Loading...
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