Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1001 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 1, 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 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson (arrived at 7:04 during Summary of Council Action) •.. Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent September 26, 2002 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 e VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos. PMW 02-13, PMW 02-14 and PMW 02-15 -AVONDALE VILLAS, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of three parcel map waivers to allow lot line adjustments into the golf course to increase lot depth for Lots 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Tract 26553 in Avondale Country Club, also known as 75-771 , 75-779, 75-787, 75-803, 75-81 1 , 75- 795, 75-763, 75-827, 75-755, and 75-819 Heritage West. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 02-01, C/Z 02-01, TT 30438, PP/CUP 02-03, and DA 02-01, - DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Applicant (continued from September 17, 2002) Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of: 1 . A general plan amendment from Open Space (O.S.) and Hillside Planned Residential to Open Space (O.S.) for the entire 640 acres and a change of zone to prezone the entire 640 acres Open Space (O.S.) as it relates to Section 25 T5S R6E. 2. A general plan amendment from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential and a change of zone to 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 w.. prezone to Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) to facilitate annexation to the city, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, for nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36. 3. A tentative tract map and precise plan / conditional use permit for an 18-hole golf course, driving range, comfort station and open pavilion located on 221 +/- acres in the southeast corner of Section 25 T5S R5E (remainder of Section 25 to be dedicated open space) and a residential village (44 lots), clubhouse and maintenance facility located on 59 +/- acres in the northwest corner of Section 31 T5S R6E. 4. Certification of Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. 5. Approval of a development agreement relating to the project known as The Crest located on property in Section 25 T5S R5E and a portion of Section 31 T5S R6E. Commissioner Jonathan informed the commission that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter because he is an adjacent property owner. Mr. Smith indicated there was an illustrative view of the project on display. He said he would not repeat the details from two weeks ago, but relative to the matters which were before the commission on September 17, additional information had been received. He noted that commission received in their packets a letter from Fish and Game indicating that the mitigation measures included in the Final EIR were satisfactory. Secondly, the commission also received a memo from the EIR consultant providing additional responses to the comments which were received from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club. That was a memo dated September 23. Also on the 23rd, the EIR consultant forwarded an E-mail in which he noted a few changes for inclusion or incorporation into the staff report relating specifically to the number of acres in the golf course. That area was 240 acres as opposed to 221 . As well, the area of the residential village should reflect 63 acres rather than 59. There were also some other modifications that were outlined in the memo the commission received. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 Fourthly, the commission was advised that there was a meeting with the Sommerset community and the applicant on September 26. Mr. Smith indicated that staff distributed to commission just today a memo Lauri Massoto of Peters and Freedman indicating that they did meet and they appreciated the developer's cooperation in discussing the plans for the future and that they agreed to work with an authorized committee to be formed from the homeowner's association to address landscaping and other concerns as construction proceeds. The Association requested that the agreement be incorporated into the development agreement for the project. He said the commission could put it into the development agreement or they could insert it as a condition on the precise plan. Either would work. As well, staff distributed to the commission just before the meeting a letter from Peter Latourette of Flower Drive in the Sommerset development in support of the project and a letter from D. Fox representing the Desert Trails Hiking and Biking Club opposed to the project. Mr. Smith noted that the commission received a copy of the draft development agreement in their packets under a separate report. He explained that this portion of the application had not been legally noticed for the last hearing on September 17. It had since been noticed and the mailing of the notice to the neighbors was done. Mr. Smith stated that the Municipal Code provides for the City entering into development agreements. Specifically, the development agreement at hand would grant a 15-year approval period with the clock starting 30 days after the adoption of the agreement or the date which the applicant acquired title to the property. It would allow the residential units to be sold with up to four fractional interests per unit. It set out setback requirements for the residential units. It provided for parking modification for the residential units: one covered space for a car, plus one covered golf cart space. It also provided for road widths between 16 and 20 feet. It provided for trail easements around or through the south and east to connect to the Cahuilla Hills trail system. Staff noted in the report that in order to be consistent with Condition No. 14 of the draft resolution, the language in Section 203.5 of the agreement needed to be changed to read, "Developer shall grant necessary easements to the City for public hiking and /or equestrian trails on the perimeter of the site in areas designated by developer and acceptable to the City, California Department of 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for such purpose allowing trail linkage from Homme Park to Art Smith Trail Head. Such trails shall not compromise project security. Developer shall have no liability for the design, construction, maintenance or use of said trails. The City shall be responsible for any environmental clearances or agency permits or approvals which may be required to effect trails construction. The City agrees to aid within limits the construction of irrigation lines from the Golden Rod Road well site to the property." He said there were other provisions and he would respond to them if the commission had any questions. Staff's recommendation was that the commission recommend to the City Council approval of the general plan amendment, the change of zone, the tentative map, the precise plan, the conditional use permit as it applies to the Crest project and certification of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. And also that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the general plan amendment and the prezoning on the nine lots adjacent to the Crest property in Section 36 and that they recommend approval to the City Council of the Draft Development Agreement as amended with respect to the trails access easement section. He said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. He noted that in the development agreement under residential development it indicated development of up to 60 dwelling units and yet in everything they had seen so far it referenced 44 lots. He asked if that was an issue. Mr. Smith said no. He explained that the Environmental Impact Report reviewed up to 60 units, hence the 60 units shown in the development agreement. The tentative map before the commission was for 44 lots. Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Smith to explain the extent of the City's involvement in E-4 on page six and if he could then explain or clarify G-3 and G-5 on page eight. Mr. Smith said that under four on page six, the City shall assist the developer in its discussions with private parties regarding the abandonment and/or relocation of private easements and/or rights-of-way which the developer deems may adversely effect the needs and development design of the project. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that was something the City would normally do on a project this size. Mr. Drell thought they might be hung up on the meaning of the word "assist." According to the City Attorney in this reading, it was vague. Assisting meant we would facilitate and 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 cooperate, but he didn't think it had any force of any particular action. Commissioner Tschopp said that was his question. The extent of the City's involvement. Mr. Hargreaves noted that it said "assist the developer in its discussions." Mr. Drell said that we would just facilitate the discussion and no more than that. Commissioner Tschopp asked about G-3 on demolition. He asked if that came with certain parameters and limitations. The way he read it they would not need to apply every time they needed to demolish something. He noted that one of the concerns expressed at the prior meeting was on the amount of demolition that might take place that would create noise. Mr. Smith said that when he thought of demolition he thought of structures. He said he was looking to the City Attorney about this language. Mr. Hargreaves indicated he wasn't involved in the negotiation of this development, but it appeared to say that the developer could get demolition permits or excavation permits and would have to comply with the requirements of those permits. They could go ahead and get those permits without the necessity of applying or receiving at the same time any building permit. So it looked like a temporal disconnect. They could go ahead and get their demolition permits and excavation permits without having a building set to go. Mr. Drell said that was not unusual. As a matter of course people get grading permits. He wasn't sure what an excavation permit was. He said we have a grading permit and typically they are pulled considerably prior to building permits. He said he wasn't sure why this was in there in that there was no city ordinance that required them to be connected other than they have to be consistent with an overall project design. But the permits themselves were sequential and not connected. That was just stating what the city policy and city ordinance already states to a certain degree. Commissioner Tschopp said he would then assume that in G-5 the right to subdivide the site had nothing to do with further development beyond what has already been approved. Mr. Smith said that conceivably they could come back with a remapping in the residential village area that would create a total of up to 60 units. Mr. Drell concurred. This would allow them to apply. It would still be a process like this, but in essence they weren't giving up their right to ask. Regarding the 15-year approval of the tentative tract map and precise plan, Commissioner Tschopp thought that seemed a little excessive. He asked if we 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 have ever granted those types of initial periods when the normal term is two years. Mr. Drell said that we have had development agreements that were at least 10 years. We have had development agreements that cover the ongoing operation of projects that run for 30 or 40 years, but those really didn't become operative until the project got built. The affordable housing projects had these development agreements which control the rents. Fifteen years was on the outside of probably most development agreements we've looked at. Most were in the ten-year range. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the time was shortened, if it would only mean that the applicant would need to come back to the commission, not that they would necessarily change anything. He was trying to look for the reason they want to extend for such a long period of time. Mr. Drell said the commission would have to ask the applicant about his concerns. Typically once a project is initiated, then there were automatic extensions going on. So the issue would be if for some reason the project wasn't built for 11 or 12 years because he suspected from the nature of this project that when it gets built it would get built in one shot. They weren't going to build 11 of the 18 holes of golf and the residential development was such that it would get developed in one shot. So they would have to ask the developer his concern with 10 years versus 15. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was also a requirement that requires that on-site parking be provided for the employees and contractors and then Mr. Smith added that the commission may wish to add a sentence requiring these workers to be staged within the site and not on Highway 74. She asked if that could be made into a condition so they didn't have any problems. Mr. Smith said they could add that into the section. He knew that commission had concerns in the past in that regard. If they wanted, it could certainly be added in. Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing was open and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. TED LENNON, 74-426 Desert Teneha in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the Senior Vice President of Destination Development Corporation, the developer of the property. He indicated he would address some of the points brought up. Starting with the ten years versus the 15, he explained that the last agreement they did with the City was for ten years. He said it did go by quickly. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 t The development agreement did not commit the City to very much. It was kind of general language, but the kind of things they would like 15 years for was if the City suddenly said they had to do 50-foot roads or something. If they looked at the agreement, he didn't think there was anything in it that should scare anybody. They have to come back to the table anytime they redo the tentative maps and so forth. So their attorneys advised them 15, and it was discussed with the City's attorney, and he believed 15 years was a logical time. On the issue of excavation/grading, he said it should just be grading. He said it was very common in a project like this that they would go ahead with the golf course grading prior to having a clubhouse design or something years later on. That was the intent of that and very common. He stated that from day one they have committed that they would resolve the onsite parking problems. He asked for any other questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the timeshare. They now modified their proposal to include the sale of the units for up to four fractional interests. Mr. Lennon said that they didn't modify it. From the beginning they have had this program and put the words in there. Their intent was in a private club like this, it was currently very popular for the members to be able to share a given unit and in their concept they were talking about four members owning an individual unit. So they had a small section of the project where they would attempt to have that. That didn't mean more bodies coming to the project or more traffic, it was all the members of the golf club. They would have some flexibility. The main reason for the development agreement was to have some flexibility going in. They were taking that same footage shown on the tentative map and might turn them into lesser lots. They'd have to come back to change the tentative to go for 60 units, but they didn't intend to expand outside the project area they already identified for lot building. They have national members and the fractional concept would allow them to own a quarter share and come and use the units. Commissioner Lopez asked if the fractional concept would only be available for members. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 Mr: Lennon said they thought it only made sense for those that belong to the club because of the price in relationship to the golf course, so they expected not to sell any product to non-member people. They couldn't eliminate them or forbid them to do that. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the number of memberships increased. Mr. Lennon said no, it didn't effect that. Memberships were limited. He also said that they had a good meeting with the Sommerset people and it was alright with him to incorporate in that they would agree to continue to work with the committee while the project is ongoing because it was harder to just look at a set of plans and resolve everything, so they said as the project got built they would continue to relate with them. He thought that was fine. Regarding the trails, Mr. Lennon said they came up with the idea of donating the trails to the City and wrapping them around the project and making it all work. There was one sentence in the agreement that got `.. taken out and he wasn't sure why. They asked that it not interfere with security, but that it also wouldn't interfere with their golf course. They agreed on a plan that didn't seem to do that, but then that got taken out and he didn't know why that happened or who requested that, but they would like to get that back in. Mr. Drell said that he would agree that the trail would not interfere with the golf course. Mr. Lennon asked if it was okay to put that language back in. Mr. Drell said that was fine. He noted that it would be a mutually agreeable trail route that would meet both party's interests. Chairperson Finerty asked for any other questions or comments. There were none. Next was public testimony for anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Referring to the public speaker cards turned in, Chairperson Finerty asked Dr. Jerry Meints to address the commission. DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71-450 Painted Canyon in the Cahuilla Hills of Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said it has been his 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 residence for 35 years. He noted that he spoke before the commission a couple of weeks ago expressing their long-term commitment to seeing this property developed in a manner that was harmonious with the natural environment. He said many of them were ambivalent; they would like to see nothing ever happen there. They were also realistic and as a recovering naturalist he realized he couldn't stop a person from building on their own property. He also said he was struck by a comment made two weeks ago. He heard a lot of people demand or make comments about wanting open space, but no one volunteered to tear their house down to create it. That was still ringing in his ears. He said he had to step aside and be somewhat realistic. In addition to living on five acres, and in some points more than 20 acres, in the Cahuilla Hills on the border of this project, he was also one of the land owners of the nine parcels in question. Two weeks ago he noted that they raised the issue that while they were not opposed to this project, in fact in concept he thought it was probably one of the most environmentally sensitive projects to be proposed in the desert ever and he has been here since 1965 and looked closely at our beautiful valley. He said their problem really was "W the fact that as it exists, they currently enjoy guarantees and options by the County of Riverside because they were not in the city of Palm Desert currently. The zoning and building codes were much more reasonable in the County and allowed them not only access to their property, but allowed them the opportunity to build. He said that many of them bought their property, and he has owned his over ten years, with the plan of selling their big house now that their kids were all grown up and moved away to college and building a smaller home for himself and his wife and their one remaining small child. He said they weren't certain being annexed to the city would allow them the opportunity to build their home. Moreover, the Federal Land Tract of 1938 guaranteed them and all other homesteaded properties permanent access to their property. No one could block their ingress or egress or their ability to bring utilities to their properties and that was a federal law that guaranteed that homesteaders would be able to improve their properties. So it was long standing and had great history. He didn't think that many people in Palm Desert really knew that Section 36 was one of the original homestead ri 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 it sections, but it was. He said it would be very hard for them to agree to annexation because the developers had not really provided them with any concrete proposal that would either guarantee that they would have the ability to have access on their road to their property, which was now being proposed to be the developer's, nor had the City given them any indication that they would be guaranteed the ability to build on their properties, nor had the developer of the City guaranteed them that they would be paid fair market value for their property. So with that concern, while they could see the value of this development, they certainly couldn't agree and opposed being annexed into the city of Palm Desert because they would lose all of their rights and their abilities now guaranteed to them. MR. SABBY JONATHAN, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He noted that the commission heard his comments at the last meeting so he would try to be brief. He thought the project was a wonderful use of that particular site. His only objection was with regard to his specific lot. He was the owner of one of the nine lots and they believed that they have certain entitlements under the County, including the location of the homesite(s) and a few other entitlements. The concern was that those entitlements would be lost as a result of being annexed into the city and having the zone changed to Hillside Planned Residential. That was the sum total of his concerns. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in FAVOR or the project. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that there were several problems they have as property owners and as the developer of the first four parcels he said they were closest to the section line. He said they had a very good meeting with Mr. Lennon today and there were several areas they thought they would explore, but they would have to explore them with the City. He felt the problem with this preannexation agreement was that there was no annexation agreement with the property owners of the nine lots; `no 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 a it was just with the Crest. The nine lots were just something the City said, "Gee, let's take these lots and bring them in." The City had not talked to them; they sent them a letter saying they wanted to annex their property and that when they do, they would become part of the Hillside Ordinance. He said there was no guarantee that Hillside Ordinance would let anybody build a lot unless they did a complete topo on their property and that would be a big cost to the property owner just to see what the Hillside Ordinance did to him and he did not have time to do that because the commission was ready to vote today. The City, the City Council, they had no idea what they had in mind. The problem there is the City has not met with the nine property owners, haven't gone over anything with these nine property owners, haven't shown them exactly what the annexation to the city would really mean and, therefore, it was really just a land grab on the part of the City to take in the nine lots and they would go from there. That was not really fair until there was some type of preannexation agreement for the property owners of the nine lots. He said they explored that with Mr. Lennon today and he said he would be in favor of working with the City and working this out. So Mr. Ricciardi said he would like the commission to leave the nine lots out at this time until something was worked out so that the nine lot owners knew they weren't getting stiffed somehow or if something was being taken away from them that they had under the County that they would not get under the City. Mr. Ricciardi said that he wrote a letter to Mr. Smith stating that as one of the original developers there, they got their easement from the wash all the way up to the four first parcels there approved through the City. He stated that he had to write an EIR and do everything and get that approved. He said that Mr. Drell was well aware of that. So they wanted to make sure in this preannexation agreement that the rights under that easement that they have would be allowed and nothing would be taken away from them there either. So he would like to see this once again tabled for another two weeks so that the City would meet with the nine property owners (nine parcels but only seven property owners) to go through this and do it properly. Take the time to do it right so they didn't have nine property owners that were tremendously upset with the City because this was being rushed. No one from the City as far as he could see was looking out after the interests at all of these nine property owners. Mr. Lennon didn't need 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 those nine parcels to do his development. He didn't need them at all, so the commission could approve the project and just eliminate the nine parcels entirely and his development would not change all. That was really why they would like the commission to table it or just take the nine lots out at this time and address the nine property owners and do them separately, which he thought would be the correct thing to do. At least take a couple of weeks, have the City meet with the nine property owners and have the City tell them what is really going on so that the nine property owners could get some level of assurance here that it wasn't just a land grab on the part of the City to do away with the hillside properties looking down on the city. He requested that the commission do that for them. MR. RUSSELL DAVIS, 45-660 Paseo Coronado in Indian Wells, stated that he was one of the property owners of the nine lots. He said there wasn't much more that he could add other than he did like the Crest and thought it was a great project. He liked Palm Desert and thought it was a great city. But said thanks, but no thanks at the present time if tow they wanted to include them in. What they were doing was restricting their rights and taking property away from them. He said they should understand that if a city, any municipality, takes property they have to compensate the people for taking it. He said this was a taking when they changed their zoning from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential. They couldn't do what they wanted to do before. There was really no reason for the City to want to include those nine lots other than to restrict the building on those nine lots. He said they would like to see the Crest, but they wanted to see their property kept as it is. If the City wanted to bring them in, they would like an agreement that the zoning would stay the same. If that couldn't be done, he was requesting the Planning Commission to reject only the inclusion of the nine lots into the city. He thanked the commission. MS. CAROL ROBINSON, 72-459 Desert Flower Drive in the Sommerset community addressed the commission. She said she would like to correct these gentlemen. She didn't know who they spoke with who had anything to do with Sommerset, but their Homeowners Association had not had a meeting regarding this, had not spoken to its residents or communicated with them in any way and did not speak for them. She asked whatever happened to no hillside development. It seemed to her 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 Willi that all of them, all the people in power, had already decided that they were going to do this development, but asked what it would bring them. She could kind of understand what it brought Mr. Lennon and the other people of this development, but she wanted to know what it brought to the City. If they stepped outside of this building right now and looked upon the hill they would see a cross. That cross was where all of this would take place. That could be seen from the entire desert. Palm Desert's seal has an empty mountain on it. They were going to have to change the seal and put development up there. She asked why they wanted this. She stated that they didn't need another golf course and it was only for a few people and they were going to put timeshares on it. She asked what they were thinking and what happened to the desert as we had it? If nothing else, she asked if they could please wait until the residents were back. At Sommerset probably two-thirds of their people were gone now. They weren't even around and would return and all this would have already been decided for them. She said she would like to know from someone why this was a good thing for the city of Palm Desert. She said she felt they had already decided they were going to do this, but she thought it was very sad for the city if they did. She thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing, but asked if Mr. Lennon wished to make rebuttal comments. Mr. Drell said he could make some clarifications relative to some of the comments. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Lennon wished to comment. Mr. Lennon said no. Mr. Drell stated he would address the comments on the nine lots and what the likely result would be. One, the action before the commission was not the annexation of those nine lots. The action of the Planning Commission was the designation of what zoning would occur if those nine lots were annexed to the city. The initiation of the annexation itself would not occur at the City Council level and the actual approval or disapproval of the action on that annexation would occur at an independent body called LAFCO, (Local Agency Formation Commission) that meets in Riverside. The annexation to the city in no way impacted any existing private access easements or any relationship those properties have with the public utility, private utility or any utility, nor did it in any way effect the development rights conferred on those properties as original homesteads. Under the city ordinance, every existing parcel could have a house built on it and any access which was conferred to those parcels by the Homestead Act were not effected 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 %W or could not be effected by our zoning or annexation to the city. So none of those issues regarding the rights conferred on those homestead parcels were effected by the annexation to the city. He said we do have more rigorous development and design review standards for hillside development. Palm Desert allows hillside development. Palm Desert as a matter of law must allow economic use of every parcel in the city. If we prohibit all use, we would have to come with a checkbook and buy it. He said the City is buying parcels and trying to buy parcels and actually made an effort to buy this parcel. The City just didn't have the $12 million it was going to cost. So the City's ordinances have always allowed development of parcels and as the gentleman pointed out, these were development rights that were conferred by the U.S. Government when the property was granted for a lot of these parcels and, therefore, the City couldn't take those away. The City did have a right to zone. Our obligation is to provide economic use of the property and allowing at least one unit of development on each parcel provided that economic use. Mr. Smith said he had a comment for the record regarding the pad height on the tentative map relative to the maintenance building. There was a memo from the engineer saying it would be eight feet lower than what was shown on the tentative map which the commission had before them. Chairperson Finerty thanked everyone for coming out and expressing their concerns, which was very important. She felt this project was not only beautiful, but it was put together by an environmentally sensitive gentleman, Mr. Lennon. She appreciated his approach in dotting the is and crossing the is and meeting with everyone he needed to meet with and trying to address the concerns. She understood the concerns about being annexed. As Mr. Drell explained, all the City would be doing was prezoning for a possible annexation in the future. They weren't the body that decides upon annexations. But she did say that Palm Desert does have more rigorous design standards than the County, but she believed that was a good thing. She was a little concerned about why there was a hesitancy to be annexed into the city upholding those high standards. She was in favor of the project and felt it would be an asset to the city. There had been many projects before them for this particular area and this was by far the best. She appreciated the lengths Mr. Lennon and his team had gone to to try and please everyone and address those concerns. Commissioner Campbell concurred. This project had been before them two times and in comparison this project was very very low density and they 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 would have quite a bit of open space. Since the low density would only be from 44 to 60 homes, they would be nicely camouflaged on the mountainside and she didn't not think they would be very obstructive to anyone's view from those living in Sommerset or anywhere else. It would be more pleasing to the eye then some of the existing structures presently on the hillside. Looking at Mr. Lennon's other projects such as the Reserve, they wouldn't even know that any areas had been disturbed on the mountainside. It was very beautifully done and she thought they should be very happy to have a project like this in our city. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez thanked the individuals that spoke this evening and those at the previous meeting. He said the commission appreciated their comments and input and their passion for this particular project. He noted that it was a very aggressive program and one that he thought personally had the very best use of the property that was there. Having been a resident here for 20 years and watching the development and growth of our community, he had been in the area at a homesteader's place for a cook out one evening and looking out over the valley was quite beautiful. And there was nowhere near the development that there was currently now in the Cahuilla Hills. So the growth had been not only in the Palm Desert area, but also up into the hills. And done very well. He thought there had been discretion used in the ability for growth to occur in that area and in this particular case, it was a great use of the property. The developer has done a great job in communicating with the homeowners in Sommerset and he wanted that to continue during the course of development and would appreciate it if they would keep an open ear to those individuals that have concerns regarding anything from noise to anything else that relates to the development of the program. There needed to be an open line of communication, perhaps even a direct line available for those homeowners in that area to communicate to someone so that they know they can get an answer to a question as the development progresses through its construction. He thought the mutual agreement with the trails for hiking in the area was very important and they wanted to keep those areas open even though at times they were in jeopardy of closing for environment reasons or conditions regarding rain or lack of moisture in the area and a fire hazard. Commissioner Lopez indicated that with the annexation of the nine lots, they had four of the seven owners come forward tonight to speak in concern of that. He stated that he was very concerned regarding that. He didn't disagree, but there were rights that needed to be listened to and upheld. He thought that 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 at this particular meeting and with this particular document, it did not preclude that from occurring. He thought the conversation between the land owners and the City and the agreements, etc., should continue and he didn't think that should be something that would jeopardize their ability to build, their ability to get to their property, and he surely wouldn't want to see something in the future where they were landlocked. Commissioner Lopez stated that the project's location of being overall back in that valley was a better use of the land than how it was currently being used. He saw a lot of empty beer bottles, a lot of tracks from four-wheel vehicles, and it looked like it could be a hang out for a lot of the youth in that area and he did not think that was the right use of that property. And those that live in the hills probably heard it once in a while. He thought it was a much better use and once the project was finished, in the evening there would be virtually nothing they would see in the way of lights and the golf course was pretty much dark, so it would still be absolutely gorgeous in the evening. He was also in favor of the project. Commissioner Tschopp thought that the applicant had taken a very sensitive piece of land and by proposing a low density development, it would not adversely effect the wildlife nor would it adversely impact the residents of the city of Palm Desert. He thought it would in fact be a wonderful addition to the city. The property is adjacent to the city. It's contiguous to other development. In some ways the concerns expressed for the wildlife in the area would be mitigated to a great degree and perhaps even be enhanced in some ways in that it would provide a buffer between the current/existing development there now. The applicant limited the hillside development within the project to a very minimal amount, something the City has always held to be a high priority. There had been a huge reduction in potential land use density. Back in 1992 they had an approval for 209 homes. The 44 to 60 was a huge reduction and the way it was tucked into the land up there would not create any additional visual, noise or other problems that other large developments might. In fact, some of the contiguous property owners, excluding the nine who own the parcels right next door, their bigger concerns might be with the nine other parcels because as this project is proposed, it would not have as adverse an affect on Sommerset and some of the other developments as the potential could be for the other nine contiguous parcels that could develop under County standards at this time. Although he understood the concerns of the nine adjacent property owners, they did have their day to speak to the individuals and the agencies involved in the annexation and he encouraged them to do so to protect some of their rights, but for the city of Palm Desert and the 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 residents that live in that area, he thought those lots would be better off in the city under the higher standards that the City imposes as opposed to the County. They just needed to drive around Palm Desert to see where county zoning laws were applied and where city zoning laws were applied and they could see the difference in the standards. The project was environmentally friendly and sensitive to the nature habitat. It would not impact schools; he didn't envision a lot of these golfers taking their kids to local schools. Traffic would not be impacted and the noise and visibility would be very low. The hiking trail continuance and so forth was exactly the goals the City has. So he thought the developer had done an exemplary job on a very sensitive piece of property and thought that the City would be very proud once the project was built and part of the city. Chairperson Finerty asked for a motion to approve the findings. Commissioner Campbell made that motion. Commissioner Lopez asked about the topics brought up this evening that needed to be corrected or added. Mr. Smith said those would be in the minutes and the commission could just indicate as amended. Commissioner Lopez said he would second the motion with those items as amended. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2155, recommending to the City Council approval of a general plan amendment and prezoning designation of open space, a tentative tract map, precise plan and conditional use permit for a 44-lot residential village, 18-hole golf course and clubhouse, and certification of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report as it relates to "The Crest", Case Nos. GPA 02-01 , C/Z 02-01 , TT 30438 and PP/CUP 02-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2156, recommending to the City Council approval of a development agreement as amended relating to the project known as "The Crest" located on property in Section 25 T5S R5E and 18 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 *Mr a portion of Section 31 T5S R6E. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2157, recommending to the City Council approval of a general plan amendment from very low density residential to Hillside Planned Residential, a change of zone (prezoning) for purposes of annexation to Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to nine lots in the northeast corner of Section 36 T5S RSE, Case Nos. GPA 02-01 and C/Z 02-01 . Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). CHAIRPERSON FINERTY CALLED A TWO-MINUTE RECESS AT 7:57 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 7:59 P.M. B. Case No. VAR 02-01 - THOMAS G. BROGAN, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow the reduction of a required minimum side yard setback from nine feet to five feet to allow construction of an addition to an existing single family home at 42-975 Texas Avenue. Mr. Urbina explained that the reason for the variance is that this property was annexed along with Palm Desert Country Club into the city of Palm Desert in 1994 and the City's standards are different from the County's standards for side yard setbacks. The City requires for this R-1 9,000 zoned property a total combined side yard setback of 14 feet. The County's standards, which this house was constructed to in 1961 , required only five feet on each side. The existing house already has a five foot side yard setback on each side, but the property owner wants to do a substantial expansion from approximately 1,300 square feet to 2,000 square feet and he wanted to expand into the northerly side yard so that that entire northerly wall which has an approximate length of 45 feet would now have a setback of five feet. Currently of those 45 feet approximately 26 feet already had a setback of five feet. In addition, the existing house has two pieces of roof-mounted mechanical equipment and a swamp cooler that the applicant was proposing to remove if his variance was granted to allow his expansion. Mr. Urbina said there was also a air- conditioner on the roof. The applicant was encouraged by the Architectural Review Commission to ground mount that but the applicant stated that due to 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 j the high cost of purchasing the new ground-mounted air conditioner and having to do some major duct work, the cost was prohibitive. Mr. Urbina stated that there are four findings that the Planning Commission must make in order to grant approval of a variance. In general, the findings were related to the applicant having to prove and justify that there is some extenuating circumstance that applies to his property that does not generally apply to other similarly zoned properties and that enforcement of the strict zoning regulations would create an undue hardship. Regarding justifications for the four findings for granting a variance, the applicant stated that his house was constructed under County standards and that it already has a five-foot side yard setback on both sides and that he should not be penalized from wanting to improve and substantially rehabilitate the house constructed in 1961 . His property, although zoned R-1 9,000, only has a 6,000 square foot lot so his lot was substantially smaller than the typical 8,000 square foot minimum lot size required for new R-1 zoned subdivisions in the city and for which the side yard setbacks of a total combined 14 feet were intended. The granting of the variance would not be materially injurious to adjacent properties. The applicant communicated to staff that the existing house to the north of his property where the setback is being requested already has a five- foot side yard setback and there were no windows on the south wall of that house that would be adjacent to the proposed expansion. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution in the staff report approving Variance No. 02-01 based on the stated findings and subject to the conditions stated in the proposed resolution. Commissioner Tschopp noted there were improvements being made out in the Palm Desert Country Club area which he assumed would continue. His question would be if staff was prepared to approve these types of requests in the future from similar homes if the commission did so tonight. Mr. Drell said the same findings apply. The most significant one was that our standards were designed for larger lots and when they have larger lots they could afford greater setbacks. Since a large percentage of lots in Palm Desert Country Club were significantly substandard, then that was an exceptional circumstance. He hoped after the General Plan was completed that they would redo the Zoning Ordinance in such a way that they could incorporate more of these anomalous conditions into the code itself so they could grant exceptions without having 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 to go through this variance process. In other words, they could grant exceptions if it is a good project and if it's a good idea. In the future he hoped they provided a more standardized method for approving these. Chairperson Finerty asked if the swamp cooler was still there or if it had been removed. Mr. Urbina said it was there. There was also a piece of air- conditioning equipment. Chairperson Finerty indicated that the Architectural Review Commission minutes stated on page seven that he removed the roof- mounted swamp cooler that was shown on the previous elevations. She asked if he just removed it from the elevation, not from the roof. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Staff had a condition of approval that the existing roof- mounted air-conditioner be painted a color similar to match the new roof so that it blends in and is less conspicuous. Because the plans didn't show the swamp cooler, Chairperson Finerty asked if that meant they wouldn't need to condition it to be removed. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Chairperson Finerty oogened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. THOMAS BROGAN, 42-975 Texas Avenue, stated that presently they were living as snow birds between Washington state and California. They were trying to improve this location so they could move down here full time. He said they need the space. It was built in 1961 and was just too small. The table was inside the living room. All they were doing was extending it to move the kitchen out. He said they turned a letter into Mr. Urbina today from the owner of the property to the north in favor. He thanked the commission. 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 thought that the addition that Mr. Brogan would be doing would be quite an improvement and she didn't think he should be penalized because of his small lot and she recommended approval. Commissioner Lopez stated that he would second that. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2158, approving Case No. VAR 02-01 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment #1 - PATHFINDER COMMUNITY OF THE RISEN CHRIST CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit including a parking adjustment and parking lot for a 2,000 square foot church facility on the north side of Alessandro Drive between San Jose and San Jacinto Avenue, 73-900 Alessandro Drive. Mr. Smith explained that a similar request was before the commission on June 4, 2002. At that time the commission denied the request. The matter was appealed to the Council and on August 22 the Council referred the case back to the Planning Commission without prejudice, directing staff to work with the applicant and neighbors to find a resolution to the concerns that had been raised. Since the matter was before commission last, the applicant had acquired a long-term lease on the two lots immediately to the west. The acquisition of the right to use this property meant the applicant could provide significantly more parking than was previously shown when they only had control of the one lot. He also indicated that the church building was relocated to the west end of the lot with an eight-foot north setback. In the previous request on the north side of the building they had a significant setback that they wanted to use for an outdoor patio/fellowship area. Now they moved the building to the minimum setback, the eight feet on the north side yard, and the patio area had been relocated to the south side of the church away from the residences. The areas to the east and west of the building would be enclosed with a wall and would become landscaped areas. The east area on the lot would continue to have the ability to be converted to eight parking spaces should this building ever wish to stand on its own for an office use. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 low Mr. Smith explained that the site plan on display showed a total of 29 parking spaces on the westerly two lots. In the Planning Commission packets, commission received other plans which also showed just the development of the southerly 12 spaces, so basically the applicant was proposing three options. Option one was that the City either approve the 12 or 29 space parking plan, but that parking not be created until or unless it was demonstrated that the parking was needed. The applicant noted that they have access to parking located in the dental office located at Portola and Alessandro and in the recently completed Voce parking lot to the west. In these lots there was a total of 125 parking spaces, plus there were 55 spaces available along Alessandro Drive itself. Option two was that the City approve the 12-space parking lot plan and that it be installed as part of the church construction. Option three was that the City approve the 29-space parking lot plan and that it be installed as part of the church construction. When the applicant moved the building closer to the residences so that it could relocate the outside patio area, it necessitated a minor amendment to the building architecture to lower it to 18 feet. Previously it had been at 20 feet in height. Mr. Smith said the architect was aware of this and indicated that the change could be made. Mr. Smith stated that the main issue with the proposed church was the proposed parking and the intensity of the evening use. A church with 1,000 square feet of sanctuary area would have a code requirement for 29 parking spaces. They could provide 29 spaces. To do so would require that the parking lot encroach further into the residential area to the north and to the east. Staff supported the creation of the 12-space parking plan at this time. The advantage of the 12-space lot was that it wouldn't create too much unused parking and would keep the parking lot a greater distance from the residences to the north. If the 12 spaces were shown to be inadequate, the eight spaces on the east side of the building could be developed. Mr. Smith indicated that the church agreed in writing to not oppose conditions imposing hours of operations or restrictions which relate to the operation of tow 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 a soup kitchen or day care. Condition Nos. 18 and 22 would prohibit the operation of weekday day care and a soup kitchen activity. Condition No. 24 required that evening activity cease by 9:00 p.m. and that weekday classes with more than 15 persons not commence before 5:00 p.m. He said that neighbors had also submitted letters of opposition once again. The Kings submitted two letters, both of which were included in the packet. Mrs. King phoned and requested that they look at the second letter as being the most current. Mr. Smith said there was a concern about the block walls around the church. The applicant was proposing a smooth finish stucco which would be consistent with the building architecture. Condition No. 16 addressed that. There was concern with respect to turnaround traffic. Mr. Smith said he brought this to the attention of Public Works who indicated that the south end of San Jacinto has been blocked for 11 years. Several years ago there were complaints relative to vehicles turning around. At that time a second "not a through street" sign was installed at the north end of San Jacinto. Since the second sign was installed, Public Works was unaware of further problems. The Kings questioned the walls along San Jose. The applicant intended to close the parking lot area with a four-foot wall. There was a question of notification of special events for which temporary use permits might be required. Mr. Smith said staff was committing to notify them of any TUP's that the City might issue. Condition No. 16 required that the applicant apply for temporary use permits at least ten days in advance and that would give staff enough time to advise the Kings. The Kings questioned the evening hours of the use. The applicant indicated that on Sunday evenings mass would run from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday evening use would be from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. He said the applicant actually indicated 8:30 p.m., but staff conditioned it to 9:00 p.m. to allow people time to leave. He thought that seemed more enforceable. Mr. Smith said the Kings felt the volume of traffic on Alessandro would be significantly increased. Staff looked at traffic counts in February of 2001 and the traffic volume on Alessandro was approximately 2,000 cars per day. Design capacity for Alessandro was 12,000 cars per day. Peak use of the church would be on Sundays when traffic is even lighter than 2,000 cars per day. Mr. Smith said that the commission also received a petition signed by 27 residents of San Jose and San Jacinto. Issues raised in that petition involved noise, traffic, parking, activities outside of normal office hours, lack of a noise 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 tow barrier, and the need for the cul-de-sac. He said those were addressed previously. Relative to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, Mr. Smith said it was a piece of federal legislation which required that land use regulations that substantially burden the exercise of religion be justified by a compelling governmental interest. Any determination that denial is the only option should be fully supported by findings based on evidence in the record. Staff felt the project as proposed would strike an appropriate balance between land use objectives and the provisions of the act. The project attempts through its architectural and site planning to blend into the residential character. Specifically, it was designed to a residential scale and would meet residential setbacks. Project parking and associated noise and traffic would be dispersed along Alessandro and to the southwest corner of the project. The condition restricting the intensity of use and the hours of operation he felt reasonably addressed governmental interest without excessively burdening the free exercise of religion. The proposed church facility would be an infill development and as such it was a Class 32 categorical exemption. �.e Staff recommended approval of PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment #1 including the creation of a 12-space parking lot on the corner. Mr. Smith asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if the dental office was gated in the evening. She knew they had a gate and asked if they closed it. Mr. Smith clarified that she was referring to the property immediately across San Jacinto. The property where they have access is the property on the corner at Portola. It was not gated. They weren't speaking of Dr. Rosenblum, but the other doctor. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was an ordinance that specifies the acceptable levels of noise for commercial uses versus a residential area. Mr. Drell said yes. He said it was 65 decibels and the ordinance states that on the boundary, the commercial standard applies. He didn't think there had ever been any assertion that the likely noise coming out of this church use would in any way approximate any of those standards. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that the acceptable noise level for a commercial development is 65 decibels. Mr. Drell concurred. He explained that it is 65 before 10:00 p.m. and it goes to 55 after 10:00 p.m. Residential is 55 going down to 45. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 He stated that our problems with church associated uses had not resulted from the worship part of the activity. The problems have resulted from the athletic activities which some churches engage in outside and there was no proposal for any of those sorts of activities at this church. Regarding Condition No. 23 that stated that the City would notify the Kings, Commissioner Tschopp asked why the City should do that and why not have the church do that and only have the City get involved if there was a problem. Mr. Drell said this was one of our anomalous situations with a lot of the over the counter approvals. Technically every approval staff gives is appealable. If no one knows about it, it is hard for them to appeal it. This way they would be hearing in advance that a certain party is interested in these sorts of decisions that we make, therefore staff would go to the extent of notifying them of the application so we could get input from them. Whether or not there were problems with a previous event, etc. Since he/staff would be the ones issuing the permit, it might be appropriate for them to notify the Kings of the application. He said they would probably advise the church to notify the Kings even previous to submitting an application. He thought that would be a better idea, but the condition would guarantee it. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on Condition No. 24 that says that evening activity of the church shall cease at 9:00 p.m. It said that prior to 5:00 p.m. weekday classes or activities should not involve more than 15 persons. Mr. Drell said that was correct. The issue there was that they didn't want the use of the church to conflict with the commercial uses occurring during the day. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLES MARTIN, 73-733 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said that after the last commission meeting, he listened to the people who were against the project. Mr. King, the neighbor two houses to the north who also owns the property adjacent to the north, had his concerns. He said he could respond to the concerns architecturally and in a planning way on the layout. At that point the church was negotiating or had negotiated for the property to the west and they originally had a different plan to build on the property. So what he did was turn the building around. It was backed Voi 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 up to the north property line. The building to the north had two high windows at each end. Because of the concerns that were aired that night, he went back and looked at all the things he could do architecturally. When he came back in, there were two high windows with the sill six feet off the ground and very deep set. There was also a clerestory and he stated that clerestory was not capable of being seen out of nor could people see into it. He pointed out a solid wall along the back. He said there wouldn't be anything going on in that back area. They could do some landscaping there, but simply didn't. One of the other concerns was regarding trash and trash handling. He said that in dealing with Waste Management, they were allowing residential sized trash containers. There was concern about gating the opening into the eight parking spaces. Mr. Martin said there was no gate and it was walled off. The wall was an existing wall and could be added to, but it was an existing retaining wall and if it needed to be raised up so that people couldn't visually see into the Kings lot, that would be fine, but from their side that would mean a higher wall. He said the Kings view up follows the city's envelope for a residence, so when they turned and went the other direction, they then came in under the 18-foot rule. Since they had this final requirement to park 29 cars, they were capable then of coming in with one driveway entrance and parking 29 cars, bicycles, and handicap access and having a handicap walk coming in that way out of the parking lot. People could also go the other way out of the parking lot and they could enter into either end of the church. With 12 parking spaces, the wall was required to be four feet. In terms of trying to meet architecturally the neighborhood requirements or the requirements of the City to put something here that would fit, he believed that they had done that. They could see that the eight spaces on the right would always have the capability of putting eight vehicles in if it reverted to an office professional use. In terms of office professional and residential and the Religious Land Use Act, as they were reading through it, they were seeing a reference to the residential nature of the neighborhood. He said there was residential from that north line going north, yes, but there wasn't coming south. To the south was commercial. When they saw that, they looked at this piece 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 of property and said this just as easily could be a residence going here and that residence could be pulled up closer to Alessandro and the residence could have a swimming pool in the back yard and it could have however many people that live in that residence utilizing it, using it all times of the day, late night and any time. It was the same thing for the house on the other side. He thought leaning toward residential was asking for more trouble. When they looked at office professional, which was going in along there, he said this allowed them the capability with a CUP of being able to put in a church. So then they got to a church use and what church it would be. He thought it was very important to understand that this church, the pastor of this church Father Ned, had the Newman Center, brought it into being, and had the Newman Center for 15 years with no complaints. He thought that was a track record. This is someone who has worked for 15 years in that location and they never had a complaint one time. When they see that happening and come across to where they have the same pastor saying he will do this and wants to do it and he would not allow cars to park down on San Jose, then he thought they should take him pretty seriously. They would have a church and 195 feet away were 16 parking spaces at Dr. Le Blanc's. On Alessandro Mr. Smith had said there were 55 spaces and with Carl Voce's property, there were 100+ . This priest had stated that the people of this congregation will park on Alessandro or they would park in Le Blanc's or in Voce's lot. That was it. They would not be parking on San Jose. So if the people on San Jose were concerned about encroachment coming in that direction, he thought maybe they should look at the same situation they have on San Jacinto and that would be to close it off and cul-de-sac it and put in the fire lane, etc. He urged the commission to take his recommendation which was to allow the church to go in, allow it to prove it could be a good neighbor and it now had the capability of producing 37 parking spaces, both on this property and on the long-term lease property. But he asked the commission to not make them build that parking lot until they prove or they were caught parking too many automobiles on Alessandro or starting to encroach down San Jose. They wouldn't encroach down San Jacinto because there was no way to go and San Jacinto had a gate i and those gates were asked by the Kings to be moved further forward 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 and that was absolutely fine. He said it made no difference to the church where those gates were. That was merely a function of dealing with the Fire Department so they could have access through into San Jacinto. What he would like to see was the utilization of Alessandro for parking, the utilization of Dr. Le Blanc's, and the utilization of Carl Voce's parking lots. That kept the doors from slamming, the headlights from flicking, and that kept the horns from honking when the people park their cars on these parking lots that do encroach into that area or further up to the north and to the west into that property there. He thought there was enough parking. His office was on the other side of Highway 1 1 1, but on a Sunday if he was around he went to take a look and there was one truck parked on Alessandro last Sunday. One big enclosed truck that was probably a moving van that was simply parked there. So he hoped they could do this project and that they could do it tonight. He thanked the commission. Commissioner Tschopp noted that Mr. Martin mentioned that there would be a trash container on Alessandro and asked for clarification that he was talking about a commercial sunken bin or trash cans. Mr. Martin explained that Waste Management for commercial installations wanted to see the regular trash pick up with a truck, but when he explained to them what the use would be here, they said that was fine and that they could just do what they would see as a residential garbage can which would be hooked around inside the front gate. There were no trucks coming onto the property to pick anything up. Mr. Drell asked if there would be a little enclosure there or if they would be wheeled out like a residential trash can. He said that basically for residential service, people wheel out their trash containers at whatever time on whatever day and Waste Management picks it up. They wouldn't keep their trash container out on the street all the time. He assumed that would be what they would do here. Father Ned spoke from the audience and said the answer was yes. There were no other questions for the applicant and Chairperson Finerty asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Or 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 MR. ROBERT KING addressed the commission. He stated that he and his wife reside at 44-841 San Jacinto and they also own the property at 44-855 San Jacinto, which was directly north and right across the fence from the proposed project and was currently occupied by Katherine King, who was unable to be at the meeting to speak to the commission, but she had submitted correspondence indicating her opposition to this project. He said that he and his wife were also opposed for the following reasons. When the conditional use permit for the office professional/medical building on the east side of San Jacinto at Alessandro was approved, there were several conditions of approval that were to be mitigated. One of those conditions was that the applicant would provide for the construction of one half of a cul-de-sac on San Jacinto at Alessandro with the intent that when the property on the west side was developed, those owners would be required to provide for their half of the cul-de-sac. That was approved. The applicants were asking the City to disregard that condition of approval because their lot wasn't large enough for them and they might need that space to meet their parking requirements sometime in the future. The medical facility was confronted with the same dilemma in that they didn't have enough parking spaces and the City did not offer to block half of the street for parking or other uses for them. They were required to abide by the conditions of approval and they had done that and they had already constructed a portion of the fence for that cul-de-sac. Mr. King stated that they felt the applicant's proposed wall to the middle of the street which hadn't been presented to the commission yet, was not a good concept and would create an unfinished and boxed in look at the end of the street. The City has installed two "not a through street" signs at the north end of San Jacinto, but that hadn't stopped vehicles from proceeding south and using their neighborhood driveways to turn around in and that included the waste disposal trucks and an average of 16 to 18 vehicles per day. They were requesting that the agreed upon condition of approval be honored and the cul-de-sac be completed to provide an appropriate turn around area and emergency vehicle access. Another significant condition of approval for the medical facility was that the business hours be limited to 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. weekdays and Saturdays and no business or maintenance would take V 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 place on Sundays or holidays. That condition was approved so it would not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants and to achieve compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. This requirement was not in place in the proposed conditional use permit application. The applicants were asking for hours of operation way beyond this scope. The church facility would not operate within the general office use guidelines that were required of the medical facility across the street and as a result would be out of character with other office professional businesses along the north side of the Alessandro corridor. They felt that was compelling evidence that the activities of the proposed project would not maintain or preserve the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood and was in fact inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Palma Village Specific Plan. In regard to the parking, there would be an increase in noise and traffic in the neighborhood regardless of the options that would be used. And that noise and traffic would be occurring in their neighborhood, not on regular work day hours, but weekday and Sunday evenings, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays and other special events. Those were the times they all enjoy the quietness and solitude and privacy of their homes. Eventually there would be spillover parking along the residential streets to the north. He said they respect the congregation's desire to find a site for their church, but felt this was not the appropriate location. He thanked the commission. MS. IRENE SCHMIDT, 44-794 San Jose, addressed the commission. She stated that she has lived there 46 years. She said most of the discussion related to parking, but parking was not the only issue. When they talked with the applicants outside after the last meeting, people from the church suggested the residents should come and meet them because they are nice people. She was sure they were nice people. But that to her was not the issue. The first time they were here before the commission they brought up the parking at the dentist's office. One of the commissioner's said they could tell people to park there, but asked if they would park there. Some would say no because of the big building behind it, some might be ladies coming with their children and she asked who would want to walk on that street with the conditions today. The gentleman said it only dealt with San Jacinto. With the 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 parking area on the west side, there were three homes directly across the street from the dirt lots. If they pull in there and it wasn't paved, they have more sand and they already had enough sand without more sand being raised from cars coming in and out. She said she gets up at 5:00 a.m. and goes to bed at 9:00 p.m. If they had ever gone to sleep at night and then heard cars going down and car doors closing (there was only one house between her house and that), she didn't like to be woken up once she falls asleep because she couldn't go back to sleep. She said her house wasn't even 2,000 square feet and couldn't even see her house on that piece of property. Mr. Martin said he only found one truck there on Sunday, but they weren't talking about just Sunday. From what she had heard at the last two meetings, they intend to have services or some kind of gatherings every night and during the day. Then one time it was brought up that maybe they might have a soup kitchen or they might have babysitting. Then it was brought out if it was approved and they said they were not going to have a use on it and then they went ahead and did have it, she asked what they were going to do and how they were going to stop it once they are there. If they have to meet every night, that was fine. She didn't disagree if they needed each other for that, but for meeting every night, not just on Sundays, she thought it was not going to be good for their area even though she's on San Jose just two lots down or three lots down. When it is quiet there at night, they hear everything. The Newman Center is a nice place and she didn't know why they didn't stay there. She wasn't in favor of the project because of the reasons she stated and she has enjoyed 46 years in a quiet neighborhood. FATHER NED REIDY, 73-850 Fairway in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said with all due respect to what they have heard from those who might not be as enthusiastic about this project as he is, some of the concerns Mrs. Schmidt just raised had already been submitted by them in the amendment. There would never ever be a soup kitchen. There would never ever be a day school or preschool. They would probably have some kind of babysitting during the service for one hour, but there would never be a soup kitchen or a preschool. He said the other thing he wanted to mention was that in some of the literature that had come to the commission, the word intensity was 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 +r. used several times. That there would be noise intensity, traffic intensity, there would be intensity of use and there would be an intensity of people. They all knew from their philosophy that there is a thinking that says that because this is going to be a church, it's going to have these characteristics. But he told them there was no evidence for that at all. They are a small congregation. They would be out of there at 8:30 p.m. every night. They would not be there every night, probably maybe two evenings a week they would have book studies; they have a worship service that would go from 5:30 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.; maybe two evenings a night they would be there until 8:30 p.m., so that was not his track record in the past. He said he has been at Newman Center for 15 years and they have been good neighbors in the past and they would be even better neighbors in the future. There was no evidence for the alarm that some folks were lifting up. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak regarding this project. Mr. Martin readdressed the commission to offer rebuttal comments on a couple of items. The reason they went out into San Jacinto was because they couldn't put the church and the eight parking places on the lot, but he said they have about five or six different plans and they were able to do it if there was a cul-de-sac there. The purchaser of the church did not know there was a cul-de-sac planned for this when it was all started. And subsequent to it in terms of just dealing with the City, dealing with Public Works, coming before Planning Commission and the City Council, and then the Fire Marshal finally got involved in it and liked the idea. So in terms of the one-way street, he said he went down and drove down into San Jacinto a few times and thought he did what everyone does. If someone misses the first sign and isn't paying attention and they get to the second sign, the first thing they do is turn left. So that first driveway takes a big beating right there. It's an apartment house. That was the first thing that happens and he didn't know how many people get to the far end. In terms of just pointing out where Mrs. Schmidt is in terms of this site, Mrs. Nelson who owns the two pieces of property actually owns three, so they see the first lot, the second lot and the third. Then there is a house, another house and then another lot and then he believed Mrs. Schmidt was on the next lot. He then clarified that she was the second house. He said that Mrs. Schmidt 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 i was five lots away from Alessandro. On the other side of the street is a duplex that is sitting back off Alessandro and pushed a little more toward the west. Then there was a house and the property lines didn't line up. Their dimensions were different. There was a house across up a little bit off the second parking lot and the third lot was a tennis court. That was how it really laid out in there scale wise. Mrs. Schmidt readdressed the commission and explained that the lots Mr. Martin was talking about before hers, two or three, are dirt. Across the street is the duplex and then there was a house which was there before her house. Then the tennis court that the council approved, but there was a mobile home there that is on the same property with the tennis court. Then the Porrises and the Keerans, etc. She said she was worried about her street when they had ten kids there when hers were little. Now they have another little generation coming up and when she went around with the petition, people were complaining about the traffic that they have now because of San Jacinto being closed. She doesn't have babies any more and suggested to them that they go see if the City could do something. She didn't want to see her street closed off, but there were people with at least 15 little ones on that street. Her main concern was the dirt and she didn't see how anyone that was going to lease a piece of property was going to pay and have it paved. Mrs. Schmidt stated that she belongs to a religious group and when they built their building, they had to scale down the building to have enough parking on that piece of property to accommodate those that were going to attend and street parking was not an option to them. Everything had to be on that piece of property. If that was for one person, she didn't see why it shouldn't be the same everywhere. If they were going to have a building, it should have the parking on that piece of property. Chairperson Finerty noted that no one else wished to speak and closed the public hearing. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell noted that this item was before the commission before at which time they turned it down. Now it was back in front of them. The applicant made some changes on the building and leased the property to the west, but she agreed that if a church was to be built there, they should 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 vow have ample parking, the 29 spaces needed for their parishioners. She agreed with Mrs. Schmidt that when the City approves any building sites, they have to have adequate parking that belongs just to them and not just park any where on the street. As far as the church activities, they said they would keep to those hours and days of worship. As brought up by Commissioner Lopez, there was a condition that if there were more than 15 people, it would have to be after 5:00 p.m., but asked how they would know how many people would actually be there in any of the classes of worship, etc. She knew they had the Religious Act that they had to abide by, but she would only be in favor of this project if the 29 parking spaces were built with the building. Commissioner Tschopp agreed. They have seen problems in the city with other houses of worship where they have approved them or they already existed and there wasn't sufficient parking. One of the big concerns in the neighborhood, and one that the City has had, is having adequate parking for churches. He believed that the required 29 spaces were required for a valid reason and thought the church should have to have adequate parking on their property. Regarding noise, if the church was held to commercial standards and would �. agree to live by the commercial code, they would not create any noise that would exceed what could be built there in the future from a commercial office building. Comments were made about the increased traffic. Alessandro has the capacity to carry 12,000 cars per day. It was carrying approximately 2,000, so there was adequate access to the site to handle the traffic. Relative to the cul-de-sac, the applicant was not requesting any change in the current cul-de- sac. It has been there for 11 years and there had not been a cul-de-sac developed there because the City has not wanted to, so it wasn't the applicant's problem. With the changes the architect and church have made in good faith, he was in favor of approving the project. Commissioner Jonathan asked which option he was in favor of. Commissioner Tschopp said he would want the 29 parking spaces. Commissioner Lopez noted that when this item came to the commission previously, he was opposed for two reasons. Those reasons involved parking as well as the location of the outdoor area as it pertained to exposure to the residents in that particular area. In his mind those two items had been mitigated in that the church has done everything they could to be good neighbors and switched the building itself in an alternative direction so that any outdoor activity would be on the Alessandro side. In addition, they came 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 before the commission with several options of which the option he would like to have seen included was the 29 parking places in a paved parking area so that those areas were available for the church attendees and they do not need to park on Alessandro or spill over into the residential area. He felt the proper landscaping and walling around those particular areas would be a nice addition to what is currently vacant dirt lots. He said he would approve the conditional use permit before the commission with the inclusion of the parking at 29 spaces. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He thought the parking for the proposed use was a concern with up to 35 people, and hopefully more, attending services. He thought that 29 spaces should take care of the need. He had been trying to see if there was some way that 12 spaces would adequate because then they could keep some of the traffic even further away from residential, but he really felt they needed the full lot, so he was in concurrence with that issue. He was also concerned about the trash. When he has both kids home, he could barely manage with their trash cans and he felt the church was going to need the full commercial bin and the parking lot would accommodate that somewhere. So that should work out nicely because he was concerned about that issue. He stated that he had a problem with Condition No. 23. It placed a restriction on the applicant, a requirement that special events would go through a temporary use permit. The problem he had with that was those special events to him were part and parcel of a church's activity. He thought those were normal activities. They were talking about weddings, baptisms, etc. He didn't think that condition was necessary. This was a conditional use permit. If operating as a church was what they were going to allow, they should just allow it. If it turns out that the use creates problems, then the complainant should come to the commission and they would deal with it accordingly. He was in favor of striking Condition No. 23. It was unnecessary. Mr. Drell informed commission that any condition they didn't identify at this time they couldn't impose in the future. He said he was sure about that. Commissioner Jonathan respectfully disagreed. He wasn't saying he could prevent them from having weddings. That wasn't what he was talking about. He was saying that if they have activity that is too loud and asked if Mr. Drell was saying that if they took out Condition 23, they couldn't tell them to quiet down. Mr. Drell said they could, but only if they exceed the commercial noise V 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 ordinance and they probably wouldn't. Commissioner Jonathan said that was what he was saying. As long as they weren't creating a problem, no matter what the use is, and the uses staff was describing weren't rock concerts, his point was that they are part of what a church does. If what the church does results in excessive noise, as he understood it the commission had the ability to ultimately withdraw the conditional use permit. Mr. Drell said no, we would just enforce the noise ordinance and they would send the Sheriff over. For example, just because someone was living in a house and someone disobeyed the noise ordinance, we don't throw people out of their houses. Chairperson Finerty noted that the commission was always concerned about adequate parking at every location for every project and if the parking code said 29 spaces, then she thought they should be consistent and require 29 spaces in a paved parking area. She concurred with her fellow commissioners that the church has taken their previous concerns and moved forward and dealt with them and she appreciated their hard work in that respect. She asked for a motion. Mr. Drell said that if the commission was going to endorse the full parking lot, he felt they needed a six-foot wall along the north side, not the four-foot wall shown. A management suggestion he thought might help with the residents to the east was that the far eastern part of the parking lot, which would probably only be necessary on Sunday when everyone was there, that that portion of the parking lot not be used in the evenings during the week since the 24 or 25 should be adequate. That would at least keep those cars away from that back wall of that residence in the evening. He thought that would at least provide some setback for those folks in the residences for most of the night parking. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would move for approval with those recommendations, the six-foot wall, and he would expand the comment about parking and just encourage or require the applicant to utilize a parking management plan that would minimize the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In other words, cone off the sensitive areas or tape them off when not necessary. Also as part of his motion, he suggested the removal of Condition No. 23. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a second. Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 r Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2159, approving Case No. PP/CUP 02-07 Amendment #1 , including the creation of a 29-space parking lot and subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. TT 30738 - GHA PALOMA GROUP, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 29.01 acres into 94 single-family lots (9,000 square foot minimum lot size) located at the southeast corner of Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane East. Mr. Urbina addressed the commission. He explained that the 29-acre project site was surrounded by Chaparral Country Club to the west across Portola Avenue, the Portola Country Club mobile home subdivision to the south, vacant land that would be part of future multifamily housing to the east, the James Carter Elementary School on a portion to the north and the Marriott Springs Villas golf course to the north across Hovley Lane East. The project site is zoned Planned Residential, five dwelling units maximum per acre. The proposed 94-lot single family subdivision had a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size would be 9,021 square feet. The applicant chose to provide a larger lot size rather than the typical minimum 8,000 square foot lot size that the City has been approving for other areas for single family subdivisions. Mr. Urbina stated that one of the major issues dealt with traffic circulation impacts, especially as they effect the adjacent Carter Elementary School. The Public Works Department was conditioning this tract map to participate in the construction of the traffic signal at the main entrance on Portola Avenue that aligns with Chaparral Country Club. The applicant was being conditioned to fund approximately 75% of the cost of that traffic signal. The other 25% would come from Chaparral Country Club. Mr. Urbina said that Chaparral Country Club has wanted a traffic signal for a long long time and they have communicated with Public Works Department staff that they would be willing 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 OEM to pay up to 25% of the cost even though they weren't obligated to do so because that is an existing project. The project would have one main entrance/exit off of Portola Avenue. There would be a minor entry/exit for emergency vehicles only on Hovley Lane. That was Lot J with an approximate width of 20 feet. There would be decorative metal gates installed there with a Knox Box for Fire Department access. Mr. Urbina noted that there is an existing problem with the pickup of children by parents who have children at the Carter Elementary School between the hours of 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. There is a deceleration lane on the right- hand side eastbound lane of Hovley Lane, however, traffic backed up further west blocking the right-hand eastbound lane of Hovley Lane because of parents at the site picking up their children. Staff understood that school bus service is only available to children who live farther than a one mile radius from the school. Even though children might live within a one mile radius, during the hotter months of the school year some parents might choose to pickup their children instead of having them walk. To mitigate some of the existing situation where they have one of the two eastbound travel lanes being blocked, Public Works conditioned the project to require the developer to expand the pavement width of Hovley Lane East between Portola Avenue on the west and the existing deceleration on the east. However, the principal of Carter School and another resident submitted a letter this afternoon expressing concern that even with the widening of Hovley Lane East, the problem of vehicles stacked into a travel lane would probably continue. The principal of the Carter School indicated to Planning staff that she anticipated an increase in school enrollment over the next two years, thereby anticipating more parents picking up their children. Mr. Urbina informed commission that staff did communicate some months ago with the Desert Sands Unified School District facilities planner and indicated to them that if they needed additional land to try to arrive at some permanent solution to having adequate parking spaces or stacking spaces for parents picking up their children, now would be the time to speak up and perhaps request some property around the perimeter of this tract from the developer in lieu of the developer paying school impact mitigation fees. At that time the facilities planner indicated that they preferred the option of the school impact fees. Mr. Urbina explained that this 94-lot subdivision would probably generate 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 i j half a million dollars in school impact fees to the school district and competition for state funds was very competitive in order to construct and expand existing schools and the state requires that school districts come up with matching funds. So one of the major issues was traffic as it relates to vehicles backing up because of parents picking up children at Carter School. The other issue dealt with grading, drainage and pad heights around portions of the perimeter of the project. The Desert Sands Unified School District facilities planner submitted two letters this afternoon which were distributed to commission. One letter expressed concern about the height of a perimeter block wall that included up to a five foot three inch retaining wall along the west side of the Carter School. Also that there would be a low spot created due to the grading of the tract and the tract developer was obligated to accommodate the pass through of historic drainage from the school site. The school district was concerned that the combination of retaining wall up to five feet high plus the six foot wall on top of that along these lots on the westerly border of Carter School would lead to the creation of a ten-foot high block wall which would be unsightly. In addition, there was no curb being proposed by the applicant to keep vehicles away from the perimeter block wall and existing driveway that now extends all the way south. To mitigate that the school district was recommending that the retaining wall have a three-foot wide planter behind it and then the six foot wall and that they condition the tract map to require the homeowner's association to maintain that three-foot wide perimeter landscaping on top of the retaining wall adjacent to the westerly boundary of the Carter School. Staff had no objection to adding the condition requiring that the overall height of the wall be broken up between the retaining wall, the three-foot wide planter, and then a six-foot high wall. The other issue regarding pad heights and perimeter walls dealt with the southerly tract boundary adjacent to the Portola Country Club. There would be a retaining wall plus a six-foot high perimeter wall along the tract's southerly boundary and the retaining wall could range in height up to three feet, thereby creating an overall nine foot high wall that would be viewed from the rear of some of these lots in the Portola Country Club. Mr. Urbina stated that staff met with members of the homeowner's association and their attorney and they justified the nine-foot high overall block wall in order to protect the privacy of those adjacent homeowners in Portola Country Club by having a six-foot high block wall measured from the proposed finished pad height of all those lots in the tract along the southerly boundary that border the country club. The 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 %W homeowner's association and their attorney agreed that they could live with portions of that perimeter wall up to nine feet in height if that was what it took to protect the privacy of the existing homeowners in the country club. The block wall would be conditioned to be decorative. The developer was willing to do that. Another issue was that the homeowner's association in Portola Country Club wanted a condition of approval on the tract prohibiting the construction of any structures such as patios, gazebos, etc., closer than ten feet to the southerly property line in order to minimize noise and visual impacts on the existing Portola Country Club homeowners. Staff agreed to that condition and that was included in the recommended conditions of approval. The southerly 30 feet of the tract currently consisted of a dirt road with a Coachella Valley Water District reclaimed water line underneath that dirt road and a row of tamarisk trees with some oleander bushes. That 30-foot wide strip of land which ran entirely along the southerly boundary of the tract map was owned by the Portola Country Club Homeowner's Association. The `. Portola Country Club Homeowner's Association was negotiating with the developer of this tract map for the transfer of that 30 feet of land to the tract map and it would be part of the back yards of the lots on the south side. In exchange, the developer would pay a certain amount of cash to the homeowners association for the land, as well as remove the existing tamarisk trees at the developer's cost and the developer would also agree to construct a decorative block wall along the entire southerly property line. Those lots bordering Portola Country Club, as well as some of the lots bordering the southerly boundary of Carter School, would have depths ranging from 150 feet to 170 feet. To mitigate a drainage impact, the Public Works Department agreed to approve small retention basins for storm water so that storm water could percolate into the ground. Normally all lots were required to drain and slope toward the front of the property. There were two retention basins being provided on the tract, however, the developer chose for the deeper lots to provide a small retention basin in the rear. September 10, 2002, Architectural Review Commission approved the perimeter landscaping for the tract. The applicant requested an amendment to Planning Department Condition No. 9 changing the proposed setbacks for the subdivision. The setbacks as stated in Planning Department Condition No. 9 `.. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 4 r r essentially mirrored the standard R-1 zone setbacks of 20 feet for front yards and 14 feet combined for side yards. The applicant was requesting an amendment so that the overall combined side yard setbacks were reduced from 14 feet to 12 feet and that the front yard setbacks be reduced to 16 feet for side entry garages and 16 feet for living area portions of the homes. With some averaging allowed, some lots would have garages with a 24-foot setback. The overall average setback would still be 20 feet, but the applicant wanted the flexibility for some lots to have a 16-foot setback for the living area portion of the house and a side entry garage. Staff had no objection to that, but added a foot note and amended Condition No. 9. That language was distributed to commission. It required that reduced setbacks for front side yards be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission and that the Architectural Review Commission must make a finding that there would be superior exterior architectural elevations as justification for those reduced side yard and front yard setbacks. Mr. Urbina stated that staff was prepared to make a recommendation of approval subject to an amended Planning Department condition of approval No. 9 and also subject to amended Public Works Condition Nos. 3 and 11 based upon a memorandum received this afternoon which was distributed to r.ri commission. The Public Works Department memorandum clarified some of the street improvements and financial responsibilities being imposed on the applicant. However, they did receive a letter this afternoon from a concerned Palm Desert resident suggesting that the commission continue the public hearing on the tract map in order to explore once again the possibility of dialogue between the Desert Sands Unified School District and the applicant to allow the school district one more opportunity to consider requesting land instead of school impact fees from the applicant in order to create a looped driveway around the westerly and southerly borders of the school to accommodate pickup parking for the parents in order to arrive at some permanent solution to not have vehicles blocking one of the eastbound Hovley Lane East lanes. Mr. Urbina said staff would like to defer the recommendation until after the public hearing and testimony. If the commission was inclined to approve the tract tonight after opening the public hearing and taking testimony, staff would recommended an amended condition of approval No. 9 to the Planning Department and amended Condition Nos. 3 and 11 of the Public Works Department based on the written memorandum distributed to commission. The j 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 other alternative would be to continue the public hearing to the November 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any questions for staff. When Desert Sands Unified School District decided to locate the school in that location, Commissioner Jonathan asked if they consulted with the City of Palm Desert. Mr. Drell said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they consulted with the City of Palm Desert when they designed the school. Mr. Drell said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked why they were taking the time to consider what they have to say. Mr. Drell said that in this case they are impacting a public street. Unfortunately, they have the same situation at the high school. They have the same problems. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they listened to Palm Desert's concerns about that location. Mr. Drell said no. Unfortunately, it took our leadership to work with them to try to solve that and they were working to get a second and through access onto Cook Street. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many years that took. Mr. Drell said ten. It was a problem, but unfortunately sometimes they couldn't rely on the district to even taw pursue their own best interests. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the location of the gate on Portola. He understood it needed to be 150 feet from Portola. He asked for staff to point out the location on the drawing. Mr. Drell explained that typically there was a requirement to stack a minimum of three cars. Mr. Drell said that 150 feet would be enough for six or seven cars. Mr. Urbina pointed out the location of the gate, which would be 150 feet. Mr. Greenwood explained that the 150-foot dimension was taken from the plan. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification of Lot C. He asked if it was just a lot or if there was some type of architectural feature. Someone from the audience indicated that it was a water feature. Commissioner Jonathan asked about Lots R and U. He thought one was for drainage. Mr. Urbina stated that Lot R was a retention basin and Lot U was to accommodate a relocated CVWD reclaimed water line. It would be relocated from the southerly boundary of the tract going north/northwesterly across Lot U and then into the street. That was adjacent to Lot T, another storm water retention basin. Since Lot R would be a retention basin, Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would just have grass. Mr. Urbina said it would be landscaped, but would not have grass. He thought it would be a xeriscape landscaping. 1r 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 i Commissioner Tschopp asked if the drainage concerns that Desert Sands had were addressed by the applicant. Mr. Urbina deferred the question to the applicant's engineer, who was in the audience. He noted that there was a low point adjacent to proposed Lots 20 and 21 . The School District's letter received today was requesting some sort of a catch basin with an underground drainage pipe to take the water away from the school district parking lot. Mr. Drell suggested that the condition on both the drainage and the wall be subject to an agreement between the developer and the school district. Then if for some reason they couldn't come to an agreement, then it would come back to the Planning Commission. He indicated that the City Attorney said that if they were going to have landscaping along that wall, they were going to need an easement from the district to enter the school property to maintain it. It would require some negotiation and agreement, which if it occurred that would be fine. If not, it would have to come back. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Desert Sands had been notified as an adjacent property owner. Mr. Urbina said yes. Chairperson Finerty asked who would maintain the slump stone wall around the perimeter. Mr. Urbina said it would be the responsibility of the lid homeowner's association, as well as the perimeter landscaping. Chairperson Finerty noted that on page five under landscape design it talked about the Public Works Department conditioning the project for the creation of an HOA to maintain all common area landscaping as a part of this tract map, including perimeter landscaping along Portola. But there was no mention of maintaining the slump stone wall and from experience, sometimes walls needed to be painted and sometimes there was a condition called efflorescence that develops along the walls and she was wondering if it needed to be clearly spelled out that the HOA would not only be responsible for the landscaping, but also the perimeter wall. Mr. Urbina said that they could amend one of the Public Works conditions that deals with the HOA to include a sentence that the HOA shall also be responsible for the maintenance of the perimeter tract block wall. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. STEVE PALUMBO, President of the Palm Desert Division of the Keith Companies at 73-733 Fred Waring Drive in Palm Desert, 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 addressed the commission. He said he was attending with several members of his staff and the applicant. He indicated he had a few issues to discuss. He volunteered to wait until after the rest of the public comments or he could bring them up and then rebut any of the comments that come up. He said he appreciated the comment made about the school district. It was true. When the school processed their plans, they didn't really process them, they just designed and then built. He said he spoke with Peggy Reyes that afternoon and originally met with her in mid June in his office to discuss this project. Specifically the grading and the size of the wall along his east boundary. With the wall, Mr. Palumbo said they transmitted plans to Roger Clark, the School District's architect. They communicated several times with him on those issues. Secondly, with the low point and the drainage consideration, that was not a historic flow. It was a man made created condition and they did that when they put in their drive lane. The school's discharging of their water across the property should have been mitigated with an easement or some better engineering to begin with, so he felt that was not really their issue, but they wanted to help them try to resolve that �.. condition. The way that Ms. Reyes and he left it today was that he would work with her and her architect to mitigate all of her concerns. They wanted to be good neighbors. He stated that he would be greatly concerned, though, over a retaining wall and then an offset garden wall above it. Especially when that landscape area resides on the side of the wall outside of his project. First off was maintenance of it. It was a school with kids and he was afraid that the landscaping would take quite a beating on a regular basis. Secondly, with the lower retaining wall, it would just give something for the kids to climb up onto it and potentially hurt themselves. They felt that combining the retaining wall and the garden wall was probably the best way to deal with that. The reason they needed to have the retaining wall was because in his project they were working with normal convention having to do with hydrology and design of a project. In the school district's particular case they probably went with the easiest way to deal with the lack of dirt they had for the fill on the site. So the site dived off very quickly to the south creating a very steep drive lane there. When they put that lane against his normal designed project, they created a wedge and that was the required retaining wall. He said he wasn't offering up any solutions right now, but they would work with the school district to be good 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 +.r neighbors and to ensure that they were satisfied and that it wouldn't negatively impact his project. As an aside to the School District, because of the stacking issues on Hovley, his project was asked to dedicate additional right-of-way along his whole north boundary thereby giving up property and having to amend his land plan. In doing that the domino effect was that they also had to modify Portola with a turn lane and then modify the existing signal on that intersection. What was offered up in the conditions was the fact that they would make a dedication and do the improvements, but the City might compensate the developer for the cost of the signal modifications. The developer was paying for the design and for the hard improvements of the street, but they were looking for reimbursement for the cost of the signal modifications. That was something that was required of them because of the stacking problem at the school. They probably didn't design their project in a sufficient way to handle all the vehicular traffic. Mr. Palumbo said the rendering didn't show that the school recently did some substantial improvements within the southwest corner of their site for a turn around and a drop off area. Although the photo, which was taken on September 4 on the first day of school and the highest level of drop off traffic they would have, perhaps if the school adopted some kind of a program to have someone directing traffic into the drive lane and down into the turn around which they just constructed, it would probably eliminate the stacking out on Hovley and potentially his need to have to dedicate additional property and be involved with having to modify the signal improvements. With the signal at their main entrance on Portola, Mr. Palumbo said that in a normal condition where a project might occupy one corner of the intersection and a signal was required, there should either be a 25% share for that improvement using up one corner of that intersection. In this particular case they were occupying one-half of that intersection and what they were looking for was some consideration having to do with the cost of that improvement and hopefully get to a point where they could see a 50% fair share cost for that. The intersection there had been an ongoing issue with Chaparral Country Club because of the safety of the left-turn movements in and out of the project. He said it 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 tow has been Chaparral's desire for quite some time to have a signal there. When this project came on line, he said it was just a good opportunity for the City to go ahead and condition them to get that improved and install that signal. He said they were looking for some consideration to reduce their exposure of 75% for the entire improvement to a fair share of 50%. He said at this time he had no further issues and would respond to anything that came up. Chairperson Finerty asked if the commission had any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff if the fair share of 50% was considered. Mr. Greenwood indicated this was a difficult intersection and there were several ways to look at it. One way to look at it is that this is an intersection with an existing problem and that was true. However, they had been unable to fund the signal for this location. He said it was their contention that any additional traffic on this intersection could not be born safely. This project is the straw that breaks the camel's back in a safety concern and therefore this project needed to bear that cost. He stated that the City's signal fund did not *AW contain sufficient funds to contribute any money to this project. He said they have had discussions with Chaparral Country Club and they wanted to be a good neighbor and agreed to contribute 25% of the signal. That left them in a position of needing a signal there, they have 25% of the money and the traffic from this development is what caused the final need for the signal and that's where they were at. Mr. Palumbo stated that the project was essentially 94 lots versus all the lots in Chaparral Country Club. He thought the amount of traffic contributing to that intersection was a majority from Chaparral. Just purely from the standpoint that they occupy one-half of that intersection, that was why they wanted to see the fair share being set at 50%. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification from staff. Right now the intersection was a problem intersection and right now nothing would be done due to a lack of funds and if any development was to take place on the east side of Portola, it would absolutely necessitate a signal going in, hence anyone developing on the east side would need to put the signal in. Mr. Greenwood said that was correct. 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 3 Mr. Palumbo said they were also being required to pay a signalization fee of $50 per house. That equated out to $4,700. He stated that they would also like that fee to go against whatever their fair share cost would be for the signal on Portola. Mr. Greenwood stated that that was included in Public Work's revised Condition No. 3, however, it had to be approved by City Council. He stated that he also needed to re-revise Condition No. 1 1 . The last bullet referred to a 20-foot dimension, which should be eliminated, and it should just say, "provide landscaped buffers with sidewalks on Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane as approved by Architectural Review Commission and the Director of Public Works." He believed the dimension was actually 15 feet. Mr. Palumbo confirmed that was correct. Chairperson Finerty opened up the floor for anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. Referring to the request to speak cards submitted, Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. E. John Ballje to address the commission. MR. JOHN BALLJE, 39 Camisa Lane, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the President of the Homeowner's of Chaparral Country Club. When the sign went up across the street he said they were all pleased and amazed that the property had sold because they heard they would have multi-story units or hotels or something else. They sent out a card to everyone in the club and received a good response. They were all very positive about the project and thought it was a good thing. However, tonight he heard something that really amazed him. That Chaparral Country Club had been involved with the safety stop light and the contribution of money into the fund to construct this. Looking at Public Works Item 11 , it said that the contractor shall design and construct a traffic signal and safety lighting on Portola Avenue at the project access road. The developer shall agree to pay 25% of the traffic signal and safety lighting energy and maintenance costs in perpetuity. Signal and lighting energy and so forth shall be included in the Declarations of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions. Mr. Ballje said that was a complete surprise to him. They had had no contact with anybody concerning sharing any costs of any traffic signal or otherwise. He said they have been in communication 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 v with the City with the idea of having a street light out there because of the dark condition at night, particularly when making a left turn coming up from the south. He thought it was very desirable to have a traffic signal. It was said to them before that they could not have it because it was a three-way and now it was a four-way. He said they had nothing to do with the four-way. He said they were all in favor of the project, but they really thought there had to be some resolution for the cost of the traffic light and the lighting at that intersection. He thought it should be resolved with some discussion between his board, the developer and the City as necessary. He again stated that he was quite amazed that that statement was said that they had approved it. They have not approved it and never even heard of it until now. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on a couple of issues. He noted that Condition 11 was revised and that was the memo the commission received dated October 1 . Chairperson Finerty concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the condition referred to the developer paying 25%. Mr. Greenwood clarified that 25% was for ongoing energy and maintenance costs. He said that was how it got confused during preliminary discussions with the developer. There were two different issues here. Design and construction costs was one thing and ongoing energy and maintenance was another. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the developer was required to build it, but then he would be reimbursed 25% of the cost. Mr. Greenwood said yes, that was Public Works' proposal. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was going to be reimbursed by the City. Mr. Greenwood said yes. He said that staff had discussions with several residents of Chaparral Country Club who portrayed themselves as representing the club and were actually part of some official committee with the intention of gaining a signal at this intersection. They also brought in a property manager who they portrayed as their property manager who was authorized to make this agreement. (Mr. Ballje, from the audience, disagreed.) Mr. Greenwood said that if that agreement didn't exist, they would have to rethink the condition and where the 25% that had been offered as reimbursement would come from. If Chaparral Country Club didn't offer 25% reimbursement, then they had to come up with that cost. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anything in writing from Chaparral. Mr. Greenwood said no. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the way Condition 11 was structured, Chaparral wasn't mentioned. It strictly referred to the City reimbursing the 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 1 rli developer 25%, but the strategy was that the City would be reimbursed for that reimbursement by Chaparral. Mr. Greenwood said that was correct. Chairperson Finerty asked if Chaparral didn't agree to pay any portion of the signal, who would pay for the signal. Mr. Greenwood stated that was a difficult question. The City did not have the funds for this signal. Chairperson Finerty asked if they would normally condition that to the applicant. Mr. Greenwood said yes. He suggested they look at this as a T-intersection. Portola Avenue with this new intersection of the developer's road. In that case this section would be 100% the developer's responsibility. This road happened to have a fourth leg that happens to have another driveway on it. That didn't necessarily remove any of the developer's responsibility to construct the signal that's approximately the same cost, whether it was a four leg or a three leg. Chairperson Finerty asked if it was the addition of these 94 houses generating over 500 trips per day that necessitated it. Mr. Greenwood said it would be close to 1,000 trips per day. Referring to the speaker cards, Chairperson Finerty asked Murray Magloff to address the commission. There was no response. Someone from the audience said he left. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. MR. RAFAEL LOVE, 17 Maximo Way in Chaparral Country Club, addressed the commission. He stated that not having a signal at this time was waiting for a disaster. He thought the City at this time should put up a signal whether they have the money or not. He was in favor of the project. It would get rid of more of the sand in the desert, but there should be a signal there. MR. SAM ROSS, 12 Presidio Place in Chaparral, addressed the commission and stated that he has been a resident of Chaparral Country Club for 21 years. He stated that this project would give them a stop light, which they hoped for, which would end traffic dodging out of their entrance endangering their lives. He said the one item sustaining our economy today is real estate which brings in tax dollars that maintains everyone's infrastructure. The acreage zoned residential did not adhere to any other zoning except residential. The time had come to upgrade the sand dunes and produce homes for their extended future generation. z 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, 74-399 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, California, addressed the commission. He stated that he represents the interest and was the attorney for Portola Country Club Association. They concurred with the conditions of approval and thanked City staff for inserting conditions that protect the interests of Portola Country Club Association. He said they have ongoing and very successful negotiations with the developer, who had been very amenable to protect the interests of the adjacent homeowners there. He couldn't say he was in favor, since they didn't have a board quorum to authorize approval, but they didn't oppose the project. MS. CHARLENE PIERCE, the Association Manager for Chaparral, 5666 Cahuilla in Twenty-nine Palms, addressed the commission. She stated that last week or the week before she and Mrs. Magloff had a meeting with individuals at the City and they discussed a few issues. She wanted to clarify that what they discussed was that the Association might approve a 25% ongoing maintenance cost of the light, but no 25% or 50% inclusion for the construction was ever discussed. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mrs. Magloff was a homeowner or member of the board. Ms. Pierce stated that Mrs. Magloff is a homeowner, but not a board member. MR. DON THOMPSON, 74-275 Mercury Circle, addressed the commission. He stated that he is in favor of the project, but would also like to say that the City of Palm Desert has realized that there is a safety problem there. Less than a year ago they went out and put in cones for a turn lane. Making a left-turn in was not his concern. His concern was for people coming out of that park and turning left heading north was the dangerous factor. There are a lot of older people who pull out into the cone lane and never wait to see if they have clearance. They immediately move into that lane. He would think the people of Chaparral would be willing to pay their fair share for the protection of their own people. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 a Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked if the applicant would like to give rebuttal comments. Mr. Palumbo said that this particular developer has done many projects in the city of Palm Desert and in the Coachella Valley. He said it would be an upscale development and would be an infill type project that has several constraints around it. He believed they had come up with a very unique type project that did the best that it could with what it has to deal with. Specific to the Portola main entrance, he concurred that it was a big issue. The project was considered and has gone forward based on a very tight budgeting process, and with the onset of a potential increase in the amount of dollars for that signal, it was a very real issue to them. This project contributes about 1,000 trips per day and he asked Mr. Greenwood what the proportion was compared to what Chaparral contributes to that same intersection. Mr. Greenwood said he didn't know. He didn't know how many units were in a Chaparral. Mr. Palumbo said they were willing to work with the City and Chaparral to find the best solution to this, but he wanted to get some definition as to what they are about to face in the way of construction costs. Mr. Drell stated that any expenditure made by the City could not be approved by the Planning Commission. While the Planning Commission could make some comments and recommendations about what they feel is fair, if what they feel is fair entails an expenditure by the City, that was only a decision the City Council could make. Chairperson Finerty asked if a traffic study had been done and if there were enough warrants for a signal there. Mr. Greenwood stated that their section did meet warrants for a signal. Mr. Drell said the problem was that we have no way of getting funds out of Chaparral Country Club other than normal reasonable persuasion. On the other hand, there was another alternative to the solution to the traffic safety problem and that was to simply prohibit left turns out, which they have done in many other situations. They could put in a controlled situation. That would solve the warrant problem. Mr. Greenwood concurred and indicated there were other solutions here and one was a median 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 in the middle of the road so that no one could left and he would guarantee there wouldn't be any accidents. Mr. Drell also indicated that would be very economical for all concerned. He stated that the city in general wouldn't gain any benefit from a signal there. Most of the residents of the city would like to zoom through that area without stopping. So the benefit was to these two properties and if neither of them feel that the value of that signal warrants how much it would cost, then they had a very inexpensive solution which solved our problem which eliminates the safety problem. Mr. Greenwood added that if Chaparral did not want to pay for the signal and if the developer didn't want to pay for the signal, there is a solution and that was to install a median on Portola Avenue, prohibit left turns, it would provide an absolute safety solution here which is what everyone says they want, and at a much lower cost. Some comments were made from the audience. Chairperson Finerty asked for the audience to come to order. She explained that they had gone through the public hearing, taken testimony and heard rebuttal comments. Mr. Drell again explained that this issue was not an issue the commission could adjudicate `,, since it appeared to require a City expenditure of funds which this commission had no control over. It was really a discussion that would have to go on to the City Council. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the proposed application was appropriate. The tentative tract map, the proposed development of residential and the way it was proposed made eminent sense for that location. In terms of Condition No. 9, that was the exception to the front setback and the side yard setback. He personally had an issue with that. He has seen projects go up in our city that just seemed too crammed together. Too Orange County. Too Los Angeles. He said they struggled on those setbacks and changed them a few years back and for good reason and he felt they should adhere to them. Ultimately what that meant was slightly smaller homes might need to go onto some of those lots and if the developer made a few less dollars because of it, he thought they would all be better off in the long run, including the residents. He wasn't in favor of changing Condition No. 9. •.r 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 too Regarding the signalization, there is a lot of traffic on Portola and it wasn't Chaparral's fault or this developer's fault. It was just there. They need access onto Portola, so if there was going to be a signal there, that was what signalization fees were for that the developer pays. He didn't think the straw that breaks the camel's back should be burdened with the entire cost of the camel. So he was not in favor of placing any of the burden of the signal either on Chaparral or on the developer. That might be a radical way of thinking that might not be consistent with what the experts and professionals learn in school, but he thought traffic signals were a general issue that results from the overall population and the overall traffic flow and therefore should be the burden of all the residents or in this case all of the developers that pay signalization fees. It was up to the City's professionals to determine when and where signals go, so at the appropriate time the City could put in signals using the funds that are available. Until then, the alternative solution should be implemented, whether that was a median to prohibit left-hand turns or some other solution that the experts came up with. That was fine, but he thought it would be unfair to burden the developer with any of the cost of that signal beyond the normal signalization fees. He also stated that the retainingwall combined with the garden wall was fine if it works for the developer. He for one was not overly concerned with the concerns of the school district. He thought they created their own situation and to the extent the proposed development met development standards, then the district had to deal with its own problems that it created. Commissioner Campbell agreed. She stated that she travels north and south on Portola every day going to El Paseo and sometimes people coming out of Chaparral didn't seem to look both ways and if people don't slow down for them, there could be accidents. She thought the proposed project was great for that location. She said she felt sorry that the developer was being penalized because the school district hadn't provided enough room for the pickup of their students. As far as Condition No. 9, she noted that she sits on the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and she was not in favor of changing it. She thought it should stay the way it is and not have any reduction in the required setbacks. For the signalization, she didn't think it should be on the developer. If the City didn't provide for it, then it should be shared 50-50 by Chaparral and the proposed development. Otherwise, she was in favor of the project. i 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 Commissioner Tschopp said that he thought the project fit for that piece of land. He thought the big issue tonight was the safety of the people coming out of Chaparral and the people that would be coming out of this development, so if they wanted to proceed with a development here, they were going to need a signal or they would have to agree with the right-in right-out access from the development. If Chaparral wished to have a safer development, they would probably have to agree to have a left-in and left-out or to perhaps talk to the applicant about having this signalized or talk to the City Council. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner Jonathan's comments on the setbacks. They are there for a reason and they ought to keep them and impose them on the development. He thought they were all sometimes frustrated with Desert Sands Unified School District who moved forward and did things the way they wanted to, creating problems for everyone else and neighbors and specifically drainage problems and traffic problems here. He thought that they could mitigate one of their concerns, the potential for an unsightly wall due to graffiti. Whatever is developed there, they needed to take a look at the safety issue. That was a paramount problem. Otherwise, he thought it was a very good project given the conditions. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted to modify the condition on the signal to provide the alternative of paying for the control median on Portola limiting left-turns out. He asked if there was such a thing that would allow left turns into both projects, or if it would have to be right-turn in and right-turn out. Mr. Greenwood said there was one location at Fred Waring and San Pascual where they allow left turns onto San Pascual but no left turns out. If the two driveways line up correctly, it could be done. Mr. Drell said that the applicants could take it to City Council and make arguments for City contribution or together the applicant with representatives from Chaparral could go to the City Council and ask for a City contribution. Typically when those sorts of people come to the City Council, the City Council did look for reciprocal contributions by those parties primarily benefiting. This would allow the applicant to have an option in terms of whether he pays for a signal or doesn't. Commissioner Lopez stated that he agreed with the other commissioners regarding the setback issue. Overall he thought the tentative tract and plan was a great use of the land. He was in favor of that and thought it was fine with what we are trying to do in Palm Desert. He said he admired the developer for working with Desert Sands Unified School District because the issue over there by the school was terrible. It was only going to get worse if 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 i the school continued to grow. There were a lot of safety hazards that already existed with people making u-turns at a no u-turn intersection at the Desert Springs Villas area where there is potential accidents every day. Those were moms and dads picking up their kids creating this situation. But for the signalization he agreed that they needed to have an alternative for the developer and that would be to have right-in and right-out only. He thought any opportunities to even consider a left out of either project was inviting disaster on Portola, which is a heavily traveled road. It was not easy getting out of Chaparral taking a left-hand turn. The option was a median, right-in right-out only as one alternative. The other alternative was to go to the City Council and somehow come up with a plan of how they were going to share in the cost of a stop light. He thought they needed to do that because he was afraid the right-out only of this development would create more problems at the corner of Hovley and Portola where there are already problems with traffic going to the school and it would create people wanting to make a u-turn at that particular location. They have an opportunity now to fix that, but the residents and the developer needed to take that forward and they needed to do that with City Council. As far as the project was concerned as it pertained to the commission, with the exception of the signalization, he thought it was a good project and would approve it. Chairperson Finerty concurred that it is a good project and a nice fit. She also concurred that the setbacks were there for a reason and there shouldn't be any exceptions. With regard to the signal, Chairperson Finerty said she could relate to what Chaparral was going through because where she lived it was very difficult to make a left-hand turn out onto Fred Waring if they wanted to go toward Washington. They requested a signal and finally the signal was conditioned to Southwest Community Church to install because they were the ones that brought the amount of traffic that broke the camel's back. They were finally going to get that signal. She saw it a little differently from the other commissioners. She thought the cost of putting a signal in was a burden that the developer must pay. It was the cost for development. While safety was an issue, she agreed with Commissioner Lopez that to put in a median and have a right-turn out was just going to create a disaster for the new development at Hovley and Portola where they already have congestion. She asked what sense that made if Chaparral wanted to go north. They would have to turn right and she asked where they would make their u-turn to go back north, so she didn't see how a median was even an alternative. It would 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 M.. take a bad situation and make it worse. She felt that was the cost of development and unfortunately fell upon this developer. Chairperson Finerty also wanted to see a condition added that the Homeowners Association would be responsible for maintaining the perimeter wall and there seemed to be agreement between the developer and Ms. Reyes about adding a condition where the District and the developer would work to resolve the height of the wall and the drainage issues. Then if they couldn't agree, it would be brought back to the commission. Commissioner Jonathan said he was in favor of those two amendments. He thought he heard consensus about not changing Condition No. 9 with regards to the setbacks. And that brought them to Condition No. 11 from Public Works with regard to the signalization. He thought that clearly the best solution as recommended by staff was signalization at that intersection, so they could further distill the issue down to who should bear the cost. He was persuaded by Chairperson Finerty that for better or for worse, the system of having developers pay seemed to work, but in this particular instance he thought it would be an egregious miscarriage of justice to have a 94-home development pay for such a significant portion of the cost of the signal (75%) when clearly their culpability was far less than 75%. The two players here seemed to be Chaparral Country Club and the proposed development, so he suggested that the developer be required to pay 50% of the cost of the signal and that staff deal with the other 50%. He didn't think they were in a position as a Planning Commission to impose a condition on an existing project. They couldn't force Chaparral to do it. He personally couldn't imagine the residents of Chaparral not jumping at an opportunity to pay for a signal at half the cost when it was going to save lives literally. He hoped the residents of Chaparral would go in that direction. If they didn't, he thought that Condition No. 11 needed to give staff the leeway it needed to come up with alternative solutions that albeit wouldn't be the best solutions because he thought the best would be signalization, but if that wasn't going to happen for financial reasons, then he thought Condition No. 11 needed to leave it up to staff to come up with alternative solutions. That would be his motion. The two changes recommended by Chairperson Finerty, no change to Condition No. 9 and the change to Condition No. 11 as stated specifically requiring the applicant to pay for 50% of the cost and maintenance of the signal. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would second that motion. 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 ego Commissioner Tschopp had a question. If they were only requiring the developer to pay 50% and the City had no money and Chaparral didn't want to come forward, he asked what would happen. Mr. Drell said the City has money, but it wasn't money dedicated within the signalization fund. There were reserves in other general funds that could pay for it, but it was a decision that only the City Council could make. It would have to reallocate funds from other sources. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would encourage staff to work with the people at Chaparral to see if they would volunteer half the cost. If they didn't, he hoped staff would explore other funding options that the City may or may not have and ultimately, if because of lack of funds for the other 50%, then he would like Condition No. 11 to give staff the leeway to implement other options such as no left turns. Mr. Drell said he would anticipate this issue going to the City Council and they would give them the same choices and they could make a decision. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that Condition No. 11 would be modified to state that the developer would pay at least 50%. If no one else came up with the other 50%, the developer could make the decision on ..ri whether to go forward to implement the light or not implement the light, but we would be stating that they need a traffic light. Commissioner Jonathan said they would be saying that a traffic light is required and the developer is to pay 50% of the cost, but he wanted the language to leave staff with the ability to come up with other solutions in case the other 50% didn't materialize, either from Chaparral or the City. Chairperson Finerty asked if he was saying it would be okay not to have a signal if nothing could be worked out and have these other options which they knew would create a bigger mess than they have now. Commissioner Jonathan said yes, because he couldn't see denying the application because the other involved parties, which are the City and Chaparral, were not choosing to or able to fund the other 50%. Chairperson Finerty thought 50% for an HOA was an extreme amount and she thought that maybe they should entertain a continuance to see what the parties could work out, but she thought they needed as a Planning Commission to take the firm stand. There are warrants for the signal, therefore a traffic signal is needed, and she thought they should not compromise on safety. She thought the burden then, if no one else was forthcoming with the 50% and if the City Council decided 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 %W not to reallocate the funds, then the decision went back to the developer and if he wanted to go ahead with the project knowing that he would bear the full burden of the signal. Commissioner Jonathan suggested they mandate signalization at that intersection and require the developer to pay 50% of that cost of construction and maintenance and leave it at that. They didn't have the ability to require the City to pay the other 50%. Chairperson Finerty said that as she understood it, and she asked for Mr. Greenwood to correct her if it was wrong, but Public Works Condition No. 11 was saying that the developer was to pay for the signal minus the 25%. Commissioner Jonathan noted there was a revised condition. Mr. Greenwood explained that the new condition states that the developer would pay all the costs for the installation and the City would reimburse him 25%, leaving him 75% of the costs. Mr. Drell stated that even that decision would require the City Council to spend some money. Chairperson Finerty pointed out that the new condition was prefaced upon Mr. Greenwood's conversation with people whom he thought had the authority to authorize the other 25%, which they now knew wasn't accurate. Chairperson Finerty asked what the Public Works recommendation would have been if Mr. Greenwood hadn't had that conversation regarding that 25%. Mr. Greenwood said that the requirement would have been for 100% of the signal costs from the developer. Chairperson Finerty asked if that was pretty much standard policy. Mr. Greenwood said it is standard City policy. Chairperson Finerty stated that she didn't see why a difference should be made for this particular project. This is what is done all the time. Commissioner Jonathan said that the motion is for 50% and his reasoning was that something done all the time didn't make it right, particularly in this instance when the majority of use for that intersection, the majority of the benefit from the signalization, would not be to the developer or for the proposed project, but for the project across the street. To place the entire burden on 94 homes while they bear only a small proportion of the responsibility and most of the benefit was unfair. If we have done that all the times in the past, shame on us. That was his reasoning. In deference to her point, he thought 50% was reasonable. Commissioner Tschopp agreed that there shouldn't be a project without a signal. Period. So he thought the developer, in order to put a project in, needed to pay for the signal. However, given the state of the traffic signal fund, if the developer decided not to go forward, Chaparral would not get a traffic light and they would still have an unsafe traffic condition. The developer was going to need to make a decision whether to go forward or not and Chaparral was 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 rrl going to look at this with some interest because if the project didn't go forward, they have an unsafe traffic situation that he thought the minutes would reflect showing that something needs to be done, whether limiting turns to right-in and right-out only, which he didn't think Chaparral wanted. So he would state that they needed to leave it in, that the developer pays for it, but also encourage the developer to meet with Chaparral and Chaparral meet with him as a mutual benefit to get it done. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was requiring the developer to put in a signal and pay 100%. Commissioner Tschopp said that if the developer wanted to build a development here, they had to build a signal. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Greenwood who paid for the signal on Hovley Lane west of Portola. Mr. Greenwood said it was a City project. Chairperson Finerty pointed out that there was a motion on the floor and a second and called for a vote. Commissioner Campbell said that she seconded the motion to share the cost 50-50. Action:ion: VW It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Finerty and Commissioner Tschopp voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2160, approving Case No. TT 30738, subject to the conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Finerty and Commissioner Tschopp voted no). E. Case Nos. GPA 02-03, C/Z 02-05 and TT 29713 Amendment #1 - IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, Applicant Request for approval of a recommendation to City Council of approval of a general plan amendment and change of zone for property generally located south of Ironwood Country Club, part of the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a tentative tract map, subdividing 156 +/- acres into 56 lots. Property is located in the 60 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 taw east half of Section 5, T6S R6E (the area south of Ironwood Country Club). Mr. Smith explained that in February of 2001, the Planning Commission looked at a prezoning in this area and a subsequent annexation to the city. He stated that had occurred. At that point in time the commission was looking at a 20- lot residential subdivision and the applicant also processed under a separate tentative tract a 32-lot subdivision in the area east of the clubhouse off of Irontree. Due to the extent of the impact on the golf course in the area of the 32-lot tract, Ironwood had decided not to proceed with the 32-lot tract east of the clubhouse. They came back and were requesting an amendment to the general plan and to the zoning which was put in place that affected approximately ten acres last year. They were looking at expanding that area to some 29 acres and amending the tract map in that southerly location, the area south of Canyon View, to provide for a total of 32 single family lots and four open space lots. The 52 residential lots would range in size from 16,000 square feet to 26,500 ,., square feet. The residential portion of the map would take its access from the southerly end of the existing Canyon View Drive. A condition would be imposed to require a.minimum of 16,000 square foot lot areas. A condition was also imposed (like on the previous approval) requiring that in lieu of a park dedication, the applicant would make an irrevocable offer of dedication acceptable to the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development for an easement across the property to allow for an easement across the property to allow for future development of a public trail crossing Deep Canyon and connecting a route from Palm Desert to La Quinta. As part of the previous review, he said the applicant conferred with the Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service and agreed to compensate for the loss of bighorn sheep habitat at a 2:1 ratio. City staff was informed by the resource agencies that the mitigation requirements of the previous maps were still applicable. The findings were outlined on pages four and five in support of the map. Mr. Smith stated that on Monday staff received a fax from a Gerald Knudson, a resident in Ironwood, challenging or questioning the sufficiency of the Negative Declaration, specifically the Initial Study. Staff took a look at the concerns Mr. Knudson brought up, specifically construction noise, traffic and 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 lid truck traffic and prepared an amended Initial Study which was circulated to commission today. Major changes to that document occurred on pages five and seven. He said they looked at the grading activity necessary to implement the tract. They were looking at a total of some 300,000 cubic yards being moved into the area where the 52 lots would be located. Fortunately, they wouldn't have to bring it in by dump truck loads. They were reconstructing the golf course area immediately to the east and as shown on the map, there were four lake areas immediately adjacent to those homes. Construction work for the largest lake had already been done and when they did that, they moved 130,000 yards into this area. So part of the grading had already occurred. The remainder would occur with the construction of the other three lakes and the reworking of the driving range area. So rather than have hundreds or thousands of truck loads of dirt coming in through the main access gate at Ironwood, the dirt would be brought to this area from the area nearby adjacent to it and rather than coming by the truck load it would be moved in by earth hauling scraper type equipment. Mr. Smith explained that there was also concern relative to typical construction noise activities. The first lot number one in the new tract was some 250 feet removed from the nearest home on Canyon View and 90% of WWI the lots were more than 1,000 feet removed from the nearest homes on Canyon View. The noise dissipates as distance increases. Staff didn't see construction noise being a concern. Additionally, the previous plan approved in 2001 provided 52 lots. The 32-lot tract map east of the club house was in much closer proximity to other existing residences than the proposed map now before the commission. He saw that plan having greater impacts than with the amendment. Relative to traffic in general, Mr. Smith said staff took a closer look. On Canyon View there was a designed street capacity at 10,000 vehicle trips per day. Currently 24 homes take access through Canyon View. Those were Canyon View, Kerria and Mountain Vista, so they would have a total expected traffic generation of 240 trips per day. They were looking at adding 520 trips for a total of 760 trips on a street designed for 10,000. There was also concern with respect to Mariposa. It is the main access point to all of Ironwood. It's designed at 26,000 trips per day. There were approximately 1,000 units in Ironwood for a total of 10,000 trips per day, plus the 520 would give them 10,520. Relative to overall traffic, Mr. Smith noted rdi 62 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 that they were looking at the same number of units for this project as they were with the previous one from last year. Additionally, on Monday staff received a letter provided by the Country Club showing the vote on the proposal before the commission. It was done on July 19 and there were 572 eligible voters and 441 people voted of which 383 were in support. That was almost 87%. Not in support was 58. As he understood it, that did not include everyone in Ironwood because there were people who were not members, but it represented the ones who did vote. If the commission had questions in that regard, the applicant could provide clarification. Mr. Smith stated that staff's recommendation was that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the general plan amendment, change of zone and the tentative map amendment to the City Council. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RON DOLL, a member of Ironwood and a resident at 73-099 Ajo Lane, addressed the commission. He thought Mr. Smith had pretty well outlined everything he was going to say. He was present to answer any questions about the grading done to date or the future grading or problems relative to traffic. He said they accepted all of the conditions of approval. They had already reaffirmed their understanding with the environmental groups so that mitigation measure was behind them. MR. JACK SICKLER, 49-540 Canyon View, addressed the commission. He said he didn't hear of this project until a couple of days ago and that's why he didn't have much support at the meeting. He couldn't get hold of many people. He said many people hadn't heard about it because at the end of the project there, there were probably only one or two houses within the 300 foot radius that had to be notified. Because the rest of the development was not notified. He said he hasn't seen the new report, but he did hear him say 20 some lots take access on Canyon View and that was incorrect. There are 30 houses that take access on Canyon View. The vote he talked about was made some time ago on a different project and it was made in the general area of i.. 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 P Ironwood. Obviously, if they were six blocks away and the traffic didn't effect them and they were asked to vote and they wanted the deal, the obvious vote was yes because they got something for nothing. The problem they were having was that this traffic situation, if they talked about that number of trips as a start, that increased the traffic approximately 200%. If they added in the number of trucks, and that would probably go on for probably five years, that was a serious impact on their development. He said he looked at it a year or so ago when they were talking about 20 lots and he figured the Fire Marshal would want emergency access. He found out yesterday that if they put sprinklers in the houses, they don't need emergency access so obviously another access to the property was not going to be a solution unless they made it a requirement. He thought there should be a more thorough review of the traffic situation because it didn't sound like what they were proposing or what Mr. Knudson's letter implied, it wasn't a noise function within that development, it was a noise function within his tract. So what he was requesting was that the Planning Commission not approve the subdivision at this particular time and give them 60 days to get together and don't approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact report, but get an impact report on the traffic because that was the big issue. He didn't think the Planning staff had a handle on it compared to what they have to put up with. He asked for any questions. MRS. BEVERLY SICKLER, 49-540 Canyon View, stated that she was very disturbed that this 52-home subdivision project was proposed without a full environmental report. Such a report was needed to protect the Ironwood homeowners and the club members. The proposed development of 52 home sites and construction of new homes on these sites would result in substantial traffic during the construction period in front of their homes on Canyon View and other Ironwood streets. This traffic and other related activities in connection with the construction promised to have a major impact on their comfort and enjoyment of their homes over an extended period of time, yet construction traffic was not addressed in the Initial Study. Homeowners and members are entitled to protection and disclosure. A full environmental impact report which sets forth the number of truck trips, the size, the weight of the trucks to be used, dust, noise, and vibration created and the time period required to develop this site and build the homes. They said it would uv� 64 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 take one year to build these houses out and she thought it would take more like five years. There was only one way to protect the members and the homeowners from the promised adverse impact of this development. The preparation of an environmental impact report and the Planning Commission was responsible to see that members and homeowners receive the protection afforded by an environmental impact report. They should not approve a Negative Declaration that didn't address all of the environmental impacts in this project. Most of the homeowners on Canyon View had not yet returned from their other homes. She thought they should give them a chance to object to this project and the number of home sites. It was 22 home sites before that was approved and 52 had never been approved. Two years ago was when they were told there would be 22 and now it was up to 52. She urged the commission to require the report and continue this matter for not less than two months. She thanked the commission. MR. TOM JOHNSON, 49-631 Canyon View Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he has been a member of Ironwood Country Club for 18 years and he was just about 300 feet from number one there. He participated in a number of meetings when all of these various plans were presented to the membership and he was there when a vote was taken. At that very meeting the residents were assured that there would be no construction traffic allowed, either on Mariposa through the entrance to the Country Club or on Canyon View Drive, the extension of which goes into the project. An alternate route would be provided around the back of the club. That route was in effect complete and there was a ramp from the dam going down which the heavy traffic used to do the excavating for lake number one. The construction traffic was a major concern and it would have a major impact on the country club for at least five years. Since there was an alternate route and since they had been promised that there would be no construction traffic on Canyon View or Mariposa, that restriction should be applied to any permit issued for these 52 lots. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked for any rebuttal comments. Mr. Doll clarified that there were two votes taken at the Country Club. One was for the original two tentative maps that were approved 18 months ago and that had about 88% approval. The last vote was the r.. 65 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 ftw second vote on the amended tentative map with the 52 units and that was the one in front of the commission. However, because of some statements made here, he wanted to provide the commission with the break down of the vote for the Canyon View area which incorporated Association 14 of Ironwood Country Club. The votes under that were 24 against 5, two of whom were in the audience, 6 did not vote and 4 were properties owned by non-voting members such as social members or tennis members. Out of the total of 39 they have five people who were opposed to the project. He said he was prepared to submit this as evidence and had a copy if they wished. With regard to the traffic, he said that great pains were taken this summer to try to avoid impacting not only the players on the golf course, but any of the people of the neighborhoods of Ironwood. The heavy equipment on a one time in and one time out basis used the back access road that they shared jointly with the Reserve. The problem with trying to route all of the construction traffic, and by that he meant not for the heavy equipment, dump trucks or scapers or bulldozers, but ultimately subcontractors who might be building parts of the houses, the problem was that they don't have an access point from the bridge at the Reserve to the area which was up by Lot 44. The problem they had there just opposite Lot 44 was the 16th tee of the south course which would be modified in the course of this construction, so that was not a problem. They could put a temporary road through. But they did miss a link between there and the Reserve bridge because the 12th tee was there and it would still be in play. To the extent they could possibly do it, they would force all the traffic to use the other alternate route. The problem there was they had to be careful because there was another association there, Association 5, that that traffic would then go by. So it was either one association or another and he hoped they could schedule the traffic to try to limit it so that no one was impacted more for at least construction subcontractors. All of the heavy equipment would go in on the original access road, the alternate access road, and would be walked in over the golf course. It would stay there until the construction was completed and then it would be walked back out again. That was exactly what they did this summer and the reason they would not like to have a continuance is that they have such a substantial majority of the people in the club and the community at large who are in favor of this project and he thought it was unfair to 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 them to ignore them and listen to a very small minority of people who were opposed. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked how long it would take to complete the project. Mr. Doll said their goal was to not do any further heavy construction during this season so that the golfers who are members of the club who come here would be able to enjoy the club. Next Spring would probably be the earliest they would start to move any dirt and they would do that in the summer months and hopefully complete the entire project during the summer time when most people were gone. Some of the full time residents would have some impact, but they would go out of their way to try to ameliorate that impact. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was going to be five years as suggested. Mr. Doll said he couldn't really respond to that because it was not clear and the club had not made a decision at this point as to whether these lots would be sold individually or if the whole parcel would be sold to a builder who they would have come in and build them all out. Their goal would be to get as many new residences in as fast as possible. That would allow them to recruit 52 new members. That would be a very great benefit to the club as a whole. Mr. Drell said that if it was built over five years, then they would only be seeing a few houses being built in any one year and therefore the traffic generated by those few houses would be relatively minimal. The choice was if they wanted to have a massive amount of traffic if it was all being built out at once or if it was extended over a period of time, then additional traffic would be relatively small. On a purely personal matter, Mr. Doll said his back yard was about a wedge away from Bighorn and for two years he has been awakened every morning to the sounds of loaders and dump trucks and bulldozers moving around less than 100 yards away. That had been an inconvenience and something he has had to accommodate because he happened to believe Bighorn is a beautiful project and affords an opportunity for other people to enjoy the pleasures of the desert as they all do. So he wasn't opposed to that and was willing to accommodate 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 a disruption and inconvenience of his particular lifestyle for the period of time it took to construct Bighorn's newest phase. He would only ask that the rest of the people in Ironwood do the same for them. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell thought it would be a wonderful project. She noted there was construction everywhere and cited Fred Waring as an example. They had to live it and the progress and had to be patient. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Tschopp said he knew that Ironwood had been challenged with trying to decide on what to do with this piece of land. He thought the plan in front of them was a well thought out plan and well done and would be an asset to the community and Ironwood Country Club. He thought the report showed that the club was trying to mitigate to the greatest extent possible i traffic and noise concerns, dust, etc., so he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez concurred and agreed with Commissioner Tschopp's comments. He believed that the leadership of Ironwood Country Club would do everything in their power to make sure this project was done well and took into consideration all the homeowners in that area. Commissioner Jonathan concurred as well. He added that he was also persuaded by the significant majority that voted in favor of the project. Chairperson Finerty also concurred and felt that Mr. Doll and his board had done all they could do and sometimes however hard they tried it was never enough. She was also persuaded by the percentage in support and when people live in a HOA, it was usually majority rules. She asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2161 , recommending 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 tow to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 02-03 and C/Z 02-05. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2162, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. TT 29713 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. PP/CUP 02-13; K-W REAL ESTATE LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit to allow the construction of a single-story 5,052 square foot office building including a 2,000 square foot medical office suite located at 44-550 Village Court 1 ,400 feet north of Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Smith indicated this was the vacant lot at the end of Village Court. A 5,052 square foot single story 18400t office building was being proposed. He indicated that at the southwest corner there was a tower element that goes to 24 feet in height. The building was a contemporary Mediterranean style similar to most of the other existing office buildings on Village Court. Architecture Review Commission granted preliminary approval of the building elevations on September 10, 2002. As noted, the proposal includes a 2,000 square foot dental office. Mr. Smith stated that parking was adequate to support the 2,000 square foot medical office use and dental office with 24 spaces. The findings for approval were outlined on pages three and four of the staff report. The project was a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for CEQA purposes. Mr. Smith recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. FRANK ENSIGN, 44-439 Cannes Court in Hidden Palms, addressed the commission. He said that with him in attendance was his next door neighbor. He indicated their two residences and the property they are 69 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 { on were closer to this site than any of the buildings currently on Village Court. They had never talked to a developer or a planner. Chairperson Finerty explained that the commission would like to hear from the applicant prior to taking other testimony and requested that Mr. Ensign readdress the commission after the applicant. MR. ALLEN SANBORN, 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail in Palm Springs, addressed the commission. He said they agreed with all of the conditions and was present to answer any questions. There were no questions for the applicant and Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Ensign to come back to the podium. Mr. Ensign stated that next door to this property, six months or a year ago, a two-story building suddenly popped up without any warning. He said the lot in question was between that two-story building and their two properties in Hidden Palms. He said they never heard about these projects and couldn't make any contributions to any architect or anyone who was planning this and all of a sudden they get a notice and are �1 invited to a hearing when the plans had already been finalized. They weren't really obstructionists, but there were a couple of things of great concern. One was the two-story building that went up with no warning and it was greatly impacting their view as compared to what they could see from the back of their house and the community property that was next to it. They thought this might be a one-story as stated and there was no reason for a 24-foot tower which was one more obstruction to ruin the views from Hidden Palms. He also wanted to know exactly where this building would sit on the lot, how much setback there was from the wall. The wall was only 100 feet from the back of their property. He said they had to get along with each other and he thought they should be treating them like neighbors right from the very start and not going ahead with the project to completion for at least the planning part of it without some input from them. They wanted to know the height of the building and the specifics of the roof style and really get into the matter of the 20-foot tower because that provided aesthetic problems to them and lowered the value of their property and was totally unnecessary. It was an extravagance, a flamboyance that was not relevant and not part of the way Hidden Palms has lived. He said wi 70 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 this would be right up against the edge of Hidden Palms. He didn't know what the setback was from their wall, but it could be as close as 20 feet or 10 feet. They were neighbors and he thought they were being treated like someone just invited to come in and listen to this and take it or leave it. He thanked the commission. MR. JOE GENTRY, 44-429 Cannes, addressed the commission. He stated that he wasn't too disturbed when the legal notice came out and said this building would be single story. He concurred with what was said earlier tonight that the commission has an obligation and had to keep these property owners in mind and economically they were entitled to a return and he had no problem with that. But a 20-24 foot tower made it more than what was described in the legal notice as a single- story building. It wasn't a single story building if it had a 24-foot tower. He said he was told when he bought his piece of property, and it was his problem for not checking it out thoroughly enough, but he was told that the building that was going in immediately adjacent to his would be a single story building, but it wasn't. It was two stories. He didn't have a real problem with a building going in here. He thought it should be limited to a single-story building. They would have absolutely no views left of the mountains from where they are when this building goes in with a 24-foot tower. He also couldn't tell how the building was located on the property, but it would seem to him to be better to locate that building as close to the other building as possible and park between the building and the fence that separates their development from this building. What little he could see of the roof line on the remaining part of the building, other than the 24-foot tower, was not going to be a flat roof, so they were going to lose all the view they had. He said they needed the commission's consideration in this matter. There was no one else wishing to speak and Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Sanborn wished to offer any rebuttal comments. Mr. Sanborn stated that he believed that when this subdivision was set up and setbacks were developed in relationship to the residential units, these kinds of things were taken into account and hence they designed to those setbacks that came with the property. They put the tower on the farthest south end west portion of the site as far away from the neighbors as possible, so when they were standing at six feet and 71 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 Vol looking across the single-story roof element they probably wouldn't even see the tower on the far side of the building. Mr. Drell asked what the setbacks were. Mr. Smith and Mr. Sanborn said 53 feet from the north side wall to the building. Mr. Smith said it was 53 feet to the north edge of the building. It was 90+ feet to the tower element. Commissioner Jonathan said it was 18 feet high. Chairperson Finerty noted that would be a normal single story home. Mr. Drell said that although that single story home could have been as close as 20 feet, so chances were if a single story home developed next to their property, it would be a greater impact on their views than this office building. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked from commission comments. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Smith where there was a two-story building on Village Court. Mr. Smith said that it was the third or fourth lot south of this one. There was a partial two-story building there. Mr. Sanborn spoke from the audience and clarified that it was next door. Mr. Smith said that meant it was on the second lot. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was a partial two- story building. Mr. Smith said yes and explained that the O.P. zone allows two-story development to a maximum of 25 feet. Mr. Drell said that was with the appropriate setbacks. Mr. Smith said that this project met the setbacks. He pointed out that the proposed building would even meet the setbacks for a two-story building. Mr. Drell noted that another project in the vicinity was Embassy Suites and it is three stories high. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he liked the design and the project and was impressed that there were no exceptions to the ordinance. There was adequate parking, adequate coverage, the height was very reasonable, the tower element was tastefully done and thoughtfully located and he thought the tower added an architectural element which made the building more attractive. He thought the architect did a fine job and moved for approval. Commissioner Tschopp clarified that the 53-foot setback afforded quite a degree of space between the existing homes and this building and a single family home going in there would be closer to the Hidden Palms properties than this commercial building and could have the same height as the 72 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 ow commercial building except for the tower. But with the distance to the tower, he thought it would be setback far enough that it wouldn't impact the homes. He assured the speakers that he took into consideration their concerns and comments expressed, but he thought this project was well thought out, looked good and would be better with this commercial building than a single family home going in behind them. So he agreed that it was a good project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2163, approving Case No. PP/CUP 02-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case No. ZOA 02-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from July 16 and September 3, 2002) Request for approval of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.21 , Second Unit Senior Housing. Mr. Drell stated that staff was still working on the associated cases and recommended a continuance to November 19, 2002. Chairperson Finerty asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. ZOA 02-02 to November 19, 2002 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST BY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN FOR FUTURE CVWD PROJECTS IN PALM DESERT. 73 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 rll Mr. Drell stated that staff reviewed the proposed projects and felt they appeared appropriate. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, determining by minute motion consistency with the Palm Desert General Plan future CVWD projects as described in the August 28, 2002 CVWD report. Motion carried 5-0. B. DISCUSSION OF INITIATING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING THE CONVERSION OF PUBLIC UTILITY WATER WELLS FOR PRIVATE OFF-SITE IRRIGATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Mr. Drell noted that the commission had the report. He stated that he had something to add. He said typically this applied to the R-1 zone, and residential zones, and he noted that some of the CVWD zones were located in P zones, so when it came back to the commission, it would also include amendment to include the P zone as a conditional use for the conversion of CVWD wells. Action: It moved by Chairperson Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, initiating a zoning ordinance amendment to allow the conversion of public utility water wells for private off-site irrigation as a conditional use by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Finerty indicated there was a request to amend the agenda to add a Consent Calendar item. She asked if there was a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adding Case No. PMW 02-17 to the agenda by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. t 74 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 I... C. Case No. PMW 02-17 IVAN AND DONNA SAMUELS, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment within Desert Falls Country Club adjusting a property line between two parcels. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving Case No. PMW 02-17 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (September 18, 2002) Commissioner Campbell informed the commission that the committee commissioned three artists for the Fred Waring corridor and they would be coming before them shortly to show them proposed sculptures. She stated that they also reviewed some sculptures for the Dinah Shore/ %NW Monterey southeast corner. She said it would be like a monument sign and sculpture and would look like a free form with water cascading down it. Chairperson Finerty noted that it was also going in at the corner of Fred Waring and Washington. Commissioner Campbell concurred and indicated that it would be a smaller version. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 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) 75 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2002 I XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Finerty noted that the next meeting would be November 19, 2002. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that if staff needed to have a meeting on November 5, he would be available for a meeting and thought they could get a quorum of the commission if they were needed. Commissioner Tschopp said he wanted to compliment staff. Getting the packets, seeing how well they are organized, and the research done, etc., he felt they did a very good job overall and were very thorough. Mr. Drell thanked Commissioner Tschopp for his comments. Commissioner Campbell asked since she arrived late if there were minutes. Chairperson Finerty said no and noted that minutes would be available at the next meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1 1 :20 p.m. /1 ,100 PHIL DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: CINDY FINERTY, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission Am 76