Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0401 /'—�T�'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � '•- , . . TUESDAY - APRIL 1, 2003 - � � � � �. * � � * � � .� � .� .� � � � � �. �. � .� � � � .� � * � � .� � .� �. .� � � � * � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None � Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Ryan Stendell, Parks & Rec. Planning Technician Jeff Winklepleck, Parks & Rec. Planning Manager Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary I11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 4 and March 18, 2003 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner �.. Jonathan, approving the March 4 and March 18, 2003 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION No meeting. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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 hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. � ;� � A. Case Nos. GPA 03-02, C/Z 03-01 and PP 03-05 - JAMES AND LUCILLE FEIRO, ET.AL., Applicants Request for approval of a general plan amendment from residential (medium density 5-7 units per acre) to office professional, a change of zone from R-1 13,000 to O.P. (Office Professional►, a precise plan of design for a 3,000 _ square foot single storey office building, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. The general plan amendment and change of zone apply to th�ee lots on the west side of Deep Canyon Road: 44-605, 44-655 and 44-675 Deep Canyon Road. Precise plan of design applies to property at the northwest corner of Ramona and Deep Canyon Road, known as 44-605 Deep Canyon Road. Chairperson Campbell noted that there was a request from the applicant to continue the matter to May 6, 2003. She asked if there was a staff report. Mr. Drell said no. � � � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � Chairperson Campbell onened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open. - -- Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion, continued this case to May 6, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from March 4, 2003) Request for app�oval of an amendment to the Hillside Planned Residential District, Chapter 25.15, as it relates to permitted density, limit of grading activity and other matters. � Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter. Mr. Smith explained that the title of this request now included the general plan amendment which was the reason staff asked for the continuance on March 4, 2003. He advised that the appropriate noticing was done in the newspaper. In that the West Hills Specific Plan is the general plan for the hillside areas, the development policies contained in the West Hills Specific Plan on pages 9, 10, 1 1 , 12 and 13 mirrored the zoning provisions contained in Chapter 25.15. Therefore, any amendment to the Hillside Zoning Ordinance also required amendment to the West Hills Specific Plan. The two documents had to be consistent. Staff's recommendation on March 4 was that the commission recommend approval of Alternative A to the City Council. Mr. Smith indicated that one sentence was added to the Alternative A presented to commission on March 4. The sentence was added to the Toe of Slope section that, "Applicants may propose a density transfer for units otherwise permitted above the toe of slope to areas with less than 10% � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 �F � � average slope if it results in the unit or units being placed in a location which will create less visual impact." With that modification, staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06. There were no questions for staff and Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was o en and asked for any comments in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. JOHN BAILEY, 6761 Brockton Avenue in Riverside, CA 92501, stated that he was representing the owners of what was known as Lot 17 in the Fox Canyon properties. To his knowledge, the proposed ordinance change and the City's acquisition of that Fox Canyon property was determined to be what he believed to be a project under CEQA and to his knowledge there had been no CEQA application or requirements in this � instance. He recommended that the commission not move forward � on this ordinance until those were complied with. In addition, the City's acquisition of the Fox Canyon property and these more restrictive changes under the ordinance were essentially resulting in an inverse condemnation of his clients' Lot 17. It was effectively non usable under the new ordinance. He said his clients have had a reasonable expectation that this Lot 17 would be developable. The project was moving forward and had been moving forward for more than 10 years. He was quite surprised when they learned that the City did acquire the property and essentially landlocked them. By those actions, it was essentially rendering this land valueless. In addition, Ordinance A that staff was recommending, by its term was ambiguous. His concern was that if the ambiguities were not corrected, it could lead to inconsistent application of this ordinance to other lots. For example, under Alternative A under Section 25.15.030 Section A where it talked about density, it had the � upper slope areas under A.1 that said that regardless of lot size, � every lot would be entitled to at least one unit, so even if a lot � � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 �.. was an acre of half acre, in that area they were entitled to at least one unit. When they went to item 2 where it talked about toe of slope,-which was where his clients' property was situated, it had a minimum lot size requirement of one acre, but no additional language like above that said that regardless of the lot size, they would be entitled to build on their lot. If he took the language as it was written, he'd fall into the category of having a building pad of 2,000 square feet, which he thought was patently unfair in the way it was drafted. So it rendered it ambiguous. In addition, if they went onto this same section commencing to where it said, "access road driveway area" in that part of the section it talked about any area that was disturbed in excess of the 3,000 square feet to the access area would be taken off the building pad. The way his lot was situated, if he just graded and paved the road from the public road to his lot, that could essentially eliminate his building pad. He said staff indicated that the access driveway would be limited � to within the property lines, but the way it was drafted that wasn't clear. It just said any access road or driveway would be deducted from the building pad. So if he was given a 2,000 square foot building pad and he had to deduct everything from the public road on, he essentially had nothing. He thought the ambiguities needed to be fixed and that his comments with regard to CEQA were appropriate and he recommended that the commission not approve the proposal at this point. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lopez asked staff to address the concerns. Mr. Drell said that he had no problem adding the language suggested, that they should repeat the same language in A.1 and A.2 that lots would be entitled to at least one unit. The ambiguity relative to the grading and access, he suggested "access across the subject property" or "across the property associated with a subject development." He said staff might have to work on the language with the City Attorney. But the understanding was the development of the access road off of someone else's property was going to be part of the analysis for that other property. In this particular � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � case, the access road to Mr. Bailey's property was across flat land, so that allowed 50% grading. Period. There was a lot of opportunity on the City's land if it ever came to that and an access road had to be developed. Since the City wasn't proposing to grade any of its property, subject to this ordinance the only grading that would occur would be for a trail and for access to this lot. So there was plenty of allowable grading on the City's property under this ordinance to provide the access road to this lot if that is what it came to. He said it could be clarified that the 3,000 square feet only applied to required grading on the subject property, unless Mr. Bailey had a suggestion. Staff determined that relative to CEQA and this ordinance, a Negative Declaration was appropriate. Relative to the impact on the environment, the proposed amendment would result in less negative impact on the environment than the existing ordinance. Staff didn't feel it was a stretch to make the statement that there would be no negative impacts. While there might be financial impacts to various property owners as they perceive them, it was not a subject of CEQA. � Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Bailey was comfortable with the changes Mr. Drell recommended. Mr. Bailey said he would be more comfortable if he was able to read the language he was proposing. There were a lot of generalities here. He also had a question about the access to the lot. Mr. Drell said that was not an issue of this. The particular issue concerning the status or access to Mr. Bailey's lot was not a subject of this ordinance. The final disposition of his lot was going to be subject to the negotiation and discussion between the property owner(s) and the City, but those issues were unrelated to the subject of this ordinance. That was really the subject of two property owners who happen to own property contiguous to each other where there might be an access issue. This ordinance didn't speak to that in any way, shape or form. Mr. Bailey stated that on March 17 he had a telephone conversation with Mr. Drell and raised these issues again with him. � He said Mr. Drell was vague as to whether or not he was going to � � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � amend it. He said he was under the impression that Mr. Drell was not going to amend this per his suggestions and he thought it was _ somewhat unfair for him to negotiate that point right here. He said he tried to negotiate that point with him over the telephone and they weren't successful in reaching an agreement. He didn't know exactly what Mr. Drell was proposing and wouldn't know until he saw it in written form. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any other questions for staff. There weren't. Commissioner Tschopp stated that overall he was in favor of Alternative A, but he thought the comment made was appropriate in that the verbiage of the proposal was important. As such, he would like to see the wording of the proposed ordinance before they vote on it. Mr. Drell stated that the wording of the first issue was verbatim as identified in Section A.1, "regardless of size, all lots would be entitled to at least one unit." The wording relative to other, he asked if Mr. Bailey had a � suggestion on how to define the property subject to development. Maybe that was the word. "Any areas disturbed in excess of 3,000 square feet on the parcel subject to development shall be deducted from the building pad." _ Commissioner Tschopp asked if all lots would be entitled to at least one unit under Section 25.15.030. Mr. Drell said yes. Those were now the only two categories. They only had toe of slope and above toe of slope. In both those two categories they were saying since that now encompasses the whole hillside, every parcel is entitled to one unit. Commissioner Lopez said that if those two items were being incorporated into the language, he would be in favor of the amendment and would move for approval, Alternative A. Commissioner Finerty stated that she hadn't changed her mind from the last meeting and was in favor of Alternative B. � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner - Tschopp, approving the findings as presented-by staff. Motion carried 3- 1-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2193, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 03-04 and ZOA 02-06 Alternative A as amended. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Cornmissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Jonathan abstainedl. C. Case No. HPR 03-01 - DORI CREE, Applicant (Continued from March 4 and March 18, 2003) Request for approval to construct a driveway and 15,043 square foot building pad on a 5.12 acre lot in the Hillside .� Planned Residential District west of the storm channel, � south of Southcliff Road, APN 628-120-013. � Mr. Smith explained that there was an amended application before the commission. The revised plan was on display. The request was for a driveway and a 12,819 square foot building pad on the 5.12 acre site. This was before the commission on March 4 and again on March 18, 2003. At the March 4 meeting the commission asked the applicant to stake out the original site location which they did. He knew that some members of the commission visited the property. At that same time, the applicant had the surveyors plot out a second parcel for consideration which was located further to the west than the previous request and at a somewhat higher elevation. It was set at 561 , while the previous request was at 552 but located north and west so that it was right against the ridgeline that runs just above the existing dwelling. He noted that the applicant indicated that they were prepared to remove the existing residence and renaturalize that area. With that, the proposal before the commission for the revised 12,000 square foot pad would comply with current code and with Alternative A. It would not comply with Alternative B which had a limit of 10,000 square feet. He noted that � commission just recently recommended Altemative A, so this proposal � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 �.. before them now complied with both Alternative A and the current ordinance. Mr. Smith recommended approval of HPR 03-01 and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Effectively what that required was that the applicant remove the existing residence and renaturalize that area, renaturalize the driveway and renaturalize any cut slopes on the driveway. Mr. Drell said he had an amendment to Condition No. 3. Since the creation of the pad created rather targe fill slopes, Condition No. 3 should require the renaturalization of all proposed driveway and cut and fill slopes. Not just cut slopes since they were mainly dealing with fill slopes. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MS. DORI CREE, 47-205 Southcliff Road, addressed the � commission. She thanked the Planning Commission for taking the time out of their busy day and coming up to see the property. By actually looking at it, she thought they had a better picture of what she was trying to do. She also thanked Mr. Smith for coming up and doing the same. She thought he pretty much covered all aspects of what she was trying to do. She pointed out that five acres was a big piece of land and she was trying to be conservative by staying off the hillside and out of view and staying in compliance with the new ordinance, Alternative A. Commissioner Tschopp noted that in the staff report, a preferable driveway location could be achieved with cooperation of the property owner to the south. After visiting the site, he concurred with that statement. He asked if Ms. Cree had made any headway with that adjacent property owner. Ms. Cree said no, she hadn't. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There being no one, the public hearing was closed. � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 :� � � Commissioner Tschopp thought the plan presented by the applicant met the current ordinance and the proposed draft ordinance A. He also thought that the applicant had done a very good job of trying to lower the visibility of this development and he was in favor as proposed by staff. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and concurred with Commissioner Tschopp's earlier comment. The access, if it could be obtained through the property owner to the south, would be preferable to cutting the driveway. If that wasn't possible, it wasn't possible, but he encouraged the applicant and perhaps staff to pursue that possibility to its fullest extent because he thought it would be beneficial all around. Otherwise, he concurred. Commissioner Finerty thought the applicant had made a step in the right direction. She didn't know if 561 elevation was going to be okay by the time they added a house on it. It still might stick out. Mainly because she was in favor of Alternative B, she was opposed to this application. � � Commissioner Lopez concurred on two points. He would like to see staff � pursue this with the land owner to the south. It was an opportunity to cooperate on the development of the driveway especially as it pertained to how much land would need to be moved or what the impact would be on the development. If it wasn't possible, it wasn't. Other than that, he was in favor of the project. Chairperson Campbell concurred. After visiting the second site that was changed, she thought it would be a better location for it. The property owner wouldn't have to do as much fill and it was a flatter area and wasn't as much of an impact as the other location. She also agreed that they should see if the other hidden driveway could be developed, especially since the Fire Department would prefer that other driveway. She was also in favor of the project and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion car�ied 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no1. ;� � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2194, recommending to City Council approval of HPR 03-0_'L Revised, subject to conditions consistent with Alternative A as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no.) D. Case No. TPM 31134 - J.M. MADERA, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 3.637-acre parcel containing two commercial buildings and a parking lot into two commercial lots. The property is located at the southeast corner of Miriam Way and Shoppers Lane, 300 feet north of Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Urbina explained that the property contained a building that was nearing completion on the westerly half of the parcel map site. The front portion of the property contained an existing paved parking lot. The � purpose of the parcel map was to allow the property owner the option of selling part of the project site. He explained that this was located at the west end of the Costco shopping center. The Lighthouse building was immediately to the south. A condition of approval recommended by Planning staff was that the existing recorded reciprocal access and parking agreement that covered the project site and parcels to the south shall continue to apply to the two newly created parcels. Staff recommended that Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map 31 134 based on the findings and conditions contained in the draft Planning Commission Resolution. Commissioner Jonathan asked why this wasn't a consent calendar item and what differentiated this from other parcel map divisions. Mr. Urbina explained that the City's Subdivision Ordinance required that all proposed divisions of property go through a public hearing process. Mr. Drell further explained that parcel map waivers couldn't create a greater number of lots. They were just moving lines around. When creating more lots, then this process was required. � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � � � Regarding the caveat on the shared parking easement, Commissioner Tschopp asked if each parcel would have an adequate area for meeting - the parking requirement_consistent with the commercial use �ven with _ the existing wall. Mr. Urbina explained that with the shared parking agreement they would. But if he was asking if this parcel by itself would have sufficient off-street parking without that reciprocal access agreement, the answer would probably be no. But part of that would depend on the use. If it was general retail, they would need to share the remainder of this parking lot. He pointed out where there were only 12 or 13 spaces to serve that part of the building. Mr. Drell stated that they wouldn't allow segregation of the parking lot and that is what that condition required. As far as staff was concerned, this was still one project and one parking lot to serve all the uses in common. Chairperson Campbell o..pened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. There was no response. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2195, approving TPM 31 134, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. CUP 02-35 - PATRICIA AMBROSE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow short-term rentals of a single-family dwelling located at 45- 800 Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Bagato explained that the subject property is a 2,662 square foot four-bedroom home located on the comers of Yucca Tree, Deep Canyon '� Road and a private street called Monte Verde. For the past two years the 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � applicant indicated that she has been living and renting out the subject property. October through June the property was occupied by the applicant and June, July and August she rented it out. The applicant indicated that the rentals varied between monthly and some short terms. The applicant allowed no more than eight persons in the household with four cars on the subject property. Mr. Bagato noted that there was a fairly long driveway that could hold up to about six cars. The existing driveway was surrounded by a six-foot high block wall and electronic gates. The goal of the conditional use process was to insure that the short-term rentals were being operated in a manner in compliance with the single family zone. The three streets and the uniqueness of the property surrounded by 20-foot high oleanders and the gates made the property kind of private and away from the neighbors. Staff checked with Code Enforcement and there had been no complaints � filed against the applicant. The findings for approval were included in the staff report and Planning staff recommended approval of CUP 02-35, subject to the conditions. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. PATRICIA AMBROSE, 45-800 Deep Canyon Road, stated that she was interested in approval of a short-term rental at that address. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was true that she rents out her property in July, August and September. Ms. Ambrose said those were the months she would be renting the property. Commissioner Tschopp asked if she rents to people from England or to the British. f�.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � Ms. Ambrose said that there actually were a lot of people from England that do come that time of the year because they were looking for really good prices and they like the heat. : Chairperson Campbell noted that the property was lush and very tropical. She thought it probably made it feel 20 degrees cooler than outside the walls. Ms. Ambrose said it was and it has great efficiency and a lot of shade. Commissioner Lopez asked if she was comfortable with the proposed conditions. Ms. Ambrose said yes. She read them and understood them. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification on the number of renters and the limit on guests. Ms. Ambrose said that she didn't want more than eight people at the property. That was one of her rules. They couldn't bring guests in from the outside or visitors. Chairperson Campbell asked if they had eight people, they couldn't ask anyone over for dinner. Ms. Ambrose said that unless they have written permission from the owner and the exact time they would be there and when they would leave, she would try to stick to the exact occupancy of what they were supposed to have on the rental agreement. And no parties were allowed and no street parking, just the four car maximum. Chairperson Campbell noted that there were actually three gates in there. Ms. Ambrose concurred. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � APRIL 1, 2003 � Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR o� OPPOSITION to this application. There being none, Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp thought it fit in well and made a motion for approval. Commissioner Finerty stated that generally she would be opposed to something like this, but due to the location, all the cars being screened behind a wall, the applicant's rules, and the fact that there was no one to cite any past problems, she was in favor. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2196, approving � Case No. CUP 02-35, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. TPM 31262 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide three existing lots comprising 23,415 square feet into two single-family residential lots. The property is located at the northwest corner of Goleta Avenue and Deep Canyon Road. Mr. Urbina explained that the existing property consisted of three residential lots that the City of Palm Desert acquired for the widening of Fred Waring Drive and Deep Canyon Road. The widening of the two streets had been completed. The proposed parcel map would consolidate the three existing residential lots into two residential lots approximately 9,600 square feet each. The intent of the City once this parcel map was recorded was to turn the property over to Habitat for Humanity for the construction of a home on each of these parcels. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 `� � � Staff recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 31262 based on the findings and conditions contained in the draft Planning Commission Resolution. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty thought it was a great idea and moved for approval. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. ;� It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2197, approving � TPM 31262, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case Nos. GPA 03-03, C/Z 03-03 and PP 03-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council to approve a general plan amendment from medium-high density to Open Space, a change of zone from R-1 18,000 to Open Space, a precise plan of design and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow the construction of a 2 +/- acre park with a parking lot, restroom, picnic pavilions, tot lot, basketball court, volleyball court, perimeter walk, barbeques, flower garden, putting green and other related facilities at 73-690 De Anza Way. Mr. Drell noted that the application before the commission, although it listed a general plan amendment, it actually did not require one. This site was designated as a park in the Palma Village Specific Plan and had been designated in the General Plan as a park for 20 years. Due to a drafting 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � error, it was not included on the map. Therefore, they didn't need to amend the General Plan to proceed with the project. Mr. Stendell explained that the property is located at the northeast corner of De Anza and San Carlos. In 1999 the commission had a 21-unit apartment complex before them which was denied. At the time of denial, some surrounding residents requested that the parcels be turned into a park. Subsequently the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the recommendation and thought it would be a great idea and recommended that the City proceed with purchasing the property. The property was acquired, master planning was completed and now it was before commission for approval. As Mr. Drell stated, General Plan Amendment 03-03 was withdrawn, and per the City Attorney, some findings needed to be added to reflect that current housing needs were not being effected. Those findings were, "The change of zone is consistent with the General Plan, including the Housing Element, because the amendment and zone change conform to � the Palma Village Neighborhood Specific Plan. The remaining residential sites in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the City's share of regional housing need as the park site was not relied upon by the Housing Element as a residential site." Mr. Stendell asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Jonathan said he might have missed it in the conditions of approval, but the staff report indicated that there would be lighting around the basketball courts, volleyball courts, perimeter walk and security lighting at the bathroom. He asked what time those lights would go out. Mr. Stendell said that they were scheduled to go out at 10:00 p.m. with the closure of the park. That was when everything was scheduled to go out. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they've had some instances in parks that were in close proximity to homes where it had been requested for the lights to go out earlier, such as 9:00 p.m. He asked if that has been considered. Mr. Stendell confirmed that it had been considered and staff was open to that suggestion. He believed the Joe Mann Park closes at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Drell stated it was appropriate to place that in the � conditions of approval. Commissioner Jonathan said he would be making 17 MINUTES ' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 that recommendation. He thought that Ironwood Park was another park, hopefully, where the lights still go out at 9:00 p.m. . _ __ Commissioner Jonathan noted that also in the staff report there was a reference to facility rules and security. He apologized if he didn't find the specifics in the conditions, but he asked what rules would be implemented with regard to the dogs and other such pets. Mr. Stendell explained that it wasn't a dog park, but dogs would be allowed on the site on leashes. There would be appropriate waste disposal units placed around the site. Commissioner Jonathan asked what was included in the waste disposal units. Mr. Stendell explained that it included pooper scooper bins with the pick up baggies. Mr. Drell said that their use would be required as part of the ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the baggie dispensers would be onsite with appropriate signage. Mr. Stendell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff planned ahead for the maintenance ,� of the park to insure that it is as nice a year, three years, five years and ten years from now as it is when it first opens. Mr. Stendell believed it would be. They were taking every step necessary to keep it as nice as every other park in the city. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was going to be like the Homme Adams Park. Mr. Winklepleck explained that Homme Adams Park wasn't done yet. He said they have been discussing this park with Spencer Knight of the Public Works Department, who has basically planned ahead with the appropriate amount of funds to maintain it in the method that all Palm Desert's parks are maintained. Commissioner Jonathan said that was excellent and thanked him. Chairperson Campbell noted that Mr. Stendell mentioned that the park would close and asked if there would be gates. Mr. Stendell said no, there wouldn't be any gates. There were specific hours the park would be open. As any other park in the city, most do not have gates, they just have times they close. Any after hour complaints would be directed to the police. They had been very good in the past with taking care of any problems with after hour complaints, noise violations, or anything of that nature. Chairperson Campbell said it would be complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Stendell said yes, if there were any. Mr. Drell said the City also typically scheduled the police to patrol through the park areas 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � on a periodic basis. The Sheriff was given direction to pay special attention to these parks after hours. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. Referring to a Request to Speak card, she invited Mr. Luis Lopez to speak. MR. LUIS LOPEZ, 44-540 San Juan Avenue, addressed the commission. He stated that his parents own that property and the property immediately to the south. He was also speaking on behalf of his sister, Sylvia Garza, the property owner of 73-745 De Anza which he said was within 200 feet of the proposed park and was more directly impacted by it. He said that they were generally in favor of the park. They thought it was a nice amenity for the neighborhood. They were also in favor of turning off the lights at 9:00 p.m. The concern they had was at the intersection of De Anza and San Pascual. What they �. see was actually the intersection. He said they have had a recurring problem there because it is a high pedestrian street. He thought a lot of people would probably agree with him. Traffic heading eastbound on De Anza as they make the turn to the north on San Pascual, because of the angle of the street they never slow down. They have high speed traffic going through there making the turn. If they had children and families walking westbound on De Anza, that was a very dark corner and he has had to stop several times just to let the cars go through because there was no stop sign. He said they didn't really want a stop sign there. He suggested some kind of traffic calming. If they could put some chokers, stamped concrete, or some decorative paving to calm the traffic or some other alternative like that, that would be acceptable. He said they were also concerned about the lighting for some of the corner pocket areas. Specifically the little areas hidden in the ; back. Generally they liked the feel of the neighborhood with its dark sky policy with no street lights. However, in the evening �.�. hours they would like the police to be able to adequately patrol the 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION �� APRIL 1, 2003 � � area and not create any dark spots. So they would prefer to see some low level lighting like bollards. He said he spoke to the staff - and they informed hir� about that. He thanked the commission. Mr. Drell added that the shrubbery shown on the plan was probably exaggerated. He didn't think they wanted to create masses of shrubs that created hiding areas so that the shrub material would be desert type shrubs that were going to be designed and ultimately sited so that they didn't create hedges. Chairperson Campbell asked if they would have the see-through shrubs. Mr. Drell concurred. He said they would be sparse enough to not create hiding places in corners. Often landscape architects were inclined to think that they wanted to see dense shrub areas and the goal in desert landscaping is to have more negative space between shrubs. He said they would probably have bollards, although it was difficult to find ones that were vandal proof. But they wanted no more lighting than was absolutely necessary. � MS. PAMELA ZUNDEL, 44-461 San Pascual, addressed the commission. She thanked the commission. She said she has worked very hard with the community and they have been very much involved from the inception of this and commended them for what they have done. They have a large senior population and they would be thrilled that the commission was considering their little dogs being allowed there because they walk up and around there. She asked if there was going to be a sidewalk on De Anza Way. Mr. Drell said yes. : She said that right now there was no walking surface there and it was very dangerous. She thanked them. Chairperson Campbell noted that there would also be an opening right there to the park. Ms. Zundel asked if there was parking along De Anza. � Mr. Drell said only street parking. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � Ms. Zundel thought that was wonderful. MR. TERRY REED, 73-691 De Anza Way, said that was right across from the project. He thanked the commission on behaif of the neighbors. The only concern he had was parking on De Anza Way and the speed of traffic going through there. Unless they could slow it down in some way, some child getting out of a car on the street side would get clipped. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Jonathan commended staff and the City for doing this. He said he absolutely adored this park and thought it was a wonderful amenity and was such an asset to the neighborhood and the overall community. He was very pleased to see this happening. He did have a couple of refinements. He suggested that lights go out at � 9:00 p.m. and that it be added as a condition of approval. Also, he listened to Mr. Lopez, Ms. Zundel and Mr. Reed all expressing concern about the traffic at De Anza. Apparently there was a problem there. He thought that maybe Public Works could visit that and maybe add stamped concrete or something that would at least make people subconsciously, if not consciously, aware that they need to be careful and slow down. He also asked staff to pay attention to the potential for security lighting. Just kind of low level lighting in appropriate, strategic areas. Then to pay attention to the landscaping in terms of security so that there was nice, attractive landscaping, but at the same time the kind that created sufficient view corridors for security purposes. Those were general comments that he had confidence in staff's ability to be creative with and resolve. So with the addition of the lights out at 9:00 p.m. condition, he was prepared to move for approval. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. Commissioner Lopez also concurred. He loved having parks added to our community and thought this was the perfect place for it. He said he was always concerned about the safety of individuals going to and from the � park as it pertains to traffic flow. If they were going to allow parking on 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � that street, it added another risk. He wanted them to take a careful look at that whole situation. Lights out at 9:00 p.m. was great. The longer the park was there, it would become part of the community and the community would take care of it. But at the inception he wanted to make sure the security was well defined and that landscaping and maintenance was defined and after that it would become part of the culture and a fine addition to the community. He also noted that he wasn't related to the Mr. Lopez who addressed the commission. He moved for approval. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a great idea and said it was a real blessing to be in a city that has the resources to do something like this. A couple of comments he heard tonight on the turn onto San Pascual and the potential problems with parking on De Anza, he asked that staff when they were designing this to take a good, hard look at those two issues. Other than that, he thought it was a great idea and would be a great addition. � Chairperson Campbell concurred with her fellow commissioners. She � thought that piece of property had been vacant long enough and she was sure all the residents would be happy to see nice green ground. With the police surveillance and neighborhood surveillance watching out, this park would be very safe and taken care of because they had also been waiting for it for many years. She also agreed with all the other additions to the conditions. She noted there was a motion by Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would second the motion. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that motion included the condition. Chairperson Campbell concurred that it included the condition of 9:00 p.m., the low lighting, the landscaping and the traffic. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented and amended by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2198, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 03-03, C/Z 03-03 and PP � 03-04, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 03-01 - CARL VOCE, Applicant Per Planning Commission direction on March 18, 2003, presentation of a resolution denying a request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 9,500 square foot cancer/chemotherapy/internal medicine medical office in the office complex located at 73-712 and 73-726 Alessandro Drive. Chairperson Campbell noted that they had a resolution of denial before them. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. � It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2199, denying Case No. CUP 03-01 . Motion carried 5-0. B. REQUEST BY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN A FUTURE PROJECT KNOWN AS IRONWOOD TRANSMISSION MAIN, PHASE I, PHASE 11, AND PHASE III. Mr. Drell recommended that the commission, by minute motion, determine consistency with the General Plan. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, by minute motion determining that the Ironwood Transmission Main, Phase I, Phase II and Phase III project as described in their letter of February 1 1 , 2003 is consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan. � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that this was coming off of Mesa View into Ironwood Country Club. Mr. Drell said that it was botM-on Portola and Mesa View. He clarified that it didn't go all the way down to Haystack. He also noted that it would be underground. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES No meeting. 6. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE No meeting. � C. DESERT WILLOW � No meeting. D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE No meeting. E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE No meeting. F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE No Meeting. XI. COMMENTS Mr. Greenwood noted that the commission at the last meeting had some questions about PM 10 regulations. Chairperson Campbell asked what � the City would be doing about it. Mr. Greenwood stated that the City 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � intends to comply with the AQMD guidelines, which weren't much different from what was already in place. Mr. Drell asked if this was relative to dirt roads. Commission concurred. Mr. Greenwood stated that there was not a single publicly-operated dirt road in the city of Palm Desert. All of the private dirt roads probably fell below the threshold that AQMD has for monitoring or any corrective actions, except for the CVWD access roads along the channels. The City had no authority whatsoever over those access roads regarding PM 10 and any actions were taken directly by AQMD and taken upon CVWD. It was a specific action because there is an inherent conflict between cities and water districts that they were on an equal footing jurisdiction wise so neither had jurisdiction over the other. So some higher authority had to take responsibility. AQMD saw themselves as that higher authority. Chairperson Campbell asked about the road by Homme Park. It wasn't a private road. Mr. Drell agreed that it is the City's responsibility and we have treated it. The City received an encroachment permit from CVWD �„► to do work and maintain that road. They did an experiment with acrylic on it. He noted that someone did it for free, but unfortunately, sometimes you get what you pay for. He thought it wasn't really saturated deeply enough. It was quite effective as PM 10 mitigation, but it wasn't that great for driving on. Mr. Drell said they were contemplating alternative ways and thought they might end up paving it. There was now an asphalt coloring process which was quite effective. The goal of the residents was to try to keep it rural looking. So they were trying to come up with a design for an asphalt road. With this coloring process it would still maintain the look of a gravel road, but would have the durability of asphalt. That was in the works. Chairperson Campbell asked who was responsible for the rest of the road going south. Mr. Drell said that adjacent to the park the City received an encroachment permit, an easement from CVWD to do work and in essence kind of assume some control over that portion. But south of the park and north of the park, the City had no authority. Mr. Greenwood stated that the sealer that was applied was fine as far as AQMD regulations, PM 10 regulations, were concerned. The aesthetics and ride quality might be another question. The one road the City is responsible for through an encroachment permit is in fine shape PM 10 wise. The City � 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2003 � � had no authority whatsoever beyond the limits of the park. No authority or responsibility. Chairperson Campbell asked about complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Greenwood stated that complaints from the neighbors not adjacent to the park would go to CVWD or AQMD. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. `�.� . PHILIP DREL , Secretary .£ ATTEST: � � � J�t �'� ,��e-(' -�ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson _ Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � � � 26