley. Mr. Bagato wasn't aware of any.
Given the times that the business would now be open, Commissioner Tschopp
noted that staff conducted a day time parking survey. Mr. Bagato said that
was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any problem at night
since it was next door to a bar. Mr. Bagato said he hadn't conducted any
night time surveys. He explained the existing business was currently open on
Friday and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. since it was off season
hours. He said he tried to get hold of the owners but they were out of town,
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
taw
but he spoke with the property management today. If the applicant wanted to
request other hours, staff could better assess the need at night during the
season since that was the only business in the area.
Regarding security, Commissioner Tschopp asked how many other businesses
were required to submit a detailed security plan to the Sheriff's Department.
He asked if that was required of other businesses. Mr. Bagato said they didn't
usually require it, but with this type of conditional use security was a concern
for the same reasons security was a concern with video game arcades. The
code said that any business in the commercial zone that is going to have four
or more mechanical games or video game systems require a CUP. His
understanding was that the main reason at that time it was incorporated into
the code was because of security, not because of parking. Mr. Smith informed
commission that there was one security plan that was required for a bar,
Caesar's Emperor, where Pak Inn Buffet is currently located. They went
through a period of time when they were having considerable police response
into the area and through the process they City required them to prepare a
security plan in concert with the Sheriff's Department. That was the only
business he was aware of. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any
businesses that didn't serve alcohol that have ever been put under a
requirement to have a security plan. Mr. Smith didn't know of one.
Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. ROGER BROWN, 31-692 El Toro in Cathedral City, said he was the
half brother of Patrick Lauterio and the co-founder of the Internet Stop.
MR. PATRICK LAUTERIO, 82-056 Primrose, also addressed the
commission. He thanked the commission for their time.
Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anything they would like to add to the
staff report.
Mr. Brown explained that he has been teaching for a number of years
and has a valid California teaching credential. In the classrooms he has
handled high school and middle school students and he has been able
to not have any fights by diffusing tense situations as they arise. If he
did see a problem, not wanting to endanger anyone's health nor his
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
own, he would hire security immediately. But he didn't foresee any
security problem since he would have a curfew. He didn't want minors
in there late at night. They would be open in the afternoon only after
4:00 p.m. and there would be two people onsite. It would be a two-
man operation. He said he was a good teacher for spreadsheets, word
processing, power point presentations, and anything along those lines.
They would only be charging $4.00 an hour for access to E-mail and
ebay postings. They could help post things on ebay if people wanted
to sell them. They could help people post a web page and maintain it for
a small fee of $5.00 a month. His concern about security was because
he heard it could cost from $22.00 an hour and up and with only 18
computers operating with two dedicated to a server and one to
managing the business that would really reduce the profit potential of
the business.
Chairperson Finerty noted that the staff report indicated that the primary
activity would be internet gaming.
Mr. Brown said that wasn't the primary activity. He said there were
places outside the valley that only do gaming and that was it, but that
wasn't what he wanted. That was why they didn't call it a cafe and are
calling it an internet stop. He said his brother has traveled to Japan and
Europe and saw them over in Japan and Europe where people could go
in and communicate with people back home, pay their bills, etc., and it
was an international connection to the world. And it was a public one.
People didn't have to bring their computers along in their motor homes.
Since there were a lot of seasonal tourists he thought it would be nice
to have public internet access.
Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Brown had any objections to the
conditions of approval limiting the hours to 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Monday
through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on weekends.
Mr. Brown said he could live with that. He thought it was a good idea
because of the parking situation.
Commissioner Campbell noted that after six months he could request an
amendment to that condition.
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Mr. Brown thought they could survive with classes on the weekends
mainly for older people that couldn't come out at night or might be
afraid to come out after dark. He noted that his grandmother doesn't
travel after dark. He said he has lived in the valley for 20 years and
went to high school here and grew up here.
Commissioner Campbell asked if he would be checking people's I.D.'s.
Mr. Brown said yes. Licenses with names and addresses and customers
pay when they're done.
In the suite they would be moving into, Mr. Lauterio pointed out that
there were actually only four businesses. Suite A, B, C was actually an
office. A 15-person office. There was an insurance place to the left of
them and to the right was a computer place, but he talked to them and
they mostly do out source work and basically had zero foot traffic.
Mr. Brown said he was with his brother and the owner, Ali, when he
said it was mostly outside sales and there were only four employees
and they only use four spaces. That owner told him it wouldn't be a
problem. He also didn't think anyone went into the insurance place and
just processed claims there.
Mr. Lauterio said that using I.D. would be how they took inventory of
the customers. There were programs that would go off after a certain
time and could tell them when it was time for someone to leave.
Commissioner Campbell said that she goes by there periodically and never saw
a parking problem.
Mr. Brown thanked the commission for their time and consideration.
Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposed project.
MR. MIKE McCORMICK, 74-360 Highway 1 1 1 , addressed the
commission and said he was present for his brother and his brother's
wife, John and Gigee McCormick. He said they were against it. They
and the landlord, The Treft Family Trust, were against it. The main
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
concern is not enough parking. He thought the study should be done
at night. When McCormick's is busy they took up the entire Frontage
Road and the whole back, so the study had to be done at night.
McCormick's only operated at night, so it was almost in competition
with the cyber cafe for the parking. So if they said 21 spots those were
21 spots right out front. The night club business was an impulse type
of business where people come from dinner and then decide to go
dancing. If they pull up and there isn't any parking or they have to park
down across the street, they wouldn't stop for the business.
He said he heard the gentleman speak that said they were open Friday
and Saturday's only, but in October they do reopen Tuesday through
Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. He said that age group for
McCormick's is 35 to 70.
He thought there should be a study of cyber cafes because no one here
really knew what they were. He suggested some type of study be done
out of town on them because he was hearing tonight about the
problems with them. He believed a study should be done before the use
is okayed. The main issue was the parking. He suggested staff go out
on Saturday night to see the action.
Commissioner Campbell asked how many cars the McCormick's parking lot
could hold.
Mr. McCormick said he believed the landlord in his letter said maybe 25.
Most of the parking is on the Frontage Road. If they go by at night and
glance over they would see the Frontage Road completely taken up and
that is because of McCormick's.
Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that during the season
McCormick's is open Tuesday through Saturday and now they are only open
Friday and Saturday.
Mr. McCormick concurred. He said it was for August and September.
The majority of people are tourists that come down. He said his brother
John is well known for all the different ages and their customers range
from 35 up to 70.
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
tow
Commissioner Campbell said that what they were approving were different
hours from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and the weekend
from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
Mr. McCormick said that midnight was the peak of the nightclub
business, so when they open at 9:00 the older generation comes in
from 9:00 to about 1 1 :00 and then the 35 to 50 age group comes in
after that from 1 1 :00 to 2:00 and that is the peak of the business.
Commissioner Campbell clarified that it was just for the summer time that they
were approving these hours. Once the season begins the applicant could
request an expansion of these hours.
Mr. McCormick asked what would happen in October when they opened
Tuesday through Saturday. Even on Friday and Saturday they would
still be competing for the same parking spots.
Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments.
tow
Commissioner Jonathan said he loved the idea of an internet or cyber cafe. He
and his family have had the privilege of traveling throughout Europe
extensively and they were very popular there. The only problem on the last trip
was they couldn't find one with a vacant computer station. He hoped that
concept would be as successful here because he thought it merited that. His
concern was the parking shortage. When talking about a modest shortage he
was willing to give it a try, but here there was such a disparity between
available onsite spaces of seven versus the requirement and he didn't think a
realistic requirement was 23. It might be more like 18 or 20 because not
everyone would drive up in a car. Some would come in pairs, some would
walk and some would ride bikes. However, he didn't have a lot of hope for the
alternative parking. He indicated he frequents a number of businesses on the
Frontage Road and found a difficult time finding parking spaces on the
Frontage Road. It was well used and probably over used. So he wasn't
confident that the parking shortage would be properly resolved even with
limiting hours as Mr. McCormick indicated. The other aspect was he didn't
think they would be doing the applicant a favor by limiting operating hours. He
thought the snowbirds would be likely customers for his business. They travel
and might not have computers and laptops with them or don't have a
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
computer and would want to check in with the grandkids, etc. He didn't mean
to stereotype, but he thought there would be a lot of potential customers who
would want to use this business during the day. So he thought limiting the
operating hours was a very short-term solution and not really a solution at all.
So while he thought the concept was wonderful, he thought they were looking
at the wrong location because of the parking shortage.
Commissioner Tschopp informed the other commissioners that internet gaming
included people like his mother playing bridge and backgammon on the
internet. It was teenagers playing role playing games like Quest, Age of
Empires and waiting for the new Star Wars to come out. They got hundreds
of kids playing the same game. So it wasn't like video arcades. That was why
he thought the security requirements on this use were way too restrictive. He
didn't think that was necessary, but if they wanted the Riverside County
Sheriff's Department to take a look at it, he wanted the Palm Desert staff
involved also to make sure the restrictions placed on it weren't any more
restrictive than they would be for any other business. Having said that, he
didn't think they would be doing the applicant a favor either. He thought the
hours were too restrictive here in that he thought they had a much bigger
market then only 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Parking was another issue. They
already had one business that didn't have enough parking on its own premises
and was using the public streets for its parking. To add this business would
compound the problem. He didn't think they would be doing the applicant a
favor by approving this location. They were restricting the hours and limiting
the potential customers because they might not be able to find a parking
space. He was not in favor of this location because of parking, but he
encouraged the applicants to find another spot in the city because he thought
they had a good, viable business.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she frequents the Frontage Road and in
some sections of the Frontage Road by Ace Hardware there are problems
finding a parking place and in the proposed location she didn't see a problem
with the parking. She said she has never been to McCormick's and thought
she would like to go after hearing about it to see if she could find a parking
place, but if the applicants thought they could operate and be restricted to the
hours for a limited amount of time and then if they had a problem they could
come back to amend that application, but she would be in favor of letting
them try. Then they would know if they could operate or not and they would
find out soon enough. If they couldn't do it, they would have to find another
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
place. She didn't know how their lease arrangement would be, but she would
at least give them a try for the time being.
Chairperson Finerty shared the concerns with parking. She was also concerned
about what the McCormick's and the landlord thought because they do have
a very successful business and to put another business in that will be
competing wasn't in the best interest of our community. She remembered that
her brother went to an internet cafe when he visited Australia and that was
how they communicated. She thought the concept was a good idea and
agreed with the other commissioners that another location would be more
appropriate.
Chairperson Finerty asked for a motion.
Commissioner Jonathan said that regrettably, but with encouragement to the
applicant to pursue another location because he did think it would be a
wonderful addition to the city and he couldn't imagine the business not being
successful, and with that encouragement, he moved to direct staff to prepare
a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting.
kilo
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, directing staff by minute motion to prepare a resolution of denial for
adoption at the next meeting. Motion carried 4-0.
C. Case No. PP 02-07 AMENDING PP 85-10 - ENTRAVISION COMM,
Applicant
Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the
internal expansion (add a mezzanine floor) within the existing
building at 41-601 Corporate Way.
Mr. Smith explained that the request was for approval of a precise plan of
design to allow the internal expansion with the addition of a mezzanine floor
within the existing building at 41-601 Corporate Way. In 1985 the City
approved two industrial warehouse buildings on the west side of Corporate
having a total of 24,815 square feet and 52 parking spaces. In 1986 the City
approved a tentative map to allow the project to be sold as a condominium.
%Nor
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
i n e northerlybuildin and the parking is held in common
Entrav sion owns the g p g
between the owners of both buildings. Entravision is currently a 6,415 square
foot single story structure with an overall height of 24 feet. The applicant was
proposing to add a mezzanine level within the existing building envelope that
would increase their floor space by 4,985 square feet. The applicant proposed
this increase in floor area without additional parking. Staff conducted a brief
parking survey in the area and found the parking lot was quite heavily used.
Staff then told the applicant that they were not prepared to proceed without
additional parking. The applicant looked at acquiring parking in the area,
specifically a vacant lot to the north. As well, staff looked into a second
alternative. The project backs onto the soccer complex parking lot. Staff
pursued the issue with the Parks and Recreation Commission to knock down
a portion of the wall and connect the driveways through so that during the
work week this facility would be able to use the unused parking in the soccer
complex and then during the weekends when this use has low parking
generation and the soccer complex is busy, they would have overflow parking
in this lot. As well, it would create a secondary access out of the south end
of the soccer complex parking lot.
The Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal and endorsed it in
concept subject to working out the details of how it would occur. The
Architectural Review Commission in May granted preliminary approval to
exterior modifications to the building and the colored renderings were on
display. As well, Mr. Smith said black and white copies were distributed to the
commission in their packets.
If the Planning Commission approved the request, then staff would negotiate
the agreement/easement, present it to the Parks & Recreation Commission and
then ultimately to the City Council. Until the agreement is finalized, the permits
for the expansion of the facility would be put on hold.
Staff felt this was an adequate solution to the parking problem and yet it still
allowed the owners to expand their facility. He explained that this project was
a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for CEQA purposes. Staff recommended
approval subject to the conditions, one of which required that they enter into
the agreement with the City relative to the use of the soccer complex.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicates that in 1985 the
City approved the project as an industrial warehouse building. Mr. Smith said
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan also noted that the report went on
to say that the building was a heavily used "office" building. Mr. Smith said
it was a broadcast facility. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an
application for a change of use and if they went from a requirement of
providing two parking spaces per 1 ,000 to four spaces per 1 ,000 accordingly.
He asked what happened. Mr. Smith said they were obviously there.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was an illegal use. Mr. Smith said he did
not know that. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff had investigated this.
The staff report indicates that it was approved as an industrial warehouse and
the report also indicates it's a heavily used office building. He detected an
inconsistency. He asked if staff had considered this aspect of the use. Mr.
Smith replied that staff considered that aspect of it only in so far as how it
impacted on this application. Commissioner Jonathan asked what it took for
staff when they become aware of an illegal use to take action under normal
circumstances. He indicated that maybe it wasn't under the Planning
Department, but asked if staff ever in the history of the city had become
aware of an illegal use and taken action. Mr. Smith said absolutely.
Commissioner Jonathan asked how those situations compared to this one.
This appeared to him to be an illegal use and asked if it did to staff. Mr. Smith
replied not necessarily. In the industrial park there was a myriad of uses that
fell into the last zoning category for those uses that were deemed no more
objectionable. Mr. Drell said that they don't approve a specific use and
indicated it is actually parked far more than a warehouse. The City approves
all buildings as meeting the requirements of the Service Industrial zone and
they require parking which is far more than a warehouse. Commissioner
Jonathan pointed out that this building was parked two parking spaces per
1 ,000 square feet. Mr. Drell said that a warehouse was actually one per
1 ,000 although the City has never approved any buildings as a warehouse.
They approve them under Service Industrial which includes uses that are far
more intensive than a warehouse. It was a misstatement that it was approved
as an industrial warehouse. It was approved as a building within the Service
Industrial zone. The question is if their use as a broadcast facility is consistent
with the uses in the Service Industrial zone. Commissioner Jonathan clarified
that his question was if the use as a heavily used office building was
consistent with Service Industrial zone. Mr. Drell said this was a problem with
not using precise language. He wasn't sure it was a heavily used office
building. He apologized for the imprecision of the language. In the past they've
had issues before the commission and typically these broadcast facilities are
not used as intensely as an office building. They have studio space, they have
taw
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
spaces within the building that are of considerably lesser intensity. So the
process, and he thought they should research the process, was when someone
comes in, in any zone, they submit a Certificate of Use where staff reviews
what they are proposing to see if it fits into a category that is in that zone. He
said he would check to see if there is a Certificate of Use on file. He explained
this is done prior to issuing a business license. He would see what was
submitted on this property and whether it got approved, whether it got
approved with conditions or whether the original space it got approved for was
smaller. He didn't know.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicates that the applicant
initially said that the addition of a mezzanine level with office space for 20
employees would not require additional parking spaces because the total
number of employees would not be increased, rather an overcrowded existing
situation would be spread out to two floors. He asked if they walked into that
building they would find an open warehouse or if they would find a bunch of
cubicles that are over crowded with employees. Mr. Drell said it wasn't
approved as a warehouse, but he would go back and check. Commissioner
Y
Jonathan noted it wasn't approved as Office Professional either. Mr. Drell said
that was correct. This commission actually approved in the Service Industrial
zone one of the television stations in a similar situation. With the way that
broadcast facilities use buildings, sometimes they are not used as intensively
as an office building. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He said they have
also looked at over parking in the Cook Street area which was a result of illegal
conversions of buildings from Service Industrial type uses to an office type
use. From reading the staff report he didn't think they could find a better
example than this, but he wasn't sure and that's why he was asking the
question. Mr. Drell said that was why staff's initial reaction was no, they
couldn't do this. Although it appeared that the current use of the parking lot
and the current businesses were fairly well in balance in this particular case
and the parking lot wasn't full, it was nearly full. So the current businesses
weren't over using the current parking lot. Staff's feeling was that any
expansion would clearly result in that and that was where this innovative
suggestion to add 50 some spaces to the soccer field parking came from. The
question was whether or not the commission felt that was a workable
solution. Obviously there were probably 200 available parking spaces in the
soccer field lot during the day, so the question was whether or not this was
a solution. Once they issued that Certificate of Use, it was a determination
that they fit into a category and they have gone back after businesses when
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
tow
there was a determined problem and the problem was caused by the use
diverging from their defined use on the Certificate of Use and then the City has
gone after them.
Commissioner Tschopp asked how often during the year the soccer complex
closes and the parking would not be available to this business. Mr. Smith said
the current thinking is that when the soccer complex closes for a couple of
months, May and June and possibly late in April, they would create a gate
situation where the applicant would have access during the day and then gate
it off in the evening. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the parking at the
business property would be something staff thought would be used by patrons
of the park. On heavily used weekends staff could foresee overflow parking
going into this lot. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was also convenient for
soccer park users. Mr. Smith said yes.
Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. GALE DAVIS, the agent for Entravision, 3006 Cadencia Street in
Carlsbad, addressed the commission. He indicated that the number of
parking spaces that currently exist in the lot is 66 and it was in the
CC&R's that 26 are designated to their building and 40 were designated
to the other building. There is a full-time staff of about 20 people,
actually 18 people are employed at the station. There were about six
part time employees. Entravision purchased the facility as a broadcast
facility in February of 2002 and they have gone in wanting to improve
its working conditions. They were rather run down and crowded and
not appropriate for a broadcast facility. So their design was not
common within the industry and that is what his firm did, they design
television stations. There was a great deal of space in a broadcast
facility that is used for broadcasting. A normal production control room
which might facilitate one person might be 400 or 500 square feet. So
it wasn't a common office place. They have 26 spaces and even with
the current square footage if they went four per 1 ,000 they would have
adequate parking. However, their concept was to spread out the
individuals that exist in that building into an environment that would be
more appropriate to their needs. The concept of sharing a reciprocal
parking arrangement with the City was something they went into as
concept to benefit both parties. He said there was a lot next door they
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
looked at to possibly acquire. The cost was prohibitive for a parking lot
so they have been pursuing the opportunity with the City to share
parking. They not only believed it would help their own situation, but
also the City's parking need for the soccer. He didn't see an increase of
staff by 20 people. That just wasn't feasible with that size of a
broadcast facility. He informed commission that It is a Hispanic
broadcast station, the Univision Station, as well as one of the Hispanic
radio stations. The type of operation would just not require that many
more people. So their situation is that they bought it with the
understanding that it was a broadcast facility and well established in
Palm Desert. Their goal is to improve the facility and bring it up to
standards. He thanked the commission for their time.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Davis had preliminary discussions with
the parties that would be involved in the reciprocal parking agreement.
Mr. Davis said yes.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if he had an indication that there was a
receptiveness to this concept.
Mr. Davis said yes. He was present at a Parks & Recreation meeting and
they reviewed it in detail. They did some plans and went through a
minor study of the exact location of where they would open it, how
they would secure gates, what they would do for signage, the whole
bit. That effort ended up with a very positive result.
Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of this project.
MR. FRANK MATRENGA, 75-582 Camino De Plata in Indian Wells, said
he and his wife own the other part of the condominium. He said he was
in favor of the proposal. He thought the concept of putting in a gate to
the soccer field was an excellent idea. When they are playing soccer,
mainly during the weekends, people have parked in their parking lot
because sometimes it got full and then they'd walk around. He had no
objections because their utilization of the building was not during the
weekends and it would enhance the parking for the soccer players.
When driving by this site, there was a lot of off-street parking because
they go in and out all the time. There was street frontage where they
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
taw
could ask the employees to park and it wouldn't cause a problem with
traffic to park out there. Another thing that happened at that particular
site was there wasn't a lot of permanent parking throughout the day.
The employees would not occupy the 66 parking spots there. If they
drive by at any given time, there are parking spaces available. Initially
he wasn't aware of the extension of the mezzanine and he thought they
were going to ask for parking from them, but the concept of the soccer
field and the fact that there is street parking would enhance it and help
the business. That's what it was all about. He thanked the commission.
Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments.
Commissioner Campbell said she would move for approval of the expansion.
Commissioner Tschopp said he would second it. He noted that parking is a
problem in the city and a big concern of the commission. He thought this was
a good way to take and make two properties compatible and they would
complement each other in their usage. They try to fix parking problems
r.. throughout the city, so he liked the concept and thought it would work fine.
Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He thought the concept of the shared use
both ways was a wonderful concept and hoped the parties could work it out.
He was interested to hear the applicant say that there were 66 parking spaces
there, not 52, and that there is an agreement to provide 26 for their own use.
He was going to take that at face value and not pursue that aspect of it. In
terms of the application and the shared use, he thought it made a lot of sense.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2139, approving PP
02-07 amending PP 85-10, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0.
lbw
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
i
E. Case No. PP 02-08 - PREST / VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, Applicant
Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 14,802
square foot office building on the east side of San Pablo Drive,
1 100 +/- feet north of Highway 1 1 1 , also known as 44-530 San
Pablo Drive.
Mr. Bagato explained that the property was located on the east side of San
Pablo Drive north of Alessandro and was currently vacant. He said the
applicant was proposing to construct a 14,802 square foot professional and
medical office building. The first floor would be 7,000 square feet of medical
space and the second floor would be 7,802 of office professional.
The architecture of the building was a contemporary design with various
angles and architectural elements. Some of the elements included pop-outs
and overhangs and angled fin walls. The applicant was able to design an
architectural element in the front of the building which would allow storage for
all of the a/c equipment. With no a/c equipment the applicant was able to
create an interesting design for the roof which turned out to be curved.
The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval of the
building as well as architecture and commented that it was one of the most
creative designs to come into the city for an office building complex. The
maximum height in the O.P. district was 25 feet measured from the average
curb height and total height of this building was proposed at 27 feet 6 inches
which was two and a half feet above the requirement. Two of the reasons for
the excess height had to do with the curved roof along with the design of
good interior space which exceeds the eight-foot ceiling plate. Currently staff
felt that 25 feet might be limiting to buildings in the O.P. for well-designed two
story office building complexes.
There were two options with regard to the height. One, the Planning
Commission could approve the project limiting it to 25 feet in height, but after
speaking with the applicant, he indicated it would dramatically affect the
design of the roof as well as the interior space. The second option would be
to continue the hearing and have staff initiate a zoning ordinance amendment
to allow for flexibility in the O.P. zone in regard to the height when there is
architectural justification.
34 '0�
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Commissioner Jonathan asked if there wasn't a third option to just grant an
exception. Chairperson Finerty asked if they could grant an exception with a
recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Drell said no. They have granted
exceptions in the PR zone because the PR zone has a section in it to allow
them to grant exceptions. Their-only option here was to have a variance and
there were severe findings that had to be made. The fact that it was a good
idea wasn't enough of a reason to grant one.
Staff also felt that if the commission thought that architectural creativity was
justification for flexibility in the height limit, then the commission should
incorporate that in the zone so that everyone knew that was an option
available to them.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if they as a body could grant a variance or allow
for an exception based on their own reasoning. Mr. Drell said that if they were
to apply for a variance and the commission was to decide that they met the
findings, they could grant a variance. It would then be the commission's task
to make those findings like exceptional circumstances, extraordinary hardship,
etc. Staff felt it would be better to have a standardized process that everyone
�.. would have knowledge of and then could avail themselves of. That was staff's
recommendation.
Chairperson Finerty asked why they couldn't have the same language in the
PR zone where they could request a variance and it would just be in the O.P.
zone and then that way they wouldn't open the door to everyone who thinks
their building may be creative although Architectural Review and Planning
Commission might not share their opinion. This way they would keep the
height where it is and just do what they are used to doing in the PR zone. Mr.
Drell said they could do that. Basically the language in the PR zone says that
certain standards in certain sections can be modified by the Planning
Commission as part of the approved precise plan. So it said the standards are
there and they could modify them if they felt it was justified.
Chairperson Finerty asked how they could get that language in the O.P. zone.
Mr. Drell said when they go through the amendment process that is what they
would talk about. Staff's suggestion would not necessarily be just a blanket
exception, but they were suggesting certain guidance in that exception and
outlining the circumstances in which an exception might be warranted. To him
that limited the applicability of that exception as opposed to having it wide
35
s
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
open like the way the PR zone has it. That would be something they would
discuss when they came back. If they want to go with a zoning ordinance
amendment route, staff would come back with language of an amendment and
the commission could pass on it as they see fit. Then in essence they would
have the amendment, they would have the project and then that would go to
the Council to explain that this is the reason for the amendment and the
language that would allow this sort of building.
Commissioner Jonathan asked how this varied from those situations where
they have had tower elements and other architectural features that have
exceeded the height limit. Mr. Drell said that the language there says it
couldn't exceed 10% of the footprint. In this case the arch exceeds more than
10% of the building footprint. He said staff looked at it and tried to see how
much it would have to be lowered to get only 10% of the arch and it was too
much of a contortion.
Commissioner Campbell asked if it would prolong the process for the project
if they initiated this amendment. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Campbell ,
asked if it would be for a month. Mr. Drell concurred. He said that is what
would get them the building they would like. He reminded them about a
building on Alessandro that had some variety on top of the building that
exceeded the height by a couple of feet and they made him chop off that
couple of feet. He thought the building probably would have looked better with
some variety, but the strict application of the ordinance did not permit it.
Commissioner Tschopp said he knew there were certain individuals in the city
who are very adamant about not increasing the height of commercial buildings
and asked if that was going to be a problem. Mr. Drell said that invariably the
applicant had that problem any way. Right now the zone is at 25 feet and he
didn't want to build it at 25. He could, but he was going to lose some of the
architectural character. So one of the options was saying no, do what you
have to do to make it comply. He could communicate to the commission
whether or not he wanted to do that or not. Staff felt this was a good
opportunity to address a problem that has been observed for a while. He
thought they've been getting these rather shoe box office buildings and this
was a good illustration of a building that staff would like to see get built, but
the zone didn't allow it so it illustrates the limitation of the strict application
of the way the zone is written. He also said the chairperson was correct. They
have built into many of the other zones exceptions which allow them to grant
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
approvals if the commission thought it was a good thing. Unfortunately finding
something a good thing wasn't sufficient grounds for a variance. They have
to show exceptional extraordinary hardships or circumstances. Staff was
suggesting that they do get some flexibility and they have used that example
in other zones and think this is a good illustration of why it should be in the
O.P. zone as well.
Continuing with this staff report, Mr. Bagato explained that because of some
of the inconsistent dedications of right-of-way along San Pablo through the
County, the applicant had to work with some property lines that were jig
jagging in and out of the property and at one portion part of the property was
about five feet onto San Pablo. To work with the setbacks for this building,
the best route was to go with the 1 :1 ratio, setback to height. The applicant
was able to prepare a height analysis study which allowed them to look at it
in detail. The building was setback at the closest point 15 Y2 feet to the first
floor. That portion of the building was only 15 feet high so it complied. At the
north end, because San Pablo wasn't parallel to this building, the north end
stepped back farther and that part of the building was 23 feet away from the
curb and 15 feet high. The second floor of the building was setback 15 YZ feet
from the first and a total of 28 Yz from the face of the curb and 23 feet high
at the south end at the closest point. The curved roof had a variation. The
eave of the roof drops to 22 and it is only about 20 feet from the curb.
Because of the pitch it starts to curve and gets to its highest point at 27 Y2
feet, about 55 feet away from the curb. So the height would be insignificant
from the curb. They wouldn't see it and the 1 :1 ratio worked out really well.
With the setback ratio and the proposed height, the building complied.
Referring to the site plan of the building, there would be two ingress and
egress points to the property along San Pablo. One of the conditions that came
up was an opportunity to provide mutual access to the adjacent properties.
The property to the north was currently zoned R-3 and has a residential use
on it which staff expected over time to change to O.P. along San Pablo. The
property to the south was zoned Office Professional but has a residential use
on it. Staff also expected that to change over time. In most cases when they
have the opportunity to allow a mutual access agreement they try to have a
reciprocal agreement between both properties that would allow shared
driveways, 14 feet on one side and 14 feet on the other side so that both
applicants become responsible for that condition and any kind of maintenance
costs and liability issues. Because of the parking demand and to maximize the
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
f
l
parking efficiency of the site plan, the applicant did not have the opportunity
to do shared driveways, but by eliminating six parking spaces in the rear of the
site plan, he was able to configure a site that would allow a mutual access
agreement. Staff added a condition that the applicant would record an
irrevocable offer to enter in the future into a future access agreement with the
adjacent properties and in return, the adjacent properties would offer
compensation for the cost, maintenance and liability. This would benefit those
property owners to the north and south. Without the provision of these
driveways, it would increase their allowable building square footage which
would make it more profitable from a business standpoint as well as the City's
standpoint because it would increase the time frame that those buildings could
turn into office.
For parking, based on an 8% reduction the project was able to meet the
required 67 spaces. Another issue was the fencing. There was wood fencing
on the north and south sides. It would block the views from the residential
area. In most cases the City would require a solid block wall all the way
around the property to screen the complex from residential uses. In this case
since staff was anticipating that these other lots would become offices over
time, they weren't requiring that the applicant construct a six-foot high block
wall, but to leave the wood fencing and they were requiring him to put in a
six-foot high block wall on the east side of the property, which was at the rear
facing an R-3 zoned vacant lot.
In conclusion, Mr. Bagato said that besides the height requirement, the building
met every other zoning ordinance requirement for this section. With a
continuance to initiate the zoning ordinance amendment, it would take a few
more months to get approval of the building, but it would be the proper step.
For environmental review, this was an infill situation and a Class 32
Categorical Exemption for CEQA purposes and no further documentation was
necessary. Staff's recommendation was to continue the case and have
commission direct staff to initiate an amendment to the zoning ordinance
allowing for flexibility of the height in the O.P. zone to encourage more
creative architecture. Both items would then be considered at a later date. Or
if the commission recommended no higher than 25 feet, the applicant would
come back with a different proposal. Mr. Drell said that if it was continued,
within 30 days they could come back with a zoning ordinance amendment.
Chairperson Finerty noted that would be August 20. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr.
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Bagato said that it could go to City Council in September and second reading
in September or October.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that Condition No. 12 states that the City would
take on the cost of maintenance and liability once the adjacent property
owners convert to an Office Professional use. Mr. Bagato said that was in
error. There were two discussions for how that mutual access easement would
come up. One was that the applicant would dedicate those driveways as
public easements and then the City would become responsible. After speaking
with Public Works staff, they weren't in favor of it and didn't encourage the
City owning land on private driveways. He said he had added that condition
before talking to Public Works so it should be removed.
Regarding the bus stop, Commissioner Tschopp commented that at one time
they talked about looking at the process of bus stops and he assumed they
were doing that also. Mr. Drell said that was something they brought up that
instead of laying the obligation of bus stops on individual properties they
would have a citywide program. They were going to propose a uniform
development fee that would pay for the construction of bus stops and it would
r.. not be the obligation of individual property owners. That went to the Council
and they expressed no interest in that. The City was building bus stops where
they couldn't condition developers to do it, but the direction from the Council
was to continue as we have before. If a property was lucky or unlucky enough
to have a bus stop in front of their property, the obligation of building that
shelter was theirs. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that there was an
existing bus shelter here. Mr. Drell explained that it was just a stop. Mr.
Bagato indicated they only had a bench. Commissioner Tschopp thought that
it was an unfair process that penalized one business and should be looked at
in a different manner so he was in disagreement with the City Council on that
issue. Commissioner Jonathan agreed.
Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. JOHN VUKSIC, 73-030 Caliandra in Palm Desert, with Prest Vuksic
Architects, along with his partner, Dave Prest of 47-391 Calico Cactus
Lane in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. Mr. Vuksic distributed
some diagrams which he said was to make sure they had explained the
height restrictions which limit certain things.
%M1
39
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Mr. Prest added that the building from the slab is 26 feet that they were
proposing. The staff said 27'/2, but 27'/2 was from the curb. So there
was a foot and a half distance in height from the curb to the top of the
slab of the building. So the building was actually only 26 feet from slab.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if they had to have the slab up above curb
height because of drainage.
Mr. Prest said yes.
Mr. Drell explained that practically speaking they couldn't build a 25-foot high
building, they could only build a 23%2 foot high building.
Mr. Prest said that if they were restricted to the height, the 23'/z feet,
it would be impossible to do the curved roof. They would have to do a
flat-roofed building and they wanted to do something a little more
interesting.
Referring to Scheme B, Mr. Vuksic said it showed a 25-foot building
from the curb. There were some limitations that would arise with this.
They would absolutely be limited to eight-foot ceilings and these spaces
were sometimes 50 feet deep and it really created a substandard space
that would be hard to lease. The parapet was minimal and it was really
impossible to put anything on the roof that wasn't over the parapet.
Ducting was very difficult because they had to actually snake the
ducting through the floor and roof trusses which weren't very deep
because of this limit. So they would have a lot of columns within the
space. Sound insulation would be a problem. The air-conditioning units
were placed between the floor trusses above the first floor and there
was very little room to insulate for any sound. The shape took on a box
like shape because they were penalized pretty heavily for any type of
slope to roof, whether it was curved or just sloped. They could see
what that does because in the middle it became higher.
Scheme A was a sketch of their building and at the eave it was lower
than the box-shaped building. It was just in the middle where it got
higher and created an opportunity for a lot more interesting forms and
creativity in the design to have some flexibility like this.
40
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Mr. Prest felt that the way they designed it, the maximum height they
would get on the first floor would be nine feet and in some cases eight
feet. They weren't sure they could get any higher than that even with
the height of the building. In a lot of the spaces they used indirect
lighting which was more state of the art type lighting that required a lot
less energy to use. If they used indirect lighting, it would take a nine to
nine and a half foot space to do that and they were proposing to do
that. They would like to do that with their space and propose it to other
tenants.
Mr. Vuksic hoped the commission would consider the 25-foot height
limit that was currently in place because there were several reasons it
actually deterred good architecture and good buildings from taking place
in this city.
Chairperson Finerty asked if he had any problem with a continuance to August
20.
Mr. Vuksic said no.
Commissioner Campbell asked if he would be more comfortable with the
commission approving the 25-foot height.
Mr. Vuksic said no, they couldn't build this building with a 25-foot
height.
Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was left
open.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that the application before the commission was
a work of art. Very creative and beautiful which is what he has learned to
expect from the applicant. The height variance in his opinion was amply
justified. He had no issue with it whatsoever. There were adequate parking,
adequate setbacks, the landscape was gorgeous and he wished every
application was anywhere close to the level of quality that was before them.
It appeared that the best and possibly only way to make this happen would be
to continue the hearing and initiate a zoning ordinance amendment modifying
it
41
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
j
the O.P. height regulation allowing for flexibility above the 25-foot height limit.
He was in favor and made a motion.
Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She thought
it was a beautiful piece of work and wished they could approve it this evening
since it met the ratio setback of the building. If this was the way they were
going to do the building, she thought it should be approved with just the ratios
even with a height of 27%2 feet. Mr. Drell thought the way staff was
recommending was the proper way to address the issue which was to proceed
with an ordinance amendment to allow it and with language on how to limit
it so that it would be very clear that the height exception would only be
granted for architectural merit.
Commissioner Tschopp had a question about the wood fence. He asked if
there was some kind of indication when those properties might be developed
as commercial. Mr. Bagato said no. He confirmed there were no plans right
now for those buildings to go commercial.
Commissioner Tschopp agreed that it is a very beautiful building and thought
t
it would be a great enhancement to that street. He was in favor of that and
said he would be in favor of an amendment to allow them some flexibility .rr
when there are architectural reasons for it. On this particular property, he
requested a time limit on the wood fence. The reason he wanted that was
because of other areas in the city where they hoped things would develop out
and 10 or 20 years later it hadn't happened. So whatever time was
appropriate, he wanted to see a time limit so that if the adjoining properties
didn't change to commercial a proper block wall would be constructed.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be willing to modify the motion
to place a reasonable time limit. Mr. Drell suggested five years. He noted that
there was a code action against the property owner to the north because their
wood fence was falling down and he had just put up a brand new wood fence.
He also said they could word it in such a way that they could revisit it in
maybe three years to determine what the prognosis is. The question was how
to alert ourselves that it should happen and they would have to figure that out.
Chairperson Finerty suggested using a follow-up file by months. Commissioner
Jonathan suggested using Outlook and recommended putting in the parking
analysis and church analysis in there as well. If they had the same computer,
there would be no problem.
i
42
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Chairperson Finerty noted that there was a motion that had been amended and
asked if they wanted to continue this to August 20. Commissioner Jonathan
said yes. Commissioner Jonathan said he had one other comment on the
motion. He, too, thought Condition No. 12 was unfair and unnecessary to
provide for a bus shelter. His concern was that if they omit it, it might be
guaranteeing that the matter would be called up by Council, so if the applicant
preferred to leave Condition No. 12 in there, he was okay with that. Mr. Drell
said that they could make the comment. Either way it would go to Council
since the zoning ordinance amendment would have to go to Council. So if they
wanted to express themselves, they could do that in the minutes, but the
commission could do what they wanted. Commissioner Campbell said perhaps
the applicant wanted to build a state of the art bus shelter, so they should
leave that open to him. Mr. Drell said that it was in the policy that it had to be
a compatible, unique shelter.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, as modified, continuing PP 02-08 to August 20, 2002, adding the
intent to bring back the case in three years to review the wall situation, and
••+ initiating a zoning ordinance amendment modifying the O.P. height regulation
allowing for flexibility above the 25-foot height limit based on architectural
merit. Motion carried 4-0.
F. Case No. VAR 02-03 - RAYMOND D. MOSER, Applicant
Request for approval of a variance to reduce the required setback
for a front-entry garage from 20 feet to ten feet for property
located at 74-21 1 Peppergrass Street.
Mr. Urbina explained that the project site is located at the southwest corner
of Peppergrass Street and Quail Brush Avenue. The applicant was requesting
a variance to reduce the setback from a proposed two-car garage that he
wanted to construct adjacent to his existing one-car garage. The variance
request was to reduce it from 20 feet to 10 feet to the Quail Brush Avenue
property line. There were no sidewalks in the area. Four findings had to be
made to grant approval of a variance.
43
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Mr. Urbina indicated that the applicant stated on his application that the strict
or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified 20-foot garage
setback would deprive him of the full use of his lot's rear yard and street side
yard. However, the applicant's lot, being a quarter lot, was generally larger
than other interior lots in the area. This lot was 94-feet wide, interior lots 75-
feet wide and the property a rectangular shape, generally flat. Staff could not
find any extenuating circumstances or hardships that were unique to this
property that would not be applicable to other properties that would deprive
the applicant of the full use of his property. However, Mr. Moser's application
did start staff thinking that there might be merit in amending the R-1 zoning
ordinance section to allow a reduction in garage setbacks. The current R-1
zone allowed a reduction in setbacks for carports. Instead of being 20 feet
from property line, the carport could be 20 feet from curb face.
In this case Mr. Moser did not want to do a carport because he wanted a
garage to provide overnight security for the storage of his vehicles and
protection from sun and dust. Later on the agenda staff was recommending
that commission initiate or authorize staff to initiate a zoning ordinance
amendment to allow reduction in garage setbacks from 20 feet from property
line to 26 feet from curb face. In such a case on Quail Brush Avenue it would
still allow for the construction of the future six-foot wide sidewalk and still
have a 20-foot garage setback and allow residents in older areas such as Mr.
Moser's to improve his property. His home was constructed in 1951 and it and
several others only had a one-car garage. Staff's recommendation was for
Planning Commission to deny VAR 02-03 for the reasons specified in the draft
resolution.
Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission. The applicant was not present.
Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was
closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments.
Commissioner Campbell said she went by the home today. Although the staff
report said there weren't any swimming pools or other uses like that in the
back yard, she observed a foundation for a swimming pool there and workers.
The gates were down so she could see in. Mr. Urbina said that when staff
took the photos it was about a month ago and it appeared that the applicant
44
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
two
had started construction of a swimming pool since staff originally visited the
site. He thanked Commissioner Campbell for the correction.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2140, denying Case
No. VAR 02-03. Motion carried 4-0.
G. Case No. CUP 02-04 - DELTA GROUP ENGINEERING/AT&T WIRELESS,
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 74-876 42nd Avenue, StorAmerica Self
Storage.
rr.. Chairperson Finerty noted that there was a request for continuance to a date
uncertain. She asked if there was a staff report. Mr. Drell said no.
Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to
speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing
was left open.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, continuing Case No. CUP 02-04 to a date uncertain by minute
motion. Motion carried 4-0.
H. Case No. CUP 02-05 - DELTA GROUPS ENGINEERING/AT&T
WIRELESS, Applicants
Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the
installation of a 62-foot high wireless telecommunication tower
on property located at 74-700 Highway 1 1 1 (Embassy Suites).
~ 45
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Mr. Smith explained that the property in question was the Embassy Suites site
on the north side of Highway 111 toward the easterly city limit. The area
where the tower was proposed was zoned PR-5. The front portion of the
Embassy Suites site was zoned Planned Commercial. Mr. Smith indicated the
proposal was for a 62-foot high wireless tower camouflaged as an artificial
date palm. The project would also include a six foot by 11 foot equipment
shelter.
The applicant wanted to place this tower on the east side of the property some
600 feet north of Highway 111 . The tower location was adjacent to O.P.
zoned property to the east, the office professional lots developing along Village
Court. The office professional properties and this site were separated with an
existing six-foot high block wall. The area north of the tennis courts on the
Embassy Suites site had an existing row of nine Mexican fan palms that were
quite tall. The proposal was to install this artificial palm in a location at the
east end of that row. It wouldn't directly be in line, but in the area of the row
of palms. The equipment shelter was being proposed in the side yard area
between the tennis court and the perimeter wall.
Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval of plans once
the applicant showed the equipment shelter building being screened from view
from the east. In the area where this equipment shelter would go they were
proposing that the wall height be increased to screen out the building. The
communication towers were not permitted as a matter of right in the planned
residential district.
There was an exceptions process if they could make the two findings which
were outlined in the middle of page two of the staff report. Staff felt the two
findings could be met. They were unique land use characteristics or nearby
geographic features that result in compelling technological need. Staff felt that
the unique land use characteristic was the Embassy Suites property itself. As
indicated, the front of the site, the first 400 feet from the Highway, was
zoned commercial. The rest of the site was zoned Planned Residential so they
have a hotel in the PR-5 zone. That wasn't unusual. The Marriott hotel was in
a PR-4 zone. Staff felt it would be reasonable with that type of use to also
have an unmanned wireless communication tower in the same zone. The
second finding was the unique land use or geographic features. In this instance
the applicant was designing the artificial palm to blend in with the existing row
of palm trees and that seemed like an acceptable solution. Basically staff felt
46
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
this was an acceptable solution and recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Commissioner Campbell asked how tall the palms were in the row of nine
Mexican fan palms. Looking at the photo they looked the same height. Mr.
Smith said they were in the range of 40 to 45 feet. Mr. Drell said that if the
photograph was accurate, those weren't Mexican fan palms, they looked like
date palms to him. If they were older date palms, they looked 40 or 50 feet.
He asked if the applicant was proposing a fan palm or date palm. Mr. Smith
deferred the question to the applicant. Mr. Drell thought that if all the existing
palms are date palms, the stealth palm should be a date palm as well.
Commissioner Campbell noted that the report said camouflaged as an artificial
date palm. From the photograph Mr. Drell thought it looked like the stealth pole
was a fan palm and the natural palms were date palms. He just wanted to
clarify that they would be getting a date palm. Commissioner Campbell asked
if it was going to be about the same height. Mr. Smith said no, the tower
would be 62 feet.
Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a letter from Delta Group that
�.. states that their equipment shelter is going to be 12 feet by 20 feet yet the
staff report says that it will be six feet by 11 feet. She asked why there was
a difference. Mr. Smith explained that the letter was superseded by the plans.
The plans had been revised several times. So it was six feet by 11 feet.
Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. TODD SMITH of Delta Groups Engineering, 2362 McGaw Avenue
in Irvine, said he was representing AT&T Wireless. He said he wanted
to give the commission a brief description and overview of the project.
He commended staff for their efforts and said they worked diligently on
this design which had gone through several changes and adjustments
in the process. His team (AT&T and Delta Group) worked very hard to
develop a project proposal that would be of the smallest possible impact
to the surroundings and he believed they had done a good job of that.
In doing so they had to juggle or balance three challenging issues or
parts to a project such as this.
ow
47
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
The first part was the technical requirements of the radio frequency (RF)
engineers and the actual network deployment of AT&T Wireless which
demanded certain criteria be met to propagate the signal properly and
accomplish its needs. Combined with that was the fact that they had
to go through a site selection process and enter into a lease agreement
with a willing landlord, find a site within the specific search area of the
RF requirements and finding a willing landlord. Then they went through
the land use process to ensure they mitigate any impacts and present
a project that was the smallest possible impact and consistent with the
zoning ordinance in the local jurisdiction. Those were three items that
often countered one another and he said it was difficult to bring into
balance. He thought they had done a good job of balancing them on this
project.
He said they found a good location where they could blend the
monopalm palm tree design in with existing live palm trees. In the world
of wireless telecommunication towers it was not considerably high. It
was about an average height of 62 feet, especially for a more rural or
under developed area or desert areas where they see a bit higher
towers. They have located it on the property where there weren't any
major view impacts. It was away from residences and was fully
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance required a 300-
foot separation from residential use and even though that could be
relieved with stealthing or disguising as a monopalm, they selected a
location that was specifically as far away from residential as possible in
all areas. They had accomplished that in addition to stealthing the tower
to make it look more natural with the environment. They had also raised
the block wall after a couple of discussions with the Architectural
Review Board who wanted to diminish the visibility from the east side
of the property so they raised the block wall to cover the equipment
cabinet.
He noted that the equipment shelter was originally planned to be larger.
This was a tight space, but they were able to obtain an unusual
equipment cabinet design that was actually atypical of AT&T Wireless,
but it worked in this case and they were able to obtain it. It was a little
smaller, more compact and a little lower in height which helped ease the
view issue of Architectural Review Commission. That was another step
they took in order to make the required mitigation. They had gone
48
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
through several adjustments and he thought they had done so in a
manner consistent with the existing use on the property. It was
technically a PR-5 split zone with the property in the front being zoned
differently. The current use on the property was a commercial use
which extends the entire length of the property. They believed they
were consistent with the existing use. They were consistent with the
telecommunications portions of the ordinance in terms of height,
stealthing design, separation from residences, and they came forward
with a design he thought was natural in an environmental setting, of
very little impact to the community, and consistent with what has
typically been approved in the city to date. He hoped the commission
would approve it and recognize the efforts they made to make it
consistent with what the commission has done in the past. He thanked
the commission and requested the opportunity to rebut any comments.
Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal.
MR. DICK SCHMID, 45-890 Pawnee in Indian Wells, addressed the
tow commission. He explained that his family and Mr. Bernard DeBonne
developed the Village Court property. He indicated that Mr. DeBonne
owns the lot immediately to the east of this facility. AT&T was dealing
with Mr. DeBonne originally to locate a facility on one of his properties
so Mr. DeBonne should be mad that it was on this other property, but
he willing accepted that. They also owned the property to the north of
this, not immediately north, but still on Village Court. They had no real
problem with the installation although they were probably affected more
than anyone else. He said it was fortunate it was far enough away from
the residential that it should not be a problem. He noted that the
existing trees leaned and asked if the tower was going to match that.
He assumed it wouldn't. The other issue was the palm trees which
were now 45 or 50 feet high and in ten years they might be 55 or 60
feet high so they might eventually look more like it. So he and Mr.
DeBonne had no problem with the proposal other than they were dealing
with the shielding of the wall and the drainage which they were trying
to deal with the engineers on. He thanked the commission.
Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments.
`" 49
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification of Condition No. 7 which stated
that they would maintain the artificial palm tree. The thing that appealed to
him on this case was that it appeared to be part of a continuous line of palm
trees and asked if there was a condition they could place on the applicant that
they would also maintain the existing row of palms, not just the artificial palm
tree. Mr. Drell said the answer was yes. If the approval was continent upon
those palms being there, then they were part of the application. In any case
existing palms were part of the landscape plan of the existing project and by
virtue of that they were required to maintain them as well.
Chairperson Finerty pointed out that in the ordinance if there weren't existing
palms, the applicant would be required to put in palms for a cluster effect. Mr.
Drell concurred. Mr. Drell said they could add that the approval was
contingent upon the maintenance of the existing palm trees, but that was
required by the approval of their project as well, but they could specify that.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the other date palms died, there was any
chance that the applicant could come in and put in Mexican fan palms at 20
or 30 feet high which would make that pole stand out. In order to change the
species, Mr. Drell said they would have to get our permission. Commissioner j
Tschopp asked if we had in place a mechanism that would not allow 20- or ..�/
30-foot high palms to go in at that point. Mr. Drell said in a normal landscape
plan they probably wouldn't care and probably wouldn't be concerned with
smaller palms. Because we have a different consideration going on with this
monopalm, the commission might want to add that the current mature date
palms would have to be replaced if they died.
Commissioner Campbell noted that the present palm trees are the property of
Embassy Suites. She didn't think AT&T should be liable if the palms get a
disease and all die. If they were just going to put in one palm tree, then they
could be responsible for the cluster they were going to plant. She didn't think
they should be responsible for all the others.
Commissioner Jonathan suggested inserting in language that said that in the
event the existing palm trees were not properly maintained, that the applicant
should be responsible for creating a like cluster or something along those lines.
Commissioner Jonathan, Commissioner Tschopp and Chairperson Finerty
concurred. Mr. Drell agreed. Commissioner Campbell was uncomfortable with
that because it wasn't his responsibility. Chairperson Finerty explained that
50
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
if the existing palms weren't there, the applicant would be required to put in
a cluster. Commissioner Campbell noted that was only a couple of palm trees,
not all of them. Chairperson Finerty said they weren't going to require nine of
them. They would follow the ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan concurred
and clarified it would just be an adequate number of trees. Mr. Drell thought
they should put a number on it. It was usually three additional palms.
Commissioner Jonathan suggested three to five at the discretion of staff.
Commissioner Campbell thought five was a lot. Chairperson Finerty thought
it depended upon their heights. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the existing
row of palms were to be disturbed, the condition would read that the applicant
would have to replace the existing palms and/or some other acceptable palms
to the satisfaction of Architectural Review. Commissioner Campbell said that
would let Embassy Suites off the hook. They could let them die and they
wouldn't care. Commission Jonathan pointed out that Embassy Suites would
then be in noncompliance with their approval. Mr. Drell said that they had the
ability to specify the replacement of the identical palms. It was just the
mechanism of where they placed that requirement. It was hard to place it on
the applicant since they had no control. If and when those die, it was
important that the trees be replaced with comparable trees. Chairperson
Finerty said they would be approving it based on the current landscaping. So
if that current landscaping changed, then they needed to revisit the issue and
the property owner would have to deal with it. Mr. Smith said it was outside
of the lease area for AT&T so if they were to specify that the three palms
westerly of the artificial palm were the ones of concern then those would be
the ones that would have to be replaced with a like size and type of tree.
Beyond that they would accept perhaps somewhat smaller trees. Mr. Drell
concurred. By putting this on AT&T, then it was up to them to go back to
Embassy Suites, who they were leasing this from, and work out whatever
arrangement they had to work out with Embassy Suites for the preservation
of those trees.
Commissioner Jonathan thought that was an issue between the applicant and
Embassy Suites. From the commission's perspective they could keep it open
and say that in the event that the existing trees deteriorate or die, the
applicant would be responsible for replacing them or creating acceptable
alternative landscaping. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said if
they could add that condition, he was prepared to move for approval.
r"" 51
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
MR. SMITH readdressed the commission. He said it wasn't necessarily
a deal breaker, but lent a little bit of confusion because they have two
separate entitlements on the property and the one entitlement would be
Embassy Suites. Those conditions were relating to the Embassy Suites
palm trees and that maintenance should fall under their entitlement on
the property for the use of that hotel. He presumed that Embassy Suites
as a reputable hotel in a resort area would probably keep those trees up
fairly well. He said they were bringing about a discussion that was
outside of their current lease area and was not part of their negotiations
at this time. It lent some confusion because they were asking him to
incur maintenance on property that wasn't his.
Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Smith would like a continuance so that he
could take it back to his office and explain the City's ordinance with regard to
the clustering.
Mr. Smith said he would like approval. It wasn't necessarily a deal killer,
but it was confusing that they were merging the two entitlements in
this case.
Commissioner Jonathan explained that the reason for that was because the
entitlements weren't the commission's issue. Their issue was that the
applicant was presenting an application that was partially based on
surrounding landscaping. That was important enough to the commission that
their approval would be based on that.
Mr. Smith agreed that it tied together.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that it became part of the stealth feature which
appeals to the commission.
Mr. Smith agreed with that.
Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the applicant had several alternatives.
One was to modify the lease agreement. Another was to take the risk because
they might as a City take action against Embassy Suites if they let their
landscaping down. But ultimately, if their antenna stood alone, that wasn't an
acceptable situation.
52
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Mr. Smith said they would agree to that. That was fair.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if he needed a continuance to address the
lease.
Mr. Smith said no.
Commissioner Jonathan said a third option was to come in with a new
application to plant other trees that they would be responsible for and then
they would have control.
Mr. Smith said part of the reason they selected that site was because
of the existing trees. They touched on the point and they noted that
there was a kind of shared responsibility of Embassy Suite and them
and he thought that was fine. Just as along as their expectations were
running along those lines. In other words he didn't want everyone
coming after them the moment a high wind blows and a couple of trees
fall and they haven't put them up fast enough or whatever. Things
could get blurred when things weren't clear. He wasn't looking to
cause problems.
Commissioner Jonathan assured him that it was a realistic concern from the
commission's standpoint because they see properties abandoned which they
didn't expect to happen to Embassy Suites, but these days with Enron, etc.,
they didn't know what could happen to any business. If that property was
abandoned and those trees weren't watered, they would come down as others
have in the desert.
Chairperson Finerty asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2141, approving Case
No. CUP 02-05, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0.
%NO
53
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
h
I. Case No. ZOA 02-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 25.21 (Second Unit Senior Housing) to be consistent
with current state law.
Mr. Drell explained that there were four pending applications that would be
coming to the commission later that involved second units and staff's
realization that state law has been amended since the first time this was
adopted that potentially made our ordinance invalid. Staff was suggesting that
the commission continue this item 30 days and by then staff would be
bringing to commission the actual second unit applications. So they would be
able to review the amendments to the code at the same time they are
reviewing the applications. They would have real examples of the impact of
the amendments and what would be approved and what wouldn't be approved
given the various options in adopting an ordinance.
Chairperson Finerty asked if staff was recommending a continuance to a date ,
certain. Mr. Drell recommended a continuance to September 3, 2002.
Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to
speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed amendment. There was no
one. The public hearing was left open. Chairperson Finerty asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. ZOA 02-02 to September 3,
2002. Motion carried 4-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Case No. TT 26562 Amendment #1 - RBF CONSULTING ENGINEERS/
AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, INC., Applicants
Request for approval of a second one-year time extension to TT
26562 Amendment #1 , a 687 unit residential development, 18
hole golf course and 225 suite hotel on 420 acres located on the
54
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
*AW
north side of Frank Sinatra Drive between Cook Street and
Portola Avenue, 74-500 Frank Sinatra Drive.
Mr. Drell explained that this issue was before the commission a year ago at
which time staff recommended denial. Then the applicant said if the City didn't
extend their map, they were going to record the first phase of their tentative
which would extend it. The commission granted another year for them to work
something out.
Subsequently the General Plan Advisory Committee has been giving a lot of
attention to this property and the plan GPAC recommended was not consistent
with this map which made it impossible for staff to recommend an extension.
It could be potentially inconsistent with the General Plan. They still might go
ahead and record phase one which was their prerogative.
Chairperson Finerty asked for confirmation that nothing has been recorded to
date. Mr. Drell said no, but if the map wasn't extended, he thought they
would. That was up to them. He noted that this project was far beyond
historically any extensions that have been granted in the past. Given the
inconsistency with the recommended General Plan, staff didn't feel it was
appropriate to grant a time extension. The applicant could then do what they
had to do to extend it if they wanted.
Chairperson Finerty asked if the commission denied it and the applicant
recorded the map, it would be extended three years. Mr. Drell said yes and
explained that it would cost them a significant amount of money to do that.
In no way did it in reality make the project more or less likely to occur. The
good news was that in the last discussions with the property owner the
market was now telling him that the City's plan was probably the one he was
probably going to pursue. Over the last 11 years they haven't found a
developer who could feasibly develop this approval and the applicant was
finally coming to the conclusion that the suggested land use plan in the
General Plan was more logical. The applicant's problem was he didn't want to
have an unentitled property. That gave his lender concern which was the
discussion they had last year. So they gave him another year to come up with
something more logical. But eventually enough was enough and the City had
to do what it had to do and the developer would do what he had to do. He
hoped the applicant would take advantage of the next six months before the
General Plan was approved to come up with a plan he could piggy back into
55
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
the General Plan, something he could actually market, sell and develop.
Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Drell could promise that the General Plan
would be done in six months. Mr. Drell said he hoped so.
Chairperson Finerty asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner
Campbell moved for denial. Mr. Drell noted that this wasn't a public hearing
but recommended that the applicant be given an opportunity to speak.
MR. BRIAN HARNICK, 45-025 Manitou in Indian Wells, addressed the
commission. He explained that he was present on behalf of American
Realty Trust, Inc. He thanked the commission for the opportunity to
discuss this matter again. He stated that American Realty Trust had not
owned this property this whole amount of time. The project had been
going on since 1991 and his client purchased it around 1998. It had
been vacant for way too long. He said they did some work. They put in
a well on the property. He also said the property had been embroiled in
litigation. There had been three lawsuits filed. There were lis pendens
recorded. They had been to court. The court removed all three lis
pendens. They had been up to the Court of Appeal. They won at the '
Court of Appeal to clear title. He said this wasn't a situation where
they wanted this to be vacant. Staff clearly pointed out that they
perhaps missed a wonderful opportunity during these past few years in
the economic climate to proceed. But the question now was where they
found themselves.
Last July the application for an extension was made. They withdrew it
at the time because there was a recommendation of denial. The reason
they withdrew that application was to give themselves an opportunity
to meet with the City Attorney, which they did. To meet with City
staff, which they did. And to try and work out a win-win scenario. They
came back in August and presented in effect the same situation and
said give us another year to see what they could do.
What had happened since then, and if they recalled in the minutes
attached to the report, the minutes envisioned the General Plan being
done by now. And in fact the General Plan was not done. It put them
in the following situation. They understand what Mr. Drell was saying,
that basically enough is enough and they should do what they need to
do. That gave them a choice. Mr. Drell pointed out correctly that they
56
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
have some issues with their lender and it wasn't the City's problem to
keep it entitled, but they felt it was in their interest to keep the
entitlements on the property. If the commission denied the requested
extension, it would force them to do one of two things. They either lose
the entitlement, but they were not prepared to do that. It meant they
would go ahead and record the final map on a portion of the property.
He understood the fees to be at least $600,000 to do so. It was a
substantial sum of money. What that did was create an extension for
three years that would bind the City and bind them to a project, to a
plan, that the City did not want and to a plan and a project that they
recognized was not in their best interests either. He thought Mr. Drell
made a good point. It hasn't flown for a number of years. They also had
another issue. As he understood the law, if this map was extended by
the commission and the General Plan was subsequently passed that
was inconsistent with the map and they have done nothing to create a
vesting of their rights in the zoning, then he thought the General Plan
would be in control and the extension thereafter would terminate
because the map would be inconsistent with the new General Plan.
.. Rather than forcing them to incur a substantial fee and forcing them to
in affect ram a map or impose a map on the City and impose a map on
themselves that neither of them wanted, perhaps as a mechanism as a
means of compromising, and again one of their objectives was to avoid
having to pay the substantial fees, would be to perhaps extend it for the
six-month period and go through the General Plan process. They
weren't losing anything and the City wasn't losing anything. If they
waited, perhaps not the full year but perhaps the six-month process
they expect the General Plan process to be completed which put them
at the end of the calendar year, they weren't forcing them to spend the
money. The City wasn't forcing them to create a three-year extension
and then they could go ahead and build out this project. If they incurred
the fees, gained the three-year extension, then he believed they might
be vested so that the General Plan amendment process might be
impacted. What he was saying was he wasn't sure but believed that
their investment of such a nature might impact the ability to change the
zone on them. It was a further complication.
He stated that he was asking them for something they have already
asked them for. They were here a year ago asking for a year and it was
given to them. He didn't want to mislead them to say there have been
`...
57
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
A
drastic changes. However he did point out that the General Plan as they
thought about and anticipated being done wasn't done. They have had
problems with this and he didn't see a down side in just giving them the
six months while the General Plan process goes forward. He didn't see
where the harm was. He said they would be imposing that same three-
year map extension by filing and recording the final map. They were
asking for a few more months to let the General Plan process work. His
clients flew out from Dallas and met with City staff as recently as
Friday. They were continuing to work. They were serious about it and
they wanted to make this happen in their interests and he knew the City
did as well. He asked for any questions and implored the commission to
at least give them some additional time even if it wasn't a full year and
bring them up to when they anticipated the General Plan amendment
process to provide.
Commissioner Jonathan said he was unclear how the General Plan impacted
Mr. Harnick's plans for the property. He asked for clarification on that. He also
asked Mr. Harnick to tell him what happens at the end of six months assuming
the General Plan amendment has been completed.
Mr. Harnick said it was his understanding that the proposed General
Plan was inconsistent with what the current tentative map. So if the
General Plan passed as he understood it to be proposed and this
tentative map was extended and no further action was taken, he
thought the tentative map would go out the window. He asked for
correction if he was wrong.
Mr. Drell said he didn't believe that was case. The finaling of a tentative map,
assuming it was a valid tentative map, was an administerial act. The only thing
that was looked at was if the final map was consistent with the conditions of
the tentative. Mr. Hargreaves explained that what would happen if they
changed the General Plan was they could go ahead and final it out and have
legal parcels, but they might not be able to develop them in the way they
anticipated developing them. If they had a parcel set up for a golf course and
the General Plan zoned it for residential, then he would have a problem parcel.
Mr. Drell said that in no way did recordation of the map bind that property
owner in any way. He could abandon that final map and propose a new final
map which Mr. Drell was sure he would do when he actually does a project he
was going to build. So his finaling of the map in no way bound that property
58
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
owner in any way whatsoever. The question was extending it for six months.
At the end of six months he would still have his entitlement problem. Even if
the General Plan was approved in the way it was now being recommended and
his plan expires, nothing prevented him this month, next month or in six
months from going ahead and recording that map the month before the
General Plan was adopted. The applicant was perfectly free at any time in the
next six months. He indicated he once made a suggestion when this subject
came up last year that if they agreed during this extension period not to record
this map, since the applicant said they didn't really want to record it, so staff
asked them to agree that they would never record it and that all they were
doing was preserving this entitlement and if their objective was to substitute
one entitlement for another, then he would agree with that if there was some
mechanism that they would agree to do that. But they have absolutely no way
of stopping them from recording this map anytime in the next six months or
on the day before the General Plan was approved the applicant could record
it and they had no way to stop him.
Commissioner Jonathan said that if the applicant recorded his map and he had
to pay a fee of $600,000 or some amount, Mr. Drell had mentioned that the
applicant could subsequently change that when recording the final map. Mr.
Drell clarified that he was going to record the final map. Properties got
resubdivided all the time. It was purely discretionary on the part of the
property owner to propose resubdivision of his own property. Putting one map
on it didn't force him to ultimately implement that subdivision. If he decided
he wanted a different project, he could come in with a new tentative to
resubdivide it. He was in no way bound. Commissioner Jonathan said his
question was if the applicant did that, if he would lose his investment. Mr.
Drell said no. His understanding was that a substantial portion of those fees
were transferrable to an amended subdivision. He was told that by the
engineer. Unfortunately what the applicant did and where he really wasted his
money was he spent money on engineering of this obsolete plan instead of
spending the money on a new realistic plan. But some of the engineering costs
were probably applicable to a new site design. The problem with Mr. Harnick's
suggestion was they could just as easily be back here five months from now
if he sees the General Plan going the way it is against his client or against this
map and as quick as a snap of his fingers he could record his map and then he
gets his three years anyway. Mr. Drell said that if he could be assured that
they would never record this map he would give him ten years and would
recommend an extension until he got a new entitlement, but they refused to
v
59
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
agree not to record the map during the extension period which meant all they
were doing was giving them a longer time to make up their minds of when to
record the map. And as he predicted last year, they were back with the same
sword held above their head. He could see this happening every single time.
Once the General Plan was actually amended, then they had no choice. They
could not act to extend the map. Right now they had a choice. It just seemed
inconsistent to do it. But maybe Mr. Harnick could convince them that things
were going to be different in five months.
Mr. Harnick said that hopefully he could. First of all, if in fact they
proceeded with recording the partial final map, as he understood it that
would allow his client to proceed with building what's on that map or
proceeding with that plan. Yes, they had the option of walking away
from it but it was something they would be able to do which as he said
either was something he didn't think either side wanted to do. He said
that perhaps Mr. Drell was right and it didn't make economic sense to
do so and that was part of his point and his argument. He said there
had been some discussions, perhaps informally, with selling the
property to the City. He didn't know where those negotiations stood.
That added a wrinkle to their ability to recoup the funds they would be
forced to expend as part of the recordation of the final map. He
understood that most of those fees, if they were to pay them next
week, most of those fees would be usable if there was a new map
down the road or if they sold it to a new purchaser and they could use
it. The wrinkle and confusion would be if in fact they sold it to the City
for example. He wasn't saying they would lose it, but he was saying it
was another wrinkle of complexity. He didn't see what would be lost by
granting them the additional extension. What was gained was more
time, more time to continue to negotiate, more time to find someone to
buy the property since they have been actively marketing it for many
many years and have cleared title to it and were ready to go. This
would force them to spend a lot of money which they were hoping to
avoid to buy them more time. Mr. Drell was right. They were here
before with the same argument and he thought it was a good argument
then and was a good argument now. The plan would work itself out and
it would give them time to do so. They were just asking them for a few
more months and he didn't see where the City was hurt by granting it.
They would be if what they were asking for was denied. He asked them
60
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
`ow
to modify what was requested and extend the tentative map for
approximately six months. He thanked the commission.
Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments.
Commissioner Campbell moved for denial.
Commissioner Tschopp said that with the possibility of the fees and a
substantial amount of the fees coming back, if it was denied tonight it didn't
preclude the applicant from having alternatives in that three-year period. They
could move forward in negotiations with any parties and still look at alternative
uses and at what he's got on the property right now. He didn't see any real
need to extend.
Commissioner Jonathan asked for the time frame of the General Plan approval.
Mr. Drell said their hope was January. Chairperson Finerty pointed out that
what the committee recommended might not be what the City Council
approved. Mr. Drell concurred. He noted that they used to deny time
extensions when plans were completely consistent with the General Plan. Staff
•. has kept this project alive for an extraordinarily long time. They availed of
every loop hole in the Subdivision Map Act to keep this project alive for 11
years. If he could be assured that this property owner would not develop this
plan or sell it to someone (because he could sell it to someone tomorrow who
wants to develop this project) and the first thing that would happen would be
the map would be recorded.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant was willing to enter into some
form of an agreement that would preclude the applicant from recording that
map during the extension period or from selling the property during the
extension.
Mr. Harnick thought that what Mr. Drell was seeking was a preclusion
for all time and in all candor he said he didn't have that authority.
Commissioner Jonathan said not for all time, just during the extension period.
If they extended it for six months, which he thought was what they were
coming down to in terms of his request, during that six-month extension
period he asked if the applicant was willing to enter into an agreement
precluding him from recording the map.
61
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Mr. Harnick said he would like to agree to it but he didn't want to be in
a position of taking away the right of his client to record the map before
it either expires or the General Plan was amended. He thought that was
what Mr. Drell was really trying to stop them from doing.
Mr. Drell said no, but that was the dilemma. He was saying that he wanted
them to think twice about recording that map and spending the money.
Otherwise, it was complete capitulation. The City was getting nothing. No
assurance. Their concern was that potentially a project would proceed that
was contrary to what the General Plan Committee thinks would be the proper
land use out there. The only way the project was going to proceed was if he
got a developer who wanted to build it and if he got a builder who wanted to
build it, he was going to record the map and start to build it. All they would
have done was do him a favor by relieving him of the obligation of paying the
fees now.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff's position was that the proposed
development would be inconsistent with the expectation of what the General
Plan was going to designate. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said
that from the City's standpoint they needed to preempt the possibility either
by denying the extension or having the applicant agree that the map would not
be recorded. Mr. Drell said yes. If the main problem was he didn't want to
lose an entitlement, even a lousy one, until a new entitlement was substituted.
That was the objective of this extension. They were given another year to
come up with a more practical, realistic plan and during this year. Mr. Drell
said he pleaded with them. The most ideal thing for them to do was come up
with a plan, sell it to GPAC, GPAC could incorporate it into the General Plan,
they could do an EIR on it with the General Plan and they would almost have
an entitlement on it on the City's nickel and they would no longer have an
inconsistency. Instead, and he was thankful and grateful that the applicant
seemed to be changing his mind, the applicant before has kind of actively
resisted the ideas in the General Plan and in no way gave the City any
encouragement. To a certain degree the sword was over the City's head and
they could drop it, but he thought that if they wanted to drop it, he could drop
it any time and they couldn't stop him. Therefore, if they really wanted to drop
it, drop it. But it was up to the commission.
Mr. Harnick asked the commission not to force them to drop it. If they
didn't want to drop it and the City didn't want them to drop it, then
62
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
they were forcing them to drop it. If they gave them an additional six
months, it gave them more time. The General Plan wasn't completed in
a year. It has taken longer than they all thought. He asked for the
additional time to do what Mr. Drell said. His clients flew out this past
Friday. He asked that they give them the time to talk without forcing
them to spend all this money; they lose interest and they didn't want
to spend a huge chunk of money.
Mr. Drell said he would recommend no longer than three months to see what
would happen.
Mr. Harnick thought that might be a good compromise and not force
them to drop the money and put the burden on them.
Mr. Drell said that was contingent upon some act of cooperation of the
property owner in the General Plan process.
Mr. Harnick said that he has been the troubleshooter toward the end
and had not been actively engaged with City staff and he gave an
rr assurance, and his clients came out here often, he would make sure
they continued to work to be sure this was done so that they didn't
come back here three months from now pleading the same thing. But
it gave them one last shot and he thought 90 days from the date of the
extension was fair and that would be a fair way to go.
Commissioner Jonathan said he was comfortable with that.
Chairperson Finerty pointed out that there was a motion they had to deal with
first. Commissioner Campbell noted that she made a motion for denial.
Chairperson Finerty asked if she wanted to withdraw the motion.
Commissioner Campbell stated that they already had a whole year and
everything was the same. They were just holding this over the City's head.
Chairperson Finerty recalled that last year they had a meeting in July when
they asked for a continuance and the whole thing then was they were going
to record it if the commission didn't continue it. She knew they had heard this
before and if no one else would second the motion, she would.
63
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Finerty,
by minute motion denying a second one-year time extension of Case No. TT
26562 Amendment #1. Motion died on a 2-2 vote (Commissioners Jonathan
and Tschopp voted no).
Commissioner Jonathan said that he would move to grant an extension for
three months with the applicant working actively and cooperating with staff
and GPAC to resolve the matter. He heard the other commissioners and was
doing this reluctantly. It was very frustrating. There were third year extensions
he had problems with and this was beyond the normal range of acceptability.
Reluctantly he was saying if they could give them three months to get this
resolved, they have waited this long.
Commissioner Campbell suggested making the extension less than three
months. Commissioner Jonathan thought they needed the 90 days and staff
was reluctantly okay with that. Thirty days was unrealistic and 90 days to him
was realistic.
Commissioner Tschopp said he would second the motion. He heard the
representative of the applicant saying that might be of assistance and staff
said it might be of assistance. He thought ninety days to see if there was a
way to get this to happen was fine, but he shared Commissioner Jonathan's
comments that he didn't want to see this again in 90 days. Mr. Drell said they
might see it in 90 days, but hopefully staff would be able to report that the
applicant has hired himself a new planner and he's working with the City to
produce an alternative to it. They would rather have the money that he would
spend go into a new plan so hopefully this would encourage him. If it looked
like that was happening and it was going toward something construction staff
was willing to work with them. Commissioner Campbell said that very
reluctantly she would go along with approval. Chairperson Finerty called for
the vote.
Action:
It was moved Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,
by minute motion granting a 90-day time extension to TT 26562 Amendment
#1 . Motion carried 3-1 (Chairperson Finerty voted no).
64
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
B. Request for consideration of initiation of an amendment to Chapter
25.16 of the Zoning Ordinance (R-1 Single Family Residential District)
to change the setback for front-entry garages from 20 feet from garage
door to property line to 26 feet from garage door to curb face.
Mr. Drell said that was the report. Commissioner Campbell thought it was a
good idea.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Jonathan, by minute motion initiating a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
Chapter 25.15 (R-1 Single Family Residential District). Motion carried 4-0.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting)
B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting)
yr
C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting)
D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (June 20 and July 3, 2002)
Chairperson Finerty said they were still working on land use and the
committee was on hiatus until September.
E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting)
F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting)
G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR
PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting)
H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting)
XI. COMMENTS
Chairperson Finerty noted that the next meeting would be on August 6, 2002
and asked for a motion to adjourn.
VIOW
65
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2002
1
Y
XII. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Chairperson Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting
was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
1
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
ATTEST:
CINDY FINER , C airperson J
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
a
urf
a
66