Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0107 �1��� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION +r... • � -- '-� , . TUESDAY - JANUARY 7, 2003 � � � �- * � * �. � * .� .� * � .� * � .� .� � * � � � .� .� � � � � .� -� .� � * � �. � � * � 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 Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp �.. Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Martin Alvarez, Management Analyst Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MlNUTES: Request for consideration of the December 3, 2002 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the December 3, 2002 minutes. Motion carried 4-0. r.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION • JANUARY 7, 2003 ..i V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 02-03 - A.R. WOOLWORTH, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine four lots into one at 74-176 Candlewood Street. � B. Case No. PMW 02-23 - JEFFREY AND LAURETTA STANSFIELD, Trustees, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine � two lots into one parcel at the southwest corner of Shady � View Drive and Quail Hollow Drive. C. Case No. PMW 02-27 - THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to facilitate a land exchange between the City of Palm Desert and Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency for property located at the southeast corner of Lot 14 and the northwest corner of Lot 15 on Catalina Way. D. Case No. PMW 02-24 - PAULINE ZAKARIAN, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to correct non-conforming setbacks for property located on San Jacinto Avenue, APNs 627-183- 003 and 004. s , . � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 � E. Case No. PP 00-91 - KENNETH & VANESSA KATZ AND WILLIAM BROZ, Applicants � Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a precise plan of design for a 64,521 square foot two-story professional office complex located on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 300 feet west of Fairhaven Drive at 72- 600 Fred Waring Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lope2, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. VIII. 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 r,..,, hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. PP 01-30, Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, TPM 30502 and Development Agreernent 92-3 Amendment No. 1 - RILEY/CARVER, LLC, Applicant (Continued from December 3 and 17, 2002) 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. Mr. Alvarez noted that this item was continued from the meeting of December 17, 2002. In the staff report, the pending items were identified. Along with the Planning Commission's direction, a resolution was prepared for the commission's action for all the items. � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 Mr. Alvarez stated that he would just touch on a few key items from the staff report. The architecture for basically the Wal-Mart and Sam's building. He noted that at the last meeting the applicant brought back elevations which were in keeping with the ones that the commission originally saw about a year ago. Those elevations were then presented to the Architectural Review Commission on December 23. ARC felt these elevations were far superior than the ones they approved and they also reviewed each elevation of each building and implemented other key components from all three of the various elevations they had seen throughout the year. Those elevations were on display. He showed the Sam's west elevation and indicated that the components added included some arcade tile at the north end and other architectural components such as shutters, and the mass of the whole building was brought down. Other small items below the towers extending horizontally were added to break up the buildings and those same components were carried throughout the four elevations. He noted that on the 17th, only the front was the beneficiary of the rich � architectural elements of the Santa Barbara mission style. So ARC required that additional components be added to all four sides. The elevations reflected those modifications and ARC would be reviewing the changes on January 14, which would then be carried forward to the City Council. He showed the commission the Wal-Mart elevations. He noted that they could see some of the tower elements and projections had been carried throughout all four sides of the elevations. He reiterated that these elevations would be back at ARC on the 14th of January. Staff felt relatively comfortable with the elevations. He said that the applicant had addressed those items that were originally identified by the Architectural Review Commission. Regarding landscape design, staff held a meeting with the developer and the landscape architect to talk about some remaining issues for clarification. The applicant and landscape architect had conceptual approval on the landscape palette. The landscape design had not yet received preliminary approval, but the applicant was close to receiving � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 ir.. that and wouid be working with staff to get that done prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Alvarez stated that the palette they presented works on this site with the high wind area and other existing environmental factors. Staff felt comfortable the palette would work on this site. Other items discussed with the applicant included breaking up the mass of the parking lot. Staff sat down with the landscape architect and came up with some solutions. They were willing to consider those solutions which were in essence to create finger planters within the actual rows to bring the trees out further along the line of sight looking toward the east. Staff also requested that they implement sporadically throughout the site large planters in the middle of the parking lot with perhaps some large palm trees to break up the vertical aspect of the landscaping. Mr. Alvarez thought the developer was receptive and would proceed to at least review these alternatives. i,,,, Regarding the development agreement, Mr. Alvarez explained that this is an amendment to the existing development agreement. Key aspects included an extension of the agreement for five years to December 21 , 2007, and the substitution of the approved project land uses, development standards and the precise plan in exchange for the Riverside County standards currently identified in that agreement. He said these modifications were reviewed by the City Attorney and staff was comfortable with them. In terms of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Mr. Alvarez apologized for the delay in getting the commenis to the commission. He said that basically the document the commission received included all of the responses to the comments which were received by the City from outside agencies and the general public. Our environmental consultant was present to answer any questions, but the consultant felt very comfortable that the items raised were basically identified and covered in the SEIR and all items could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Mr. Alvarez noted ihat staff prepared a resolution recommending approval to the City Council. That was in their packet along with the recommendation of approvaf of the amendment to the development � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 agreement. He stated that staff's recommendation was that Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council, subject to conditions. Mr. Drell said that he had an additional condition to suggest which had not been discussed with the applicant. This was with regard to the parcel map. He stated that staff has had some experience where they have had very major, complicated precise plans approved with parcel maps and the parcel map implemented the plan. Then the plans have disappeared and expired, but the parcel maps got recorded and then they get large properties with nonsensical parcels on them and then they've had the situation where some of the parcels got sold. Which then created a very complicated situation where they have parcels that no longer correspond to any approved plan and multiple property owners. His suggestion, and the applicant could respond to it, was that the parcel map get recorded coincidentally with the grading plan. So they have some assurance that when that parcel map gets recorded and the parcels are created, there was assurance that the property would actually � proceed and they didn't end up with this paper map which turned out to be a headache for everyone. That would be a condition linking recordation of the parcel map with issuance of the grading plan. Mr. Alvarez also noted that the Planning Commission received a letter from the Riverside County Economic Development Agency. They submitted the letter and it was addressed in the responses, but basically their request was for a signal light at the Dinah Shore entrance to this project. Their property was directly to ihe north. So it would give access to their property. But staff's position at this point was that the signal was not warranted and would not be feasible at this time. If and when that project came forward, if it gets developed, Planning Commission / City Council would have the opportunity to review that project independently. He said they were notitied by the legal notices and the address of record is in the Riverside County office in Riverside. He stated that the last item had to do with the driveway discussion they had. Mr. Drell explained that relative to potential stacking problems off the driveway off of Monterey and the signal, he recommended modification of that condition to read, "final design as approved by the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 � Director of Public Works." They looked at lots of alternatives, all of which had some disadvantages and advantages, so they thought they had something close to a solution. With lane design and movement control, they would try to avoid the problems experienced elsewhere. Mr. Alvarez asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez stated that he just read the letter from the County. His perception was that they have been left out of some of the conversation regarding this project and are concerned about their access and this project impeding on their development. He asked if that had been addressed fully to a point where they could be comfortable that wasn't the case. Mr. Alvarez said he had a conversation with the Transportation Manager this afternoon and he was comfortable that that project would be reviewed independently at which time they could look into the possible signal or access to their property for traffic going eastbound into their property on Dinah Shore. But at this time the signal was not warranted. In terms of the property owner notification, he had � the list and would pass it around. The notification went to the County of Riverside on Tenth Street in Riverside, California. He said they have actively been in conversation with him and he kept them appraised of the aspects, timing and scheduling and noticing. Referring to the statement in the letter that the signal wouldn't even be considered until the year 2020, Mr. Drell asked if that was actually in the Environmental Impact Report. He didn't think it was and wasn't sure where that statement came from. Until there was a requirement for it, it was unnecessary. If they determined that it was needed because of the County project, they could require it then if it appeared to be an important feature in the future. Even if the County project didn't go, they could always put a signal in. Like any other developer, they had to come in and make a case for it and then they make a decision. They don't usually make that decision before there is an application. If a car was traveting east on Dinah Shore, Commissioner Tschopp asked where they would be able to make a U-turn. Mr. Alvarez said that at this time, it wouldn't be until they got to Gateway Drive. Mr. Drell said it was very likely that if a significant commercial project was developed there with its main entrance, that it would make sense to have a signal ... 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 there. Until they have a project, it was hard for them to evaluate it. Somehow the County was expecting them to commit to a signal for a project that has yet to exist. Commissioner Tschopp noted that Mr. Alvarez said that the mass of the building of Sam's was down. He asked if he meant a decrease in the elevation. Mr. Alvarez replied a decrease in height occurred from the original plans. The Sam's building had a 40 foot general roof line. The Sam's building had been reduced to 36 feet for the general roof line and stepping down on the back end to about 32 or 34 feet. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the same thing happened to Wal-Mart. Mr. Alvarez said yes. Commissioner Tschopp asked to see the Sam's and Wal-Mart elevations side by side. Chairperson Finerty asked if the total height for Sam's was now 69 feet, 33 feet above Dinah Shore and 36 feet of building. Mr. Alvarez said that was correct when they add in the elevation from the street. Chairperson Finerty asked what it was for Wal-Mart. Mr. Alvarez said the general roof i line was 32 feet with towers at 44 feet. Commissioner Tschopp asked what changes were made to the north portion of the Wal-Mart building. He noted there were some prior concerns. Mr. Drell clarified that they were talking about the north portion of the west elevation. He sad that it was actually brought down frorn what the commission saw and an additional detail was added to it. That north side was pretty blank and it stepped down. In certain respects in the plans the commission saw, a lot of the detail the Architectural Commission kind of added incrementally over the months, a lot of that detail had been taken away. They basically added most of that stuff back. That half had been re-enhanced. The line had been broken up. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was where the garden section of the store was located. Mr. Drell said yes. Chairperson Finerty o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BILL CARVER, 72-955 Deergrass in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he would just respond to the questions ' brought up by Mr. Drell and the other conditions of approval. He 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PlANNING COMMISSlON JANUARY 7, 2003 � thought as amended, the conditions of approval met all of their understanding of what they discussed with staff over the last few months and thought they reached an understanding about all of those things. He stated that the problem they have with the last condition of approval put in was that they were selling to Wal-Mart and Sam's. They could work it out some way, but they had a problem with the timing of when they make that sale and when they start grading. He explained the sale couldn't take place until they start grading and they had to get the money to do all of that. He thought that could be worked out, but not the way it was worded. Mr. Drell suggested, "Recordation of the parcel map shall be submitted with sufficient assurance to guarantee that the project will actually proceed." Mr. Carver said something like that would be acceptable. The only ;� other comments he had was the fact that in item two they talk about the retention of the excess water. He said they have a requirement that they can discharge the water, the 100-year storm that comes to the site, on the undeveloped basis of what it would have been and they retain onsite the amount of water that would have been the result of their development. He said they worked out with their adjoining property owner, who they are purchasing from, that this water would go down to the Mid Valley storm drainage system and that was the way the EIR was written. He said the condition should be amended to just provide that that was the way they were going to work it. So they made provisions for it, but this other way. He indicated they made the changes as requested by staff and the commission. He said they worked with Architectural Review in going back over the elevations of the Sam's and Wal-Mart. They also worked with staff with regards to the landscaping to come up with a solution that would be acceptable to their tenant as well as the city. He said he was available to answer any questions and Mr. Criste was also present to answer any questions about the EIR. `... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 ; s � Commissioner Tschopp noted that Mr. Carver has been involved in the development of a lot of shopping centers in the valley and continually through the EIR and Subsequent report he kept reading that Mr. Carver was still proposing a traffic signal. Tonight he was hearing there wouldn't be a traffic signal there, which was consistent with prior meetings, and he was just asking in his professional opinion how important it was to have a traffic signa! there initially. Mr. Carver said that they were prevented from having any left- hand traffic coming out of the center. What that meant was that ali of the traffic that would want to go north or west that is coming out of the center, was now going to go back out to Monterey and go out on the entrance across from Home Depot. So it was going to put more pressure on that intersection than it would if it was able to go out down at the end of the project. He said they accepted the Traffic Engineer's position, but felt that they would see very shortly that such an intersection should be signalized to allow the left-hand traffic to go out. � He said they would like to have it. It would be great to have � because it would loosen up the traffic internally and didn't think it would impede the traffic through the city. But apparently staff felt differently. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no response. Referring to the Request to Speak cards, Chairperson Finerty asked if Anna Rodrigu�z wished to address the commission. MS. ANNA RODRIGUEZ, representing the Riverside County Economic Development Agency at 44-199 Monroe Street in Indio, addressed the commission. She stated that they are in favor of this project. Their only concern was, as a property owner of the property across the street, that no medians be installed to hinder access to their site. They currently have as a Redevelopment Agency a lease with the County to develop this site. They were going to be doing an RFP in February for developers to develop this site. She said they wanted to support the project, they just didn't want to have any negative impacts to their project. � � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLQNNlNG COMMISSlON JANUARY 7, 2003 tir.. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was very much in favor of the project. After reading the comments on the project and Subsequent EIR, she was glad they received the letter from the County of Riverside because she was going to bring that up with regard to the signal at Dinah Shore. Ms. Rodriguez was also present representing Riverside County and Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of having a signal there as soon as possible with the project, instead of waiting to see what happens. She didn't see any reason why they had to put so much traffic on Monterey right away and wait to see what would happen in the future instead of taking care of it immediately. She said she also brought up the problem regarding the driveway to the entrance to the project on Monterey and was in favor of having it modified per the Director of Public Works. She stated that she was also in agreement with the condition to have the parcel map and grading plan being recorded concurrently as Mr. � Drell stipulated. Mr. Drell said they could modify it to include "or other assurance that the project will proceed." Commissioner Campbell agreed with having sufficient assurance that the development would occur. � Since they made so many changes in the height of the buildings, and she thought it was quite an improvement and it would go back to Architectural Review for more modifications and to Mr. Knight with the Landscape Committee to make some changes on the landscaping. She was happy to hear from Mr. Alvarez and the developer that some other alternatives would be made on the landscaping with clusters of palms and so forth to break up the parking lot. She thought this would be a really great project for the city and the entrance to Palm Desert. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he was in favor of the project. He thought it had come a long way since it was first presented. Even in concept he thought ihe architecture had improved and it would be a good benefit to the city. The few things he was still not excited about was the large parking lot, but on a project this size, he didn't think there was a whole lot that could be done to diminish that need. He encouraged the applicant to work with the individuals to make sure they could get the right plantings in there to break up the huge area. �.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 � � � � Regarding the traffic signal, he said it was sometimes difficult to argue with the experts, but he truly believed that a signal should go in at this time. The mass of the development and the impact on the amount of traffic on Monterey made it necessary to have another outlet, another signalized outlet on Dinah Shore, and he thought that would be a benefit. He would not vote no on the project on that, but he would state strongly that he thought it was needed sooner rather than later and that they should move forward on it. With that, he was in favor of the project. Mr. Drell stated that relative to the signal, the commission could amend conditions. Commissioner Campbell asked if they could add that as a condition. Mr. Drell said they could specify that the applicant shall install a signai at Dinah Shore and the northern entrance. Commissioner Tschopp said he would like to add that as a condition. Commissioner Lopez concurred with that condition. He said he would also like to commend Mr. Carver and his group for their wherewithal � through this long process. They have accomplished many many things. � They were surprised with the first architecture and now they came back with some great ideas and some revisions which he thought were appropriate and welcomed. He was in favor of the project with the concerns that had been discussed previously and that was that the landscaping in ihe parking lot and this massive parking lot facility. He wasn't so much concerned about the first, second and third year. He was more concerned about the 10th, 1 1 th, 12th and beyond and what this parking lot would look like and how it would be maintained. The traffic situation was also a concern, but with the additional traffic light as well as the ability of their experts to look at this facility and anticipate what's going to happen at that location in the future, he thought they would be okay. Overall he was very pleased with the revisions that have occurred and in looking through the report they received today, he felt confident that the concerns had been addressed and mitigated. He was in favor of the project. Chairperson Finerty stated that in general, she felt the applicants had made a good faith effort and had rnoved in the right direction, but she �} still believed there was more work to be done. Specifically, she 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 w complimented them on the architecture. There had been a huge improvement there. Her main issues continued to be the g�ading, even though Sam's was reduced 20 feet. She still felt that 69 feet above Dinah Shore was too high. She thought there needed to be another solution there. She was also concerned about the site layout with regard to the massive parking lot. Yes, it was encouraging to hear about finger planters and large planters of palm trees to try to break it up, but she was wondering if the site layout needed to be readdressed. With regard to the traffic signal on Dinah Shore, she did a little checking on that and her understanding was that the traffic volume on Dinah Shore is 750 cars an hour. It was estimated that there would be 75 cars per hour out of the center. That created a 10:1 ratio. The general practice was not to put in a signal when there is a 90:10 ratio and the Traffic Engineers prefer a 60:40 split. So she would have to go along with Public Works' recommendation. If they find a signal is needed, it could be ` added. Chairperson Finerty was also concerned with the circulation and the driveway from Monterey into the center. She had expressed concern that the cars don't have to go too far before they are forced to make a left or right turn and she believed that would create a problem with cars backing up onto Monterey and she thought it would be advantageous to have the driveway closer to the front of the buildings to get the cars into the center before they start making the right and left-hand turns so that they didn't have any issues with cars backed up on Monterey. She said she wanted Desert Gateway to be something they could be proud of and at this time she was going to have to vote no because of these concerns, which she felt were major. But at the same time, she was appreciative of the work that has gone into this and encouraged them to continue forward. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion. :... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 � � � Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval with the condition that a traffic signal be installed on Dinah Shore and the project driveway, plus the other conditions. Commissioner Lopez asked if that would include a condition regarding the parcel map and the proper rewording of that. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Lopez stated that he would second the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Chairperson Finerty voted no►. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2176, recommending to City Council approval of PP 01-30, the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, and TPM 30502, subject to conditions as arnended. Motion carried 3-1 (Chairperson Finerty voted no). ; � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner � Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2177, recommending to City Council approval of DA 92-3 Amendment No. 1 . Motion carried 3-1 (Chairperson Finerty voted no). B. Case No. CUP 02-11 Amendment #1 - STEWART ROBERTS for THE OASIS CHURCH LIFE TRAINING CENTER, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the existing conditional use permit at Oasis Church Life Training Center to allow a 2,000 square foot expansion to the church facility at 39-605 Entrepreneur Lane. The area of expansion is located at 77-530 Enfield Lane #G. Mr. Smith noted that back in July the commission approved the original conditional use permit for Oasis Church on Entrepreneur Lane. They have been in their location for a few months now. They determined that they need to expand already. Space was available in the building immediately � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 iir. to the north of them known as 77-530 Enfield Lane, Suite G. The plan was display. Mr. Smith stated that they propose to use this expanded area for their youth activities to accommodate the youth of the congregation. For the area in question, some 2,000 square feet, there would be about 1 ,700 square feet of assembly and lobby area and 300 square feet of office space. The new expanded area, Suite G, was on another property separate from the church which in effect expands the available parking for the church facility. The church in its present Iocation has noi been a problem in the limited time it has been there. Given the hours of operation of the church and the fact that a certain percentage of the youth using this new facility wouldn't drive because of their age, staff didn't think parking would be a problem. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. For CEQA purposes, the request was a Class 3 Categorical Exemption. He asked if there were �, any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. PASTOR STEWART ROBERTS, 78745 St. Thomas in Bermuda Dunes, addressed the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anything he would like to add to staff's report. Pastor Roberts said that in their ministry they would like to be able for youth to have a worship center that is geared to them. Their own worship center where their services would run concurrently with services in the main sanctuary. They found that their experience has been that in a lot of cases the way adults worship and the way young people worship are sometimes a lot different. So they thought it was really beneficial to them to be able to have a place they can call their own. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 , , Commissioner Lopez asked the ages of the youth that would be attending. Pastor Roberts said the age of the young people that would be attending those services would be middle school and senior high school. Commissioner Campbell asked what the size of their congregation was right now. Pastor Roberts said they have 200 members and they were growing. Their service times were such that there was not a parking problem or conflict with the other businesses or enterprises in the same area. 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. � Action: � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2178, approving CUP 02-1 1 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. CUP 02-20 - DOUG KEARNEY for CINGULAR WIRELESS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 48-foot high wireless telecommuni- cation tower located at 100 Kiva Drive, the corner of Highway 74 and Cahuilla Way. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a staff report or if they would just � have staff comments since there was a request for continuance. Mr. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 � Drell recommended opening up the public hearing and then continuing the matter at the request of ihe applicant. Chairperson Finerty o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was left open. Chairperson Finerty asked for a motion to continue this matter to February 18. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. CUP 02-20 to February 18, 2003. Motion carried 4-0. D. Case Nos. PP 02-16 and DA 02-02 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan and a development `, agreement for a 36-unit apartment complex known as Palm Village Apartments located at 73-610 Santa Rosa Way. Mr. Bagato explained that in 1991 a court ordered stipulation required the Housing Authority to provide affordable housing units. There was a table outlined in the staff report which summarized the needs and requirements. The current need was 472 additional affordable units by 2006. The Agency was also required to maintain 55-year covenants on affordable rental projects and 45-year covenants on owner-occupied projects. The Agency found that the best way to meet this requirement was to own the properties and develop their own project sites. Currently land within our city is diminishing to build these type of projects, particularly for infill sites. Currently the Agency only has one other project site to meet their need and that was Hovley Gardens. Based on the 162 tax credit units for Hovley Gardens, the 81 multi-farnily acquisitions, and along with the 36 from this proposed project, the Housing Authority could meet their required 472 units by 2006. The Agency purchased this site which had a dilapidated 12-unit apartment complex on it that they demolished and they purchased a lot next to it. .� 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 , in January, California Government Code Section 65915 amended by AB 1866, required cities and counties to provide incentives for applicants for production of affordable housing units. The code also stated that the cities and counties were supposed to have a Zoning Ordinance which allows them. Currently our city doesn't, so along with this project staff was recommending that staff be directed to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment that would include these density bonuses in compliance with State law. The key section as outlined in the staff report, Section K of the Government Code, stated that if the applicant agrees to construct 20% of the total units for lower income, 10% for very low income, and 10% for very lot income, the developer was entitled to a density bonus of at least 25% and at least one development standard incentive. Mr. Bagato stated that a development standard incentive was defined as a reduction in standards such as parking, setbacks and square footage. He stated that the property is vacant, totals 60,244 square feet and is located on the north side of Santa Rosa about 150 feet south of Fred j Waring Drive. He showed the commission a site plan. The site plan � provided three buildings, a recreation area and 56 parking spaces. Building A and B would be 6,752 square feet and Building C would be 17,514 square feet. All the units would be two bedrooms, one bath, and the recreation area consisted of a tot lot with open turfed area. All 56 parking spaces would be covered. The building architecture would be contemporary Mediterranean design with stucco in various earthtone colors with a tiled roof. The proposed roof height was 26 feet 2 inches with an average �idge height of about 25 feet. Mr. Bagato stated that there was an associated development agreement with the project. The City Attorney prepared the development agreement which included provision for a 50% density bonus from 24 units to 36, a parking reduction from two spaces per unit to 1 .56, and a height exception of 26 feet 2 inches with an average of 25. That compared to 24 feet now permitted in R-3. All the code requirements were outlined in the staff report. ' � � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 �r.. On October 22 the project was before the Architectural Review Commission. The applicant submitted five different height schemes as outlined in the staff report. Based on the architecture, ARC granted preliminary approval of Scheme "C" which had a 25 foot 2 inch height. That motion carried 5-0-2. On November 26 the applicant went back to ARC. To meet an 8 foot 6 inch plate height, the applicant was able to design a much better product at 26 feet 2 inches. ARC granted preliminary approval of the revised plans. For the analysis, Mr. Bagato explained that they were evaluating it based on its affordability. The project would be 100% affordable with 50% of the units for very !ow income and 50% for low income. They currently didn't have projects like this in the city. Based on the development agreement and compliance with AB 1 $66, the project was entitled to a density bonus and at least one development standard. As stated before, he said they were requesting a 50% density bonus of 12 additional units. Staff conducted a small traffic study for the street, because that would � be the main impact for additional units in the area. Currently Santa Rosa could handle 12,000 vehicles per day. Public Works indicated that any more than 3,000 would lead to a lot of complaints from the neighborhood. Right now there was a current volume of 1 ,085 per day. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, apartment complexes generate about 6.5 trips per unit. A 36-unit apartment complex would generate 234 trips per day, which would increase that volume to 1 ,319. (f the proposed project was built under the required code of 24 units, that would generate 156 trips per day and would make the volume 1 ,241 . The difference between the 36 units and 24 units was only 78 vehicle trips per day and was not considered a significant impact on traffic. Currently much of this neighborhood is older and run down and the architecture of this building was endorsed by ARC and they felt it was a well-designed site, particularly with the height giving it a lot of architectural variation. The reduction in the parking standard of 2.0 to 1 .56 was based on the historical parking demand for similar projects that the Housing Authority currently manages. There was a parking study of five apartment complexes conducted for this project as outlined in the staff report. Three � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 ,, of them were multi-family similar to this project and those were the ones he included in the staff report. Based on the parking survey, the highest average was 1 .36 and that was for a neighbor's project. The other ones were well below at 1 .06 for the Taos Palms project and .63 for Desert Pointe. Based on the parking study submitted to staff, staff was comfortable that 1 .56 was an adequate proposed standard for the project. For the environmental review, Mr. Bagato said the statutory exemption und�r CEQA allowed for low income projects with no review necessary. Staff recommended approval of the project. Mr. Bagato said the precise plan would create a nice apartment complex, well-designed in a much older neighborhood and would enhance the area. Besides the density bonus and parking standards, the project met all other applicable zoning standards like setbacks and landscaping. To meet the court-ordered stipulation for the Housing Authority, they must construct affordable � housing units and to maximize the land they have left, these types of � density bonuses and development standards were essential to help provide this kind of housing for those that need it. California Code Section 65915 mandates local governments to approve affordable housing projects with density bonuses and standard incentives if it meets the requirements of affordability. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending to City Council approval of Precise Plan 02-16 and Development Agreement 02-02, and by minute motion direct staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment that would create a section in the zoning o�dinance that would allow for density bonuses and development incentives in compliance with AB 1866. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Bagato knew what the occupancy rate was at the other apartment buildings that were surveyed. Mr. Bagato said he didn't know, but that could be directed to the applicant. Ms. La Rocca spoke from the audience and said it was 90% to 100%. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the apartment building would have a manager onsite. Mr. Bagato deferred the question to the applicant. 20 MtNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 �.. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. TERRE LA ROCCA, the Housing Director for the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency, addressed the commission. She stated that yes, there would be management onsite. There would be one unit for a manager. She said they also own and operate three other properties along that same street as part of their housing portfolio. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the apartment complex would be managed by the City. Ms. La Rocca explained that it would be managed by the management company, RPM Company, who manages their seven other properties. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the occupancy level of the other apartment complexes that were surveyed and asked if they i.. were typically high. Ms. La Rocca said that typically they are anywhere from 92% to 100% occupied with a constant waiting list. The only reason they even have a 5% to 7% vacancy is because they are turning over the units for the next tenants. So it wasn't a true vacancy. They were typically 100% occupied. Commissioner Campbell asked what the rents would be in the proposed development. Ms. La Rocca said the rents would be based on their income. Very low and low income households would be 35%; 30% of the County median up to 80% of the County median. She said that was typicaily adjusted by famiiy size. Rents could run anywhere from 5300 to 5550 a month. With two-bedroom apartments, Commissioner Campbell asked what size of family would be allowed. � 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 , � � Ms. La Rocca stated that by law they could atlow four people in a two-bedroom unit. A mom, dad and two children. That was the maximum. Commissioner Campbell asked if otherwise they wouldn't qualify. Ms. La Rocca said that was right. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any other questions. Ms. La Rocca informed commission that the architect was also present to answer any questions. She said that this project would certainly help them meet the existing need they have with respect to the RHNA, as wel! as the stipulation. Unfortunately, this didn't get them to the end of the trail. They have production that would be required for years to come. In the year 2006 they would probably see new regional housing needs assessment numbers coming down to them from the State of California, so this was � only getting them to 2006. Then they would have another hurdle to cross. So this was definitely helping them meet the legal � requirements to produce housing that is very much needed in the state of California. Mr. Drell also explained that meeting these housing needs allows us to spend the 80% of the Redevelopment money in the way we want. Ms. La Rocca stated that Bryce White was also present and had been working intimately with this project for a number of years. MR. BRYCE WHITE, Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency, addressed the commission. He said that although they have been talking about this as an affordable housing project, if they looked at the architecture and the design of it, no one would know it. They designed this project with the idea in mind that they wanted it to be something that the Agency and the City could be very proud of, which was typical of the other properties that they own. If they had seen the other properties that the Agency owns and manages that were so-called affordable housing projects, they always look better than the surrounding properties. So they were 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 �.. very proud of them. He said that Terre has done a fine job in regard to that. On this particular parcel, he said it had a very decrepit apartment complex prior to the Agency purchasing it. They considered trying to rehabilitate the property. It wasn't reasonable to try to do that. Subsequently, they demolished them and acquired adjacent properties. The density they were asking for, although higher than the current code allowance, was typical along that street. It was really no higher than what older parcels already have. In regard to the parking, they didn't want to pave more than what was necessary and preferred to put it into landscaping and other uses for the property. That was why they commissioned the study. Based on the commission's earlier comments on another project, he thought they would concur that asphalt not needed should not be placed. ' He stated that this particular project has a few amenities. The �` architectural firm, represented by Roberta Jorgenson, was present, as well as Leo Sullivan representing the Housing Commission. Mr. White stated that both the Housing Commission and Architectural Review Commission unanimously approved the project and were very enthusiastic about it. A few amenities he wanted to point out inc(uded that all the units have their own private courtyards and balconies. Most of them were covered. All of them have some coverage and most of them were completely covered. They have an additional quarter bath per unit so it was actually two and a qua�ter. They also have exterior storage integrated to the unit, so that would give them additional storage along with a conference room onsite. He asked for any questions. He said they spent a great deal of time on this and were proud of it. Chairperson Finerty stated that she really liked the fact that all 56 parking places would be covered. She thought that was critical in the desert. Commissioner Campbell complimented them on the aesthetics as well as the quarter bath. She noted that for a family of four that was really a necessity. � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 � � � � MR. LEO SULLIVAN, One Hermosillo Lane in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the current chairman of the Housing Commission. He said they have spent the last three years haranguing Terre and her group to get this project together. Because of the specter of the stipulation with Western Center, they have really tried to push this as hard as they could. They have put in a tremendous number of hours into this, as well as commission members that joined in to make this work together. They also worked with the architectural firm and he, himself, had been involved with the floor plan layouts and they have taken suggestions from individuals such as Mr. Drell to not have al! the doors facing the street and to hide them back on the sides. A lot of effort was put into this to appeal to the street as well as to the tenants that would be living there. This would be a project for those tenants and he thought they would be highly pleased with it. He said he has been in the real estate lending business for over 36 years and this particular project was one of the best laid out ones he had ever seen. So he hoped they would take their request for an exception. ` � Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. MS. ROBERTA JORGENSON, the project architect from the firm of Robbins/Jorgenson/Christopher, 2389 Sierra Madre in Patm Springs, addressed the commission. She said she wanted to point out a couple of additional aspects though Terre, Bryce and Leo had already touched on many of them. As far as the layout of the site, one of the important aspects that the Redevelopment Agency asked them to consider, and the site plan reflected, was having a front door for the complex, yet at the same time privacy for the individual units for the view of the complex from Santa Rosa and for pedestrians or visitors entering their two main front door elements. Also, those who were residents of the facility who would be parking on either side depending on where their apariment was located also had a very pleasant and designated side entrance to enter. So there wasn't a � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 �.. feeling of coming in the back door, coming around the trash cans. So it was a very dignified entry from every direction. The other important element was that the commonality of the central area served as a play area for the kids, a gathering place for people to talk and sit, and also created many opportunities for passive security. Just people who are looking out their windows or sitting on their balconies and able to see many different directions of the outside area without looking straight into the window of their neighbor and violating their personal privacy. She then distributed a sample board with the color variations. She said they would have a Spanish tile roof. They believed the complex would definitely look like the high�st quality residential complex and would be a definite asset to the neighborhood and the street. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. � Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought it was a great looking project and that they should all be proud. It looked wonderful and It was hard to believe it was low income. It was very nice and he was in favor. Commissioner Tschopp complimented them on the architecture and the street layout because it didn't look tike a big, massive apartment complex in a residential neighborhood. He said he could understand and appreciate the City's challenge when it comes to affordable housing, and the Planning Commission always looks at those projects and treats the projects coming before them as any other project coming to them. When they brought something like this before them, it made it very easy. He thought it was very nice. He commented that the parking study said that either our parking standards are too high or it was a unique economic environment. He stated that he was not advocating that they look at the parking requirements for apartments, but it was an interesting study. Chairperson Finerty concurred. She said it was a job well done. r.., 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 � � � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2179, recommending to City Council approval of PP 02-16 and DA 02-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion directing staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment creating a section to comply with California Government Code Section 65915, amended by AB 1866. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. 1 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES � A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. LANDSCQPE COMMlTTEE - (No meeting) F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Finerty noted that the next meeting would be January 21 , 2003. 26 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2003 � XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. �--_` , `�—� PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: i i (/ � i; r l ; _ I (_I ._ �. CINDY FINERTW, CFiairperson / J Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � �.�. 27