The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1203 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 3, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez "r 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 Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Mark Greenwood, Transportation Manager Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Vl. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 02-06 - AVONDALE GOLF CLUB, INC., and RAYMOND AND JOAN WHITE, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between an existing residential lot and an adjoining golf course parcel, APN's 626-060-041 , 626-060- 001 and 626-030-004. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, 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 No. CUP 02-25 - UNITED CHURCH OF THE DESERT, Applicant (Continued from November 19, 2002) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 3,500 square foot church located at 77-577 Mountain View. Chairperson Finerty indicated that the public hearing was open and asked if staff had any comments. Mr. Bagato stated that at the last meeting the project was continued because not all of the property owners within 300 feet were notified. Staff notified all those neighbors within 300 feet of the property. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 As was discussed at the last meeting, Mr. Bagato explained that United Church of the Desert has been operating at the corner of Mountain View and Warner Trail for the past 40 years. Eleven years ago they sold the building-to Montessori School-of the Valley and have continued--to hold -- -- their services there with a lease agreement from the school. Since the last meeting, Mr. Bagato explained that staff has received numerous letters from residents on Mountain View, Robin Road and Warner Trail, along with a petition with 47 signatures against the project. Mr. Bagato noted that historically small churches have been placed in residential neighborhoods. He indicated that this proposed church was designed to residential scale and complied with all the standards of the Residential Estate zone and the conditional use permit standards. Mr. Bagato stated that any expansion of this proposed church would require an amendment to the CUP, which would require another public hearing. Staff recommended approval of CUP 02-25, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Tschopp asked how Warner Trail was designated. He noted that the traffic on Warner Trail has increased significantly over the years. He also asked if it was at capacity. Mr. Greenwood stated that Warner Trail is designated as a collector street. The traffic volume is currently about 5,000 cars a day. The level ranged between 3,500 and 5,000 trips a day. That was fairly high for a residential street, although it wasn't at capacity. He said it could handle up to 10,000 cars a day, although it wasn't a street someone would want to live on. If the church decided to change in the future to a different use, such as a school or other use, Commissioner Tschopp asked if that would come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bagato said yes, that any change to this CUP would require it. Commissioner Tschopp asked about ancillary businesses that are not germane to worship permitted at churches, such as garage sales and so forth. Mr. Bagato said that under a Temporary Use Permit the church could be allowed a sidewalk sale or garage sale up to ten days a year. Mr. Drell said they would be subject to the same opportunities to have a garage sale as a single family home. Commissioner Tschopp asked if 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 they had to apply for them and if there was a limited number permitted. Mr. Drell said yes. --- - Commissioner Jonathan noted that -Mr.—Bagato -reviewed the various---- correspondence that had been received and most, if not all, was from surrounding residents that expressed concerns about the proposed use and yet staff's recommendation was approval. He asked Mr. Bagato to discuss the staff recommendation a little bit in relation to the concerns expressed by the neighbors. Mr. Bagato said that a lot of the recommendation came back to what was discussed last time, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. It defined that any denial of a church needed to be justified by compelling governmental interest such as maintaining a character of the neighborhood. In this case staff felt that since the traffic has already been in the neighborhood for this congregation for the past 40 years, the new building would not create any new traffic from this congregation and with the new parking and everything else, it would comply with all the standards so that was where the justification for his recommendation came from. Commissioner Jonathan said that what he was hearing was that the recommendation was partly based on the conclusion that the new building would not result in additional traffic or disruption to the neighborhood beyond the level of activity taking place now. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Referring to the Request to Speak cards, Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Tom Priestly to address the commission. She asked everyone coming to the lectern to state their name and address for the record. MR. DICK WEBBER of 76-701 New York Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Webber was speaking on behalf of Mr. Priestly. Mr. Webber said no and stated that they have a list of people who wanted to speak. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Mr. Webber stated that he is the moderator of the United Church of the Desert. He indicated that the good people here had recorded their objections, either in person or in writing, to the Planning -- -- Commission about--their proposal ofthe church building--on Mountain View. He stated that on the surface without studying what their project is all about, if he was a homeowner in that immediate neighborhood, he'd probably be objecting to this too. He wanted to bring some things up to the people that they might not already know. He said they are not planning a large church. It would be 3,500 square feet with a capacity for 60 people. The church was established in this place 40 years ago and operated continually since. Longer than most of the neighbors. He stated that the impact of traffic and notice of the new building would not change significantly from what had been there for 40 years as far as they were concerned. In fact, they would be a little smaller. Mr. Webber stated that their small church traffic on Sunday would only drive about 100 yards from the intersection of Warner Trail and Mountain View to their parking lot. There was no youth group planned. There would be no outdoor games or concerts. If they were to sell the lot, perhaps a new owner would build a larger, perhaps two-story 10,000 square foot family home, with City approvals, which would result in more traffic and noise every day and they could understand that. He said the petition that was passed around recently and signed by many people objecting to their proposed church building alluded to past developers who had been trying build duplexes, apartments, mobile homes and things like that. If they were to build this, they would have no more problem with any developers like that. Their proposed building would put an end to any of those other developers. He said it was interesting that more than one half of the homeowners that signed the petition lived on Delaware Place and Letitia Lane. He commented that was quite a distance from where their project would be. Those folks were far away and would hardly be bothered by their once a week activity. Also, their 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 j traffic would never go on those streets as they were away from the church's area. -- -- Mt--Webber stated that the homeowners-on- Warner Trail could hardly be concerned about any more traffic or noise. As the gentleman had said, there is already a lot of traffic on Warner Trail already so their activity one day a week would not add very much noise or traffic to that area. He stated that they humbly asked the Planning Commission to approve their conditional use permit for this project and thanked the commission. MS. NANCY ADAMS, 76-755 Sandpiper Drive in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. She stated that the traffic impact of their building a small church on Mountain View was that there would be no new traffic. Yes, they had been in the neighborhood for 40 years. They didn't drive many cars. There was normally two or more people to a car. They don't park on the street. Their parking would be right next to the lot where they have parked for 40 years. Their church in that location would be quieter than a private home which normally has two cars leaving and returning home twice a day. She said they are a small, adult group. They don't have programs for children. They meet Sunday morning for a couple of hours and have a wornen's fellowship meeting once a month. They have been exactly that size the ten years she had been there. If they grow enormously successful in the future, they would move. The development of that vacant lot with their church would be an enhancement to the neighborhood. She thanked the commission. MR. TOM PRIESTLY, 44-300 Camino Lavanda in La Quinta, addressed the commission. He said that they have been there 40 years at this location. They built the original facility. It was county land at the time and as he understood it, Palm Desert did not encompass the area at the time. When the facility was sold to Montessori School 10 years ago, they continued to rent the space they needed from Montessori. Noll MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 w.. He stated that he had some demographic data that was put together by the C.A.C.I. Corporation. He said it was a demographic and income forecast that was done for their United Church-Bureau of Home-Missions in the year-2000. Those surveys - were based on extrapolation from the 1990 Census and the 1997 Update and encompassed a radii of one, three and five miles from their location. The surveys were made to help them determine the size of facility they would need in the near future and the desirability of seeking a new location by extrapolating the growth from that data. Under the assumption that no major changes were to occur in the near future, meaning through the year 2002, it would appear that they could expect a congregation size to increase to 50 people from the then current 45. This was arrived at by analyzing the demographic data for a one, three and five mile radius distance for age groups from 65 years and up, which was generally the age group of their congregation. Mr. Priestly noted that in 1997 their membership declined to 35 so their expected size at 2002 declined to 42 members. He indicated that church attendance was normally lower than membership. He said he had individual records and he would give the commission the demographics and individual attendance records (copies were submitted and are on file in the Department of Community Development). He said the individual attendance records were shown for each year. He personally did the tabulations. The blanks occurred when he wasn't in attendance or did not record the account from someone else. Mr. Priestly informed commission that according to those records, the average church attendance was a near steady 34 over the five year period of 1997 to the present. He said he had a plot of the demographic data that showed that. He said they could practically plot when the snowbirds come down and leave. Those characteristics were in there. He felt the demographic data indicated that there was no predictable attendance growth due to population changes. So a `.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 need for a large facility did not exist. A facility similar to the one they left was all they needed. There was no daily traffic increase on Sunday morning for those five years. He said that meant no — increase-in -traffic hazard to anyone due to the ohurel —. The--34..- -- - people average, if there were two per car, said they had an average of 17 cars showing up between 10:00 a.m. and noon on Sunday. That was one day a week. The rest of the week there was none. Referring to the map, Mr. Priestly stated that they could see that neither the residents of the one acre lots, nor the City of Palm Desert, planned for a buffer transition zone to allow for changes in the traffic along Warner Trail. That was a lot of traffic and there had not been an allowance for a buffer or transition zone. There were very few options that could provide a buffer transition facility. However, their facility seemed to offer a near ideal solution. One, it was architecturally compatible with the area. The landscape was commensurate with the area. There would be little use, if any, during the week. It would be quieter than a normal home. The highest use occurred on Sunday late morning 10:00 a.m. to noon when neighbors have gone to their own churches and would not normally be home to hear any extra noise. He stated that there would be no impact on weekly traffic by their church. Absolutely none. Because they weren't going to be there. The Sunday traffic on Warner Trail was normally down, so anything they had would be noticeably less than any traffic on Warner Trail during the week. He thanked the commission for the opportunity to speak. MR. MARK MOLAY, 918 North Deerborn Street in Redlands, addressed the commission. He stated that he was pleased to have been called to serve as the Pastor of the United Church of the Desert for the past year. He enjoyed getting to know the members and friends and have found this congregation to invariably be caring, thoughtful and considerate people. He said he would like to answer the fear that after this congregation builds on Mountain View at some time in the future it might grow so large as to have to leave for another, larger building. In doing so this building would be left behind and perhaps become the home to a less desirable 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Ur owner. He wanted to calm that fear. The overwhelming majority of church congregations in this country were well under 100 people. It was difficult to build a church larger than that and it never happened by chance. A church congregation existed by the providence of God and by the planning of the members and pastor. He said the United Church of the Desert throughout its four decades of life was a small congregation of mature members. That was their vision. They enjoyed the friendliness of their small size and prized quality over quantity. They preferred quiet music over loud electronic music. That has been their history, it's their present and was their determination for the future. He stated that thousands of small church congregations across our land contribute to the serenity and peace of their neighborhoods. They complement the security and tranquility of the quiet area. The neighborhood around Mountain View in Palm Desert has always enjoyed the peaceful presence of the United Church of the Desert. Allowing the construction of a new church sanctuary there �.. would maintain that continuity. He thanked the commission. MR. HAROLD SHILLING, 43-175 Tennessee Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said when he was at the meeting on November 17 there were some statements made on the negative side that were not factual and in some cases were not truthful. He said he wanted to set a couple of things straight. In the 40 years they have been there, there had never been one complaint ever filed with the City or with the city that was there before and County property, Palm City. Never one complaint of any kind. They did have a pancake breakfast last year. He said that one of their neighbors came in to help them. He stated that he and Dick Webber passed out flyers to all the neighbors. The neighbors came. One neighbor came with his own equipment, cooked the pancakes for them and helped serve. That was a good neighbor in their area right by the church. Sunday morning right before 10:00 a.m. there were about four or five cars that came to their church. They come for bible study. That was five or six cars before 10:00 a.m. Then there were 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 ,.i another seven or eight cars that come in right at 10:00 a.m. He counted them. There were 12 to 15 cars at any one time. That was pretty much it. Many Sundays he walked out to put the little - sign at the corner of Warner Trail and Mountain View. He put it - out at the end of the lot. He said they could believe him that they could look down Mountain View and shoot a gun at 9:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. down Mountain View or roll a huge bowling ball and they would not hit a car or anybody. There was nothing going on. It was quiet and that was the way they were. He stated that there is no parking on the street and they have never parked on the street. None of their cars were on the street and there never had been and never would be. They were only there one hour and a half or two hours on Sunday only. That he believed was good. He said there was no traffic problem and there had been no noise. He thanked the commission. MR. GLEN WHITE, 44-120 Ocotillo Drive in La Quinta, addressed the commission. He stated that he and his wife have been members of the church for over 10 years. He was presently a trustee. He said he wouldn't reiterate what was said earlier, but he wanted to make one comment about the last meeting on the 19th. One of the neighbors felt the church would devaluate the area. He said that was completely wrong. If they build their church in such a design that it enhances the area, he personally felt neighbors would rather see a well designed and well landscaped church building on that lot than see the sand blown area it is now. He said they create no new traffic, they only meet one day a week, and the building and landscaping would make a good buffer zone for the closest neighbor. The church was the most valuable to the area rather than the existing vacant, sand-blown lot. He thanked the commission. MR. BOB DORING, 79-100 Casa Vida Circle in La Quinta, addressed the commission. He said they were presenting a number of individual thoughts and they became somewhat repetitive, but he guessed it was because they felt very strongly about these things. He said that 40 years ago the church made its presence known as a house of worship on the corner of Warner Trail and AV 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 tow Mountain View Avenue. He said this was long before he and his wife became aware of the church and long before the surrounding desert lots were converted to the present one-acre estates. So - -- - - they were asking the Planning---Commission -to--grant them--a Conditional Use Permit that would ultimately allow them to worship on the same street just a few hundred feet from where it all began 40 years ago. But in a new architecturally and aesthetically designed, well landscaped, low profile church with no steeple, no bells, and no chimes. A church that was created to be a positive addition to a friendly family-oriented neighborhood. Entering on Mountain View Avenue and heading east from Warner Trail, those attending church would pass the Montessori School and its parking lot on the right. It would pass just one house facing Mountain View on the left followed by a vacant lot before entering the proposed parking lot which was designed for total off-street parking. This was just about 300 feet off Warner Trail. Approximately 15 to 20 cars would arrive between 9:00 a.m. and ... 10:00 a.m. on Sunday morning and leave at various intervals between 11 :00 a.m. and 11 :30 a.m. after a short social hour. Then another week of no traffic. He thanked the commission. MRS. MARILYN PRIESTLY, 44-300 Camino Lavanda in La Quinta, addressed the commission. She said she was at the meeting to ask the commission to allow a conditional use permit for Lot No. 3 on Mountain View in Palm Desert. United Church of the Desert/ United Church of Christ would build a beautiful church on that lot. She said it would follow all Palm Desert requirements. It was designed by a licensed architect to be compatible with the neighborhood of beautiful homes. The 3,500 square foot edifice would enhance the area. Their church was planned to be a haven of peace, serenity and gentleness. United Church of the Desert has been at the corner (Lot No. 1) of Warner Trail and Mountain View, for many years. About 40. The church had never been a detriment and there had never been complaints about them or to them. The members of this church felt very close to this quiet spot in Palm Desert. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 She stated that they wish to remain where they have been for such a long time. They would not make extra noise. There was no need to drive on Mountain View beyond Lot No. 3. They truly - - - — --------- - wanted this beautiful neighborhood to be their chttrch home. The - residential estate lot was perfect for their use. This new building would absolutely add uniqueness to the neighborhood. She asked them to please grant the conditional use permit they need to build on their lot. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any other scheduled speakers. There was no response. Referring to the Request to Speak cards, Chairperson Finerty asked Desda Monaghan to address the commission. MS. DESDA MONAGHAN, 43-170 Warner Trail, addressed the commission. She stated her property was directly across the corner of Mountain View from where the church was now located. They have lived there going on 19 years. So they have been around with that church as a neighborhood for quite a while. She stated that there had never been a problem with them and they didn't even know they were there unless they happened to walk outside and see there were a few extra cars. She thought the lot would look lovely transformed into something with some landscaping and a building on it rather than how it has looked for the last 19 years. As far as the fear that it would lower the property value of the surrounding homes, Ms. Monaghan noted that there were two churches on Warner Trail that had been there for a few years. She had not seen any problem with the houses beside them and across the street from them selling at very nice prices way above what they were when those churches went in. She knew because they built a couple of them. She didn't think the church would cause any traffic. Right now they were only there on Sunday. With their own building, they might be able to have a meeting during the week. No one would know it. They have heavy trucks going down Mountain View from a home a couple of doors down from where the church wants to go. They were grandfathered in. They were there when the City 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 took it over. But nonetheless they had these big sand gravel trucks that come in and out of there twice a day. They have another business down the street which has quite a few trucks that go in ____._..... .._. .._ ._.____ and out --every--day-and- -didn't seem- to,bother an bod She thought he probably put a whole lot more traffic on that street and on their street and around their corner than the church would in ten years. Ms. Monaghan stated that they have a fairly quiet neighborhood. Occasionally there were houses that have parties. They let the neighbors know. They had a good time and she hadn't heard anyone complain. The church wasn't going to have any parties. The church wasn't going to have anything going on. They would like to see the church go in and would like to see the landscaping. They would like to see that property do something besides sit over there and look ugly. So she really hoped the commission would let them have their new church. She thanked the commission. �.► MS. ELAINE MALONEY, 78-545 Vista Del Sol in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. She stated that she is the owner and director of Montessori School of the Valley in Palm Desert, the former site of the United Church of the Desert. She said they have been closely associated since 1984 and they have had a wonderful working relationship. They have shared the facility and everything had been very, very nice. She truly supported and respected the efforts of the church congregation to build a small church so that they could meet once a week for their Sunday service. She also wanted to clarify that the church and the school were separate entities. The school had nothing to do with the building project of the church, nor did it have any plans to expand in the future. She thanked the commission. MR. PETER SCHAWACKER, 43-300 Warner Trail, addressed the commission. He said he had a couple of points to make and had a lot of questions. It had been made extremely clear that this wasn't really a traffic issue and it wasn't going to become a problem. It had also been made very clear that the congregation was not expanding. There was a flip side to that and what happened when 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 .i the congregation got smaller. It wasn't a very young congregation and he was concerned that when it got small enough there would have to be some way to fund it and that might include converting it into a school in part-or-turning -the property into something else. He also indicated that the zoning was inconsistent. There were no other properties off Warner Trail that had non-commercial properties, although it sounded like some things might have been grandfathered in. He noted that one of his concerns was about the funding of the congregation. He was guessing that the purchase of the land and the building of the structure was coming from some kind of endowment. There was concern that there might be difficulty with the funding of this church's ongoing maintenance and expenses going forward. It might very well start out as a beautiful building, but he asked what would happen with the size of the congregation diminished and a building that took money to fund. With regard to diminishing the value of properties in the neighborhood, he asked what the granting of this conditional use permit would do to effect the likelihood of further permits in the neighborhood. If there was one permit granted here, there were other lots in the neighborhood that could turn into other churches or other kinds of things and there was a general concern among his family and among others in the neighborhood that this would set a precedent for other kinds of permits like this. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no response. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. CARY BUJAN, 77-645 Mountain View Avenue, addressed the commission. He stated that prior to the last meeting on the 19th he turned in a petition and this morning he turned in a revised edition of that petition. Between Mountain View, Robin Road and Delaware, they have 60 single family dwellings. He said he had 53 signatures, not 47 on that petition, and he hoped the commission had a copy of it. He said he wasn't going to repeat what he said 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 at the last hearing, but he wanted to state that no matter what they did with this church, they were talking about traffic, noise and so forth and he firmly believed that was going to increase --- -- - - - regardless of what--they-said-. He asked who--vss--to say a year or two from now their congregation wouldn't double in size. He asked if they were going to guarantee that wouldn't happen. No they couldn't guarantee that, but it was a possibility. They didn't want to take that chance. They wanted their subdivision to stay the way it is, single family dwellings. As far as the school on the corner, he stated that it was there when he bought his property so he couldn't say anything about it other than on several occasions pulling out of his street onto Warner Trail he had almost been hit several times from people coming out of that parking lot, especially in the morning when people are in a hurry to go to work, drop their kids off and just that afternoon if he hadn't hit the breaks he would have been hit. A woman pulled out of the parking lot and didn't even look down ... the street and just pulled out in front of him. He indicated that an earlier gentleman stated that he couldn't understand why people on Robin Road and Delaware were signing the petition. He thought he had to understand that they are part of one subdivision and what effects one of them affected all of them. They wanted to preserve what they have and they were asking the Planning Commission to deny this land use permit applied for by the United Church of the Desert. He noted that they denied the church on the corner of Robin Road and Warner Trail for the same reasons that they were talking about right now. They hoped the commission would do the same for them. He thanked the commission. MS. COLEEN RITCHEY, 77-550 Mountain View, stated that she wrote a letter to the City Planning Department and it should have arrived the 26th of last week and said she would like to repeat it for the people present (see letter attached as Exhibit A). Referencing a previously proposed project, Ms. Ritchey stated that the project proposed over 100 apartments that totaled what she believed were 400 square feet for each unit. She didn't have the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 mll paperwork in front of her, but said it should be on record with the Palm Desert City Planning Department. She requested that the Planning Department research this past proposal in the City records. The-project-was- of approved by the£ity. She asked if anyone remembered when that happened. Mr. Drell said he was here and didn't believe an application was ever filed. The application was to expand the Montessori School, but there was never an application for apartments. The zoning wouldn't permit it and he couldn't imagine them ever considering it. But there was never an application filed for high density apartments on the property. Ms. Ritchey indicated that they discussed it and had neighborhood meetings and had a Newport Beach developer that came and talked to residents who told them that was the reason and they proposed quite a few apartments. Mr. Drell said there was never an application filed or any discussion with the City about that proposal. > Ms. Ritchey noted that it was discussed with the neighbors. She also indicated that it was mentioned tonight that there are 3,000 to 5,000 cars going by within 50 feet of this proposed site. She finished reading her letter and thanked the commission. MR. ANDY MASIKA, 43-070 Warner Trail, addressed the commission. He stated that his biggest problem was with the traffic. Obviously the City realized they have a problem with traffic on their street because at least two or three times a week the police are sitting either out in front of his house or his neighbor's house chasing people down and giving them tickets. So that was his biggest problem. People said that on Sunday it wouldn't bother anything because there was less traffic. That was the best time of the week for them because there is no traffic on Sunday and they wanted to keep it that way. He thanked the commission. MR. IRVIN WEBSTER, 77-800 Delaware Place, addressed the commission. He said yes, Delaware Place is one street over from Mountain View, but he and his wife at the time they bought their 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 property looked at the entire community as an integral community. Mountain View, Robin Road, Delaware Place all had many things in common. The most important thing that they have is a totally -- - residential community there. Yes, there were people who have small businesses or small occupations out of their homes. He said he wasn't one of them, but they were there at the time they were annexed to Palm Desert. He informed commission he has been there for ten years. One of the things they did at the time they moved in was research the zoning in that area and tried to make sure the community would remain with the same complexion and the same amenities that they had at the time they bought their property. The church was there and he guessed ten years ago it was in that transition between Montessori School and the church. But in any event they were assured the conditional use permit that they were operating in it would stay that way. It appeared that they would stay as they were and not migrate into the residential area where the homes ... were being built. He stated that the one thing he wanted to point out was, when he looks at the map, this move onto that lot was an invasion into what was expected and anticipated to be a single family dwelling property. It was a migration into that area just as plain and clear as could be. After one migration into the area, what was next? They would really like to keep it single family homes and they asked the commission to deny the conditional use permit to build this church. He thanked the commission. MRS. JOYCE FRISCO, 77-575 Robin Road, addressed the commission. She informed the commission that she is also on the Project Area 4 Committee. She was surprised this hadn't come before their committee. She found out about it through a neighbor who gave her a notice. She stated that they actually lived next to the property with the Baptist Church where the commission denied their expansion onto a residential lot. She said she wouldn't repeat everything that had been said tonight, but she did feel they needed to uphold what was put out in their Specific Plan, which was that tow 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 the uses that were complementary to and that could exist in harmony with a one-acre estate residential neighborhood. -- - As others have- said-1-they were just--trying to preserve the - - atmosphere, character and value of their streets. She thought the last gentleman said it very clearly. They have the Montessori School and the church on Sunday mornings. That was fine. That worked out great. She knew that churches are allowed in residential areas. With the Baptist Church where it is and the Montessori School and the church meeting where they are now, that was a complement to the area. But to encroach upon Mountain View going back the second and third lots, they were now going into the residential area. For them, that was one of their main concerns besides the traffic and noise from the Baptist Church. Those were real serious considerations. What they have here was a little different. For now. They didn't know what the future holds or what would happen in the future and she didn't think the church members could predict that, nor could they. But they knew it was a possibility that could change. What she thought they needed to look at is the way the neighborhood is and what it was established to be and by having a single family residence next to her residence, next to the Baptist Church, next to Warner Trail was a fine combination that works great. If they started to infringe on those streets, it did make a difference for the neighbors and for the whole flow of the area. She thought what was existing now was fine, but to add a church beyond what they have right now would really be infringing on the character of the neighborhood. She thanked the commission. MR. LARRY REED, 77-550 Mountain View, addressed the commission. He said that was directly across the street from the proposed area. He stated that he is a local educator with an institution which impacts the surrounding community. He understood what transpires once they bring a church or school or something like that into the area. He said that the weekend before there was a rummage sale that took place across the street. He wasn't sure if it was the church or the Montessori School, but the house they have right across the street was used to turn around. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 o.► One individual actually went through their driveway. It did impact them whether people thought it did or it didn't. He said they have 40 plus, almost 50 signatures within the community. Palm Desert - — -- - - - - - - residents- that arer against- it. Tonight people -came uls-to this podium and have talked. The majority of them were not Palm Desert residents. He thought the commission needed to think about Palm Desert as our community and what is good for them. He thanked the commission. MR. TOM HEITRITTER, 77-580 Robin Road, addressed the commission. He stated that they purchased the property four years ago. He said they have been in the desert for 12 years and lived in La Quinta prior to living where they live now. The house they bought in La Quinta was considered by them as kind of a temporary place to live until they could really find a home they would want to live in and raise their children. Four years ago they decided to look and drove down Robin Road. All the streets that have the mini-estate acre homes. His wife made him aware of them. When they drove down the street, he fell in love. He didn't know if anyone had ever driven down Robin Road, but he thought it was phenomenal and has the potential of becoming a phenomenal street to live on. It was developing into that. When he moved there four years ago there were eight houses on the street. There are 16 lots. Right now there had been several built. He said they are cater corner to the proposed site, directly behind the Montessori School or a portion of it, so he had a particular interest in what was going on. He was opposed to the building. He apologized to the congregation, but he had to oppose it. One thing that wasn't said, and he indicated his wife manages commercial property and has done so for 15 years, and she told him one of the problems she has with commercial property is vacant lots. Vacant parking lots. Especially on weekends. She told him there was a lot of vandalism and problems with that. There was a company washing cars in one of her parking lots. It's unattended. No one watches it on the weekends so someone was using it as a business. To a certain extent, having a vacant lot was 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 r not necessarily a good thing, especially an unsupervised vacant lot. There was vandalism. - ---He-stated that in the four years J -teas been in his home, anybody - that knew his home knew there was a lot of valuable lawn art in his front yard. He recently had some of it stolen. He had to pull up everything that could be picked up and he put it in his backyard. As far as the value of homes was concerned, he didn't value homes. That wasn't his job, but he knew someone that did. It seemed to him that the church building that he saw, which personally didn't meet his taste, but it was a nice place and would add some value as far as landscaping was concerned, but he couldn't see how that was going to increase the value of the area. It was mentioned that a 10,000 square foot two-story home could be built there. He doubted it would be 10,000 square feet. Most people he talked to that have bought lots down his streets have decided not build 10,000 square feet. The gentleman across the street from him built a 5,000 square foot home. It seemed to him that a beautifully built, well maintained home of 10,000 square feet was definitely going to increase the value of the homes in the area. It would definitely increase the esteem and the value of the whole street itself and the people that may come down there and build in the future. He indicated that one of the things the first speaker said, and he might be misquoting him, but what he heard was if he lived in this area, he would oppose this. And he himself definitely opposed it. He thanked the commission. MS. DEBBIE McNICHOL, 77-665 Mountain View, addressed the commission. She stated that her home is a couple of doors down from the proposed church. She noted that she spoke at the last meeting. She didn't think they had a problem with the church and the school where it is now. It was at the corner. It didn't encroach into their street. If they looked at the photo, that was three lots in. There was another lot across the street from them and she was concerned that another facility like that might want to come in. They really wanted to keep the integrity of their neighborhood for 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 their families. She thought that everyone in their area thought there would be homes being built on the vacant lots. She hoped to keep homes rather than churches. Where the church and school were-now-was not a problem. But three lots-in- was encroaching. She thanked the commission. MS. BETTY HIESTAND, 43-280 Warner Trail, addressed the commission. She stated that was right next door to the present Montessori School. She agreed with most of what everyone said in opposition to this development. When they moved into their house a number of years ago, they lived next to the church that rented space to the school. Now they live next to a Montessori School that rents space to the church. Her concern was what would happen in the future when things grow. Possibly the school, even though they said it wouldn't. At the meeting on the 19th, the church mentioned their increasing parking for the church so that people wouldn't park on the street. That wasn't at issue at this point. Having more parking spaces wasn't an issue unless they do anticipate growth and the traffic that goes along with that. Also, renting the space out, using it for other uses other than being there just on Sundays for church or a meeting once a month. She thought that would be wonderful if that were the case. She didn't believe that would be the case. She thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if the applicant would like to give a rebuttal. Mr. Webber noted that there was an issue brought up about finances. He thought it was probably a very important one. All of them were interested in financing. He stated that their church is very well financed right now. They bought the lot for cash. They have cash money to build this new building. He said the UCC is a denomination that is all around the country. They are a large group of this denomination. They are involved with a Southern California group which has indicated they would give them more money if they need it. He told the commission that he didn't think they had any more of a problem financing their church as some of them might have for their homes. They felt very confident with the fact that they could build it, maintain it, and be sure to keep a fine tow 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 building in that neighborhood which the people love and he thought was great. He noted-that--someone mentioned a yard sale. He indicated that -- anyone in the neighborhood could have a yard or garage sale as long as they get a permit. And there might be ten or 15 cars in the neighborhood. But he didn't think it had been a big problem as far as they were concerned. If there had been a couple that the church has had, people normally go around the corner and park in the lot so they don't take up a lot of the street. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Lopez said he wanted to commend the audience. The commission goes through a lot of hearings and this group of individuals, both at this hearing and at the previous one, were truly a group of ladies and gentlemen and he thought that was wonderful. They were passionate on both sides of the issue. He informed them that this was a very difficult one for him. He wasn't sure how the other commissioners felt about it, but it was truly difficult for him. The decision was not an easy one because it wouldn't be liked by half the group, but when he looked at this conditional use permit and where the church would be located, it began to encroach too deeply into an area he considered a residential area. He thought they had every right to develop a new church and that they had every opportunity and hopefully the finances to do that in the future. But he believed it needed to be in a different location than on this particular lot. He didn't think it was an issue of traffic because there was very little traffic here. He was concerned about the future and what the future holds for that particular location. He thought that area, and commended the homeowners, that the area has developed into a very, very nice residential location and he thought it needed to continue to grow in that manner and be consistent with previous decisions that were made regarding the expansion of the other church. In this particular situation, he was opposed to a conditional use permit. Commissioner Campbell noted that this church has been here for the last 40 years in the same location and it hasn't been a detriment to the 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 community. They have a small congregation of 40 people. They said they weren't planning on growing, but if they were saying that, then she asked why they would need a new building if they could stay in the same at the fi ontessori School. If she was-a director in their-church, she thought they would want to have more visibility for a community for more people to see their church to make their church grow instead of being in an area like a semi-rural area and having no possibility for growth. To be in this area, they would be invading and encroaching into the lifestyle of the people who have bought their property. Montessori School is there and there was another church on Warner, but she felt that was more of a public street than Mountain View. She felt the church was not compatible in the proposed location and was against granting a conditional use permit. Commissioner Tschopp said that it had been a difficult decision. He thanked everyone for their comments. He listened to the comments and the arguments against the church going into this neighborhood, but he believed they were insufficient to successfully challenge the requirements of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act that they also have to work under. Warner Trail is a busy street and would probably get busier as time goes on, but it was sufficient to handle existing traffic and the anticipated traffic of the church. Mountain View is a dead-end street. People entering that street had no need to go any further than to the church, make a right in and then make a left out to leave. So he thought the proximity there was probably a benefit. It would be a minor disruption to the neighborhood. The church was designed to meet the residential scale and complied with the site design. Parking was adequate. He thought the prior history of the church in that area and their operation for 40 years prior less this last year spoke highly. They had no complaints and operated successfully there. He stated that he was in favor, but cautioned the applicant that the City has denied expansion of other facilities in the neighborhood, so putting a church there didn't necessarily mean that in the future if they needed to expand that would be forthcoming. It could have a potential economic impact on the value of the property down the road. That wasn't something the Planning Commission was worried about, but was something they needed to take into consideration. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 rf Commissioner Jonathan noted that this was a tough decision. He also thanked everyone for attending and was also very impressed how nice they could be to each other. He thought they set a fine example. He said he wished-the applicant would have made an-appeal to the neighborhood and obtained some level of unanimity and agreement. It would have made the Planning Commission's job easier. That didn't happen, so they were faced with this challenge. On the one hand, on paper he wasn't real persuaded by the concerns of the residents because there wasn't something really substantial they could latch onto. There wasn't a real traffic issue, there wasn't a real noise issue. On the other hand, he tried to put himself in the shoes of a resident and think about how he would feel if he were in a home and he could resonate with those concerns because he thought it was an objection to the concept of a use other than a home. He didn't hear specific objections that in his mind warranted a denial, but he did hear concern that this was something, anything other than a home. So he felt there was an intrusion and it was sufficient in his opinion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act which required that the use needed to be justified by compelling government interest such as maintaining the character of the residential neighborhood which he thought the application failed to do. So he didn't think they had a problem justifying a denial. The bottom line in his mind was when a new user goes to any neighborhood with a use that requires a conditional use permit, he thought there was an added level of burden on that applicant to seek the approval of their new neighbors. Certainly there were exceptions to that, but in general the applicant in a situation like this had that added level of burden and that burden had not been met. He said he was opposed to the application, regrettably. Chairperson Finerty also thanked everyone for participating in the process. It was clear as Commissioner Lopez pointed out that both sides were passionate with their points of view. Going back to what a couple of people mentioned, Chairperson Finerty noted that one issue had to do with the number of homeowners that signed the petition from Mountain View. There were 14 homes and she thought the street had 20. She also listened as one speaker pointed out that of those that spoke in favor of the church, they came from La Quinta, Indian Wells, and only one from Palm Desert on Warner Trail. Everyone that spoke against it lived right in the area, either on Robin Road, Delaware, Mountain View or Warner Trail. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Several years ago when this area of the city was annexed into Palm Desert, they worked together on what they called Project Area 4 and they developed a Specific Plan. At that time the residents on Robin Road, - --Mountain View and Delaware were a very---well-organized-group--and they -- ----- came and let them know what they did expect and anticipated for that area and it was clearly single family residential use. Another individual spoke about encroachment onto Mountain View and that it went three lots into the street. Another word she heard was "infringing" on the character of the neighborhood. When she put all of that together, she really believed it would infringe and encroach. She felt that if this had been an application for a church on Warner Trail it would have been a much more difficult decision for her, but right in the middle of a residential street she didn't feel was appropriate. She was opposed to the project. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion for denial. Action: `.. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, denying the project. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Tschopp voted no.) Chairperson Finerty noted that there was no resolution for denial and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting on December 17. B. Case No. PP/CUP 99-5 Amendment to Development Agreement - RAYMOND T. TROLL, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the development agreement, Ordinance No. 920, to temporarily reduce the minimum age for occupants at Villas on the Green, 77-120 California Drive, from age 62 years to age 55 years. Mr. Smith explained that the request was to amend an existing development agreement or at least the provisions in it relating to the age restrictions to reduce the permitted age of the occupants from 62 years to 55 years. This was the 76-unit senior project on California. He noted that it was approved in July of 1999. Through last summer the applicant obtained his Certificates of Occupancy for the project. Since that point 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 in time the leasing of the facility had not been meeting the goals of Mr. Troll. Mr. Troll felt the softening of the economy over the past year had reduced retirement funds of some of the seniors who may have considered moving into-his-p-roject. He currently--has 20 of the 76 units --- occupied. They indicated to staff that they have deposits on eight more units. They expect to occupy by January 1 . They also indicated that they receive many inquiries between people age 55 and 61 . At this point they had to be turned away. Mr. Smith stated that the specific request before the commission was for a period of five years following the receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy, which was back on September 9, and that the applicant be permitted to rent to seniors aged 55 years and older. Mr. Smith indicated that the development agreement process or the Senior Housing Ordinance specifically for projects age 62 and age 55 has two areas where it varies. One was in the amount of parking. The older age limit projects were allowed to go in with one parking space per unit versus 1 .25 spaces on the age 55 projects. This project as it currently exists falls between the two. It's at 1 .18 so they have 90 parking spaces for the 76 units. To provide the full parking, he would have needed 95 parking spaces. The second area where the projects differ was with respect to the density, the people per acre provision of the ordinance. There was a difference of 130 persons on the site versus 101 .4 persons. Code, where it prescribes the reduction for the age 55 projects, states that due to greater activity levels of age 55 projects, allowable people per acre should be reduced by 25%. Staff's feeling was that in this instance where they have an existing project that nearly meets the parking standard for the younger project and any person under age 62 who would choose to move in there would be well aware of any shortcomings in the available facilities on the site. If this was what it took to get the occupancy up to the levels that the applicant was hoping to achieve, staff felt that for a period of five years on a temporary basis only that they could support the request. Mr. Smith noted that if they get a bunch of 55 or 56 year old persons in the project, by the time the temporary portion of the amendment would sunset in 2007, those people would be in the range of age 62. If they had persons still under age 62 at the time that it sunsets, then they would be MW 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 grandfathered into the project because they didn't want them to be in a position of throwing them out in the street. After September 9, 2007 the project would revert back to its minimum age of 62. Staff recommended approval of the request and Mr. Smith asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff knew what the current vacancy rate was for apartments in the city. Mr. Drell thought it was two or three percent. It was virtually zero right now. Two or three percent was considered zero since it was people moving in and out. In looking at this request, Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff took into consideration the rents being charged on the units. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they were at market rate. Mr. Drell said yes. He noted that there are ten rent-controlled units as part of the project and those were at below market rates and those were rented. Commissioner Lopez asked how many projects exist that were currently under a development agreement of this type. Mr. Drell said that this was the largest. There were probably two or three others. One of the other larger ones was Las Serenas. He indicated that they ran into exactly the same problem. They eventually sold the project to the Housing Authority. Now the City owns and operates it. By its nature, he said it was a very slow absorption business. Seniors didn't act like younger people in terms of their housing decisions. Seniors take it very slowly and it was true that as a result of the drop in the stock market, that significantly narrowed seniors' options in terms of choices. He said one could question whether this was a good business proposition from the beginning. Hopefully it would work out for the applicant. Staff felt the request was a reasonable risk given the location of the project and its development. He thought there would be a mixture of 60, 70 and 80 year olds in the project in addition to the 55 year olds. He thought it was a reasonable concession to allow and encourage the success of the project. They didn't want it failing and having a bigger problem. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Drell mentioned that seniors tend to make their decisions kind of slowly. The project has been available for occupancy for nearly three months and it appeared that 28 units out of 76 had been or were in the process of being occupied. He asked if in the 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 City's experience if that was a slow absorption rate. Mr. Drell said yes, but was it atypical of a senior project? He wasn't sure. The history of senior housing projects, even the Hacienda de Monterey (the congregate - care ones approved) had alf-been tough going for a number of years. There might have been periods when the economy was booming and they had seniors with lots of money in their pensions, but he wasn't sure it was necessarily unusual. But other projects had the same problem. Las Serenas came and actually asked and got a similar dispensation before they sold it, so they have heard the complaint before. That limiting the age to 62 significantly limits their available rental pool. Commissioner Jonathan noted that one of the original development agreements was to provide housing for seniors age 62 and older. He asked if he could conclude that staff's conclusion was that this modification would not deprive seniors over 62 of available housing as a result of allowing to the age of 55 to 62. Mr. Drell said the good news was that the other nature of senior occupancy was that once they move to a nice place they stay there. Their other feeling was that they were confident that eventually this project will be an all age 62 plus. Historically these projects eventually get in 60's, 70's and 80's. Then they convert themselves to an assisted living facility. That is why they were only recommending for five years because staff felt over time that once the initial lease up was achieved, it will revert back to an age 62 project. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RAYMOND D. TROLL, 77-120 Sky Mesa Lane in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He stated that they have only had occupancy for about three months, but he personally had to take the job over last December 21 st and he was there seven days a week, 12 hours a day. He said he had a trailer there and he was renting and rented at least ten of those apartments before they got the occupancy. Also, the ones they rented first were the low rents. There were eight of them and seven moderates. The moderates were pretty close to what they were asking and within $20 or $30 depending on the size of it. But the low rents were $200 to $230 off the market rate so that was why they were able 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 to rent those faster. He started renting as soon as the building structure was up and they could show the apartments. He had a trailer right next to the golf course. Mr. Troll stated that this is a unique project in that it is really well done. They are right on the golf course and have a beautiful rec room with a gym, social/computer room, library and all purpose kitchen craft room. He indicated that it gets very little use and he thought that was kind of sad. The other issue was parking. He thought they were at 1 .18, but they were also allowed to park on the street, too. He didn't think that was a good idea, but he thought it would take about ten cars. He didn't think parking would be a problem, but there were other things. He thought that 62 and over had to be looked at. It was very difficult and he didn't think it was healthy. He thought that if they got some 55 and over, the people would even appreciate it that were already there. What they had were mostly single ladies. They only had two couples out of the 20 that were there. They were in their late 80's and they have had to help them. There was a young lady there, she is 62, and she came in today to help someone. She needed some coins to help them with the laundry. There would be some younger people and he thought there would be compassionate people who would help the other ones and that it would be a good mixture. He said it was very hurtful to turn away people that were 55. They are seniors, too, and don't understand it. He said it was difficult to explain to them why they couldn't move in. That had been a problem. He said he wished he had some slides or something to show the commission the project so that each and every one of them could see it. It is right on the golf course. He expected golfers to come there, but that wasn't happening. He said he would be happy to answer any other questions the commission might have and thanked the commission for the opportunity. Commissioner Lopez asked how many apartments Mr. Troll needed to have rented to break even or make ends meet. r. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 .ri Mr. Troll said he didn't want to bring it up because his hardship was not a factor here, but it had been very hurtful. He stated that it would take 58 or 60 apartments for what they estimate to break even. However, there were major things running-up--higher than what they budgeted for, but they were thinking between 58 and 60 apartments. Commissioner Lopez explained that he looked at the project and thought it was very nice. It was a very attractive facility and was obviously brand new because they still have the grand opening sign up and he saw people touring around the facility. From Mr. Troll's expectations, the ability to rent the units had obviously been much slower than he expected over the first three months, but Commissioner Lopez noted that he was coming out of a summer season into a fall season without even taking into consideration the prime season. Mr. Troll said they hoped it would accelerate. He was doing everything he could to rent. He just had six billboards put up. They were advertising on the radio and they were going to increase their advertising and they were considering doing television. He talked to Shepherd Company about doing some marketing for them and he wanted to mail out to some of the people who come down from the north, but everyone told them they should have done that before the season. The season is already here and their minds are made up where they are going. So he hoped to increase the traffic. That was what the problem was. They were not getting a lot of traffic now. California Street is not on the beaten path, but it was a nice place to live once they get in there. It's quiet and the speed limit is 25 mph. Once they get in there, it's fine, but they couldn't get people in and it was very difficult to have signs everywhere. But they were going to increase their budget and spend a lot of money advertising and marketing to try to get people in. He didn't know what the holiday season would bring and whether people will be out looking. He said they have been open on Saturday and Sunday and sometimes there was only one or two persons coming in. He indicated that seniors don't rent like other people, the first time they see it. They have to come back and look it over. A lot of the people they have were the parents of people who live in the 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 rr community. The children want their parents close by. At least six people were brought in that way. 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 stated that she would be in favor of granting the permit for five years for this project. She noted that Mr. Troll was late in advertising right now because everyone had already made up their minds where they would be so she hoped this five-year period would help him. She said she was glad that 55 was a legal senior citizen and she was in favor of the request. Commissioner Tschopp thought that only being open for three months was a little premature for them to override the granting of the Senior Overlay rules; however, he made note that there was a difference of only five parking spaces needed to get to the 55 year age limit (95 versus 90 parking spaces). He said that he was going to rely on staff's statement `r that the rents are at market, so he would not be opposed to granting this, although in the future he thought they should look at the Senior Overlay and the age because he thought that at age 62 and over they might be limiting their market substantially. Commissioner Lopez stated that he might be taking a different perspective on this. He struggled with the fact that it has only been three months. It is a very attractive complex and he didn't think there was going to be a problem in meeting the 80% occupancy which was basically what Mr. Troll needed to rent. They needed to rent 60 apartments in order to make this project go and right now they had 20 plus another seven or eight that were coming on board, so he really only needed to rent another 30 apartments and he was coming into the prime season. He thought it was a premature request. He wasn't opposed to the request, but he didn't think the applicant had put every effort forward to rent his apartments. If he was just now doing the advertising with billboards, etc., that was basic marketing done to try to fill the facility. He said he struggled with this and what he was opposed to was the prematurity of the request itself or at least perhaps only a designation of a certain number of apartments they could move ahead on to obtain the 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 80% which would be another 40 apartments rented and perhaps they could put guidelines on those 40 apartments to be 55 and older. After that it might do two things. It might alleviate some of the parking - problems they might have and it would give them the opportunity to fill the apartments. But under the current request, he would be opposed. Commissioner Jonathan said he agreed with all the comments that had been made; therefore, he had a question about a potential compromise. He asked if it would be possible and if they thought it would be a good thing to do to allow an additional 20 units opened up to the over 55 age range and give the applicant an opportunity to see how things go. If he still continued to have a problem, maybe they could open the rest of them up to over 55. But if everything else gets rented, then there was no problem and they haven't deprived the over 62 community of housing that the development agreement was seeking to provide. He was suggesting as a compromise they grant the request, but only for an additional 20 units and if there was still a problem, the applicant could come back to them. Commissioner Campbell asked how much time they would give him. Commissioner Jonathan said he wouldn't set a limit. If the applicant came back to them at the next meeting, he would feel that was premature. If he comes back in three months and says he really tried and got the other 20 rented quickly and was still having problems attracting the over 62 crowd, then they would know there was not the demand by the over age 62 person. So he would leave that part of it open ended and would grant the request, but only for an additional 20 units at this time. Chairperson Finerty offered another alternative. Since the applicant indicated that he was going to take up some radio time and put some billboards up and get into the advertising and marketing, she was wondering if they were to continue this for three months and see what happens and bring it back at the first meeting in March and see where they were. She also thought the request was premature. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he thought about that but thought the next three months were kind of critical and if the applicant was not able to gain the absorption that he is seeking and that the City is seeking through the development agreement, if he was not able to do that over 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 low the next three months, they almost lose a year because people tend to do these things predominately during the season. It was another option. He was just looking for a compromise that accommodated the applicant --- and at the same time didn't "give away the whole store." - - - --- Commissioner Campbell suggested asking the applicant which he would rather have, 20 right now and come back in three months or another option. Chairperson Finerty said she didn't know if there was concurrence for the 20. Commissioner Lopez stated that he wouldn't be opposed to that. He thought it might be a good alternative. He was looking more along the lines of being a little more flexible and saying that if it is 80% occupancy, or approximately 60 units, that he currently has 20, he needs to rent another 40 and he would be willing to go with the 40. But 20 would be acceptable to see how that goes. Personally being in the world of ... marketing, he thought that based on the location the applicant needed to get the word out as to where it is because it's a great facility. It's beautiful, but people need to find it and people need to be made aware of it. He didn't have a problem with the 20. Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Troll if he had any objection to allowing 20 of the units to apply to 55 and older. Mr. Troll asked if the commission was suggesting 20 more units for 55 and over. Chairperson Finerty explained it would be 20 out of the 76. Mr. Troll reiterated that of the 20, there were low cost and they rented easier and he has been renting the units since the first of the year. He had a real nice trailer there and had pictures and a brochure. He appreciated them reaching to help him, he would just like them to go with a little more and said maybe 30 would be the number. Anything they did was going to help, but he thought 30 would be a little better and then they could see how to go from there. He said they hired RPM and he thought they did most of the 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 ri City's apartments. They came and visited him and were willing to give it up because they didn't see the merit. They saw this beautiful place and thought it was going to fill up. They did ------ - - advertise-some, but he saw-the-need to really increase the level of marketing. It was just something that had to be done to make people aware of where it is located. He was sure it would help, but he didn't know how much. If the commission could increase that a little bit he said he would really appreciate it. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he had been persuaded and would make a motion to approve the applicant's request, but limit the units to 30 that would be available for age 55 years and older. Commissioner Campbell asked how long of a period that would be for. Commissioner Jonathan said the five years. So the entire application and recommendation by staff with the only modification being the limit of 30 units. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would second the motion. Chairperson Finerty asked for any discussion. Commissioner Tschopp commented that if the premise was that middle aged people over 62 were looking for rental housing and they have an apartment vacancy rate 'W of 2% to 3% and the rents are at market, something didn't quite fit, so he would say to the applicant and to staff that before they see this again or other housing units coming before the commission for this exception, they should do a little more studying of the market or the need. Mr. Drell stated that one of the problems, and it was the same problem with Las Serenas and all the senior projects that have been approved, is that as a rule the majority of seniors who are looking for rental housing can't afford rental housing. Seniors who don't own a home by the time they are 62 typically don't own a home for a reason, because of certain adverse financial things that have happened to them. Once they own a home, they don't usually leave their home until they are somewhat infirm, usually a bit later than 62 and more like 70 or 80. But the ones that are looking for rental housing in the age group, typically there was a fundamental problem of affordability in that group. He thought there were probably plenty age 62 seniors who need housing, but they can't afford market housing. He was sure they had a waiting list for age 62 and older for our subsidized product. But they couldn't afford market housing, so age 62 narrowed the whole pool down. Commissioner Tschopp said that was why he commented that the Senior Overlay might 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 not be appropriate. Mr. Drell said that before the commission would be an implementing ordinance for the Density Bonus law which was also amended along with the Second Unit law. The experience has been with -- densitybonuses -generally-that simply-giving '-g y ply-g g people more units didn--t-- - dramatically change the economics of the project. They start off with taking a good portion of the extra units and making them rent below market which they lose money on, so it was one of those deals where the more units they give them, they make it up with volume. So what the Density Bonus law now said was that in addition to giving people extra units, they have to give them financial incentives because the experience over the last 20 years with density bonuses was that simply giving them more units didn't create affordability. They needed cash. Chairperson Finerty noted there was a motion and a second and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner too 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. 2168, recommending to City Council approval of PP/CUP 99-5 Amendment to Ordinance No. 920, Development Agreement for Villas on the Green to temporarily reduce the minimum age from 62 to 55 for a maximum of 30 units . Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 02-29 - WIRED GAMEZ INC., Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow Wired Gamez Inc. To operate an internet and video gaming facility located at 73-185 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Bagato explained that the applicant was proposing a 2,457 square foot internet and video game facility in an existing retail center at 73-185 Highway 1 11 . The facility would include pc computers, gaming consuls, video games and machines, hot and cold vending machines, some stereo 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 b music video systems, along with business software, copying machines, faxing machines and some basic internet access. The proposed hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8-00 a.m. to -3:00-a. -Frida"nd-Sat-urday. Mr. Bagato indicated that Wired Gamez Inc. was currently operating a similar 2,800 square foot facility in Moreno Valley, California. All of the adjacent zoning was commercial in the center. He stated that the primary concerns with these types of proposals are parking and security. This proposed business would have three employees and according to the floor plan would fit around 70 people. The use would share a total of 57 frontage parking spaces indicated as Palm Desert Drive on the map and along with 423 parking spaces in the rear of the building of the shopping center totaled 480. Staff conducted daytime and nighttime surveys that indicated on average a total of 349 parking spaces. For security measures, the applicant was proposing some security measures they use at their existing facility that has worked very well for them. The Police Department reviewed it and gave their okay and added a few additional conditions. In July, the applicant also met with a lieutenant of the Police Department who also gave his okay. Mr. Bagato said there were some attached letters from the Moreno Valley Business Council in support of the project. Mr. Bagato stated that there was no environmental review. The project was classified as a Categorical Exemption No. 3 and staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Finerty asked for clarification on the hours of operation. Mr. Bagato stated that the hours were 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Chairperson Finerty noted that the staff report on page one said until 1 :00 a.m. Mr. Bagato said that was correct, the hours would be 1 :00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. until 3:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Chairperson Finerty also noted that on page two it said that no minors would be admitted after 10:00 p.m. She asked what would happen if 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 they were already inside. Mr. Bagato deferred the question to the applicant to explain how they deal with that in their existing facility. -— — Chairperson-Finerty ol2ened the publie--hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MICKEY MCGUIRE, 365 Marabella Drive in Riverside, California, addressed the commission. He explained that he is the Vice President of Corporate Development for Wired Gamez Inc. He explained that it was their intent to provide the youth of this city and surrounding communities with the second of what was to be a 30-store chain of entertainment venues that would provide a safe, socially responsible and supervised environment that is attractive to the youth. Thus providing them an outlet where they could spend time with their friends, have fun, but in a professionally managed and controlled environment similar to their current facility in Moreno Valley. He said they plan to work closely with the City's Police Department as well as the School Districts as they do in Moreno Valley to insure they are meeting and providing for the needs of the city's youth. Regarding no minors being allowed after 10:00 p.m., currently after 10:00 p.m. unless they are accompanied by an adult or guardian, they are asked to leave. He requested approval of the CUP and asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked how they track the presence of the minors in their facility. Mr. McGuire said they have a software system and they log in every individual who comes into their store. They ask for ID. Identification is required to play at their facility. They take a digital picture and capture all their information and it goes into their database for security reasons and it allows them to monitor this issue so they know when people come in they have their date of birth based upon their identification and at 10:00 p.m., it notifies their staff members which individuals need to be excused. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they monitor when the patrons leave. r.. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 j Mr. McGuire said yes, they know when they check in and when they check out. That was part of the billing process. ---- Commissioner Lopez asked who their targeted-mark-et would be. —- Mr. McGuire said it would be the 13 to 24 year olds, depending on the various times of the evening. Commissioner Lopez asked why it was important to be open until 3:00 in the morning. Mr. McGuire stated that there was a large population that is of age who enjoys entertainment and this form of entertainment who don't participate in going to bars and activities associated with alcohol, but were still searching for entertainment with their friends, especially with the growth of the college students in the San Bernardino/UCR campus and the College of the Desert. He requested that if there were any comments raised during the discussion or public hearing, he would like the opportunity to reply. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the imposition of the 10:00 p.m. rule for minors to leave was a benefit to the applicant and something that he preferred to have in place. Mr. McGuire explained that it allowed them to maintain a safe environment. They understand that if younger aged individuals were out later in the evening, it could potentially cause problems for the community. Commissioner Tschopp asked if from Mr. McGuire's standpoint if that was a benefit to him and if he would prefer to have younger adults leave at 10:00 p.m. or if it was something he perceived that the community wanted. Mr. McGuire said it was something they perceived that the community wanted. Commissioner Lopez asked if the ability to provide a location for a police officer to sit and take reports was something that had evolved and was z 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 found necessary in Moreno Valley or if it was just a precaution. Obviously this type of concern developed from something. -Mr. McGuire said it was-merely a precautionary measure they have taken, understanding that there were large groups of youth together. They wanted to make sure that everything they do maintains that safe and controlled environment. Having a facility or location where officers can come in, whether they need to write their reports, use their internet or phone access, that just created a presence that they liked. He said they surveyed the customers of their current facility and their response was that if there were any patrons who didn't want to see officers coming in randomly, they wouldn't want them in their store anyway. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. +r.. Commissioner Tschopp thought this type of business was something that is growing and the need for gaming activities and pc outlets are something that are needed in the area. He also stated that he would be more in favor of imposing Palm Desert's curfew, which is 12:00 a.m. because the things he hears from young adults in the city is that there is nothing to do and hopefully they would show up at a place that is well managed and patrolled. Since the Police Department would be taking a look at the security measures in six months, they could take a look at that and see if it has been a problem and make an adjustment accordingly. He was in favor of the project. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He thought this was a great added alternative for entertainment for their youth, particularly if it was in a supervised environment as the applicant has indicated; a safe environment. Then that was a terrific positive for our community. Further to Commissioner Tschopp's comments, he was in favor of lowering the age from 18 to 16. His reasoning was to capture the high school crowd. When his kids were in high school, their evening began when he went to bed. They were looking for things to do and hanging out at Starbucks, Carl's Jr., Del Taco and those kinds locations got old after a while. A 16 year old is a sophomore in high school and he thought 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 this was a good option for them, particularly if it was a safe, controlled environment. He agreed with 12 midnight, but also lowering that age to 16 and if the applicant wanted to make it 18, he could. But in terms of a minimum requirement, he would favor 16. - Commissioner Campbell thought this was an excellent location compared to others they had reviewed. She didn't have children that age at home, but she agreed that 16 year olds going there instead of somewhere else, that would be an agreeable environment. She was also in favor of age 16 and midnight. Commissioner Lopez noted that he has both 16 and 18 year old children. His only concern was with the 3:00 a.m., but he would rather have his 18 year old there than other places at 3:00 in the morning. He concurred and thought the age of 16 was fine and that the 12:00 was fine. Chairperson Finerty also concurred. She thanked the applicants. It appeared that they really did their homework as far as persuading her because it wasn't going to be an easy thing to do when she first started reading about this. But she appreciated the efforts they made and the correspondence they received from the Moreno Valley Police Department, from the City Councilwoman, and also meeting with Lt. Thetford. She appreciated the lengths they went to and convinced her that this would be a safe and secure place. However, she cautioned that they needed to make sure the Police Department reviews it in six months to make sure everything is as good as it looks on paper. She agreed with the other commissioners that Palm Desert's curfew made sense and also the age 16 to 18 and then if there were issues, they could address that six months from now. Commissioner Campbell noted that the applicant was probably very surprised that he came in for an application and they were giving him more than he asked for. Chairperson Finerty noted that they didn't do that often. Chairperson Finerty asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2169, approving Case No. CUP 02-29, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried D. Case No. PP 02-15 - WESTWIND DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct a three-unit apartment complex consisting of a one-story building with three units and a detached carport structure for three vehicles located at 74-160 Candlewood Street, and approval of an adjustment to allow a reduction in a side yard setback from eight feet to six feet six inches. Mr. Urbina explained that the project site is located on the north side of Candlewood Street between Portola Avenue west of Abronia Trail. He showed elevations looking at the project side from Candlewood Street to the northwest. He stated that surrounding land uses included single story apartments to the west, to the south and to the east. To the north were single family homes and a parking lot for the Greek Orthodox Church. The interior of the project site was currently being used as a paved parking lot serving an eight-unit apartment complex to the east that was also owned by the applicant. He showed a plan looking at that complex to the east. Mr. Urbina stated that the project would be accessed by two 24-foot wide driveways from Candlewood Street. The west half of the project site would contain the three-unit apartment complex and a three-space carport serving the apartment complex. The Zoning Ordinance required a minimum of two parking spaces per apartment unit, one of which had to be covered. The six spaces in the front would serve the proposed triplex. The east half of the project site would contain 16 parking spaces that would serve the existing eight-unit apartment complex to the east. The applicant filed a parcel map waiver application to merge this project site with the separate parcel to the east that contains the eight-unit complex. %W 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 The applicant was also requesting approval of an adjustment to reduce the side yard setbacks from eight feet to six feet six inches along the westerly side property line. Mr. Urbina showed a view looking north at — — - —the adjacent property-to the wept:-He said--they could see-the fence-on -- - the right hand side. That was the westerly property line of the project site. There was an approximate distance of 25 feet from the project site's westerly property line to the closest building of the existing apartment project. The applicant contacted the current owner of record of the adjacent project to the west and they were not opposed to reducing the setback from eight feet to six feet six inches. The complex to the west is in escrow and the applicant has contacted the new buyer and he was also not opposed to the granting of the reduction in the side yard setback. On November 12, 2002, the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval of the project. The exterior would consist of beige colored stucco walls with a red the roof. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve Precise Plan of Design No. 02-15 by adopting the draft Planning Commission Resolution. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. AL WOOLWORTH of Westwind Development, 77-240 Iroquois Drive in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He said he was present to answer any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone who 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 the project would be an enhancement to the area. She was also in favor of the adjustment which was only one foot and a half. The new owner gave his approval and she would vote for approval. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Commissioner Tschopp concurred and stated that he would move for approval. Commissioner Lopez said he would second the motion. Chairperson Finerty asked for any other discussion. There was none and -- -- — she called for the vote: Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, 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. 2170, approving Case No. PP 02-15, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case Nos. PP 01-30, Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, TPM 30502 and Development Agreement - RILEY/CARVER, LLC, Applicant `, Request for approval of: 1) a precise plan of design to allow the development of a 70-acre shopping center with 689,071 square feet of gross commercial space and related Subsequent Environmental Impact Report; 2) a tentative parcel map to subdivide 70 acres into 23 parcels; and 3) a development agreement as it relates to the Desert Gateway project. Chairperson Finerty asked for a staff report. Mr. Alvarez requested a three minute recess to set up his power point presentation. Commission concurred and Chairperson Finerty called the recess at 9:18 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:23 p.m. Mr. Alvarez addressed the commission. He said they would like to accomplish three things; first was to give the commission an introduction to the Desert Gateway project being proposed at the corner of Dinah Shore and Monterey Avenue. Second was to identify some of the issues and key concepts of the projects and to answer any questions the commission might have. Third was to open the public hearing and receive input and testimony regarding the project and to keep the public hearing open until the comment period for the Subsequent Environmental Impact 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 j Report was complete. The comment period would end on December 13, so at the conclusion of their presentation and the developer's presentation, staff asked that the public hearing be left open and the item - -- --- be continued-to December 17:--- Mr. Alvarez said he would give a brief description, some background, and identify some of the key components of the project. Mr. Alvarez showed an aerial photo of the project. He said that the project consists of 70 acres located at the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore. The project was outlined and conformed with both the existing and proposed exterior street circulation. Monterey Avenue was running south and north and Dinah Shore, which would eventually extend in a southerly direction and tie into Portola and they had another north-south street on the back side of the project, Desert Gateway, which was formerly referred to as Lucas, then 35th Avenue running east-west. He pointed out the location of the Home Depot to the west and the Costco shopping center to the northwest. He stated that the existing site is zoned Planned Commercial. This particular piece was part of a larger `t subdivision that was part of the County. In 1992 the City annexed this parcel and other parcels in the area. Along with that annexation came a development agreement for the particular site. The development agreement was for a ten-year period. The applicant/owner at that time was granted the use of County development standards. Mr. Alvarez stated that the development agreement would expire February 4, 2003. So the request was not only for a precise plan approval for the shopping center, a tentative parcel map to subdivide the 70 acres into 23 parcels, but as a correction on the staff report, it was also to grant an extension of one year to allow this process to continue and finalize itself and to amend the development agreement to reflect the project the applicant is proposing at this time. As noted in the staff report, Mr. Alvarez stated that this particular project has gone far above what the original County standards would have allowed this project to proceed with in terms of setbacks, building architecture and probably coverage and parking. Mr. Alvarez showed a site plan to demonstrate where the buildings would be located. The project would have approximately three different categorical users. The first category included the major anchor tenants which were located on the east side of the property. There was a Sam's r 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Club and adjacent to the south was a Wal-Mart, then the potential for an additional three anchor tenants. - — - The-second type-of use on the-site would be-oriented toward the freeway - commercial use. With its proximity to 1-10, they would have a convenience store and two fuel stations (one of which would be operated and owned by Sam's Club in a similar fashion to Costco's, a membership facility). The third type of use was the neighborhood commercial with sit down restaurants at the corner and some additional restaurants along with additional commercial shops. Regarding circulation, the project would have a number of access points from all four streets. The major and main access point would be Market Place Way, directly adjacent to the Home Depot exit and entrance. It would be a fully signalized intersection. The additional entrance and exit would be a right-in and right-out heading northbound on Monterey and there would be a left in heading southbound. On Dinah Shore there would be a right-in and right-out movement and a left-in heading west. Gateway Drive would have two access points and 35th would also have two access points. Mr. Alvarez noted that the staff report was pretty lengthy and went into large detail on the development standards. What the applicant tried to do was achieve as close as possible the City's standards. In most cases he was able to do that in terms of parking, in terms of setbacks and in terms of coverage. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Alvarez said that the applicant had worked diligently to come up with a concept and a palette that would not only be compatible in our desert environment, but also in this windy area. Mr. Alvarez said he wouldn't touch upon every single item, but some of the key items which would include grading. Grading was an issue they dealt with with the developer and with staff to come up with solutions to make this project work. The proposed grading plan which the commission got a copy of included a 33-foot fill condition at the northeast corner of the site. From the natural topography, the site slopes 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 j from south to north about 81 feet. The natural terrain made it below the street elevations at Monterey and one other corner. There were several things the applicant tried to achieve with the grading. One was to - - - ---minimize the grade differences--between-t-he Sam's-lub building and4he Wal-Mart building. It was not to create any pedestrian barriers and terracing to allow for free flow pedestrian and handicap access. Secondly, the applicant tried to create a grading plan that would minimize the sloping of the parking lot area to a maximum of 2% to allow for the ease of access for pedestrians and to basically avoid runaway shopping carts. The third criteria was to create a project that drains properly. So what they came up with was what was shown in the commission's packet. It was a grading situation which creates a 33-foot pad elevation for the Sam's Club 33 feet above the Dinah Shore street level. Moving on the architecture, the Sam's Club and Wal-Mart building elevations were distributed to the commission in their packets. The applicant worked extensively with the Architectural Review Commission and staff to develop some design guidelines for the entire site to coincide with the Santa Barbara mission style. Staff also included some additional typical shop and restaurant elevations which they could see in the reduced colored elevations. The Wal-Mart and Sam's elevations for the typical concepts for the shops was on display which Mr. Alvarez stated was in keeping with that Santa Barbara mission style. He also showed the typical restaurant concept. He pointed out that the elevations have come a long way and they added a lot of variations in materials, textures and detailing that would soften this large box which was a requirement of these large big box users. Mr. Alvarez stated that the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval for both the Sam's and Wal-Mart buildings and approved the design guidelines for the entire project, of which future pad buildings surrounding the site would have to come back through the design review process and be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. He showed the Wal-Mart elevations, including the west facing and north facing elevations. Mr. Alvarez noted that the property is subject to the development standards of the county. The county standard for this particular zone 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 allowed for a maximum 50-foot height for buildings. The proposed Sam's building would range in height from 34 feet to 40 feet with tower elements at 56 feet. So there was a six foot difference there from the - -county--standard. Palm Desert's existing--standard---for t-he Rlanned Commercial District is 35 feet. The Wal-Mart building had a height of 30 feet to 32 feet with tower elements at 44 feet. What staff tried to do in terms of the towers and undulations of the different roof heights was to break up the mass of the large scale of this building. He thought that had successfully been done with the undulations and roof heights, as well as the towers. He noted that in the past the Planning Commission has granted exceptions for tower elements if they were not going to impact adjacent properties and if they were going to benefit the architecture of the project. In this case ARC and staff concurred that adding the towers and undulations in the roof heights significantly minimized the mass of the buildings. Mr. Alvarez noted that there is a certified EIR, but as part of this particular project, the City requested that a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report be prepared. The commission had a copy of that large document delivered. The main focus of that study was the traffic and circulation. He stated that there were mitigation measures that were proposed to reduce those impacts to levels of less than significance. He said that staff could go into details if the commission wanted. There were only two unresolved traffic concerns. The applicant wanted to see a traffic signal at the Dinah Shore entrance. As part of the traffic study staff asked the consultant to analyze the situation. Staff's concern was how that would fit in with the synchronization of the Monterey/ Dinah Shore intersection. At this time that particular signal request was being studied and by December 17 staff should have an answer and a recommendation from the Engineering staff. The other item he wanted to mention was a potential concern with the access at Monterey and Market Place. From experience of other shopping centers with similar designs, this particular driveway would come in and terminate where cars could travel north or south, or east to a parking aisle. This similar situation occurs at Desert Crossing and at the Westfield Shopping Center at Plaza Way. During peak periods in those 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 WWI particular shopping centers, there is a back up and this was a similar design. Although the traffic report didn't specifically identify that particular intersection, staff was going to be suggesting that more — attention-or-more detail go into-this particular intersection--and-analyze it - -- to see what the potential numbers would be and if in fact it would be a problem. Mr. Alvarez stated that those were the main highlights of the project. The applicant and his team were present to answer questions and if the commission wanted, they were present to give a brief presentation. Otherwise, they were available to answer questions. He noted that at this time they wanted to give the commission a brief description, raise some of the key components and open the public hearing so they could receive comments. He asked for any questions for staff. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Alvarez said there would be two gas stations there. She asked where the second one would be. Mr. Alvarez pointed out the location. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on what Mr. Alvarez was too asking the commission to do with regard to the development agreement. Mr. Alvarez said that the recommendation had been modified since the writing of the staff report. The actual request was for a one-year extension of the existing development agreement and amend it to reflect the proposed uses/development standards that were being sought after in this particular project. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the commission didn't receive a copy of the development agreement. Mr. Alvarez said that was right. Mr. Drell said this could be addressed by the City Attorney, but as a matter of practice during the term of a development agreement, in essence they were entitled to its benefits through the application process. Otherwise, the City could just delay the process and let it expire. It was staff's position that automatically by virtue of their application they were extended to the end of this process. Once this process was over, the amended agreement would substitute whatever the city approved as the project standards replacing the generalized existing standards. They would extend the agreement and amend it to reflect what they approve. j 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 too Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that the Sam's Club pad would be 33 feet above Dinah Shore and then the building would be on top of the pad. Mr. Alvarez said yes, they were talking about the pad — - and then-the additional height--of the. building. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that would be added on top of the 33-foot pad. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many acres the parking lot would be. Mr. Drell guessed at least a half. Commissioner Jonathan noted that was as big as most city parks or bigger. He said his concern was, and maybe it should be addressed at the next meeting, but in terms of the landscaping it was a park and he didn't want it to turn into one of those cement runway type of things after a few years where all the trees and bushes are gone and all they have is cracked tarmac. He assumed it would be in compliance with the shading ordinance and wind screening and design standards. Mr. Alvarez said they could bring that discussion back at the next meeting. He also noted that the landscape architect was present and he could fill the commission in on the details they went into rW with the City's landscaping staff to assure those particular items were addressed. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BILL CARVER, 72-955 Deergrass Drive in Palm Desert, California, addressed the commission. He stated that he is one of the developers of this project. He said he had everyone present so that the commission could ask them questions directly. He introduced his team. Regarding environmental issues, John Criste was present from Terra Nova; the architectural team was headed by Mark Giles, the project architect along with Sajid Shantee; the Wal-Mart architect, Bill Parrish; the landscape architect was Robert Curley from Cummins Curley; the engineering was Steve Reiner of DRC; their traffic engineer was Carlton Waters of Urban Crossroads; the offsite engineer was not present and that was Bruce Kessler of Mainiero Smith and they did the actual design of Monterey and they had been working with staff and Mark Greenwood in trying to design the Monterey frontage. Right now Monterey is two-lane northbound and they would be making it a `W 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 four-lane northbound with a transition into three lanes just as they come to Dinah Shore because the bridge is only three lanes. There were several others who weren't present. The construction - - - consultant was Torn-O'Neal—Their legal advisor was-present, Penny Alexander Kelly; Stanley Rothbart, the consultant and advisor to Wal-Mart and Sams; and finally present was his partner, Malcolm Riley. Mr. Carver noted that he brought this project before the commission approximatley a year ago and they had been refining it and going through all these studies to try and get it down so that it worked and made sense. He thought they had it and needed the commission's help to get it finished. He said they were present to answer any questions the commission might have and would go from there. Chairperson Finerty indicated that as Mr. Carver mentioned, the commission reviewed this project about a year ago and at that time she believed they were shown some suggested architecture and Mr. Carver obtained the opinions of the commission. She asked where that architecture was and where those pictures were. Mr. Carver said that most of them were right here. He said he could bring them back if the commission wanted. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Carver was stating that what they were seeing now was the same as what they saw almost a year ago. Mr. Carver said that most of it was. The architecture on the Sam's and the Wal-Mart had been changed slightly. Chairperson Finerty said she would like to see the architecture that they saw for Sam's and Wal-Mart about a year ago and asked for Mr. Carver to please have it available for their next meeting. Mr. Carver agreed. 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Chairperson Finerty asked what the schedule was for the next meeting on the 17th time wise and how much the commission wanted to review this evening, knowing that they didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would like to at least have the opportunity to express concern about certain issues that the applicant was prepared to focus on at the next meeting. Chairperson Finerty asked if those were questions for Mr. Carver. Commissioner Jonathan said yes, and then to whichever specialist it should be directed to. Commissioner Jonathan said that the initial pictures in their packet were really pretty. The Santa Barbara style had a lot of interest and things going on. It was all looking good until they got to Wal-Mart and Sam's. Then it was like, who changed projects on them. The last thing he would want to see in that particular location was what was shown to them tonight. He wasn't saying that to be insulting, he was being honest and he wanted the City to continue partnering with Mr. Carver and his experts to create something that is doable for him and acceptable to the City and asked Mr. Carver not to take offense. Commissioner Jonathan emphasized that the beginning part is wonderful for that very critical area in our city. Wal-Mart had a different motif and was stark and lacking all of the architectural elements and points of interest that they see in the early Santa Barbara type drawings. He hoped they could progress beyond that. Mr. Carver asked Bill Parrish to join him because he was the architect for that portion. He explained that they had a problem with how plans are reproduced. They used a mechanical way to reproduce their drawings so it didn't have the freehand look to it so it did come out with a different feel than a freehand drawing. Chairperson Finerty said that when those plans were reproduced, she kind of liked what she saw and when she looked at this, she didn't think this could be the same and the commission at that time generally said not to vary much from that plan because they all thought it looked pretty good, so something definitely got lost in the translation. Mr. Drell said they actually saw the drawings for the small pad buildings. Chairperson 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 j Finerty thought they saw it for Wal-Mart. Mr. Drell said no, he could tell them that the original plans for Wal-Mart were significantly starker. His comments when he saw the original Wal-Mart plans were this wasn't - - — -- --Santa—Barbara-style, it--was th"amo. He--said they--could talk .to- the. Architectural Commission and these were a substantial enhancement. Chairperson Finerty said she was talking about what they saw a year ago. Mr. Drell said they saw the vignettes of the small pad buildings which were identical to the ones they were seeing now. The problem has been, if they were familiar with Santa Barbara mission style, they never produced a 350,000 square foot big box. Inherently Santa Barbara mission style buildings were small buildings and the challenge to the Architectural Commission and architect was how to adapt an inherently small scale architectural style to huge buildings. He said that next time they would bring in the original drawings of Wal-Mart and Sam's. Mr. Alvarez said he had the original ones that were submitted to staff, but Chairperson Finerty might be referring to something else. Chairperson Finerty clarified that she was talking about the drawings they saw when they discussed this project under Miscellaneous a year ago. Mr. Drell didn't think there were drawings of Wal-Mart or Sam's. Chairperson Finerty believed that the commission addressed that they were hopeful that the entire center would maintain the standards they saw as presented and they didn't want to deviate much from those standards. What they had before them was a major deviation. Mr. Drell said it was the best effort of the Architectural Commission with the architect to adapt, one might say inappropriate architectural styles, to buildings that just didn't lend themselves to that style. So there was going to be some limitation what that architecture could do to a huge box. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood those limitations and he accepted that maybe this was better than what originally came in. Whether misunderstood a year ago or not, bottom line is that what he was looking at for Wal-Mart and Sam's Club was too stark and too bland. The challenge, and he wouldn't discuss cost elements, that was their world and what they deal with every day, but beyond that from a design standpoint, what they were looking at was straight roof lines and yards and yards of blank walls. There were things that could be done. They could have faux windows, little insets and outsets. They could do things that they have the talent for and he had seen it done. A big huge box it 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 wasn't, but it wasn't quite at the level that he was hoping they would see. -- Mr.- Parrish --said -that- -respect4-ally, he- would-- submit to the - commission that all of the elements that Commissioner Jonathan just described were on the drawings and were part of the design. He said they could point them out and demonstrate how they have been incorporated into the design of both buildings. All of the materials, all the colors, all of the different types of architectural features present on the shops and pad buildings had been adapted, as Mr. Drell pointed out, to the best of their ability to fit the size and scale of the Wal-Mart and Sam's building. Commissioner Jonathan said he appreciated that. If what he was saying was that this is the best they could do, they would just go from there. He didn't want to debate with him whether this was attractive or not. He was going to have his opinion and the commission was going to have theirs and the process goes on from there. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that he wasn't saying that none of those elements were there and did in fact say that many of the elements were, but maybe it wasn't enough or didn't all come together, but in suggested Mr. Parrish in his most objective moment flip through the first few pages for the satellites pad (and some of them were not small, eight shops had to be a big building) then flip over to Wal-Mart. He said that at some point they could have a more informal discussion about the kinds of things that he had in mind and if he was the only one, then there wasn't an issue. But if others expressed similar concern, he did. Mr. Parrish pointed out that consistent with what Mr. Drell said, they spent a considerable amount of time meeting together with staff, working through the design process, before they even took the project to the Architectural Review Committee. Specifically to find the best possible solution given the circumstances and given the style of architecture that they were asked to provide by way of the master development. He said it wasn't a style they set, it was one requested of them and because of the exact circumstances he pointed out, they made a concerted effort to work with the staff diligently before even approaching the 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Architectural Review Committee with the hopes and expectations that that effort would subsequently result in a compatible design. Commissioner—Jonathan-said he appreciated that and candift--would — - - expect that. This wasn't Mom and Pop adding a carport to their home, which they also review. This is big and it's professional and they expected that level of professionalism and appreciate it. Where they go from here after hearing the commission's comments was up to them. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he had other concerns. He mentioned the parking lot. He noted that it is a huge parking lot and his concern there, and it might be warranted or unwarranted, but it kind of looked okay there and they think there are going to be a lot of trees and so forth, but after enough years on the commission he has learned that reality, especially a few years of maturity into a project, it sometimes was different than their hopes and expectations. When it's a small parking lot they could kind of live with it, but when it's massive like this one, it could be a real nightmare in terms of the end result. 79 Mr. Carver said he would like to have Bob Curley address that. He said they have done an interesting thing here with respect to what they were trying to accomplish in this huge parking lot because he was absolutely right. If they had come up with some regimented thing, it could be a disaster. The other problem developers had was trying to tell the commission it would be maintained because they could plant whatever the city makes them plant and then it's dead three years from now because it hadn't been maintained and that was a very difficult thing to stand up there and say that it would be maintained forever. He thought the way it was planted and the condition of the plant material when it's bought and so forth were all important parts of it, but the maintenance of it in the years afterward was critical. Particularly in this windy area where if they weren't trimmed, they would end up down the street. So he wanted Mr. Curley to tell the commission a little about what they did as far as the theory they went through as far as putting the parking lot together and the landscape architecture. Mr. Curley stated that they have worked very hard with Diane Hollinger and Spencer Knight. He said they have gone before the 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Architectural Committee four times and he must have met with them personally on four other occasions. Originally he was handed the design guidelines or plant palette for the city. Subsequently he - - was-told that-wouldn't work. He said they worked-very hard w4h them to come up with a plant palette specifically for this site for Palm Desert taking into consideration the wind, especially, and the maintain-ability of this plant material. They put together a 60 page color book of every plant, its height and spread, and gave that to Diane and Spencer. They worked through that book to come up with a plant palette for this project. They weren't done. They were still weeding out and working on it and really bringing this down to something that could be maintained by the developers and the owners of the project. He stated that the original idea was that they didn't want this to look like lined up rows of trees. He said that if they took a Los Angeles area development where they have the same plants all across the fields, all the end islands are capped with the same tree tow and with that they were done. That wasn't what this project is like. They actually did a drawing where they outlined the different tree species throughout the project. It would end up looking like a camouflage pattern. The trees would wind in and out of the project and form large groupings that meander in and out of each other with different species, so when they look at this project and know the topography of it as it kind of raises out of the ground, they are actually going to see different canopy structures, different colors and different heights as they look at the project. It would not be a uniform line, it would be varying and undulating in color, form and texture to give interest to the project. That was how they had come up with this and they were using structural soil under trees in the planting areas to help the root zones creep out because when the soil gets compacted under the drive aisles and there isn't enough air and water exchange, the trees wouldn't grow to their full height and would end up stunted kind of like Costco's did. He said they were trying to avoid all of those mistakes. They have learned from those mistakes and were working with Spencer and Diane to try and make this a real gem of the desert on a very, very, very difficult site. He asked if that helped. 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 3 r Commissioner Jonathan said yes and thanked him. Beyond the palette selection and so forth, he asked if there were any architectural points of interest in the parking lot like trellis areas or landscape features. In the --- -- -- picture he-vas look4ng at,+-looked like a lot of very long s#aight rows. He asked if there was anything that would break that up. Mr. Curley said there were some center spines coming through where they were trying to get the trees to kind of meander in and out. Because of the shade requirement, they wanted to move those trees around and they were still trying to work that out a little bit with Spencer and Diane. They didn't want to look down and see a straight row of trees. They were trying to meander them out. They didn't have any trellis structures. They were trying to use the trees in informal rows and drifts but because they have that specific requirement of shade per car ratio, it was hard to work that out. But they were working hard to move things around. Mr. Drell stated that one thing they could do to somewhat break up the linear-ness was use some islands that protrude into the parking lot that actually pinch that 70 feet of asphalt to 24 feet. In essence it would bring those trees into the parking lot with the finger islands. He didn't know if they had any of those. The bad news would be they would lose a couple of spaces. Mr. Curley stated that they don't have finger islands in these large fields. They have finger islands in some other areas in the project in the more shop oriented areas. Commissioner Lopez asked how many trees were out there. Mr. Curley said there would be over 1 ,200 trees on this site. Commissioner Lopez noted that as a landscape architect, obviously there was a certain percentage that they knew weren't going to make it. He asked if they had come up with a figure. Was it 10% of the trees that wouldn't make it and they would have to replace them. He asked if there was a plan to do that because obviously based on the wind, there would be a watering system that may or may not break and different things 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 could happen. He asked how they would deal with the replacement of the foliage that didn't make it. -Mr. Curley said that with any project there is a 365 day guarantee on all the trees, so they have one year from the time they are installed by the installer to warrantee them. So that would give them the first year and that usually established the tree and they know it's going to stay. Now if they got either a real crazy frost like they did eight or ten years ago or some real intense prolonged winds, yes, there could be problems. But again, that was the reason for using the structural soil and a lot of other things they are doing. They are using desert natives without amended soils and they were really working with Diane and Spencer to come up with material that with the irrigation system all drip will let these trees grow. They want a large caliper tree to get in there and keep the head in proportion with the caliper so they grow and thrive. Yes, there were trees that were destroyed, but he thought there was something in place for that. Mr. Drell said that there is a requirement that they have to be replaced. He stated that there would be a very rigid maintenance agreement as part of the project. There would also be a maintenance manual which would specify, in essence a document the developer can hand to the maintenance contractor on how to maintain every single one of the trees. Commissioner Lopez asked if the maintenance of the areas turn over to Sam's and Wal-Mart and a restaurant and a gas station, or if it was under the one development agreement that goes with this project. Mr. Drell assumed it was a master management of the parking lot. Mr. Carver explained that they have CC&R's on the entire parking lot and the developer takes over that responsibility. Mr. Drell said the biggest change, and they could see it most graphically in the new planting at President's Plaza they did four years ago. They picked the right trees and simply made the planters bigger. If they go to President's Plaza East and West, or I and II which they did three or four years ago, they see trees in there that are unlike any parking lot they see anywhere. The biggest change was giving the trees room to grow. They 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 went from a tree well that was probably ten square feet. They were measured four feet outside curb to outside curb so it was slightly larger than a three feet by three feet piece of dirt. And they went to the current -- -- — -- inteior spaee of six-by eigh-. So-they wer�from abut ten square feet--- to about 50 square feet. That had already shown to be a dramatic improvement over the survivability of these trees in these parking lots. In terms of the parking lot, and Commissioner Jonathan thought they might wonder why they spent time talking about the parking lot and who cares about a parking lot, but it was going to be a major part of what people look at. That was why he was focusing on it. Landscaping of the parking lot is part of that and if there were some architectural points of interest, whether it was trellises or islands, cutouts, or covered parking right in the center so that people weren't always looking for that front spot, it might spread up the traffic flow a little bit. He understood the cost considerations, too. He was just letting them know his concerns and one of them is how that huge 35 or 40 acres of parking lot would look. The commission and citizens were going to be here and would be the ones to see it. Mr. Curley said he understood. He said he sits on a commission also and understood and knew what he was saying. When he and Bill were working on this concept and going back and forth in developing this, one of the concerns was when they look at how people park at a retail establishment, it was in a bell curve around the front door. They have taken the trees and pushed the shadier, denser trees towards the back around that curve so they were trying to push people backwards a little bit to just make it a little more interesting, like a park out there. It's a nice place to park and gets people kind of out there. Now it did weave in and out and wasn't a strict curve in there, but they tried to add interest with the plant material. They worked very diligently on that. Commissioner Jonathan said the only other concern he wanted to bring up right now was the height of the Sam's Club. If he was hearing it right, it was at its highest point 50 some feet tall and it started 30 some feet above Dinah Shore. He asked for clarification that if someone was standing on Dinah Shore, that person would be looking up at 60-80 feet. 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Mr. Carver stated that was one of their big problems. How to make this thing work better than just a great big tall thing standing up. The solution they came up with was to slide the building 200 - - --- - feet back from Dinah Shore. So they--lost all of that land because -they wanted to have a slope that came up at about a 1 :5 ratio so that it wasn't just straight up and down at the street level, but rather the building was back quite a distance from Dinah Shore. They weren't able to get it as far forward off of Gateway Drive. They got 60 some feet at the least and up to 100 and some feet off of that street, but to the east of them would be Tom Noble's industrial park, so that wasn't quite the impact that it would have from the freeway and something more visible. That was the solution they came up with. The reason for the height, and again it was an architectural thing, was that this lineal problem they had with these boxes caused them to try to figure out how they could make a more interesting facade so these extensions were mostly on the west side or on the face of the building as opposed to being on the north or east side of the building. So that was the purpose of it and it was strictly an architectural feature. There was nothing in there but view from Monterey, trying to see it from Monterey. He introduced Mark Giles, the project architect. MR. MARK GILES reiterated that they were up to about 200 feet away at the deepest point to the Sam's Club. It wasn't vertical and had always been fairly pulled away from that. They moved further away to try to ease the slope. It was 1 :3 and now it is 1 :5 so there was a fairly significant slope there with fairly significant planting. Even at the shallowest point it was 100 feet away, but Dinah Shore was rising as it goes toward Monterey. He also clarified that Lucas Way/Gateway Drive at the back was higher so there wasn't quite the slope condition on the back there. One of the other things they did just recently was drop the area behind Sam's four feet so to the Sam's pad elevation would be 32 feet to the back of the loading dock area. It was actually 28 feet from Dinah Shore. It was called a dock high condition. They didn't have a loading dock. The trucks just come in at grade and there was a four foot difference to the loading dock, so that was also to try and get that grade lower in the back so there wasn't quite that height. 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Commissioner Campbell asked how they would camouflage the north wall on the Sam's Club building. There was quite a large berm there. She asked if they were planting tall palm trees to hide that. Mr. Curley stated that what they have done in the back, the civil engineer designed a series of stair-stepped walls going down to that intersection of Gateway and Dinah Shore. So it was a stair- stepping of walls. Within those planter walled areas, they had a row of palms that came around, they have trees, and a cascading landscape planting out the walls. So they really wanted the walls to vanish. When someone is standing at Dinah Shore looking up at that corner/intersection, it would look like landscaping rolling up. They wanted to bury those walls and didn't want to see them. They wanted it to look like a nice landscape rolling right up to the building. Going back west on Dinah Shore, what they wanted to do is take that slope and instead of just straight grading across, they wanted to actually take it and belly it. If they could understand three dimension, he said as they come off that corner, they would belly the slope back down, flatten it out and when the parking lot comes closer to Dinah Shore, it would pick back up, so it would have some undulation in grade and interest. Then with the plant material and the other landscaping features, he thought would make it a very interesting project in the end. So it wouldn't just be a continuous uniform berm. It was actually going to be an undulating topography. Mr. Giles showed the latest planting plan. He said there were 12 species of trees that happen all the way through the parking lot and along the sides. There was 200 feet of planting along that wall, plus the architectural treatment. So that wall would be screened with planting material. Commissioner Campbell asked about the main entrance to the parking lot. She thought it was a very dangerous intersection. Mr. Giles stated that there was not a stop sign on the inbound lanes, which was different than Desert Crossing. Desert Crossing had a full four-way stop. The two inbound lanes would not have a stop so that traffic could continue through, so that was a 60 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 significant change from Desert Crossing. The concern was not just traffic entering the project. He said he has been involved with this project for almost a year and a half or two years and significant - - - - — discussions--happened with regard to internal circulation. How to keep the traffic away from the front door of Sam's and Wal-Mart. He said there has been a movement with the larger box retailers to try to restrict the cross traffic at the front doors. He said they could see it at the Costco's. That was why they put shopping carts in the main drive. They were having a problem of conflict between pedestrians and cars with people rushing out of the store with their shopping carts and cars going by at 35 mph across the front of the store. So they really tried to keep that traffic flowing along the west side and have the traffic sort of flow up through the fingers so it didn't race across the front of Wal-Mart and Sam's. In the original scheme they proposed a drive cut, right-in and right-out by Sam's. They removed it to limit that traffic along that cross drive near Monterey. Commissioner Tschopp said he shared some of the same concerns on the massive parking lot. He was trying to figure out if someone parked on the far west end of the parking if it was really feasible for them to be parked that far away and yet walk to Wal-Mart or if they would take a bus from the last stall to Wal-Mart. Mr. Carver said he didn't know how to answer that. On the day after Thanksgiving, they would probably walk from the far end of the parking lot to the Wal-Mart. The door of Wal-Mart that was probably going to be the busiest was the one furthest south, because that was going to be the grocery end of the operation. So it would probably be the area that has the biggest turnover or the fastest turnover of automobiles going in and out. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that some of the unresolved traffic issues was something he would be interested in seeing how it played out. The traffic light on Dinah Shore or the potential traffic light and the distance there between the intersection and where it empties out that main artery going through the project. r.► 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 Mr. Carver said he hit on the two issues they differ on at the present time from the staff report. Those were things they were working on with their traffic engineer and staff to try to come up — - — wit-h-a logical-way-to make-this thing-work proper4y-. He invited Mr. Waters up to the podium. He noted that they did a study of progression. Mr. Carlton Waters addressed the commission. He said they did a progression analysis. He explained that they had done a significant amount of specialized analysis at the request of the City Traffic Engineer regarding the issue of the entrance on Dinah Shore. The focus of the analysis had been whether or not that signal could be accommodated without causing queuing problems between those intersections spaced from Monterey to the driveway to Gateway. There was an analysis included in the traffic study itself that addressed that issue of trying to minimize queuing and minimize delays for intersections and it showed that that access point worked just fine. The City Traffic Engineer actually came back at that point and said that he wanted to see a good progression of traffic along Dinah Shore. He didn't just want minimum ques and minimum delays, he wanted to see traffic flowing along Dinah Shore, so they actually did the analysis again with a little different objective. The first time they went through, because the driveways were much smaller roads than Monterey Avenue. In this area Monterey Avenue at Dinah Shore was clearly the key intersection they had to be worried about making sure worked for them, so the first time they went through the analysis they took all of the smaller intersections and actually cycled the signals twice as often so there would be big long green stretches on Monterey and on Dinah Shore at Monterey, but when they got to the commercial centers, the lights would turn green twice as often. When the objective was to try to maximize the flow of traffic along Dinah Shore was presented to them, they went back and did the analysis a second time and then made the signals at those minor intersections cycle at the same frequency as the main intersection there at Monterey and Dinah Shore. He said there was a very good progression of traffic along Dinah Shore Drive itself and they still have all of those intersections operating at very good levels of service, Level of Service A for the most part and with 62 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 ques that would not back up from intersection to intersection. So that driveway as a full access point worked from an engineering perspective. As a full access point it relieved some of the traffic - - ---from Monterey. If they didn't have the left turn Out onto Dinal}- Shore to get up to that intersection, those people would come out to Monterey and would be on Monterey with all the rest of the traffic they would be wrestling with. So from an engineering standpoint, his perspective was they have analyzed it, analyzed it twice, and it would work and it would work well. Mr. Carver said that if they don't get the left-turn movement out at Dinah Shore from this, they thought that traffic that wants to go west on Dinah Shore to Monterey would have to come out of their driveway and then weave over to the double left-hand turn lanes in order to make that. It was true there wasn't that much traffic going that direction, but they felt it was an unsafe way to go. The other selection if they didn't have the signal would be to go all the way around the center and come out on 35th and go tow that direction. That would be the other way to do it. That was why they were kind of fighting for the opportunity to have the signal there and they knew it wasn't standard, but with a center of this size, they only had one signal coming into the center. They have signals at each end, but only one signal that brings traffic into the center itself. Commissioner Lopez asked what they would be looking at after three years. The next phase would start two or three to five years from the first. He asked what they would see in the first phase. Mr. Carver said the dividing line was the southerly east-west drive. It would divide the property into about 50 acres and 20 acres. It would also give them access to Lucas Way on the back, which would give them the circulation they need. Commissioner Lopez asked if all the minor buildings along Monterey would also be completed. Mr. Carver said that was correct. The other thing they would do is complete all of the offsite work. By that he meant all streets all 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 4 the way around the full 70 acres would be completed and they would landscape all of the Monterey frontage. -Commissioner Jonathan asked if was going to spec the Monterey pads ------and those would go up as they get tenants. Initially the only structures they knew were going up as part of the initial phase were the Sam's Club and Wal-Mart. Mr. Carver clarified that they would be building everything along the Monterey frontage. He said they would be coming back to Architectural Review with each one of those buildings that go in, so they would each have their review. Commissioner Campbell asked if the restaurant going in at the northwest corner would be a sit down restaurant. Mr. Carver said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell asked where the fast food restaurants would be located on the site. Mr. Carver said there would be a Krispy Kreme, to the north would be Starbucks and they would have drive throughs. He said they weren't the typical fast food, but they did have drive throughs. He also pointed out the location of Del Taco. Those would be the three drive throughs. Commissioner Campbell hoped they wouldn't have one like the McDonald's with the drive through right on Monterey. Mr. Giles said the drive throughs would be to the interior. He pointed out the location and for Krispy Kreme said the drive through was actually sort of on the north side of the building. Chairperson Finerty indicated that the staff report said there would be four drive throughs. Mr. Carver explained that with the grading plan, they have 33 feet on the back side and the other fast food they had was located on 64 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 the east-west drive coming in, but the problem was it was 12 feet below the street. So what they had here, they were trying to stay level and they were getting the buildings that are the furthest south going a that hill tr i to keep this arkin lot so that--it 9 9- P Y �9- P P 9 didn't go sliding down they were having to dig in and get some balance. They didn't feel that was an appropriate place and wouldn't get anyone to lease it. Chairperson Finerty noted that they were talking about three sit-down restaurants and asked if they were three sit-down restaurants that serve fast food or if they were more of a coffee shop style. Mr. Carver said he could give some names that didn't have leases. One of them was Applebees, another was Soup Plantation, and Red Lobster. He said the one local they would like to get and they were having a little trouble getting them to sign a lease was City Wok. They have take-out as well as a restaurant. Commissioner Jonathan noted that part of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone has to have an open public area and he asked where that was located. Mr. Giles said there were several locations. There was an open plaza for the sit-down restaurants for outdoor seating with, as proposed right now, part of the art in public places installation on the corner facing Dinah Shore and Monterey. He said there is a proposed park adjacent to the Starbucks multi-tenant building and again next to the restaurant. There was another proposed park adjacent to the fast food and another park, but that might be moving based on the final location of that building. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that some could be moved to the parking lot. Mr. Drell said they did that in the Desert Crossing center and no one ever wanted to go there. People just didn't want to hang out in the middle of a parking lot. Mr. Giles pointed out the location of a major landscaped feature with trees and planting. He also said there was significant planting 65 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 on the south side of Wal-Mart with a lot of trees and planting again in terms of open space. -- — Commissioner Lopez asked if-Sam'sand-WakMart-had a parking plan for - - associates or employees or if there was a philosophy for that or if they parked wherever they could park and it was combined with the customers. Mr. Carver said they have definite locations where the associates must park. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was left open. Chairperson Finerty asked for a motion to continue the matter to December 17, 2002. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner F Lopez, continuing this matting to December 17, 2002 by minute motion. As a point of discussion, Commissioner Jonathan commented that Mr. Carver had a very talented team and he hoped they heard the commission's comments tonight. He said he was personally looking forward to finding a way to make this something very special. Chairperson Finerty noted that there was a motion and a second and called for the vote. The motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Review of Shepherd Lane Street Improvement Progress Mr. Smith explained that Bob Riches of the GIS staff just updated the map with the number of approved projects on Shepherd Lane. Staff gave the commission a copy of the previous report and the minutes from back in April. He noted that the area was continuing to fill in and staff suggested just continuing to monitor the situation. Mr. Drell said it was a 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 moving pretty quickly and they are selling them almost as quickly as they can build them. - -- ----- - - - Commissioner Jonathan--asked fur clarification that staff wasn't - recommending Alternative 2. Mr. Drell said the developers weren't asking for it and the property owners weren't asking for it. Chairperson Finerty suggested going with Alternative 3 and asked if staff needed a minute motion or if they should just leave it alone. Mr. Drell said they could just receive and file the report. It was up to the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked the commission if they wanted to receive and file. The commission concurred. Action: The report was received and filed. B. Discussion of Church Parking Standards �.r Mr. Drell explained that as discussed at the last meeting, staff investigated how other cities were regulating their church parking and found that Palm Desert is actually on the high side. On the other hand, we have most of the churches. Before they imposed standards that weren't necessary, staff was suggesting that they select a representative sample of churches of various types and sizes in the city and study them through the season to find out if we have a problem and the nature of that problem. Whether it was big churches that have a problem, the small ones or medium ones or if they need different standards for different sized churches. He was suggesting they come back in March once staff has completed the study to know what the nature of the problem is and the appropriate solution. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion continuing this until the second meeting in March. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing this discussion to March 18, 2003. taw 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 a Commissioner Jonathan requested that staff please include in their sampling St. Margaret's and the Palm Desert Presbyterian Church. Chairperson-Hnerty called for the vote. The mvfion carried-5-0. - X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (October 16, 2002) Commissioner Campbell indicated that the committee chose two artists to put in their artwork. One of them was a man and a woman, two dancers, and they were about eight feet tall. The other one was about 50 pieces. It was made out of metal work and looked like cacti. Chairperson Finerty noted there might be more discussion about the one with the cacti. There was some concern expressed about it at the Landscape Committee meeting. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (November 21 , 2002) Chairperson Finerty indicated they talked about the Economic Element and Land Use. Staff and the consultant would be bringing back four plans of land use December 11 and they might be able to decide on one at that time. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (November 26, 2002) Chairperson Finerty noted that they reviewed the proposed artwork as mentioned by Commissioner Campbell. They also talked about the Westfield Shopping Town's landscaping around the bus bay, the Fred Waring strip and park signage, and they were going to have an event for the opening of that park. For the Cook Street median north of Country Club, they would like that to have beautiful year-round color. What was brought to the committee looked like that had been achieved, so they hoped it would all grow, would stay growing and would be properly maintained. 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2002 r.. Commissioner Lopez asked if that would be from Cook Street to the freeway. Chairperson Finerty clarified it was north of Country Club all the way to the freeway. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Mr. Drell introduced Homer Croy, the new Assistant City Manager for Development Services, who was the former Building & Safety Director. He was visiting to see what was going on here. Chairperson Finerty noted that he filled the position previously held by Dick Folkers. two Chairperson Finerty noted that the next meeting was on December 17, 2002. Commissioner Campbell asked what other items were scheduled for December 17. Mr. Drell noted that there would be a closed session beginning at 6:00 p.m. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjour a p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: / CINDY FINER Y, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm tow 69 Ex4iarr A RECEIVED 19 2002 Petition .'OMY'fNiTY DEVELOPMENT DEPART'"-+- CITY OF PALM DESERT To The k' Palm Desert Planning Commission We the residents of Robin Road, Mountain View Ave, and Delaware, petition the Pa3hYrDesert Plarn�ing-Commission to rejeetl>3nited Churelrof the Desert's request for a conditional land use permit to build their church and parking lot on Mountain View Ave. We have a unique subdivision. Nowhere else in the City of Palm Desert can one purchase a acre or more and build the house of their dreams. Over the last several years our subdivision has developed into a community of small estates.Our subdivision offers us more than the average residential neighborhood. We all purchased our property believing that there would be a single family dwelling on either side of us, across the street from us, and behind us. We have all worked very hard and long to achieve our dream homes and we want to protect our assets. We all know that in the past other land use petitioners have tried to get land use permits for subdividing, to build duplex's, to build appartments, and to install mobile homes. We all rallied against all of the them and the Riverside County Planning Department and the Palm Desert Planing Commission have always honored our objections and denied these permits. The church on the corner of Robin Road and Warner Trail applied for a land use permit to expand its facilities on to Robin Road. Again we rallied together to protest and again you the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert honored our request and denied the permit. We are confident that you will again honor our objections and help protect the value of our unique subdivision and deny the land use permit applied for by the United Church of the Desert. If by chance you grant this permit we are more than willing to take our objections to a higher authority. NAME AD )RESS `7 S601 /vl-rA/ OlC&t/ '72 12111. %now x uv2brt 4 -3 -3 416 0(d �, - 71 - y IZ- November 25, 2002 Page 1 of 3 Pages City of Palm Desert Planning Department �.. 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA RECEIVED 92260 NOV 2 T 7002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Case No. CUP 02-25/United Church of the Desert CITY OF PALM DESERT To Whom It May Concern: I have been a resident at 77-550 Mountain View for 18 years. When I first built my house there was a sleepy little church on the corner located across the street from my property, and that church was the United Church of the Desert. The church members mostly attended on Sundays for a couple of hours, and that was it. It was a nice and quiet neighborhood, however a lot has changed since then. In regard to the proposed conditional use permit requested by the United Church of the Desert, it is necessary to look at the history of the United Church of the Desert in regard to their church sites and proposals. Approximately 10 years ago, United .�. Church of the Desert was in financial straits, and sold their property to Montessori School,who made an agreement with the United Church members to let the church members use the existing building that was sold for the forty plus church members to continue to worship. Because of the sale to Montessori, the area of Mountain View and Warner Trail gained a school as well, and all of traffic and noise that goes along with a school. There was now traffic every morning and traffic every night in an R-1 neighborhood,except on Saturdays. (Not including the church's Saturday garage sales). There was also vandalism and burglary at the Montessori School, including one incident where my home along with the church were both burglarized. Shortly after the United Church of the Desert sold their property to the Montessori School,the Montessori school proposed a plan to the City Planning Department to expand. Residents within 300 feet of the property were all given notices that indicated the Montessori School had hopes to build high-density apartments on this property. Neighbors were informed at meetings that it was the intention of Montessori to have elderly residents rent these apartments, and being within such close proximity to the school, the residents could then read to the students at the school. The apartment proposal on R-I property was for I believe somewhere over '�- 100 apartments that totaled I believe to be approximately around 400 square feet Page 2 of 3 Pages each unit. I do not have the paper work in front of me, however it should be on record with the Palm Desert City Planning Department. I would like to request that the Planning Department research this past proposal in the city records. The project was not approved by the City Council. I was at the recent meeting at the City Council in regard to the conditional use permit that the United Church of the Desert was requesting for the R-1 property located on Mountain View to build another church site. A speaker for the United Church of the Desert relayed that the members had no children, therefore noise should not be considered as a factor upon building a church on the R-1 property in question. The speaker pointed out their approximate forty or so members in the audience, and further suggested that with so small of a congregation that traffic should not be an issue. He also mentioned that the current church members have a very good relationship with the Montessori School, and that the school continues to let the members worship there each Sunday. I, as a resident in this R-1 neighborhood strongly oppose the church to to build another complex further down this residential neighborhood of mini-estate homes. The city is well aware of the traffic problem on Mountain View. A city approved blockade has already been placed on one end of the street because of traffic. There are already 2 schools on Warner Trail,the cross street to Mountain View,and 2j practicing churches,(I am including United Church of the Desert). There are school buses and a good deal of traffic using the cross street Warner Trail. Children walk to school amidst all of the cars and traffic in this very busy area. A traffic light could actually be dangerous on this street due to back up to Fred Waring, and even busier street. Police are constantly patrolling Warner Trail, the cross street and adjacent to the proposed church, due to speeding. Last of all,the forty plus members of United Church of the Desert are mostly retired. As the church has been in dire financial straits before, and with the rising cost of utilities and cost of living, etc. the City Council needs to consider the future possibilities of this property if a large non-residential structure was to be built. Will United Church of the Desert eventually sell the property to a different church organization? It is the constant and unchanging goal for most churches to aspire to and to plan for growth. Or perhaps the Montessori School might decide to expand and grow, and therefore attempt to purchase the United Church of the Desert's building again, as they have done so in the past. In either case,we are looking at more traffic and noise in an already busy traffic area of R-1 zoned residential homes. The City Council received a petition with more than the majority of the residents' signatures in the neighborhood of Mountain View and Robin Road. These Page 3 of 3 Pages signatures are evidence that the proposed church is not acceptable to the neighbors who reside in this area. This alone should have a strong impact in regard to the decision making process that the City Council and Planning Department should recommend. The City Planning Department has the responsibility to look to the future. The homes on Mountain View,Delaware and Robin Road are unique and some of the last properties in the Palm Desert area where a resident can build a mini- estate or ranchette. I do want to bring to the attention of the Planning Department that the Baptist Church on Warner Trail recently proposed a church expansion on to R-1 property on Robin Road. This was not approved by the City Council. Instead, a 5,000 plus square foot home was built on this property, and the existing neighbors are very pleased with the home. It is a beautiful asset to the area of existing R-1 homes in the same area of which I believe the past CCR's was named "Lazy Acres". The property that is in question is already zoned R-1. For the many reasons expressed in this letter, residents on Mountain View, Robin Road,and Delaware do not need an increase in traffic or noise other than the kind of traffic and noise that goes along with residential property, as this area was intended for originally. `w Residents have bought properties in this area, and have paid the high price for the quiet peace and serenity that only large parcels of these sizes and statures can offer. Just because these parcels are large in sizes should not mean that potential buyers should be able to obtain these properties at residential market value prices to build schools and churches, apartments, etc. where large groups of people congregate. There are properties that are zoned for these uses. This area was designed and planned to be a very unique area of R-1 homes, and by all means should remain so. Respectfully, 2<?'�� 12,C_ Coleen Richey