Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0715 ��•�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - JULY 15, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp %No Members Absent: Cindy Finerty Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 3 and June 17, 2003 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the June 3, 2003 minutes. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the June 17, 2003 minutes. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 9 s V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith summarized pertinent June 26 and July 10, 2003 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Mr. Drell indicated that there was a request by the applicant for World Development for a continuance and asked the commission to consider moving that public hearing item up on the agenda. Chairperson Campbell stated that the commission could address that when they got to the public hearing section. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 02-02 - INDUSTRIAL WEST, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a 10,000 square foot office warehouse located at 42-460 J Ritter Circle. B. Case Nos. TT 30314 and PP/CUP 01-21 - STATE COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a five building industrial/office complex (73,928 square feet of total building area) and a five-lot tentative tract map for a 6.10 acre site located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive approximately 1,100 feet east of Cook Street, 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Chairperson Campbell noted that the State College Business Park was requesting one year or longer. Mr. Drell recommended one year* only. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The commission granted the request to move up Public Hearing Agenda Item G. G. Case No. TT 31071 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 36.63 acres on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 1 ,413 feet east of Monterey Avenue into 123 residential lots located at 73-400 Gerald Ford Drive. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY RICHARD of World Development addressed the commission and requested a 30-day continuance. Chairperson Campbell noted that date would be August 19, 2003. It was mentioned that Commissioner Lopez would be absent. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case No. TT 31071 to August 19, 2003. Motion carried 4-0. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 A. Case No. CUP 03-04 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 15, May 20 and June 3, 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow Bighorn Development to operate an abandoned public utility well site for private water irrigation located at 47-600 Chia Drive. Mr. Drell informed commission that the applicant installed various improvements. He indicated a solution was worked out on the site with neighbors and the applicant and asked if the commission was satisfied with the work that was done. Chairperson Campbell stated that the west side looked nice and blended in with the neighbors' landscaping, but asked when they would finish the south side. Mr. Drell deferred the question to the applicant. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing was open and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GREG BABBINGTON, Bighorn Development, 6231 Hop Patch Spring Road in Mountain Center, California, addressed the commission and asked for questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if palm trees would be planted on the south side. Mr. Babbington stated that they met in the field with the City's Landscape Manager, his assistant, and some of the neighbors. What was planted was at the direction and guidance of the Landscape Manager, whose fear was that they might install too much material at an early stage and cause an overgrown look in the future. So those placements and locations in relation to Somera Drive and Chia looking south and looking north were done at the guidance of the Landscape Department. Chairperson Campbell said she noticed there were some mesquite trees there, but they were falling over. They weren't tied up. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 Mr. Babbington said that at the direction of the Landscape Department, who suggested that the staking be removed from the trees to create a more natural looking desert low growth mesquite. They assured him that once those branches sought the sunlight, they would turn upward and there would be more of a shrub look. He said he questioned it because he wasn't used to that method either, but thought it made sense after they explained it to him. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MRS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73-237 Somera, addressed the commission. She said she thought they had made great improvements to the property, particularly from the west side which was very attractive. She also thought the berm was very helpful. Regarding the southern wall, she asked if bougainvillea could be added along that wall as well. It seemed like there was a bit of a gap between the wall and where the landscaping started. She wasn't sure it was something that could be added. She indicated that she was unable to attend the meeting with the residents that Bighorn had. She also asked if more landscaping could be done inside to shelter to camouflage the structures from inside. Her understanding was that because of the piping, etc., that was underground, it would be difficult. But she wondered about bougainvillea in containers, potted plants or if something could be used inside the walls to partially camouflage some of the sheds. She really felt a lot of the shed structure could be seen. She noted that the corrugated metal on top had been changed and looked better, but one thing she never quite understood was the location. She thought it was going to be moved four feet because it didn't meet the side setback requirement. She knew it was changed and looked better, but it was still very close to the wall. If it wasn't going to be moved, she asked if it could be camouflaged with maybe bougainvillea or something that could at least climb and cover it. Those were two suggestions she had for the south wall and more camouflage of the interior buildings. �•• 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if there was anyone wishing to speak. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the applicant had done a wonderful job of taking a difficult situation and really resolving most, if not all, of the problems, particularly something that was overlooked. The biggest problem was the noise and that was resolved early on and that left them to deal with the appearance and aesthetics. He thought it was 100% better than what it was and they found a way to do that which wasn't cost prohibitive and perhaps resulted in a win-win situation. He was in favor of approval, but he was disappointed with the result on the southern side. He thought that maybe there was some communication lost with the Landscape Department and what was expressed at the Planning Commission meetings, including concerns of the residents. When they spoke with the applicant, Commissioner Jonathan thought the direction they were going in was to over plant and then trim down, which was a little opposite to what Palm Desert staff might be accustomed to. The idea was to shield not just the wall, but also the structure. He thought it would be more effective to shield from the outside, not from the inside. The strategy was to intentionally over plant so that they immediately shielded the structure and then trim down as it got over full. The applicant even proposed to change out planting materials if it got to be way too full. He said he didn't mind proceeding with this, but he wanted some flexibility so that the applicant understood if those trees didn't start reaching for the sun, they would need height and depth on the southern side. He trusted and believed that the applicant would remain flexible and cooperative as they have been all along in the process. If it didn't work out as they all hoped it would within a reasonable time, like within the next year, he hoped the applicant would have an open mind to continue to work with all of them to make that a good situation. He stated that he was prepared to move for approval. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would be abstaining since he was not in attendance for the April 15 meeting. Commissioner Lopez stated that he would second that motion. He thought they had done a great job in addressing a difficult situation. He 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 said he looked at it from the perspective of watching what they plant to not have over growth, so he was looking at it from the other direction. He said they had done some plantings at his resort and the over growth was amazing because everything grew so fast. Over time he was confident that what he saw would indeed accomplish what they wanted to do and that was to provide an environment conducive to the park area and to shield the wall, so he was fine with it. Chairperson Campbell noted that at the last meeting they were also talking about palm trees and if they grew too tall they could plant some smaller ones, they could put in bougainvillea and a lot of other things, but she knew from her own garden that they do get over grown, but hoped the mesquite trees would reach toward the sun. Otherwise, they would get back with Bighorn on the landscaping. She noted there was a motion and a second and called for a vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner rr Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2211 approving CUP 03-04, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). B. Case No. PP 02-15 - A.R. WOOLWORTH / WESTWIND DEVELOPMENT, INC., Applicant Request for approval to delete or defer Planning Commission Condition No. 7 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2170 requiring a six-foot wide sidewalk along the frontage of the project located at 74-140 Candlewood Street. Mr. Urbina explained that Precise Plan 02-15 was approved in December of 2002 to allow a triplex apartment complex on the north side of Candlewood Street. One condition of Public Works was that the applicant �.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 construct a six-foot wide sidewalk along the site's 90-foot wide frontage on Candlewood. The applicant filed an amendment to the precise plan requesting permission to either delete the requirement for the construction of the sidewalk or defer it to a later date because there were no existing sidewalks in the neighborhood and he didn't see the logic of having to construct a sidewalk at this time. In addition, the applicant mentioned in his request that he desired to preserve the existing olive tree. Staff reviewed the applicant's request and discussed it with the City Engineer, Mark Greenwood, and with the City's Landscape Manager. They concluded that there was a need for the applicant to construct a sidewalk at this time along the Candlewood frontage; however, staff was willing to reduce the width of the sidewalk from six feet to five feet in order to allow more room for the roots of the existing olive tree to preserve it and to allow for the planting of three new 24-inch box sized trees. There would be approximately a five-foot wide landscape planter created between the rear of the recommended five-foot sidewalk and the existing block wall. Staff recommended that the PlanningCommission adopt the draft P resolution denying the applicant's request to delete or defer construction of a six-foot wide sidewalk along Candlewood Street, but approving staff's recommendation to amend Public Works Condition No. 7 for PP 02-15 by reducing the width of the required sidewalk from six feet to five feet to accommodate the preservation of an existing olive tree and the planting of three new 24-inch box sized trees at the front of the project site. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Public Works had any concerns about the future sidewalk transition of five feet to six feet. He asked if there were any safety concerns. Mr. Drell said staff would recommend that if sidewalk goes in, that they construct five feet. Five feet was a good residential sidewalk. He thought that six feet was excessive. Many residential sidewalks were four feet, which was a little tight, but five feet was the standard he hoped they would then follow. He said they have a requirement for six-foot residential sidewalks, but they were never put in. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 Regarding deferring the sidewalk construction until sidewalks were installed, Commissioner Lopez asked if the City was concerned that the applicant wouldn't cooperate at that time or fulfill the obligation of installing the sidewalk at that point. Mr. Drell said there would be no way to force them to do it in the future. The nice thing with sidewalks, they were pure concrete and they were pretty permanent. Mr. Diercks explained that there was also the concern that if it wasn't built now, it would cost more to construct later. It was easier to construct it at this time. Chairperson Campbell oogened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. AL WOOLWORTH, 77-240 Iroquois Drive in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He informed commission that he was the owner of the property. He stated that there wasn't ten feet from the site from the back of curb to the wall, there was eight feet. If they put in a five-foot sidewalk and with the size of trees that were indicated to be put in, it would be crowded. He said he %1W was willing to sign something or put $2,000 in a fund. He wasn't trying to get out of the $2,000. He liked the landscaping look and the trees in front of the wall instead of a lot of sidewalk. He thought it would look a lot better. He said he.had pictures all up and down the street and of a unit that was approved and built less than a year ago, a duplex, with no sidewalk. He asked why he had to put it in. Plus, they were only putting it on half of his property. He also owned property with eight units on it and they would have to "nail" him sometime for that. He said he didn't understand the theory here because there wasn't one sidewalk on that whole street. He was willing to give the City the $2,000 they said it would cost to do, that didn't bother him, but he did like the look of the landscaping and wall. He passed out pictures for the commission to review. He said the problem was he owns twice as much property than what he was told to put the sidewalk in front of. He said they would get him later if they ever did decide to put in a sidewalk. He was also willing to put up the money, but he liked the landscaping. He said no one was going to walk along there stepping down and up and out of the two driveway exits �. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 they have. They would walk in the street if they were walking there now. He said there wasn't much traffic as far as foot traffic. There were no questions for the applicant and Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. CARL REIMER, 74-075 Candlewood, addressed the commission. He said he not only agreed with what Mr. Woolworth was doing, he asked for the commission's help with this. He was sure they had really good reasons for why there should be a six- foot sidewalk. He couldn't understand why in Palm Desert there should be such a thing in an area such as Candlewood. To him, smaller was better and he was sure they were.aware that a lot of people would prefer in this special town that they not even have sidewalks in a lot of places. But if they had to, he believed they should be very minimal so that landscaping was what they have to show because that is what makes a town. So he was in full agreement with Mr. Woolworth and wished they went with four feet instead of five. That was still a lot of concrete and gray heat. He asked them to think about his opinion. There was no one else to speak and Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp asked staff for clarification on the duplex that was built just a year ago and no sidewalk was applied. He asked if there were inconsistencies in the application of the sidewalk condition. He also asked if it was eight or ten feet to the wall. Mr. Drell indicated that the plans didn't call out any dimension. Staff scaled it and as drawn it appeared to be ten feet. If the reality was not ten feet, then they did have a problem. If it was eight feet, then three feet would not allow for the tree. If that was the case, they might have to revisit it or take his money and place it in a trust account. When they figured out what they would do in the future, they could throw it into the pot and build a sidewalk that everyone agreed to build, or not build. He indicated there was a problem with trust accounts. They couldn't keep them forever. He would defer to Mr. Diercks as to Public Works' position. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an alternative to a trust fund. He asked if they could place an easement on the property that would address the fulfillment of this condition should the City ever require it. Mr. Drell said the City has an easement. He believed it was public right- of-way. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that he was saying an easement that would specifically require the construction of a sidewalk in compliance with Condition of Approval No. 7 if the City ever required it. It would carry with the property. Mr. Drell said that if the sidewalk were built as a general project, then the applicant would make a contribution. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was an option or alternative. Mr. Drell said that they have had conditions in the past and an executed agreement that said the owner would pay a certain amount of money if a sidewalk was ever installed. Whether the City would unilaterally put in a sidewalk, whether through an assessment district, he didn't know. He said if the commission wanted staff to come back with an alternative solution relative to funding, they could, unless the City Attorney had one. Mr. Hargreaves said he was sure they could draft some kind of covenant running with the land that would commit the property owner to build upon instructions of the City. He thought it was overkill for the amount of money they were talking about. Mr. Diercks explained that for the other building that.was approved and constructed, the plans showed a sidewalk on those plans. It was finalized without the sidewalk and that was a mistake. The sidewalk was supposed to be built. It was an oversight on the inspector's part. But there was supposed to be a sidewalk. Mr. Urbina mentioned that the plans scaled off as ten feet from face of curb to the existing block wall. If that scale or the measurements were off on the drawing, the other alternative would be to direct the applicant to remove that block wall to create a wider planter area along the frontage of the triplex. Commissioner Jonathan thought there were a number of problems here. One was the inconsistencies with other properties and other projects that had been approved. Another was the confusion about the width and the resulting problems if there was only eight feet. Then there was the issue of this being just one sidewalk on a street that has no sidewalks and he ,.,, 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 t wasn't sure that other sidewalks would be built in the foreseeable future or ever. So in this particular case, he thought the best resolution would be to delete that condition. Commissioner Tschopp agreed. There were a couple of problems with the condition. He stated that he was in favor of sidewalks and thought they promoted pedestrian traffic and was a good thing for the City to try and pursue. However, when going into the older neighborhoods, they needed to make it fit in with the neighborhood and having it piecemeal wouldn't be appealing to anyone and wouldn't do anyone good. So in this case he would be in favor of eliminating that condition. Commissioner Lopez concurred. If the situation was such that there were sidewalks sporadically set along the street, and he had mixed emotions about sidewalks, but they fit in certain areas and didn't work well in other areas. In this particular situation, the only right thing to do was delete the condition. Chairperson Campbell also concurred. She would rather see landscaping than sidewalk. She was in favor of deleting Condition No. 7. She asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2212 amending Planning Commission Resolution No. 2170 Public Works Condition No. 7 by deleting the requirement to construct a sidewalk. Motion carried 4- 0. C. Case No. TT 31377 - CENTENNIAL HOMES, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide five acres into 20 single family lots (8,000 square foot 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 `ow minimum size) located on the south side of Hovley Lane West 2,300 feet east of Monterey Avenue. Mr. Urbina explained that the project site was located on the south side of Hovley Lane West on a parcel of approximately 4.74 acres in size. The proposal was to subdivide the property into 20 single family residential lots with the smallest lot being approximately 8,330 feet. Concurrently with this map, the applicant filed floor plans and elevations for the construction of four different model types. The minimum size of the smallest model was approximately 2,300 square feet and the largest being approximately 2,900 square feet. He showed colored elevations of the typical street perspective. On June 24, 2003, the Architectural Review Commission approved the floor plans and elevations. ARC placed a condition that to the maximum extent feasible, there should be a minimum 14-foot separation distance between homes. The proposed project had nine different color schemes. Staff's recommendation was that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the staff report approving TT 31377, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there had been numerous other instances of cul-de-sacs off of Hovley with the five-acre developments. He asked what the record was of those existing projects in terms of a) seeking an exception to the 70-foot lot width, and b) seeking an exception to the 14-foot separation distance. Mr. Drell thought that 20% to 30% have that mainly because of the geometry of those five acres. Some people by their own choice had gone with bigger lots and fewer houses. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that some were fewer than 20 on five acres. Mr. Drell concurred. He said that some were 19. Instead of putting in a storm drain like this one, they have a retention lot. Some decided to have bigger houses and bigger lots, but to achieve the 8,000 square foot lot minimum probably at least three, four or more have gotten the standard exception as provided in the zone and they had been nice projects. They end up with longer, skinnier lots and the houses had to be designed differently, but he thought the applicant had done a i�.,. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 very good job to customize the design of the house to be appropriate for the narrower lots. Speaking of the design of the homes, Commissioner Jonathan noted that ARC placed a condition relevant to a portico structure for Plan 4. He asked if that had been done. Mr. Urbina explained that the portico structure was not shown on the colored streetscape perspective. It had been prepared prior to the June 24 ARC meeting, but the applicant would be preparing a revised elevation for Plan 4 showing the portico before he received final approval by ARC. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that they didn't have it done for this. meeting and they couldn't see what that looked like. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. He noted they would also be revising the rear elevation of Plan 4 to enlarge the covered patio. But they didn't have the plans right then. Since Mr. Urbina attended the ARC meeting, Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification on how the portico would look. Commissioner Tschopp asked for the height of the roof and if it was something that been addressed in other developments. Mr. Drell said the height of the roofs were relatively short. They were considerably lower than most of the developments out there. He believed they were all under 15 feet. Instead of having large, monolithic sloped roofs ending up with a big peak, the roof plans called for rather complicated multiple roof structures which reduced the overall span and the roof heights were generally lower. Mr. Urbina said that some portions would have roofs at 16 and 17 foot heights, but one of the things that staff and ARC liked about these plans was that there was a variety of roof shapes, including gable roofs and hip roofs. Staff thought the applicant and his architect had done a commendable job of providing a variety of architectural designs, roof structures and of model types for only a 20-lot subdivision. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the surrounding developments and homes in the area were compatible to this development. Mr. Drell said that most were taller. He thought the majority were closer to 18 feet at the peak. These were generally lower at 16, 17 and even some 15. Most of the projects they had been reviewing in the last 10 years have gone to 18 feet, which was the standard for the zone. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked about the grading on the east wall. The west wall had quite a difference in height from the present homes and the proposed lot, but on the east side, the grading was very high. If they were going to build a home on the present grading, it would be way above the wall. Referring to the plans, Mr. Urbina said that the elevation cross section showed proposed pad elevations along one of the easterly lots (Lot 13) as 199.2 feet and the adjacent house to the east had a pad elevation of 199.7, so the home to the east, the pad was a few inches higher than the proposed pad on Lot 13. Generally, there were no proposed significant grade differences once the property was graded. Chairperson Campbell asked if it would be almost equal to the lots to the east. Mr. Urbina concurred. In the few cases like along Section A.A, the pad elevation of proposed Lot 19 was 199.8 feet. The adjacent lot to the east was 198.4. That meant the lot would be approximately 16 inches higher. Chairperson Campbell said they just didn't want to see them two or three feet higher than the other homes because they had a problem before in another section and they did lower the grading site. Mr. Urbina assured her that there shouldn't be any significant grade differences once the site was graded. Chairperson Campbell also asked about sidewalks. One of the conditions was that all sidewalk plans would be reviewed. She noted that those homes didn't have sidewalks in that area. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Diercks if the City was requiring single family tracts to install sidewalks. Chairperson Campbell said that all of them that have been built there didn't have sidewalks. Mr. Diercks said he was under the assumption that, yes, they were requiring them. Mr. Urbina agreed that most of the subdivisions had six-foot wide sidewalks and this map was conditioned by Public Works to construct six-foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the cul-de-sac. Chairperson Campbell said that some of the other homes that had been built there didn't have any. Where she lives there weren't any sidewalks. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAN MORGAN, with Centennial Homes, 73-020 Homestead in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He thanked staff for an ,,.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 excellent job. He said he was from Northern California and it was a real pleasure doing business with a staff and commission like them. He said they were looking forward to working in the community and providing a quality project. Regarding Commissioner Jonathan's comments on the number of lots, he explained that the geometry of the site provided that they have fairly deep lots. They elected to go with the 60-foot width because of the depth. This was the last piece on Hovley to be developed. Because of the significant depth, it allowed a 60-foot lot and a rather large, significant, more than the 8,000 foot minimum lot size. Their smallest lot was 8,300 feet and he believed the average was 8,500 or 8,800. He said they went to significant effort to reduce garage doors that people see when driving down the street. One plan they had was a side entry. They minimized the three-car plans and were also on the one three-car plan offering that as a casita. He didn't think that would appear too many times. He personally didn't like to drive down a street and see garage doors. They were asked to bring the portico structure back to the Architectural Review Committee for their approval. He assured the commission that it would be of quality and something that would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Morgan was seeking an exception in some cases for the 14-foot separation distance for the side yard. He asked on how many lots Mr. Morgan was seeking that exception. Mr. Morgan explained that they could comply with the 14-foot minimum on all the standard lots. It was a little tight back in the cul-de-sac so the cul-de-sac corner lots were the only places they would be asking for that exception. That was because the lots were much wider in the rear than the front because of the pie- shape of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Drell stated that after the fact, virtually every one of the projects had asked for adjustments. It usually wasn't at the hearing level. It came up when a certain owner wanted to put a particular model in those cul-de- sac lots. He thought it was more the rule than the exception on the cul- de-sac lots to give these side yard adjustments in these neighborhoods. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 i.. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was a staff decision. Mr. Drell said yes. The adjustment process under the zone, as long as it was less than 20%, was delegated to the Director of Community Development. Typically they notified the adjacent neighbors to make sure they were satisfied with it. As long as it was less than 20% which in essence reduced a 14-foot combined side yard to 2.8 feet, but the criteria of the irregularity of the lot was the justification for the side yard adjustment. They basically ended up with a very small corner of a house at less than the 14 feet and as it widens out most of the houses ended up being significantly greater than the 14 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Morgan was prepared to show which specific lots he was seeking that exception for and the precise plan footprint that would indicate what portion of the homes would have that space smaller than 14 feet. Mr. Morgan said yes. He identified the areas that would have a six foot and five foot setback, depending on whether they measured it from the corner to the property line or from building to building. rr.. If it was from building to building, it would only occur in one spot. The average lot size was 10,890 square feet. Mr. Morgan said he believed this exception only occurred between Lots 8 and 9 and possibly between Lots 12 and 13 depending on the measuring. Chairperson Campbell pointed out that the plan was showing five feet on one side and nine on the other, which would comply. Mr. Morgan said that was correct and explained that it was the corner to the lot line, but where the corner to the lot line was measured was staggered. So if they went from building to building, he thought they made it in both cases. With the exception of Lots 8 and 9, and they were staggered, so if they measured them from the shortest point it was 11 feet, but if measured between buildings, it was likely 14. Chairperson Campbell clarified on the sidewalk issue that she was talking about the sidewalks on Corte Placitas, not on Hovley Lane West which tow 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 did have sidewalks. She was talking about this development itself and other developments that don't have sidewalks in there. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. MARY ANNE GAYLOR, 40-956 Avenida Solana, addressed the commission. She explained that her property was directly adjacent to the proposed building. She stated that all of the cul-de- sacs on that end of Hovley did have very large sidewalks and they walked them almost every night. So all the cul-de-sacs were sidewalked. She asked if there would be a retaining wall between each of the homes and how high they would be. If the roof lines were going to be a slightly bit lower, she wanted to know what height those retaining walls would be. Also, she asked about the block wall surrounding the property and if it would be changed or if the height would remain. She said that they had the property that was almost the entire cul-de-sac. Their home had three- quarters of the cul-de-sac on the street just adjacent to that so she knew there was a variance in the height on the wall between the property just to the east of them and hers. She wanted to know if they were going to continue that wall all along so it would be the same height or if there was any proposed change to it. She also asked for information about what the proposed selling prices would be and if a specific price range had been established yet. MS. PAM THEISEN, 40-861 Avenida Solana, addressed the commission. She stated that her property was adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Her concern was that since October 17, 2000, the Desert Sun reported that the land had been sinking in their area an inch and a quarter a year. Within 10 years it would drop a foot. Her concern was that they were putting 20 homes in there that were not going to help in replenishing water in that area. She wanted the developer to at least tell the people that were potential buyers, "buyer beware." She wished the Planning Commission had informed her developer before she bought her home in that same area the same thing because the homes in her area are cracking; the walls were cracking. There was one 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 r.. homeowner who sold his home but he had to redo his whole house because of the cracking in the stucco and sidewalks. She was concerned about the people who were going to be buying in the area because they wouldn't know this was happening. As the aquifer dropped down, the land would sink. They had numerous reports done by the Desert Sun and a U.S. geological study that had been done that had verified that the land in that two-mile spur area above College of the Desert was sinking more than any other desert in the Coachella Valley, so she wanted the developer to at least address that. MR. HAROLD SHULTZ, 40-956 Avenida Solana, said he was looking at the plans and wondered if there were one-car garages. He was concerned. Chairperson Campbell said there were two and three car garages. Mr. Drell explained that some of the driveways were side entry, so not all of the garage doors could be seen. tow Chairperson Campbell asked the applicant to come forward to answer questions. Mr. Morgan stated that there were not going to be any retaining walls between the lots. The existing block wall would stay and where it didn't exist, they would match the height. The selling prices were ultimately set by the market. They were speculating they would be in line with the rest of the market. Their strategy would be to provide a better quality project for the market price of the same amount of money that the homes in the neighborhood were selling for. Right now he believed they were in the mid to low $400,000's. With respect to the ground sinking, they would obtain geotechnical reports. They already had one that didn't mention that. He would look into it and if there was a disclosure item, they would disclose it. By law they were required to disclose it. He said the single car garages were their attempt to minimize the garage door impact on the street. He asked for any other questions. it 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 There were no further questions. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Lopez thought it was a handsome-looking project. Looking at the project itself and driving the area, he thought it would be a nice addition and a great way to complete the street. Regarding the variances on the side yard setbacks, if the only areas were between Lots 8 and 9 and Lots 12 and 13, he was comfortable with that in those particular areas. He liked the project and was in favor. Commissioner Tschopp said it was a well-conceived development, compatible with the adjacent uses. He thought it would be a good complement to the community there and was also in favor. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and suggested a revision to Community Development Condition No. 12, striking out the first two words "Where possible" and instead begin with, "Homes shall be plotted to achieve a minimum 14-foot side yard separation distance between homes with the exception of between Lots 8 and 9 and Lots 12 and 13 which shall be subject to a 10-foot minimum." Chairperson Campbell concurred. She said she also lives on that street and would be happy to see that last piece developed. She moved there seven years ago and there had been many changes there, all to the good. She was also in favor. Commissioner Lopez stated that he would move for approval with Commissioner Jonathan's amended wording for Condition 12. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2213 approving TT 31377, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING_COMMISSION JULY 15 2003 D. Case No. C/Z 03-05 - DOLORES J. LAUX, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-1 single family district to R-3 (3) multifamily residential district for a 7,380 square foot lot at 74-1 10 Chicory Street. Mr. Smith stated that the request was for approval of a change of zone from R-1 single family to R-3 (3) multifamily residential district for an individual lot on the north side of Chicory Street at 74-1 10 Chicory. The lot in question was 7,380 square feet. He indicated that the area of Chicory had a mix of older single-family dwellings and apartments. He had a colored zoning map on display showing the existing R-3 (3) to the west and to the north of the subject property. The remaining eight lots on the north side of Chicory were currently zoned R-1 . In the property in question, the home was constructed in 1999. The home as it currently sat on the lot was on the east side of the property. At the west side adjacent to the apartments there was vacant land available for future development. If commission was to grant the to" requested change of zone, it would permit the applicant at some point in the future to come before the commission with a precise plan request for the second unit. It would only permit, based on the area of the property, one more additional unit which would have to meet all the code requirements. That request was not before the commission. They didn't have plans for that. The request was just for the change of zone. The applicant provided the commission with a rendered version of how the addition and creation of a second unit could look. It was shown as single story and just as an addition to the existing dwelling. If and when they received the application for the additional unit, it would go through the full public hearing process before the Planning Commission and Architectural Review. Mr. Smith said that generally staff felt this property in question was the transition piece right now. It was the piece between the apartment units to the north and west. To the southwest was a school site. On the southeast corner of Lantana, while the property was in fact zoned R-1 , it was a triplex and the Assessor showed it as being a triplex. So they had a neighborhood in transition. They felt that the change of zone to R-3 �,., 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 (3) would be consistent with the General Plan land use and staff recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the request wasn't for a zone of R-2. Mr. Smith explained R-2 wouldn't allow a second unit. The basic minimum area per unit in R-2 was 4,000. This was 7•,300 so staff went with the R-3 so there would be just one additional unit. Commissioner Jonathan asked if based on the standards, they would only ever see one additional unit. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. DOLORES LAUX addressed the commission. She stated that she owns the home. She said directly to the east of her the property was legally listed as R-1 ; however, there were three units there. She guessed that it was built so many years ago that it wasn't a requirement to have the zoning R-3, but they could see she had 16 units to her left, three units to the right, behind her were four units and across the street adjacent to the school were three or four units. Her home in the center was situated on the lot whereby it would allow a unit. It was a family situation. She said her 90-year-old mother was living with her and she had two other elderly aunts that she would like to put in that unit. None of them drove, so she wouldn't be adding to traffic and it would be a very quiet residential duplex. That was why she had the illustration done to show that it would be quiet residential and almost home like. It would be behind the wall. She built that wall 15 feet back from the curb which was a requirement of the City and she would keep everything behind that wall so it wouldn't interrupt the neighborhood in any way. The reason she brought that up was next to her it was R-1 , but there were actually units there and on the analysis it said she was surrounded by two lots around her that were multi-unit, but actually she was totally surrounded by multifamily units. She said it was just for family and she would be really happy if she could do this. Assisted living was becoming so expensive for her family that this would be an answer. She said that was her presentation. She also had one other picture to show. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 She said that driving by her house, they couldn't see the lot from the inside. She measured the distance she would have to build there and it could accommodate one small unit as her illustration showed. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the commission would only address the change of zone, not the design, but he noticed in the rendering provided that it appeared there wasn't a separate garage for that second unit. He asked if she had verified that there was room to add on as well as provide the required parking. Ms. Laux stated that there was a two-car garage with the new home. Commissioner Jonathan asked if she meant the existing two-car garage. Ms. Laux said yes. But that could be added. She'd have to do something different with the wall. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff if there was a requirement for covered parking beyond the existing two-car garage. Mr. Smith said apartments have a requirement of one covered space per unit plus one open. They needed a total of two and one had to be covered. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were going under the apartment standards. Mr. Smith said at that point the property would be R-3 and they would be looking at apartments. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the one covered per unit plus an additional parking spot per unit was the standard that would apply. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Ms. Laux, after hearing that, if she was convinced that the design, the space, and the available room would accommodate that requirement. Ms. Laux said she believed so, however, the people in her family were beyond the driving age. There would only be the one car that was there now. She realized that she would have to go along with what the City wanted and she could possibly change the design and put a carport or something. ,,,, 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan said they were just there to look at the zoning, but he wanted to make sure they weren't going down a path that would ultimately be fruitless. Ms. Laux concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. RAYNA LYMAN, 74-160 Chicory Street, addressed the commission. She said she brought a petition that had been signed by nine neighbors strenuously objecting to this R-3 zone change. The City of Palm Desert in February signed an amended ordinance allowing anyone that has R-1 zoning to build a guest house. So anyone in their neighborhood that wanted to put in a guest house, which is what Ms. Laux told neighbors she wanted to do, that's all they have to do. A guest house could be built in the R-1 zone. They don't need a zoning change. The zoning change lent itself to adding more triplexes and duplexes to a family neighborhood and the folks that live there didn't want to see that happen. They already had enough trouble with the apartment building at the end of the block. She documented everything and had pictures to show Ms. Laux has a red zone painted in front of her house. She bought the house in 1999 and lived in it for 'four years and the house had a for sale sign in front of it ever since. It had not sold. She didn't know the reason for it, she just knew the house hadn't been sold. That didn't sound the way that someone that was a stable family neighborhood person would want to own a home. It sounded like a speculative buyer. She had the petition to present to the commission. She had a copy of the Palm Desert Ordinance that said she was free to build a guest house without the zoning change, so she didn't see the need for it. But she wanted to show the commission photos of the parking that had been painted red and said it caused a traffic overflow to all the houses down the block because if there was no parking in front of her house for the elementary school, whenever they have a function they had 12 or 13 cars parking further down the block. If they added a guest house, even if her relatives didn't drive, what happened when and 1 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 r.. if she sold that house. That opened the door to multiple families living on that property, again with no parking on the street. The City's ordinance said she had to have that. By getting it painted red, it didn't work. She said she went around the neighborhood with the petition for the last two weeks. She wasn't able to reach a couple of the homeowners that were out of town for the season. They did own their homes, they just weren't there. She then presented them to the commission. There was no one else wishing to speak and Chairperson Campbell asked Ms. Laux for rebuttal comments. Ms. Laux said two things were mentioned, such as the red zone that the police department placed in front of her home. She bought the brand new house and there was no red zone there. But shortly after when school started the school bus was unable to clear the corner for a turn and the police came and made a mention of it. That there needed to be one side of the street made red so the bus could turn that corner after both sides were used as parking areas. tam So she had nothing to do with the red zone. She was happy it was put there because it made a flow of traffic easier, especially when school got out. She said there were about 15 or 20 minutes of congestion there as parents pick the children up. That had nothing to do with her and she had no idea that anybody cared whether she put a unit on her lot or not. She was surprised that people were signing the petition, but she assumed their concern was congestion and worrying that if she made that lot an R-3 it would bring more congestion there. They didn't know that she was only doing it for family. She had the house for sale for a short time by owner, which irritated the realtors around there and she wondered if there wasn't some connection there. She did it by owner because she was trying to find a duplex to house her relatives. When she couldn't, she decided to try to change the zone and build her own. She had no idea. She talked to a few people around there, but not many, and no one had said anything. They knew her mother was elderly and lived there and they all got the letters, but they didn't understand perhaps that she was just putting in the one unit. She was disappointed. She didn't know that anyone �,,,. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 F cared. She has 16 units on one side of her and she didn't even hear those people. They were working people that came home in the evening and it was very quiet. She had never heard any commotion from the 16 units. In fact, they were quieter than the other side. Commissioner Jonathan asked Ms. Laux if she investigated the alternative of second units under the R-1 zoning and if she was familiar with that new ordinance that went into effective July 1 . Ms. Laux said it was mentioned to her after she put her application in that she didn't need to do it and that she could go ahead and build something. She just didn't know that and when she went to the desk at the City and said she wanted to make a duplex situation there, that was what she was offered as the best thing. She didn't want to add congestion to her street either. She wanted to address that again. The neighbor was probably worried because there were 16 units there and because of all the other units. The people who had little individual homes down there, she could see their concern. But as the commission could see from her illustration, she wouldn't even be concerned with doing anything more than one. The time it was for sale was simply to address the problem in her family. She couldn't find a duplex to buy. But it did irritate the realtors that she was trying to do it alone. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Smith what he thought would be the best vehicle for putting the desired second residence on that lot. Mr. Smith said he didn't know the percentages they would be getting into relative to the recently passed ordinance that took effective July 1 as to the 30% or 35% limit on the additional unit. So before he said too much more, he wanted to investigate that, but he did say that at the time the applicant filed the request, they were still in limbo as to which direction that ordinance was headed. So this seemed to provide the most certainty. (Ms. Laux spoke from the audience and indicated that she submitted her application in May.) 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 1r Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification relative to the dwelling unit to the east being a triplex. Mr. Smith said that the property at the southeast corner of the intersection was definitely a triplex, perhaps four units although the Assessor showed it as three. The property immediately east of the applicant, the Assessor showed it as being a single family dwelling. It appeared to be more than that, but he couldn't go beyond that. The applicant believed it to be more than that. But he didn't know with certainty. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would like to know what the unit to the east really was because it did have a bearing if this was a single family surrounded in a sea of apartments. He wanted.a definitive answer before the commission proceeded. Since Mr. Smith didn't how the new ordinance would impact this property, Chairperson Campbell advised that they continue it to allow all their questions to be answered. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He said he personally didn't have a problem with a second unit being proposed because they were in a multi-unit area and concurred with staff's analysis. The question in his mind was the best methodology for accomplishing that given that they now have a brand new alternative for accomplishing it. He asked staff to take a look at it to see if that was a more effective vehicle for accomplishing what the applicant was seeking. Commissioner Lopez concurred. There were a couple of questions raised and they needed some clarification. One question he had which was pointed out in the petition was about the red curb. The petitioner alleged that the applicant did this on their own or had someone do it for them and then after the fact everything was okayed. He wanted to know about the red curb usage and what it was for. It made sense for the school bus. (Ms. Laux spoke and said the police department did it.and it was on file.) Commissioner Lopez stated that they needed some clarification on that issue and what the best direction was to go as it pertained to proceeding with the second unit at this location, because it was an area filled with multi-units and he thought it would work just fine. Commissioner Tschopp said he also wanted to know if the unit to the east was legal. His concern was the impact it could have on �.,,, 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 neighborhoods in Palm Desert when multifamily units were not done with permits and the problems that created for the rest of the neighborhood. So he wanted to know if the unit to the east was legally non-conforming. Chairperson Campbell said she would like staff to look at all of the homes to the east of this home. Commissioner Lopez said he would move for a continuance and asked how long staff would need. Mr. Smith recommended that the case be continued to the first meeting in September (September 2, 2003). Chairperson Campbell reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, continuing Case No. C/Z 03-05 to September 2, 2003 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. (It was noted that the September 2 meeting would start at 6:00 p.m.) E. Case No. Cup 03-10 - GARY CASSEL for SPRINT PCS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a wireless telecommunications site camouflaged as a 10-foot high by 24-foot long faux boulder designed to match the hillside. Mr. Drell noted that this was the area in the hillside south of Bighorn. Since a palm tree wasn't appropriate, the applicant was proposing a boulder. The commission had a photograph of a boulder, but he indicated that the proposed boulder would be more tailored in design to the type of rock up on that hillside. None of the faux facilities were perfect, but probably in this situation this was the most appropriate one. He thought from a distance it would be difficult to tell it was faux. He said that the proposal was reviewed by the Architectural Commission and was 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 r.. approved with the direction that the boulder be customized to the nature of the rock in the area. Staff recommended approval. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY CASSEL, Sprint PCS, 5100 Queens Tree Avenue in Riverside, addressed the commission. Referring to the faux rock on display, he thought the model almost spoke for itself. He spent a few minutes on the history of how he got to this point and the approval processes he went through. He complimented staff, including Phil Drell and Tony Bagato. He explained that their height limit was ten feet. There were some limitations of the antennas having to be at the edge of the dike. They found one that was so high they were able to do a boulder design that would be able to get to three or four other sites. He said three of the sites the commission wasn't aware of yet, but would be soon. One was at the Episcopal church and the City already approved Verizon to go there. They would be doing the exact same thing which was down Highway 74. They were using this to build a system that was nonexistent right now for Spring PCS in the city of Palm Desert. As far as this site was concerned, they would have enough elevation. He said it was the Bighorn people who brought up being able to do a design of something that would belong there. That was the criteria of what Sprint tried to make happen. The simulated pictures shown to the commission showed that it should belong there. Another picture that was distributed showed a good sized boulder that was not simulated to this location lit was in Los Angeles). He stated that all the equipment and all the antennae would fit inside the boulder itself. The boulder would be designed like the one on display, but they didn't want it to look like it was one big boulder because he didn't think that would fit there. There weren't big boulders like that. The boulder itself would have some concaveness to it, but the standard they would be using was both from the staff point of view, so they were willing to take on ,`„ 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 whatever stipulation the commission wanted to make. If they put something up there and it didn't work, they were willing to change it to do more of what the City needed. Commissioner Tschopp noted that Mr. Cassel said that nothing would be outside of the boulder at all. He asked if these boulders had been used successfully in other areas. Mr. Cassel concurred. There was no question it was a radio- frequency, friendly type of material. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that one of the conditions of the Architectural Commission was installing small boulders and shrubbery to help screen it. He asked if that was going to be done also. Mr. Cassel said yes. He said it didn't show on the plans. Commissioner Tschopp asked where the access would be if they had to work on it. Mr. Cassel said it would be at the back. There was a door. He said the equipment was six feet six inches, meaning the equipment cabinetry for the radio equipment and the antennas themselves were six feet, so ten feet gave them more than enough room. Commissioner Tschopp asked staff if in the future when antennas, trees and boulders become obsolete, if there was a provision for them to be removed from the property. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Lopez asked about the length of durability of the boulder material in the desert heat and sun, and maintenance. Mr. Cassel said they had cellular technicians that visit once a month to take care of what was going on inside. As far as the maintenance of the outside, and the Bighorn people brought that up and he agreed, Bighorn would be watching. It was his understanding that it would last. It was like a swimming pool because it was gunnite and the color was supposed to be dyed in, i 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 it wasn't painted on. It came in that color because they went out and took pictures and made it that color. That was actually the color of the hillside and boulders already out there. He said instead of a round type look, it would have some striations like what they already see out there. The gunnite, or special texture, was dyed into it like a pool would be. He hadn't seen pools fade out very quickly. He knew there were heat issues. He wanted to say it would last forever. He couldn't control it, but he wanted them to be comfortable. Mr. Drell stated that just like they have on the palm trees which were plastic, there was a maintenance requirement. If it deteriorated, they were required to restore it. Commissioner Jonathan noted that was Condition of Approval No. 6. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Cassel stated that they were in agreement with that stipulation. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. GREG BABBINGTON, 6231 Hop Patch Spring Road in Mountain Center, addressed the commission. He said that he and another member of Bighorn met with Mr. Cassel earlier that day. They didn't necessarily oppose, but respectfully requested the Planning Department and Planning Commission to consider several things. This is the southern gateway to the city of Palm Desert. It was one of the first things people see when they enter the city. That spoke for itself. There was a line of site issue with four or more residents in the vicinity where they might see the top of this structure, but as Sprint represented the coloring and texturing to be like the surrounding mountains, they didn't have any opposition to it. They were concerned with the maintenance of the form and color over time, which was just discussed. He said they asked Mr. Cassel today if the project were approved, if he could construct it from north to south so that the north face affecting their property would be completed first. He also asked 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 a the commission to consider that conditions be applied to Sprint PCS that maintenance vehicles would access this site from the existing top of the dike at the far southern end near the trail head of the Art Smith Trail instead of any grading that they might be proposing to do on the western elevation of the existing land form. He indicated it sounded like, once they got through the process, they would be well into Bighorn's season and thus their request regarding the access. The plan showed there were a couple of structures that might protrude above grade on 74 and easements identified in their plan. He requested that they match the existing landscape palette on that berm. Otherwise, Bighorn did not oppose the project. There was no one else to speak and Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was innovative and would fit in better than any other alternative. Properly screened with native shrubbery and small rocks, etc., it should fit in very well as long as it was well maintained. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought it was a creative idea and looked good. He hoped they would be able to fulfill the expectations of the surrounding neighbors and that over time they maintained it. Commissioner Jonathan also concurred and thought this was great. They were looking for stealth technology. When he thought back to some of the first renditions they saw in terms of the faux palm trees, they have come a long way. He thought this was good. His concern was that reality should turn out somewhere at the level of their expectations. So he didn't know if they needed to formalize it, but they didn't have a traditional architectural rendering and so forth. The boulder could be considered a sample board. The closest thing they had to a rendering was a picture of something and he didn't think that was the specific design going up there, so this might be something more along the lines of they will see what they get when they get it. So his hope was that the color would truly be matched to the hillside at various points in the day with various reflections of the sun and so forth, and that ultimately it was the 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 kind of stealth technology that they were getting to expect at this point. If it wasn't, they would have a problem. He thought the neighbors at Bighorn would have a problem and the commission would hear about it and would have to deal with it, but he was optimistic and hopeful that they would see Sprint raise the bar on this. Mr. Drell said that they could add a condition that it would be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and the Landscape Manager in consultation with representatives of Bighorn Country Club. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was a good idea. Chairperson Campbell stated that she also concurred with her fellow commissioners. She was very surprised to see something like a boulder, but it was very impressive. In the area where it would be located, it would blend in comparison to a palm tree or pine tree. She was very impressed with the appearance of the faux rock and was in favor. She asked for a motion. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would make a motion with the additional condition as stated. Commissioner Jonathan seconded. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2214, approving CUP 03-10, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. F. Case No. PP 03-09 - PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to construct a two- story 24,474 square foot office building on a 1 .4-acre vacant parcel. The proposed project is located at 74-812 Technology Drive. %No 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 Mr. Drell indicated that the commission had the staff report and asked for any questions. On page three of the staff report, Commissioner Jonathan noted that the last paragraph seemed to be out of place and asked if it was in the report in error. Mr. Drell agreed that it was in the report in error. Mr. Drell said that unless the commission had any questions, staff would recommend approval as conditioned. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and noted that the applicant wasn't present. Chairperson Campbell said it was surprising that Mr. Vuksic wasn't present. Commissioner Jonathan said he would have to assume there was some sort of mis-communication for him not to be present. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the design was awesome as usual, traffic circulation was the appropriate use for the area, there were no exceptions in parking, landscaping, or height. He said he wished all projects could be like this. He was in favor. Commissioner Tschopp agreed. He thought it was a beautiful building and would set the standard in that area. It would be a great addition. Commissioner Lopez said he was also impressed. It would set a great standard for that area where there would be a tremendous amount of growth in the future. He noted that Mr. Vuksic has done great projects in the city and he was also in favor. Chairperson Campbell concurred. She thought it was a beautiful building for the location. She asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. 34 i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 in. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2215 approving PP 03-09, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (June 18, 2003) Chairperson Campbell stated that at the last meeting Mr. Twedt, the Public Arts Manager, asked the committee to recommend that he pursue grant funding for the production of a documentary on public art in Palm Desert. She stated that everyone was in favor of that. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) %1W C. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Because of the comments made earlier on the size of the sidewalks and the requirement for six feet, Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would be appropriate to have them look at what is really needed and what would be best. Mr. Drell said yes, once they finished the General Plan because they would be proposing some more specific design guidelines for the remaining residential areas. He thought six feet was excessive for residential streets. He thought that probably between four and five feet was probably the right dimension. ... 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if they had five feet on El Paseo. Mr. Drell thought eight or ten feet was appropriate for commercial areas. But the goal in residential was to have just enough room for two people to walk side by side comfortably. There were many places that just had three or three and a half feet and that was tight to walk side by side. He said they would be less expensive to build and they might actually build some in the older areas. The cul-de-sacs have so little traffic it wasn't that threatening walking in the street. But they would revisit that policy. Mr. Smith reminded commission that the next meeting would begin at 6:00 p.m. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. t PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission Am 36