Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0902 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson r.. 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 Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 5, 2003 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the August 5, 2003 minutes. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION ..� Mr. Smith summarized pertinent August 28, 2003 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-12 - MAUREEN D. McGIVERN, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to move the south property line of Lot 9 further south. Property is located at 73-305 Irontree Street, APN 630-023-006. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner .r Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. C/Z 03-05 - DOLORES J. LAUX, Applicant (Continued from July 15, 2003) 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 74-110 Chicory Street. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 tow Mr. Smith noted that this matter was before the commission on July 15 at which time commission directed staff to look into several matters. Item one concerned the legal status of the property immediately east of the subject property. Code Compliance investigated and advised that there were no building permits on file for multifamily use. A letter was sent to that property owner requesting compliance. Item two. Commission wanted to know if the future second unit that was referred to by the applicant could be accomplished under the recently adopted second unit ordinance. They reviewed the proposal as described to staff by the applicant and the various findings necessary were outlined on page two of the staff report. Staff felt it could be accomplished under the second unit ordinance. During the processing of a previous request for a second unit, there was an issue regarding ownership and whether or not the owner lived on the site. In this instance, the applicant described to the commission that she would put her mother or aunts in the facility. Item three had to do with a question as to how the curb became painted red in front of the residence. In a memo dated July 27, 2003 given to commission, Mr. Greenwood advised that City forces performed the red painting in response to requests from Mrs. Laux who was experiencing difficulty exiting her driveway. He noted that there was a school across the street. In conclusion, based on an analysis of the additional information, staff was now recommending that the proposed zone change be denied. Staffs previous report had been primarily influenced by the existing land use on the lot to the east. Staff was now advised that the legal status of that property was as a single family dwelling and actions were being taken to bring that into compliance. Staff was also convinced that the applicant could achieve the desired goal through the second unit ordinance. Therefore, staff was recommending that the requested change of zone from R-1 to R-3 be denied. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification regarding the unit across the street to the south and a little bit to the east. He wanted to know if it was multifamily. Mr. Smith explained that it is zoned R-1 ; however, the permits taken on it were for three units which predated the city. So it had legal nonconforming status. That could not be said to for one to the east in that the permits on record were for a single family dwelling. Commissioner Tschopp noted that previously the commission heard testimony that the painting on the curb was done by the school district, but it was done by the City. He asked if the City took into consideration how that would impact adjacent neighbors when they do something like that because prohibiting parking from one area forced it down the street. He asked if there was redress for the neighbors if that parking was impacting them. Mr. Diercks stated that they put it in and they could always take it out. The issue was sight distance coming out of the driveway and it was possible a portion of it could be removed. He said there was also a concern about the parking out there as well. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the property was currently zoned R- 1 and the properties to the east of that lot were zoned R-1. He asked if the properties to the west and to the north were zoned R-3. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that at one point staff felt this might make sense as a transitional kind of lot from a higher intensity to a lower intensity, but asked if it was staffs conclusion now that the boundaries were proper as they currently existed. Mr. Smith said their rationale for supporting it previously was that it was surrounded on three sides, but the third side was not a legal situation. Chairperson Campbell asked if there would have to be covered parking provided and if there was sufficient room. Mr. Smith explained that the application for that was not before the commission at this time. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith if in using the second unit approach, if there was anything in that approach that would not be accomplished compared to the change of zone approach. Mr. Drell said there were a few things. The second unit law had an owner-occupancy requirement. It also had a limit on the relationship between the main 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 dwelling and the second unit. The second unit could not be larger than 35% of the main dwelling. So in R-3, both units could be equal in size and neither would have to be owner occupied. Commissioner Jonathan noted there was a specific application before them and he was asking if the application as is fit into the second unit ordinance. Mr. Drell explained that there was no actual application for a building before them. That was just a conceptual idea. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. DOLORES LAUX, the owner of 74-110 Chicory, stated that she requested a zone change. She said she was in a sea of apartments. She has 16 units on one side. The property on the east that Mr. Smith kept referring to had three units, but they were built in 1950 before the city was incorporated. Therefore, when she called Mr. Erwin, the City Attorney, and asked about it, he said that it was fine because they were not under any .w restrictions at that time to not build units. So they built their units and they were not violating anything until they rebuild. That was the understanding she got from the City Attorney. She said it was being offered here as one of the reasons as a proposed denial for her to have her R-3. She asked how they could use that as an excuse when that property was done before incorporation. The second reason they proposed a denial was because a woman came in from the neighborhood with a petition. They didn't want any more units in the area, but the petition was for a guest house. No where on her application were the words guest house. She had only written in that she wanted an R-1 to go to an R-3 so she could build her duplex. She offered the commission an illustration. It showed that she was going to do a very residential single unit for her relatives. She had three elderly relatives she was trying to accommodate. Her mother was in her 90s and she had two aunts. She said it would look like her house and it would be behind the wall. It wouldn't interfere with the school across the street. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 She said that her home was a new home that was just built in 1999. She was the only brand new home on Chicory Street in 60 years. At the time the home was built and she purchased it from the builder, the City revamped the school playground directly across from her. This was a major change for this small street and she felt that perhaps it may have affected the older neighbors that were worried that she might do a 16-unit project, but she was only asking for the one unit and her drawing showed the location. Ms. Laux thought that the petition was rather invalid, which was for a guest house, and ordinances were included that Ms. Laux thought didn't affect her application at all. The person who wrote the petition said that Ms. Laux went out at night and painted the curbs. Ms. Laux noted that the commission had the work order from the City and as they could see, she had an unusual situation where Lantana, next to the school playground, came straight down. The City put in parking about the time her home was being built to accommodate the school. When they redo the school, she thought they would have to make it one-way. Pointing to the map, she showed Chicory at the base of two streets. Ms. Laux explained that what had been happening was the lot used to be vacant before her home was built. The school bus and others could back into it and make the turn. So she found herself with a school bus in her driveway and a lot of police there every afternoon, so she came to the City and Mr. Greenwood was very helpful and they discussed what could be done. By making the areas red in front of her home and the corner with no cars parked there, traffic could flow and the bus could make the turn. She felt there were many discrepancies in the petition and it had no bearing on her application. She stated that it concerned her that the little house next to her with its two units built in 1950 would now be a reason to deny her a change of zone because based on when they were built they weren't violating any ordinances. That was what the City 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 Attorney told her. And she thought Mr. Smith understood that. �► She called him afterward and asked him if he realized that property was built so long ago. That whole neighborhood was built in the 1940's and 50's. The school was built in 1950 and this neighborhood was put together at that time. So they had a lot of these situations where people have built units. Ms. Laux said she was going to leave it in the commission's capable hands to make the right decision. She just felt that the two reasons for denying her the zone change were invalid. The home next to her and the petition were both invalid as it appeared to her. The commission had the ultimate answer and what was best for the community she was sure would be the base of their decisions. She said she has had that home for sale because she needed to find a duplex for her relatives and people would constantly ask her, usually single parents, if they could rent her house so their children could go to that school. So she felt that if she had a unit there it would be a nice thing for the community after her family was finished with it. tow Commissioner Jonathan asked if Ms. Laux had an opportunity to review the second unit ordinance to determine whether that ordinance would accommodate her need for a second unit. Ms. Laux said she really hadn't because she went in at the end of April, beginning of May, for this application and it wasn't offered to her. Her builder and everyone said she needed a zone change to R-3. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the revised second unit ordinance was relatively new. Ms. Laux informed commission that she had a couple of builders give her bids on her proposal and they had been $70,000 if she did it the way she wanted to do it--beautifully. low 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan asked if she already had specifics in terms of what she had in mind in terms of size, layout, architecture, etc. Ms. Laux said yes, because it was very well described by the Building Department. The size of her lot would only allow her a 700-foot dwelling there. Commissioner Jonathan asked if she had actual architectural renderings. Ms. Laux said no, she didn't spend the money for them until she could see if the zone change would be feasible. She said she explained that to Mr. Smith. She felt it would be no impact on this street because her older relatives would just be there and there were no extra cars. Her dwelling was like the illustration. Very residential and a quiet, set back situation. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There were none. Chairperson Campbell asked for testimony .r in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. RANA LYMAN, 74-160 CHICORY, addressed the commission. She noted that she was before the commission a couple of months ago. She said she brought two more signed petitions by two more homeowners, which virtually gave them almost the entire street of owners that were opposed to this change. Not to stop the applicant from building, which she originally called a guest house because all of the neighbors knew about it and she had discussed it with several people in the neighborhood saying she wanted to put in a guest house, not a duplex, so Ms. Lyman didn't know where that was coming from now. In any event, the people she spoke within the neighborhood that signed the petitions willingly indicated they didn't want a zone change. They had no problem with the applicant building a guest house on her property in compliance with the city, but the zone change was not necessary. They didn't want to see multiple 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 families coming into the neighborhood when it was a single family neighborhood. That was the balance of it. Additionally, the applicant mentioned the red zone on the curb. Ms. Lyman said she made a call today to the Transportation Department of the Desert Sands Unified School District because she remembered at the last meeting that Ms. Laux mentioned something about the buses coming down Lantana, hanging a left onto Chicory, and possibly coming into her curb area. The lady she talked to had been an officer with the Desert Sands School District and just happened to live in that same neighborhood and has for a lot of years. She indicated the same thing. The bus route has always come up Portola, gone left on Chicory, they drop the kids off right out there on the sidewalk, and they didn't park anywhere on the north side of that street. They park on the south side where the fence runs. They unload the kids onto the sidewalk, the bus continues down Chicory to Lantana, they go up Lantana and loop around on Fairway and then go back down low Portola toward El Paseo. No where did they go up to Fairway and come back down swinging around in front of Ms. Laux's house. Like the lady at the school district said, they couldn't turn a 90-passenger bus on an angle like that, it wouldn't make that turn. In the history that she had worked at the school district they had never had the buses going in that direction. As for painting the curb, Ms. Lyman said she personally saw her. It became a she said/she said, but she saw her painting the curb at night. Then when Ms. Lyman questioned the City about it, they sent someone out there who then repainted it. She got it grandfathered in by claiming that the buses were turning there. But in talking to the school district, the buses had never turned there and she had a copy of the map and a copy of the conversation with the school district if the commission needed it. She just wanted to pass on that they had additional homeowners that were opposed to this. They had no problem with her building a guest house. They were just opposed to the zone change. (She submitted the two petitions and letter/map.) tow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any rebuttal comments. Ms. Laux stated that it was getting ridiculous, but Mr. Greenwood was the only person that she dealt with. She didn't go to the school. She said she is a school teacher and she knew better than to trouble the schools about something like that, so she just went to the City. Mr. Greenwood took care of the whole thing. She was not out there at night painting curbs. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Smith was certain about the adjacent home to the east not being grandfathered in and being a single family use. Mr. Smith stated that he knew there was a distinction between it and the one across the street where permits in 1950 or 1951 were taken for three units even though it was currently zoned R-1. Relative to the one to the east, the information that Code came up with was that the permitting which took place in 1950 or 1951 was for a single residence, or as they put it not for a multiple residence. With that background he deferred to the City Attorney present. It was his understanding that it didn't convey legal non-conforming status to the adjacent property to the east. Mr. Drell stated that in order to get it grandfathered, they had to be legitimate to start out with. If they were legal under the County, then they were legally non-conforming under the City if they changed zoning. But if under the County jurisdiction it was converted from a single family home to a triplex without legal permits, it was illegal when it came into the city. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that the other property obtained permits for triple units. Mr. Drell said yes. He said they go out of their way to try to find legitimacy for these old county buildings, but they didn't find it for the one to the east. Commissioner Jonathan said that it appeared to him that this might be a situation that would more appropriately fit into the second unit ordinance as it had been recently revised. The neighborhood had some 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 issues with changing the zone from R-1 to R-3. He wasn't concerned about the red curb or where the school buses went. Those were valid issues, but not for the purposes of addressing a change of zone. His greater concern was when they have an existing zone and neighbors and residents purchase their property based on that zone, then he thought the commission had an added measure of responsibility to ensure that those expectations weren't adversely compromised in some way and he thought that might be happening here. On the positive, he said there might be another way to accomplish the same thing to meet the applicant's needs without offending the existing residents. He said that would mean a denial of this particular application, but at the same time he encouraged the applicant to work with staff to determine if what the applicant wanted to do could be accomplished through the revised second unit ordinance. Commissioner Finerty noted that she was absent at the July 15 meeting, but had read the minutes and familiarized herself with the •w application and concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She thought it needed to be denied. A zone change was not needed. She understood the concerns of the homeowners not wanting to add multifamily into what they thought was single family. She encouraged the applicant to reapply under the second unit ordinance. Commissioner Tschopp also concurred. He stated that it is a very congested area during the school year and additional housing in that area needed to be looked at very closely. If the applicant met the requirements of the second unit ordinance, he would encourage her to apply under it. There were also neighbors that objected to further intrusion of multi-family into their neighborhood which he thought was a valid concern. Lastly, although not a part of this hearing, he requested the City Traffic Engineer to review the no parking zone in front of the house and take whatever applicable action they deemed appropriate knowing that by eliminating some parking spaces, they forced it into other areas. However, in this case it might be valid, but he wanted the Engineer to take a look at it and either validate it or remove the red stripe. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 4 Commissioner Lopez also concurred and thought Ms. Laux should work with staff on the new second unit ordinance. He thought she would be able to accomplish what she would like to do. Ms. Laux thanked him and said she would do that. She then mentioned that Ms. Lyman said she had more names from neighbors. Commissioner Jonathan interrupted to explain that the public hearing was closed to further testimony. Commissioner Lopez continued and said he also concurred that staff should look at the red curb to see how it might benefit all parties involved. But in this particular case, the recommendation by staff for denial was acceptable. Chairperson Campbell also concurred that this project could be accomplished under the adopted second unit ordinance that went into effect in July. She also asked staff to check into the red zone to see if it could be eliminated or possibly cut down in any way and make that a condition of approval. She was also in favor of denying the change of zone from R-1 to R-3. She asked for a motion. 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. 2221 denying Case No. C/Z 03-05. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 03-07, Gary Cassel for SPRINT PCS, Applicant (Continued from August 19, 2003) Approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 70-foot high wireless 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 tow telecommunication tower designed as a palm tree located at 74-6552 Highway 111 . Mr. Drell explained that this item was continued from the last meeting and there was a direction to try and add some more trees to somewhat better disguise the tall palm. There was a plan that showed the installation of two 75-foot palms, one directly to the northwest of the tower and one to the northeast. He indicated the applicant prepared a photo simulation and the view the commission was most interested in was from Highway 111 looking toward the southeast. He said it was very accurate except for the two new live palms that had been added. As he reviewed the photograph in comparison to the site plan, the two tall palms were shown in the wrong place. The one that was to the east was shown too far away from the monopalm and the one to the west should be in front of it, but the picture was showing it behind. He wasn't sure whether the commission could evaluate how it would look by looking at the site plan, but the one to the northeast was planted right next to the previous one. They could see that in the drawing to get a �• better idea where the tall one was. The question was if they could plant the palms that were actually taller than the monopalm that wouldn't interfere. He said he had a question for the applicant. Assuming that this was acceptable once the commission understood where the palms were located, he asked how the applicant transported a 70 or 80-foot palm physically and what sort of vehicle was used. Mr. Drell believed that this was as good as we could possibly get, but the picture didn't really depict the way it was going to look. It was going to look better than the picture. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing was still Ppen from the previous meeting and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY CASSEL addressed the commission. He thanked the commission for allowing the continuance. He said he took each individual commissioner's concerns after looking at the pictures. He said he took Commissioner Finerty's idea, which he thought was valid, having to do with a monopalm that didn't show 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 antennas. The antennas were now removed and were sitting in the tree itself like the tree at the Episcopal Church which the commission also approved for Sprint and Verizon a month or two ago. So he took that advice and worked with the radio frequency people and it was okay. That led him to Commissioner Lopez's and Commissioner Tschopp's concerns about the trees being the same height and not having a "lone soldier" there. He also agreed with Mr. Drell's comments and hoped the commission would look at the drawings a little closer than the simulated pictures. He said he added a tree, so there would be six instead of five. To be very succinct, they had two trees at 77 feet, equal to the height of the other tree. The tree in view number two, which didn't really look right, was way too far east, but the point he wanted to make was that to the best of his ability he would make sure there were at least two other palm trees equal to the height of the monopalm itself and in front of the monopalm even though it was going to be east or west of the palm tree, but out front where Highway 111 is and he thought that was what they were trying to make sure he covered. As someone drives down Highway 111, they wanted to get it so that it couldn't be seen or that it wasn't as easy to see. He said this was off Highway 111 and he was actually behind the external street off of Highway 111 behind the Del Taco and was actually at the Southern California Edison Substation. There all of the equipment would be completely screened from view. He said they was a heavy amount of existing bushes and they were even adding more vegetation. He stated that the most important thing he wanted to tell them was that he revamped the tree to make it look like there were other trees that were like that and he asked the commission to look a little closer at the site plan versus the pictures. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the intent was to limit the visual impact from Highway 111. In his opinion a bunch of palms looked much better than a single palm. He thought the applicant was making a great attempt to try to limit that visual impact. He noted there were two palms 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 tow at 77 feet and four palms at the 40-50 feet. Without being unduly demanding, he asked if there was a way to up one more palm to 77 feet. The more they bunched them together the better it would look from a visual standpoint along Highway 111. Mr. Cassel said that if the commission stipulated that, he and Sprint would go along with it. Mr. Drell asked what sort of a truck carried a 77-foot palm tree. Mr. Cassel said it was a long, flatbed truck. If the trunks extend beyond, they put red flags on the ends of the trees. He said they absolutely buy that high of trees, so they weren't thinking about anything lower than this thinking it would grow. He knew the City's stipulations and he was very specific about it. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being none, she closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move for approval based upon the applicant's cooperation through this application in adding the three live trees at 75 feet and the three live trees at 40-50 feet. Commissioner Tschopp said he would second the motion. Commissioner Lopez agreed that Mr. Cassel had done a great job when he showed the visual effect, especially from Highway 111. He thought it would have a pleasing effect, especially if they added the third palm to enhance the bunching. He thanked the applicant for doing a good job. Commissioner Jonathan also concurred. The antennas being in the trunk was a vast improvement and he appreciated it. The additional tree with the taller profile and the improved location all militated in favor of approval. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Chairperson Campbell also concurred. She said that Sprint was a good company to do business with and she appreciated their cooperation. 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 Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2222, approving Case No. CUP 03-07, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 03-14 - LENNART AND KAREN RENBERG, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 3,050 square foot detached accessory garage with a height of 192.5" and a rear yard setback of 15 feet for property located at 77-577 Mountain View. Mr. Drell noted that the plans were in the commission's packets and apologized for some of the confusion in the description of the location and some of the other verbiage in the report which changed at the very last moment. Staff was initially going to recommend a continuance because of the building height issues and the applicant at the last minute agreed to bring the buildings to acceptable height and they were able to come through with a recommendation. The accessory structure was located in the back. The code required that when these structures encroach into the rear yard, it was limited to a maximum height of 18 feet and their setbacks had to be equal to the height of the building at the setback line. In this case, the buildings were setback 15 feet. At that point the building plate and eave line was 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 �.. 15 feet. On the rear it was also setback 15 feet and the plate line was at 12 feet. So the building was in compliance with the minimum setback requirements of the zone. The maximum height of the building was at 18 feet and it had hipped roofs all over. He said that although there was a very large garage to be used for the storage of classic cars and RV's, the building had some degree of architecture. He reiterated that it was in compliance with the standards of the zone and recommended approval contingent upon the plans being redrawn to comply with the 18-foot total height limit. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification with regard to the rear yard setback. The staff report indicated that the zone requires a 50-foot setback, but this detached structure was a 15-foot setback and staff was saying it wasn't an exception. They were saying it was within the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Drell said that was correct. With a 50-foot setback, a property owner didn't have to go before the commission. When someone was building within the standard setback envelope of the main structure, they could have as many accessory structures as `► they wanted as long as they didn't violate coverage requirements. Commissioner Jonathan said that was a ministerial approval. Mr. Drell concurred. He explained that this process, which was specifically built into the code, allowed a property owner to encroach closer. He noted that before this ordinance was done, accessory structures were allowed within five feet as a ministerial act. He said they would do design review at the staff level. When they amended the code, they provided on large lots the opportunity to encroach into rear yards, but pursuant to a conditional use permit with the standards outlined. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a standard for the rear yard setback or if it was discretionary and judgemental. Mr. Drell said it was equal to the height of the building at the setback line. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LENNART RENBERG, 77-577 Mountain View in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he received a phone 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 call last week from one of the planners. They just came back from vacation, so they met with him (Mr. Urbina) for an hour and he was leaving for vacation. He told the planner that they would work really hard to come down with the height. He said he had no problem bringing down the height of the garage, but he couldn't bring down the height of the house. Being an engineer for 40 years and understanding stress more than most people, if he went any less on the trusses, they would probably sink the house into the ground below where the property would be, so what he was asking for was 5% of the roof, roughly 6,000 square feet, to be over 18 feet. Since he was doing all the work himself, he said he took pictures of all the neighbors around him. He understood those might have been before the property was annexed into Palm Desert. Most of those houses were two stories and most had setbacks closer than 15 feet. He said he had no problem with the setbacks on the garage and he could move it any which way because it was a rather large lot. But the problem he had was with a 12-foot ceiling height from pad and he couldn't change that because that wouldn't allow a house, it would be a chicken coop. That was not his intention. So he was asking the commission to take a look at these pictures. He said he also studied the applications for variances and adjustments. He said he didn't understand A, but he understood B which said if there were extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or for the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. He thought all his neighbors were in the same zone. C: The strict and literal interpretation enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone. D: That the granting of a variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That told him that B, C, and D he was pretty good with, but he didn't understand A. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 MRS. KAREN RENBERG addressed the commission. She stated that they talked to their architect and Mr. Urbina and discussed taking the whole roof line of the house and just dropping it, but their architect was telling them that since the garage was a lot lower than the other roof line, they couldn't just drop the whole roof. The whole thing either had to be reconfigured or the whole top of the roof would have to be flattened. She didn't think that anyone wanted a partially sloped, partially flattened roof on a house of that size. There were some real structural problems there. Mr. Drell stated that the house wasn't a subject of this hearing. Building a single family house in a single family zone was a ministerial act unless a variance was being requested. At this time a variance application had not been filed so they couldn't consider the height issue other than continuing and renoticing for a variance. Relative to the house, the main dwelling was not a subject of the conditional use permit. The accessory building was before the commission and the �► applicant agreed to bring it into compliance with height. If at a later date he so desired, he could apply for a height variance, but they were very very difficult to get mainly because there was nothing unique about the property which required a 21-foot high house which was what variances dealt with. In essence, the way the architect conceived and designed a dwelling was what one would call a self-imposed hardship, which was totally in control of the architect and not a result of a unique characteristic of a very flat, large rectangular lot. So that is why staff felt that variance findings could not be met and would be unlikely to recommend approval if the Renbergs filed for a variance. Mr. Renberg said he didn't quite understand that yet, but he would sleep on it and try to understand it by tomorrow because he was going to file for a variance. That would be for the house. As far as the garage, he didn't have a problem with that. If the commission felt it was an eyesore even if the garages behind him were taller, it didn't matter to him. It was done previously and was gone. On the house in question, he could not drop the hip because of the codes. Insulation and stress had to be built into to= 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 the house. He could not come around it. Either they had to come to some kind of agreement. They could say it was 300 feet he was talking about and it was the very peak, two ridges, and they could come together and say it was really not that big of a deal on a 6,000 square foot roof to have a 300 square foot area that was a foot over the code. Furthermore, each and every one of his neighbors, some in the audience, were all in favor of him building the house as designed. They had written in to the planning commission and they think it is a wonderful house and hope it goes in. Chairperson Campbell explained that the application in front of the commission was only for the accessory building, so they couldn't discuss his house. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. MR. RICH CLARK, a property owner across the street from where the house would be, 77-590 Mountain View, addressed the commission. He stated that he has a shop in back, as did the majority of the people in that area. They were all one acre lots and variances and easements had been granted before for the setbacks of those back lots. The 50 feet was a long way from the backyards and most of them were all set at about 10 feet. In fact, all of his neighbors next to him were all in a line. They all had 10 feet from the back of their shops to the property, so he urged the commission to go ahead with it and he had absolutely no problem with that. As far as the height, there was a two-story building next to the applicant and there was a two-story building next to himself and he himself was just right at the height and ready to put his house in. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the height of his house. Mr. Clark said it was right at the limit, but reached the city's criteria. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was at the limit of 18 feet and if he was two stories. Mr. Clark said he was 18 feet, but single story. MR. ANDREW CASAS, 677 Cedar Lane in Twin Peaks, California, addressed the commission. Regarding the house, he didn't understand why the house was not part of this meeting because they did not go through any type of procedure to change their application to discuss just the garage so he didn't really understand how that happened. He said that basically, the problem they were running into was they could cut the house down, but no matter what they did, and he looked at pretty much all their options, no matter what they ended up doing it would make the house look somewhat architecturally odd. If they flattened the roof to get it under 18 feet, that could make the building get tossed back to the �.. Architectural Review Board and they could disapprove it because it would look funny. Commissioner Jonathan indicated he didn't want to continue discussing the house because it wasn't before the commission. It wasn't publicly noticed to be before them and they couldn't take action or give an opinion on the house at this meeting. The reason was because there hadn't been an application for a variance. When there wasn't an application for a variance, the house permitting process just went through staff and didn't go before the Planning Commission. For that house to be placed before them, an application needed to be filed for a variance / conditional use permit. That had not been done. Once that was done, staff could either concur or disagree and it would be placed before the commission. Until that happened, the commission could not discuss the house. So the commission was limited to discussing the accessory structure. Mr. Casas said that they would have to work on the variance then. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 h There being no one else to speak regarding the application, Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp asked the applicant if, given the confusion on this, if the applicant would prefer to take both the house and the garage and come back as one package at a later date. Mr. Drell said they could make that choice, but if they didn't want to reduce the height of the accessory structure to be in compliance, they could file for a variance and come back with a variance. They could continue the public hearing and deal with the variance on the house and the accessory structure. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the commission could approve the accessory structure and then modify it if they so desired to with an exception application. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan suggested they do that in case the applicant changed his mind about seeking an exception in the height limit and then they wouldn't have to come back for the accessory structure. Speaking for himself, he had no problem with the actual application before the commission and that was the conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 3,050 square foot detached accessory garage, subject to the conditions as stated in the staff report. So he was in favor of approving the application. With regard to the house, if the applicant was interested in bringing it back, there might be some justification for an exception. He was always interested in staffs perspective and he encouraged the applicant to do their homework, explore all alternatives, and if they chose, then come back with regard to that separate item. In terms of the actual application before the commission, he was in favor of approval. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He stated that as long as the applicant was in agreement with Condition No. 5 under Department of 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Community Development, and that was to lower the roof height not to exceed 18 feet measured from the finished pad grade. He clarified that this was for the accessory building. He didn't have a problem and would approve it. Commissioner Tschopp said he wasn't opposed to the accessory garage, but thought it was difficult to approve an accessory garage without the main house. When looking at a lot like this, it made a lot of sense to look at it as one package. So he wasn't against the building of the accessory unit, he was just not in favor of approving an accessory unit until the architect, the applicant and the City had been able to look at the entire package and see what worked. He understood Commissioner Jonathan's comments, but he didn't agree with him and would like to see the whole thing come back as a package. Mr. Drell agreed that there should be another condition that they couldn't have an accessory building until they had a main dwelling. If the commission was going to approve the accessory building, then they needed an additional condition that the accessory building was contingent upon �.. the construction of an approved primary dwelling. Commissioner Jonathan thought that was an existing part of the law. What they were doing was essentially approving the location which was the only exception. He understood that was the only reason it was before the commission. If it was more than 50 feet, it wouldn't be before the commission. Mr. Drell agreed. He said it was a little unusual now because the house usually already existed and then someone asked for an accessory structure. In this case in one package they submitted a plan for both the accessory building and the main structure. Commissioner Tschopp encouraged Mr. and Mrs. Renberg to work closely with staff to make sure they got the nuances down for the different codes and what was required. He thought that some of the photos of the homes in the area were worth quite a bit because they were trying to make a home that fit into the neighborhood and what happened in a neighborhood had an impact on what type of house they built. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Commissioner Finerty said she would also prefer to see the package and suggested a continuance to a time acceptable to the applicant so they could go before Architectural Review for the house. Mr. Drell said that any house above 15 feet had to go before Architectural Review, so they had seen it. What staff would have to do was advertise for the variance and add the variance to the legal notice and readvertise. Commissioner Finerty asked if they should continue this for a month. Mr. Drell said yes, that would give staff time to advertise. Chairperson Campbell concurred with a continuance to see the whole package. She asked if one month was sufficient for Mr. Renberg or if he needed more time. Mr. Renberg said one day would be sufficient. Chairperson Campbell explained that the commission schedule was quite busy and asked about October 21 . Mr. Renberg said that would work for him. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move to continue the application until October 21 . Chairperson Campbell said she would second that motion. Commissioner Jonathan said he would be opposing the motion. He just wanted to explain that the reason for his opposition was that as a matter of procedure, they didn't have a right to look at the house unless there was an application for a variance and that was why they were just looking at the structure. At this point, the applicant was not requesting a variance and, therefore, he thought they had an obligation to say yea or nay with regard to the accessory structure which was seeking a CUP due to the rear yard setback. He understood where the commission was going and embraced that approach, but as a matter of procedure they technically might not have a right to require that. That was why he was in opposition to the motion. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. The motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Jonathan voting no. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 low Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, continuing Case No. CUP 03-14 to October 21, 2003. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). D. Case No. CUP 03-17 - LARRY J. OWENS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 1,920 square foot detached accessory building in the required rear yard setback at 77-545 Robin Road. Mr. Bagato explained that there was an existing home on a one-acre parcel located on the south side of Robin Road and the property was zoned RE 40,000. The detached structure ordinance allowed structures to be located within the rear yard setback upon approval of a conditional use permit. �... The applicant was proposing to construct a 1,920 square foot structure that would be used for storage of a boat, an automobile and a little workshop area. The garage workshop was about 17 feet high with a 24- foot 3 inch setback from the rear property line and a 17-foot setback from the side property line. The architecture of the structure was designed to match the existing house. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on July 22, 2003 and granted preliminary approval. The proposed structure complied with all applicable provisions of the detached accessory ordinance. Findings for approval could be met and for CEQA purposes the project was a Class 3 categorical exemption. Staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution. Mr. Bagato informed commission that staff received some emails that were distributed that mentioned some visual concerns from some of the homes on the south side of the property line from Desert Breezes. He said that the applicant has some existing shrubbery on the east side of his property that was between seven and eight feet tall. The 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 applicant had pictures. Mr. Bagato said tha t some of the shrubbery was also in the backyard, but didn't totally cover the backyard. The applicant was willing to install additional landscaping to screen some of the vehicles. The applicant indicated he wouldn't be back there much, but because of the pad height difference the wall at one portion was about three feet high so there could be the possibility of headlights. The applicant was present to answer any question and was willing to install additional landscaping if the commission felt it was warranted. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LARRY OWENS, 77-545 Robin Road, addressed the commission. He proposed to add the accessory building and believed it met all the criteria. He said he had additional pictures of the commission wanted to see them. He said he probably had over 300 shrubs around his house already and he didn't mind planting a few more if he had to. He said it was an accessory shop and garage. It would just be for storage and he wouldn't be parking there every day. He had a regular garage that was attached to the house that they would use. There shouldn't be a concern about headlights, but he understood the neighbors' concern. Chairperson Campbell asked to see the pictures. Commissioner Jonathan requested Mr. Owens to repeat what he said about headlights. Mr. Owens said he thought the concern was if he drove in the backyard, the headlights would shine above the fence. That was what he was assuming the neighbors were concerned about. The fence was about three feet high. There were existing shrubs and he didn't know how they'd get through, but they might. He didn't think they would. He said he didn't think the neighbors were home and that they were part-time residents. Chances of him going back there at night very often were very slim. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 `' Commissioner Jonathan asked if he could deal with that effectively through planting material. Mr. Owens said yes and thought he had done 99% of it already. Commissioner Finerty asked if the plants on the east side of the house that were approximately seven to eight feet tall were the same type of plant material he had on the south. Mr. Owens said no. There were a couple of the same plants, bougainvilleas and trees. Commissioner Finerty asked how wide the south wall was. Mr. Owens said the south wall was 120 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked how much of the 120 feet was covered in a similar fashion as the east side. Mr. Owens said 90%. There were two or three places without shrubs and one of the places would be covered by the building itself. Commissioner Finerty noted that one of the emails the commission received referenced a Deputy Kilpatrick who had been observing and taking pictures of the sand and dirt that kept going into the house to the south. She asked if there were any reports from Deputy Kilpatrick. Mr. Bagato said he had never heard Mr. Kilpatrick address this subject property about any kind of complaints. Commissioner Finerty asked if there was a Deputy Kilpatrick. Mr. Bagato explained he was a Code Enforcement officer. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Bagato contacted Mr. Kilpatrick. Mr. Bagato said no since he just received a copy of the email. His email address was incorrect on the top and Mr. Kilpatrick had already left for the evening. He said he could ask Mr. Kilpatrick about this and it could be addressed as a separate matter. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Commissioner Finerty was concerned with the applicant stating that in his opinion, 90% of the 120-foot wall was covered with plants and yet this homeowner was concerned about having to blow off the patio and clean their furniture regularly because of the dust that came into his yard. Mr. Owens stated that he spoke with the Deputy himself and the issues concerning that where there were some piles of sand back there and they had been knocked down. He indicated there has always been a sprinkler system that runs on a timer three times a day and he had since planted wildflowers over the retention basin. He noted that it was a fairly new house and was less than one year old so the planting was just coming into full bloom/blossom. The Deputy seemed to think everything would be fine after he explained to him what he had done and the deputy said the matter would be dropped. Commissioner Finerty said she knew these particular homeowners just returned home from a trip, so if Mr. Owens had taken that kind of action she was sure they would be pleased. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the accessory structure and the construction would then assist with reducing the blow sand as well. Mr. Owens said certainly. The area that the blow sand was coming from was where the structure was going to go, along with the gravel driveway which would cover up all but 10% of the rear area. Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that Mr. Owens was in agreement to mitigate the lights, blow sand and the visual impact to the neighbors by planting additional shrubs if necessary. Mr. Owens said yes. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. She noted that she had Request To 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 Speak cards from several people and invited Theresa Myers to address the commission. MS. THERESA MYERS, 43-515 Calle Las Brisas West in the Desert Breezes complex, addressed the commission. She stated that her property was directly affected by Mr. Owens' plans to build this building. She was concerned about the view from her backyard that would be obstructed by the building. She said she brought four pictures. She said she had four primary concerns; view, use, size and aesthetics. She understood that Mr. Owens would like to use the property as storage for his boat and perhaps a workshop. She said she had knowledge that Mr. Owens owns a business and she had a concern that this building, which was larger than her home, would be used somehow for his business. She thought it would be rather irresistible not to. The landscaping he proposed would only serve to further hinder her property. She pointed out the bougainvillea he mentioned were just now starting to sprout up to %W unacceptable heights as far as she was concerned since that view of the mountains that she currently enjoyed was becoming obstructed by the landscaping as well as the proposed structure. The size concerned her. She understood that other properties in the area like Mountain View discussed earlier had second structures on their properties at the height requirement that Mr. Owens was proposing; however, she only knew about her property and this particular property on Robin was butted up against the Desert Breezes Resort so it wasn't exactly the same scenario as the Mountain View property and the other properties effected. She said those were her primary concerns, the blocking of her current view. She indicated one argument she could understand was with the church next door, the Baptist church, where a second story was built onto that. That did not obstruct her view, but improved it because she had a perfect view of the power lines at the Palm Desert Resort and Country Club before that, so that was acceptable because it did not obstruct a view. In this .r 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 f case it did obstruct the enjoyment of her property and the view ..� she has. She hoped the commission would find against this request. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Owens would like give rebuttal comments. Mr. Owens said he wanted to address a couple of the concerns about the building. He moved it away from the rear yard line almost twice the distance that was necessary and he was putting on a hip roof similar to the house, so it wasn't like it had a full gable right at the property line. He acknowledged that there were two-stories on each side his property. One was the church and the other neighbor also had a two-story detached garage. As for a business use there, this was his personal home and he wouldn't use it for business purposes. He said he has ten acres in Desert Hot Springs where he kept all of his business accessories and equipment. Unfortunately he has had some equipment, but only while working and it would never be stored there. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that the proposed detached structure complied with all of the applicable provisions of the code and he believed that by adding a condition for Mr. Owens to mitigate the light, blow sand, and visual impact with appropriate shrubs, etc., he believed the application should be approved. Commissioner Finerty concurred, but wanted to amend the last condition by adding that the planting material should be similar to the landscaping on the east. The picture showed a really nice row of ficus and it really helped to screen and if they were concerned about the dirt and the sand and the lights, that type of planting material did a really nice job and it was trimmed at a nice height as well. 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 r.. Chairperson Campbell said it wasn't ficus, but it was a good screen. Commissioner Jonathan concurred, although he didn't want to overly micro manage the landscaping so he thought the phraseology of something similar that achieved the same kind of look would be appropriate and would allow the applicant some leeway. He said he was concerned about the view line and so forth. He didn't want Ms. Myers to think that they weren't sensitive to that, but it was an issue when someone moved to a location and there was vacant land behind them and they got used to the view, but it didn't stay that way. The desert was dynamic, things got built and people have a right to build on their property. This particular application was not seeking any kind of exceptions and in fact the setback was greater than the minimum in many senses and the height was well within the ordinance, so he thought that it deserved the commission's approval. Commissioner Lopez agreed. The setbacks more than met the requirements. He acknowledged the concern regarding view. Everyone �► would love to have open space and the ability to look at all the mountains around them. He agreed there should be a condition regarding the landscaping along the wall to mitigate lights and would leave it up to staff to incorporate into the conditions. He said he would move for approval. Chairperson Campbell also concurred because the application was in compliance with the ordinance. She asked for a second to the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2223, approving Case No. CUP 03-17, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. %OW 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 E. Case No. PP 03-10 - GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a ten-building medical and general office complex (93,842 square feet) on an 8.72-acre site at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane, 41-340 Cook Street. Mr. Smith reiterated that the property was located at the northeast corner of Hovley and Cook. He said the 8.72-acre site was originally part of a 34-acre property at that corner. In 1987 there was an EIR prepared which analyzed the impacts created by 224 apartment units and a 139,000 square foot office complex on this O.P. zoned property. In 1989 there was an amendment to the residential portion changing it from 224 apartment units to 90 single family homes which became Belmonte Estates. At this time there was a proposal for the office professional part of the site for a 93,842 square foot office complex. There would be ten buildings. One was proposed as a bank on the corner and the remaining buildings were located around the perimeter of the site. So there would be nine buildings that were single story and one two-story building toward the center of the site. With the development around it, Mr. Smith said the site had been fully improved with curb, gutter, sidewalks and curb cuts. Along the east and north edge of the property there was an existing slump block wall ranging from 5-6 feet in height and then immediately adjacent to this wall on the east was a landscape strip that was put in as part of the Belmonte tract of homes where they had significantly sized vegetation. Mesquites and some others. On the north end of the property, there was a retention basin of some 46-feet in width. There were a few trees in it. Mr. Smith said there were two access points. One to Cook Street and one to Hovley currently exist with curb cuts through the sidewalk with left-turn movements entering the site in both cases. The applicant would retain and use the Cook Street access as it currently exists. On 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 Hovley the applicant would be moving that access some 40-50 feet west closer to Cook Street. Because of traffic department concerns, they would eliminate the left-turn pocket into the site. The applicant was aware of that and could live with it in that by moving the pocket access further to the west, it improved the viability of a building at the southeast corner of the project. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the access would not be as indicated there. Mr. Smith said it was as indicated on the plan, but he just made the distinction in case they drove by and saw the physical cut there, it would be shifted to the west. Mr. Smith said all the buildings around the perimeter would be single- story. There was a proposal for one two-story building to the center of the site. The bank building came in at about 4,500 square feet. All of the remaining single story buildings were at 6,608 square feet and the two-story building was 36,478 square feet. The project would be landscaped with a Desert Willow theme landscape plan. tow There were updated plans given to the commission in their packets. The colored renderings showed a 30-foot high structure which was amended before the matter went to Architectural Review, so the colored drawings were not the same as the ones in the packets. The two-story building was set at 25 feet maximum per the code. The building architecture was basically a low profile contemporary desert architecture. Exterior materials included canterra stone, ledge stone and tinted glass. The east elevation of the two-story building would have opaque spandrel glass with high glass to let in light. The commission received a letter which was distributed and that was one concern. Code required that any second story windows facing a residential area be ones that couldn't be viewed through so people couldn't look down into adjacent yards. The site plan provided a surplus of 73 parking spaces over and above what a general office use would require. The applicant requested approval of medical for the overage. That would permit a maximum of 36,500 square feet of medical use. Mr. Smith pointed out that medical W 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 use has a parking requirement of six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet versus four spaces per 1 ,000 for general office use. Mr. Smith noted that there was a letter that went with the packets from Mr. Mike Hines a resident located immediately adjacent to the east at the south end. He expressed concern with a building being located next to him and that he would be losing his westerly view from his kitchen. Staff had him connect with the architect and he understood that they met at Mr. Hines' home. The building adjacent to him met code and would be setback in excess of that required by code at 28 feet rather than 20. The first edge of the building adjacent to him was 18 feet in height which was consistent with the maximum height permitted on a residence which could be built to within eight feet. The site has been zoned O.P. since 1987. The project complies with the O.P. provisions. The applicant had a 73-space parking surplus. A letter was received from Mr. Timothy Tyler, 77 Sutton Place West, who expressed concern with the two-story building 180 feet away from his home and with people on the second story being able to look into his kitchen window. Code did not allow them to put in glass that could be viewed through. Secondly, he expressed concern with the Cook Street access and how it would impact Belmonte's ability to access their project from south bound Cook Street. A while back the City closed the left-turn access which provided direct access into Belmonte and they were required to come down to this access point and make a U-turn back to their driveway or they alternatively had the ability to make a left at Hovley and then enter the subdivision from the east side of the Belmonte tract. Public Works assured that the access would continue to work adequately. He said if the commission had any specific questions in that regard, Mr. Diercks was present and could address them. Staffs recommendation was approval of the project, subject to the conditions. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 Commissioner Tschopp asked if someone wanted to go east on Hovley, where the closest place was to go to make a U-turn. Mr. Smith said they would have to go west and make a U-turn at Cook Street. Commissioner Tschopp noted that at this time there was no left into Belmonte from Cook Street, but there would be a left into this project. Mr. Smith said that was correct and there would continue to be one. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the difference between the two. He asked if one was closer to a problem area. Mr. Smith said yes, there was an offset situation with the driveway into Belmonte with respect to the access into the timeshare into the Marriott. It did not align. Commissioner Tschopp commented that it was poor planning when they did the timeshares or Belmonte. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the Cook Street access is right- in right-out, but also allowed a left-turn off of Cook Street into the site. Mr. Smith said that was correct. They would continue to allow a U-turn for those needing to do so. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out there wouldn't be any signalization. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner .. Jonathan asked what the distance was between that access point and the signal at Hovley and Cook. Mr. Diercks said it was approximately 1 ,000 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the access on Hovley to this property was again right-in and right-out, but no left-hand access from Hovley and no left-turn out. To clarify Commissioner Tschopp's question, if someone wanted to head east on Hovley, then the choice was either to make a right out on Hovley and find the closest U-turn or similarly a right onto Cook Street and then make the U-turn and then a left onto Hovley. He asked if there was a better way for easier eastward bound access onto Hovley. Mr. Diercks said no, not with a safe resolution with the traffic flow. The closest was the intersection at Hovley to Cook which didn't allow for a left-turn out there. A left turn onto Cook itself,just because of the high volume of traffic on Cook they were trying to eliminate left-turns out and uncontrolled left turns onto Cook. That was the condition out there right now. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the access out of the Berger Building where a left could be made onto Hovley. Mr. Diercks explained that would be eliminated. Commissioner Jonathan said that meant the island would be closed up so traffic would no longer be able to go west on Hovley 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 out of Chapman University. Mr. Diercks said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan indicated they would make a right out and then find a U-turn in order to head west on Hovley. Mr. Diercks said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the applicant was requesting the relocation of the curb cut west, closer to the intersection. If it was left where it was now, he asked if it would allow a left out onto Hovley. Mr. Smith said no, but they would be able to maintain the current left-turn pocket in. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the access on Hovley was on the easternmost part of this project, so the building would be moved up, if that would accommodate a left-turn out onto Hovley. Mr. Diercks said he wouldn't recommend it. He would leave the access the way it is. He said they were trying to reduce the number of conflicts. Speaking from experience, Commissioner Lopez said a left-turn access ' into Desert Springs Villas was eliminated there due to very serious accidents that occurred on Cook Street. Now when someone exits Desert Springs Villas, it is right-turn in and right-turn out and a U-turn had to be made. He said he was assuming that the U-turn would now become a left-turn and a U-turn could be made there also. Mr. Diercks said yes, it would be the same. Commissioner Jonathan said he was sensitive to that and his concern was actually a left-turn off of Cook Street into the project and he was wondering if they could get better access on the Hovley side, then someone heading north on Cook would end up making a left on Hovley and then a left into the project so they could eliminate the left-hand turn into the project off of Cook Street. He was trying to avoid crossing traffic on Cook since it was like a highway. Commissioner Tschopp asked if U-turns were safer than left-hand turns in. He wasn't convinced. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if the one story buildings would be 18 feet high. Mr. Smith replied that the one story buildings when viewed from the front, the first edge was at 15 feet, the second edge at 18 feet and then there were two forms of architectural projections which were at 22 and 24 feet which was permitted in the O.P. zone. The 24-four foot element was toward the center of the building. Commissioner Campbell asked if the two-story building was 25 feet. Mr. Smith concurred that it was the full 25 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a colored rendering of the front elevation for the two-story building. He noted that the commission had a black and white one. Mr. Smith explained that the colored version was before the applicant amended the plan, which was the plan in the commission's packet. Commissioner Jonathan asked what ARC looked at when they approved the two-story building. Mr. Smith said they did not approve it the first time they saw it. What they required the applicant to do was go back and provide a layered look to the long side of the building to bring down the appearance of the height. That was reflected tow in the plans distributed to commission. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He explained that when they did this project, they tried to make it very residential in scale and that was why they used a lot of cultural stone on it, so it would be residential in style. The new residential unit going on Portola and Hovley, those houses were putting a lot of stone on them and they wanted to do the same thing. He said they used stone and popouts and tried to keep it from being a box and wanted to add some height and do various things, so that was why they added some architectural projections to get a play of heights and a better looking building rather than something straight across. That's what they tried to do on the single story buildings. They tried to keep the impact of the single story buildings to a minimum so there were really only two of them and the short end v 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 faced onto the residential, not the long end. He explained that if they were to do tract housing, they could put houses within 20 feet of the back property line at 18 feet high. So they felt that the line of sight would be the same as if it was an 18-foot high residence. It would block very few residences. In doing the traffic, they wanted to be sympathetic to the residences, so they located the driveway to have less traffic in the back and that would also reduce noise. Then they wanted to complement the same landscaping, so they had landscaping facing them. The carports, which only had about eight-foot high roofs, would rarely be seen. He said they also tried to get a lot of landscaping around the single story buildings. For the two-story element, they set it back and made it only 25 feet in height. He compared it with a single family residence. With the two-story being in the middle, it would be pretty well hidden and most people wouldn't be aware of it. It wouldn't be like the two-story on the southeast corner which really stuck up in the air. This would be more subtle. Using the stone as one of ""r the major features and the spandrel, it would have the canterra stone similar to El Paseo One which he thought came out very nice. The Architectural Commission thought the entrances should be better defined, so he added lower elements at all the entrances. ARC liked that and approved it. The two-story building would have a nice, friendly look and would be warm and would have a lot of residential materials on it and wouldn't be something that sticks up. They added the 30-foot element on it originally to hide the air-conditioning, but said they would have to find other ways to do that. He thought they addressed everything except for one gentleman on the corner. He said he met with him and told him if the City agreed, they could move that building back a little bit and relocate some of the parking spaces. If the City agreed, he would be willing to do that to let that resident have a little better view out of his kitchen window. That would have to be the 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 tow commission's decision. He felt traffic-wise it was better the way it was because they didn't want to have cars backing out where cars were coming in. He said they tried to be sympathetic to that so that there would be as few conflicts as possible. He didn't think this project would take away at all from the residences behind them. He thought it would complement it and hopefully create places of work so that people who live there could have offices or find employment so they wouldn't have to drive far. Mr. Ricciardi said they tried to keep things open. He thought it was a nice project. The Architectural Review Commission liked it very much and thought the aesthetics of the building were very pleasing. He said the glass on the two-story building looking east would start about seven feet high. He requested the right to give rebuttal comments. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification about the building that Mr. Ricciardi said could be moved. West of the drive there was a row of trees and he asked if that was the drive through for the bank. Mr. Ricciardi said yes. They had a bank there and drive throughs for banks were always a little tricky. He said he always tried to keep the drive-throughs not facing the streets so people driving by wouldn't see a bunch of cars lined up. So they did it similarly to the First Community Bank (now Pacific Western Bank) in Indian Wells. There was also an area to allow for stacking for the drive-up window if they did get a bank. Right now the only bank was VIB and they were working out of a storefront situation and that was a tough situation to get in and out of and they were hoping they would look favorably on this site and move here. Commissioner Lopez asked if there was any flexibility on the access from the standpoint of avoiding the parking spaces along the entrance. He asked if the building could be moved three feet by reducing the space where the driveway was for the bank. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Mr. Ricciardi said they could move the bank building closer to Cook Street, but there were some city council members who really wanted to see big vistas on corners. That was why they kept the bank back, but they could move the bank closer to the corner. Whatever happened there, those people would be coming back to the commission at a later date because that was a future building that hadn't been designed. They had only given it a place and that place could change. Chairperson Campbell asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. She noted that she had a request to speak card from Mr. Pratt and asked him to address the commission. MR. PATRICK PRATT, 79 Beekman Place in Belmonte Estates, addressed the commission. He informed the commission that he was not representing other residents in the audience or the association. He was representing himself. He said he wanted to raise some concerns and ask some questions and exhaust his administrative remedy. He said he saw several problems with the traffic issue. Originally there was no left turn into Belmonte. There was a left turn and they could make a left out at the Villas, but they couldn't make a left turn to Belmonte. They always had to go by, make a U-turn and come back. As Commissioner Lopez said, there were several accidents and then the City closed it so that there couldn't be any left turns out of the Villas, but a left turn could be made in from a turn pocket. Similarly there was a left-turn pocket used by Belmonte residents as they pass Belmonte heading south on Country Club, making a left-turn to go back in, that was the left turn where the access to this project would be. If they were going to have that access, he thought they should consider lengthening that drive area for stacking because with this project and other left-turn movements, he thought they would find there wouldn't be enough room to stack cars in there if they kept the left-turn movement and had it as a U-turn, both for Belmonte and for an access for visitors into the project. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 law He questioned the use of a 16-year old EIR. He said there have been a lot of changes in that time frame. The square footage had been reduced and there had been some other changes. His biggest concern was the two-story element. When he bought into Belmonte he knew there would be a project and he did his due diligence. He knew the project was zoned for office. He had no problem with that. He thought to have the site developed would be an advantage and would eliminate some of the dust and some of the other issues that came up with a vacant site. It would also help with some road noise off of Cook Street, so he was encouraging the project development. He saw no reason to have a two-story element in this project. This project was to the west of a residential site. Views were to the west. As indicated, they don't preserve views, but there would be some view lost from a single story unit but he saw no reason for a two-story unit. The two other corners at Cook and Hovley had two-story office buildings. He said he would take exception to Mr. Ricciardi's comment. He himself would prefer to see the two-story building moved further away and put on the street if they were going to put in a two-story building, not bring it back into the project and make it more disruptive to the residential surrounding property. The staff referred to the Cornerstone project at Country Club and Portola. He wasn't sure that was a fair comparison. The site there was four acres, had 30,000 square feet, seven single story office buildings and the 30,000 square feet represented about 17.2% coverage. Under the code, projects were allowed 50% coverage and this project had 20. That was great. One suggestion would be to take the two-story building, put the two- stories on each side, put parking where the building is and if they put that second level, 18,000 square feet assuming the two- stories were roughly 18,000 a piece, there were 36,000 square feet. He said he wasn't designing the project, he was suggesting they could make that building two one-story buildings. He knew 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 the economics of a project had to work and they could still get the same 93,000 square feet on the site to make the project pencil. There were 73 extra parking spaces which accounted for 25,000 square feet of space and he would replace that with 18,000 square feet of floor area, so he had the ability to do that and make the whole thing single story. He would lose his over parking and might get down to about 20 instead of 73 and apparently that was an issue because he also wanted to have medical use which required a higher parking standard. But he thought there were some trade offs that could be done here and as seen, his biggest concern was the two-story element. That was a huge mass looking west. He had no problem with the single story. The single stories even went up at certain parts to 24 feet. That was the architectural effect that the City's architectural review group liked. He asked what was happening along the wall if it was now parking and what kind of lighting they would have. Staff indicated that there was no indication for lights there and if that was the case that was fine. He wanted a condition added that there be no parking light standards. They could be low bollard ones, but nothing like 14 or 15 foot standards that could be found in a commercial project. That would be disruptive to the residential edge adjacent to the project. He noted that Mr. Ricciardi commented on the 30 to 25 foot reduction and Mr. Pratt asked what was happening with the air- conditioning equipment and if it would remain roof-mounted. They didn't want to see them and he was sure the City had a requirement for screening. He asked where they would go and how it would be handled. Regarding trash enclosures, if there were ten buildings, he asked if each building would have a trash enclosure or if there were several trash enclosure areas. He wasn't sure how that was being addressed. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 As a clarification, in talking with staff he understood that this site and legal notice was actually noticed as a medical and general office complex. He understood that the zoning allowed a retail component and that it was restricted to 25% of the total square footage, which would be approximately 22,000 square feet as retail, he understood that 10% of that could be restaurants, which meant 2,200 square feet of restaurant space. He was very concerned about restaurant space in a project like this. They could then have the potential of night time activities or weekend activities. Office was great. He thought office was a great complement for residential. Generally there weren't after hours use or weekend use, but if they allowed retail and restaurant uses, he wanted a little more information about that and how that might work out. He thanked the commission for their time, consideration and thoughtful deliberations. Commissioner Jonathan asked for a few quick answers from staff. He asked if the parking lighting was limited to bollard lighting throughout the parking lot. Mr. Smith said that if the applicant chose to light the site, then it must meet the City's dark sky ordinance. He didn't know if the applicant proposed to light it or not, but the City didn't require it or encourage it. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the pending application didn't provide for parking lot lighting, but it could at a later time. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the lighting ordinance would limit the lighting to the low bollard type lighting versus the tall lighting. Mr. Smith explained that code would limit it to 20 feet in height. Mr. Drell clarified that it was 16 feet adjacent to residential. The carports would be lit under the carports so there would be some lights from the carports going down under the carports. They limit trespass from any light to residential property lines to no greater than a quarter of a foot candle, which was about the same light from a full moon. The other lighting would be landscaping and carports. They could ask that of the applicant, but at this point no lighting was proposed. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the commission could add a condition that would limit the height of lighting along the eastern boundary. Mr. Drell said yes. `ow 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Pratt brought up the subject of trash enclosures and he didn't see a delineation for them. Mr. Smith said that would take up some of the excess parking spaces. He confirmed that staff didn't have a plan that was detailed to the point of having trash enclosures. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were usually included by the time a project got to commission. Mr. Smith explained that it is a code requirement that they be provided at a certain size and frequency. Commissioner Jonathan said that some of that parking might come down and then staff would look at the traffic flow and where those vehicles would go because that could certainly impact residential as well. For example, if they lined up all the trash enclosures for all the buildings next to the residential, that would be a problem. Mr. Smith used the Cornerstone project as an example of how they spread the enclosures out very nicely. Without going through another process, Commissioner Jonathan said that restaurants and retail were not going to be allowed. Mr. Smith confirmed that they weren't part of this application. They would require a conditional use permit which would notice all the same property owners. He confirmed that it wasn't part of the current application. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to speak. MR. BILL WINTERHALTER, 93 Hudson Court, addressed the commission. He stated that he was in 100% agreement with Mr. Pratt. There had been a lot of questions that he hadn't even thought of before this meeting. He talked to Mr. Smith the other day about this and was given a copy of his plans, but because of the discussion he had more questions. He thought there were about ten homeowners present and there were 88 homes inside Belmonte Estates. All the homeowners were not contacted and they didn't have enough time to come to the meeting to discuss this. He requested that the matter be continued so they could have a meeting of their homeowners because this would impact all 88 of them. If they could have a postponement of six weeks, they could have time to call a general meeting with possibly the City, the architect and the developers to come up with more 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 `w questions. Traffic would be a major problem because of the U- turn to their main entrance. They would have the Villas going down there to turn, Belmonte homeowners, plus all the people going in there. That was just one concern. He asked if they could grant them a continuation to discuss the questions they have to bring to the council and to the architect. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Smith if everyone had been noticed. Mr. Smith said those within 300 feet. He noted that there were single family homes in Belmonte. Did all 88 homes get noticed? No. But everyone within 300 feet received notice and they actually went considerably beyond 300 feet in some instances. Mr. Winterhalter said that some of their owners were part-time residents and they perhaps didn't know about it or couldn't get there in time. He said this was affecting 88 homeowners. He agreed that when they knew when they moved there that one day something would be built there. It was a beautiful project, but there were a lot of questions that people were going to have because they were impacting not just a few homes, but 88 homeowners. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a homeowner's association there. Mr. Winterhalter said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff if the association or management company were notified. Mr. Smith believed they got one of the notices. Mr. Winterhalter said he contacted them and they said they did not receive a notice. It may have been mailed out, but they didn't receive it. The lady in charge of their area did not receive a notification. Commissioner Finerty asked who their property manager was. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Someone from the audience and Mr. Winterhalter said Desert Resort Management and the property manager was Kay Tuttle. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that it was the City's policy to notify a homeowner's association when the properties are within the 300-foot radius. Mr. Drell said typically there was an association property within 300 feet of an association controlled property and as a matter of course they got notified. Commissioner Jonathan recalled that they actually made that a part of their public notice policy because they have run into this before. Mr. Smith stated that three notices were sent. One to Belmonte Estates Homeowners Association in Stockton, one to Belmonte Estates Homeowners at 17 Belmonte Drive, and one to Belmonte Estates Association LP at 85 Beekman. Mr. Drell said that basically the notices are sent to the addresses provided by the assessor for the association. MS. MICHELLE HOFFMAN, 7 Belmonte, addressed the commission. She said they would be losing their view, but their biggest concern was the grading of the lot because it currently sloped up as it approached their house and they were wondering if it would be evened out at all and that would help a little bit with the loss of their view. A second concern was traffic. When exiting Belmonte, they were dealing with guests of the Villas that were turning. She said she worked across the street and guests were expected to turn left into the Villas, they were not expecting to make U-turns and she said it was a very dangerous traffic situation. MR. RICHARD OLIVAS, 82 Beekman, addressed the commission. He said his home was the second one from the perimeter/road. He expressed concern with lighting and security. The fence adjacent to this project from their side of the street was probably six feet. He hadn't measured it, but it was probably not more than that. From the other side the sand dunes were up so it was much less than that. His point was there would be parking all the way across the adjacent fence lane and if that was going to be there, he wasn't too sure about security but 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 suspected that it would be better from a security standpoint if they could make the fence a couple of blocks higher to prevent anyone from coming in from the other side and jumping into their property. As far as the light was concerned, the carports were mentioned to be about eight feet tall. He didn't think they could be any lower than that, but if they did put a couple of blocks higher on their wall, at least it would also diminish lighting and noise coming across there. He asked the commission to consider that as part of the approval. He also mentioned his support to splitting of the building and possibly lowering it down to single- story buildings. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Smith what the grading would be on the property. Mr. Smith replied that he hadn't seen a grading plan and referred the question to the architect to address as part of his rebuttal to indicate their intention. DR. RAYMOND MNICH, 75 Sutton Place West, addressed the r•• commission. He stated that he was also concerned about the two-story building. He wanted to know how far from Hovley they intended to build it and the length of the building. Mr. Smith indicated that the building was 180 feet long. It would be approximately 200 feet setback from Cook Street and 400 feet north of Hovley. Dr. Mnich said that answered his question and thanked the commission. MR. RICHARD SPENCE, 27 Belmonte Drive, addressed the commission. He said he didn't live too far from the gate and he didn't receive a notice, but he was at the meeting. He was in support of Mr. Pratt who did a great presentation for them. He was also opposed to a two-story building. He was happy that something was going to happen on the corner and he did hope something would happen, but he wanted it done to conform with a lot of their requests that the wall be high enough to prevent any %NW 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 a light coming in for those residents on Sutton. He said they have lived there seven years and they looked forward to things happening to that property. He was the chairman of the Belmonte Homeowners Association at one time. Now Mr. Winterhalter was chair and he was present at the meeting. At one time they tried to get the City to do something so they could make a left-turn going south on Cook Street to make it safe so they could go back to their main gate. He was told that wasn't proper. He was told they had to go down to Hovley Street, make a left turn and turn on Via Cinta and go in the back gate. When he mentioned that at their meeting, their board was very upset with that situation. So he went back and talked to the people in charge and asked them to at least put some paint on the entrance way where they make a left turn going south on Cook Street, making a U-turn and going back to their main gate. Nothing was really done appropriately enough to give them some signal that this turn was coming when approaching from Country Club down Cook Street. He said a lot of people have been upset with that and they would liKe to see something happen there to make that much safer for when they come back to their main gate. They had been trying to get that for five years and nothing had happened. He hoped when this project took place that they consider all the traffic and all the things that might happen to people going out of their gate because that was a serious situation until they corrected it so people from the Marriott timeshares couldn't make a left turn. Now that it had been corrected, it was a big plus. Now it was a situation of getting them a little safer situation. He thanked the commission. MR. GARY RANCK, 81 Beekman Place, addressed the commission. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Pratt wholeheartedly. He also thought that along the wall where they would be having cars parked that it would be imperative to have that wall raised at least two more blocks. He also discussed the traffic pattern. Right now when someone goes eastbound on Hovley and they get to Via Cinta, the oncoming cars from the other direction were barreling around that curve at 50 mph and 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 there was never any enforcement there. He guaranteed them there would be a ton of accidents there. MS. KATHLEEN WALTERS, 85 Beekman Place, addressed the commission. She said there was a comment that something was sent to the Homeowners Association. She stated that she is a homeowner there, but wasn't the association. She said they mainly talked about the entrance and exit off of Cook and Mr. Pratt just talked about Via Cinta. She goes out of the back gate on Belmonte almost all the time because of the problem off of Cook. It was very difficult, particularly after school started because a lot of traffic was going to the schools on either end, but it was very difficult to make a left-hand turn out of Via Cinta. It was going to be almost impossible when this project was finished because their driveway would be right next to theirs. She thought they needed to look not only at the Cook Street entrance, but also the Hovley entrance to this project. �.. MR. JOHN CASTANIAN, 36 Belmonte, addressed the commission. He said he was actually a new resident to the area but listening to this whole thing common sense told them that this would be a great project, it looked like it would be a wonderful project, and he bought there recently knowing that something would go in. He hoped it wouldn't be Circle K or a gas station. It looked like a nice project, but he thought there were many unanswered questions. There were so many problems with the traffic there and everyone knew there was a nightmare there with the traffic problem. He said he goes down to Hovley and makes a left-hand turn. He goes into Via Cinta now, but Hovley was being widened to two lanes each way right now and that would become a much heavier used road than it was at the moment. So that would become the issue with people going to Via Cinta and making a left-hand turn or U-turn. They would have the same problem there that they have on Cook Street. So he thought it was a great project, they need something on that corner, but there were too many unanswered questions including the trash cans. He said if they gave them as homeowners a 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 chance as a homeowner's association to discuss their concerns and let the project go in right, it looked nice and could be a very good thing to them, but there were too many unanswered questions. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Ricciardi would like to readdress the commission. Mr. Ricciardi pointed out that the traffic wasn't something the proposed project created. The problems with their development were there today, so whatever they did wasn't going to change that. As far as someone coming on Hovley, if someone was across the way on Hovley, they would make a left onto Cook and go in the main entrance so no one would really go down to the next light which was their secondary entrance to make a U-turn and go back. He thought that would be rare. He stated they didn't want to have a left-turn out onto Hovley from the development because that would be dangerous. They wanted the City to put a median there that would prevent people from making a left-turn into this development from Hovley. He stated that the two driveways were put there by the City years ago and one of them lined up with the left-hand turn pocket and that was put there for the Belmonte residents so they wouldn't have to go down to the light and wait there to get back. So everything there had been put there for them already. He didn't think that further talking about it would do any good. The traffic was there. The only thing they could do was close up that left- hand turn pocket but he didn't think they would like that. Making their exit on Hovley, a right only was safer for everyone. Therefore, he didn't think traffic was an issue here. He said they all knew that the site was graded high. There was dirt that was going to have to be taken off of that site. So they would probably be two to three feet lower with their pads than the present elevation there now from the street that was parallel to theirs in Belmonte Estates. So they would be lower. And if that 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 was the case there was no reason to add two blocks on top of the wall. He didn't think that would work at all and they wouldn't have to do that. The average carport was seven feet high with the top of the roof at eight feet. He said they were very small so no one would really see them. The lights from the carports would just be shining down so that wouldn't be a problem. He said they would be glad to use bollards throughout because there was really no reason to go to a 16-foot high light standard there that he could see. He said if they wanted to condition that, they would have nothing against that. When he came here, Palm Springs used to have an ordinance that no light standard could be over 10-feet high. That changed when they started getting the larger commercial developments. Now in a lot of cities they were up to 20 feet and 24 feet. But they didn't visualize any of that at this project. The only issue was the two-story building. If they were to put in a residence within 20 feet of that back wall and the tip of the tow residence had a peak of 18 feet, their line of sight wouldn't be any worse than a two-story building sitting there at 25 feet. He said the two-story building was over 140 feet from those residences so it wouldn't really affect them. If they went with all single family residences and built them like Belmonte with 20- foot rear yard setbacks, it wouldn't impact them at all. Only being 180 feet long on something that is over 900 feet long was very small in comparison. The two-story building wouldn't be big, it would be small with a lot of parking around it. When people come in, parking against the R-1 on the east was the farthest from most of the buildings so it would probably be the least used parking. At most facilities people liked to go in the main doors so with the two-story building, most people would walk straight in. That was where the carports were located and most people would want to be around the carports. He pointed out that two- stories were allowed by ordinance. They weren't violating any ordinances or asking for any variances. He said they thought they put the building in a good place so that it wouldn't impact the residents or the street. It worked so that everything built up 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 to it. It was 400 feet from Hovley and 400 feet from the people ..ti who were in Belmonte now that face south, so they wouldn't even see it. Commissioner Finerty said that as she understood it, Mr. Ricciardi had met with one resident. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Ricciardi said that one resident called him. A gentleman from the homeowners association came by his office and he gave him prints last week. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Ricciardi had met with their board to explain the project. Mr. Ricciardi said no, he had not met with their board. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Ricciardi had an objection to doing so. Mr. Ricciardi said he wouldn't want to wait six weeks until they all got back. He didn't think that was proper. Commissioner Finerty said that Mr. Ricciardi must appreciate the fact that a lot of homeowners were gone at this time. She asked how long he would be willing to wait. Mr. Ricciardi said two weeks would be fine if that was the commission's disposition on the matter. But in reality they were way under square footage on the lot that they could have. The reason they were that way was because they would like to get more medical. There was a big medical need here and there were a lot of doctors who didn't want to be forced to be right around the hospitals where there were a lot of bad traffic problems. He noted that the traffic at Eisenhower was insurmountable and that was why they now had valet parking. Therefore, the doctors wanted to move away from there and only go there when they have their actual operations. This would work 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 out well for that and that was why there was an over abundance of car parking. Theoretically it wasn't really an over abundance until they knew their tenants. They didn't visualize any restaurants in this project, but if there were some they would have to come to the commission for a conditional use permit. He didn't see that being a big problem. He also didn't see any restaurant in the two-story building. If there were restaurants they would be in the front buildings and maybe the bank building would end up being a restaurant. He didn't know. That was in the future and the commission had total control over the future. As far as meeting with the homeowners, if the commission wanted to table the matter for two weeks, they would be glad to meet with the homeowners. Would they make the two-story building one story? No. They wouldn't want to do that. These buildings were set way back from Belmonte now. When they addressed this issue originally, they addressed it from their view point so it would be the least impact on them for this project. Commissioner Finerty thought it would be appropriate for Mr. Ricciardi to explain his client's project to the homeowners so that they understood what could go there, what they are proposing, and the steps taken to mitigate in certain circumstances areas where maybe there was a little wiggle room. Mr. Ricciardi said he had no problem meeting with them if the commission wanted to table it to the next meeting. Commissioner Finerty said she believed the next meeting was devoted to the general plan, as well as the meeting after that. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said without question September 16 was devoted to the general plan, but there was some uncertainty about the meeting after. His suggestion was that at the next meeting they might deal with, in addition to the general plan, some general plan related projects, which this was not. Commissioner Finerty said that meant they were six weeks out just due to the schedule. Mr. Drell concurred. r.. 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan said he was going to suggest that they not exclude normal City business. If they devote most or even all of the next meeting (September 16) to the general plan, the following meeting and meetings, because they didn't know how many times the general plan would be before them, could be partially devoted to the general plan and partially devoted to general business. They could limit the general plan to an hour and a half and then the rest of the meeting be allowed because he thought it was problematic to tell applicants that they have to wait six weeks or two months or until they were finished with the general plan. If the commission deemed it appropriate, he thought this was a matter where other scheduled matters could come back. Chairperson Campbell noted that would be October 7. Commissioner Finerty said they always run into this difficulty when they have projects coming before them in the middle of summer and when the applicant had not met with a group of people where they have great concerns. She felt they owed it to the residents of Belmonte Estates to hear the details of the project, get their questions answered, and perhaps get some comfort in this project. She didn't feel that Mr. Ricciardi had done his due diligence in trying to meet with the homeowners. Mr. Ricciardi said he didn't have a problem meeting with the homeowners; he didn't think it would be fair to table it for six weeks. If they couldn't do it in two, four weeks would be appropriate. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for commission comments and/or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was in favor of continuing this matter to October 7. Commissioner Jonathan said that was fine. He didn't know what else was on the schedule and would leave it up to staff as to whether it was 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 that meeting or the following one. Mr. Smith and Mr. Drell said that staff was okay with the 7th, but the commission needed to specify a specific date. Commissioner Jonathan said he wanted to point out some of his concerns which echoed the concerns of the residents in some cases that might be appropriate for the applicant to address. There was a suggestion made by Mr. Pratt to consider lengthening the stacking of the left-turn off of Cook Street. He said that might be a Public Works issue, but seemed to make sense if there was no down side to it. He only saw the potential up side. The limitation of the parking lights to only the low bollards which were three or three and a half feet made sense. He was in favor of that as a condition unless the applicant or residents had a problem with it. He thought the trash enclosures were a significant matter and wanted to see the location. That would affect the circulation and impact potentially on the residents. He didn't want a detail like that left out. He �••• had confidence in staff insuring that and if the preference was to add a condition or mention it in the minutes that the location should be sensitive to the needs of the residents, that would be fine. If they determined that a problem truly existed in terms of lighting, noise or security, increasing the height of the wall on the east could be an effective mitigation, but he didn't want to just raise the wall. Sometimes if a six-foot wall was raised to eight feet people were then sorry they did it because it could feel oppressive. So if there was an identified problem and that was the best solution, he didn't have a problem with it but he wanted to make sure they didn't have the cart leading the horse. Regarding the central two-story building, he thought the applicant was correct that he was within his "rights" to have two stories on the building. Commissioner Jonathan said he was pleased overall with the architecture in general, the layout, the intensity and amount of landscaping. There were a lot of good things going on, but he was really concerned about the design of the two-story building. He didn't have a problem with the existence of two-story, particularly set back the 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 j way it was, but to paraphrase the applicant when he was talking about the single-story design, which Commissioner Jonathan really liked, he said the play of heights was better than something straight across. That was exactly what they didn't have with the two-story, that play of heights. Instead they had something that was very straight across similar to the Shah building on Fred Waring which he thought was a monstrosity. By softening the two-story design they might mitigate some of the concerns of the residents. Instead of the second story looking like it was coming out over the first story, instead of the opposite which the trend had been in terms of what the commission liked to see to have a softer, smaller second story footprint so that there was actually an angle coming from the street elevation so that they see the single story and barely within the line-of-sight see that second story. That was a much more attractive option. He would have liked to see the single structure in the center broken up into four expanded structures with a central courtyard and a water feature. That would be lovely. But he didn't want to be unrealistic and he understood the economics of development and he was sure the residents also did because they all lived within a budget of sorts. He thought they might be able to find a balance between the economics and the attractive design that exists on the single story that he thought could be more effectively applied to the two-story and the needs of the residents. By postponing the meeting and giving the applicant time to consider the commission's concerns and listen to the concerns of the residents, they should be able to strike a balance. The reason he was saying that was because so much was right with this project and they really were keying in on a few details that he thought could be resolved. They weren't asking what this application was doing before them because there was no way to make it work; they were far from that. If they could all keep that perspective in mind, hopefully they could come to a favorable resolution that they could all live with. Commissioner Jonathan said he would second Commissioner Finerty's .> motion to continue the matter to October 7. 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 Commissioner Tschopp said he didn't know what the answer was as far as the traffic situation was concerned, but he wanted to have the City Engineer and other appropriate staff go out and actually take a look at the area and come up with any mitigations that might be able to be done now as opposed to losing that chance in the future. Hovley is being widened and when the large vacant property in Indian Wells is developed it would be a major thoroughfare. Right now the way it was laid out it was probably a great race track. He thought it was a dangerous situation there for not only people coming out of Belmonte Estates, but anything that was built on the corner no matter what use it was. He thought they owed it to the citizens to take a hard look at it now and make sure what they have and what they are doing is the best they could do because it wouldn't work in the future. He suggested to Mr. Ricciardi that he put up an 18-foot pole, a 25-foot pole, and one eight feet from the fence and one 89 feet from the fence so some of the residents could see what he was trying to state about the line-of-sight and that might be helpful for them and Mr. Ricciardi. Commissioner Lopez concurred. The issues they had heard tonight from the residents and architect regarding traffic, line-of-sight with the two-story building, the elevation deviations and the need to either bring that down or something else, raising a wall a couple of stacks as indicated impaired the line-of-sight and might be something they would regret one day. The trash situation, the security of the facility, the wall height and lighting were all issues that needed to be discussed between the developer and the homeowners association. He thought it was a great project and would work well. It would be a welcome addition to that location which has been vacant and at times unsightly. There were a lot of pluses and only a couple of things that needed to be remedied and he thought they could be resolved through good communication between the developer and the architect, as well as the homeowners association. But they needed to look at the traffic situation around there. It was difficult and would get busier because the community is growing and that road would be expanded. 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan concurred with the comments. He said he. actually agreed with applicant and thought he made a cogent point when he said the traffic exists and this project wouldn't generate a significant amount of new traffic. This project has two access points, one on Hovley which was a simple right-in and right-out and one on Cook. So right now there was dirt there and that wouldn't be the case forever. He thought the area was fortunate because residential, particularly high density residential would create more traffic than these types of development. Once they accept the fact that it wouldn't be dirt forever and understand that it would be developed in some way, then this might be the least of all evils because it might generate the least traffic with only two access points. The challenge to staff and to the applicant would be to look to the future as Commissioner Tschopp suggested and look at it as an opportunity to avoid future problems as more and more development occurs, not just in this area and not just in Palm Desert, but in Indian Wells and other surrounding communities. For all the reasons that people came to the desert, they didn't manage to keep it a secret and others were coming in, so they needed to deal with it. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. PP 03-10 to October 7, 2003 by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 8:54 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:08 P.M. F. Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 Amendment #2 - RICK EVANS, Applicant Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, general plan amendment from low density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre); 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 `r an amendment to the Wonder Palms Master Plan to expand Planning Area 3 from six acres to 23.6 acres; and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a commercial / office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37-001 Cook Street. Said project includes 107,000 square feet of retail (including drive-thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms, and one and two story garden offices totaling 135,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of APN 653-390-062. Mr. Drell explained that Mr. Smith would give a brief description of the project and then the developer would give a presentation. Mr. Drell said he would make a few comments as to how this project evolved from the City's perspective and how it responds to all of their discussion about the General Plan. Very early in the general plan discussion when they looked at this area it was clear that it would be a long-term benefit to the city and the community and this project to respond to both the needs and the opportunities presented by the university campus. They didn't want this to be just another freeway commercial project or a suburban shopping center. As the university developed, they wanted the influence of the university to go across the street creating a dynamic, high energy urban environment. The problem, and it was a problem all of those property owners would face, was that while five, ten or 15 years from now the university would be the driving force in that neighborhood, right now it wasn't and right now it was the freeway off ramp. So the challenge was to create kind of an internal site plan and architecture that would be economically viable given today's market, which was principally driven by traffic on Cook Street and the interchange, but would be able to evolve over time as the opportunities from the university developed to be that exciting retail environment that would complement the university. 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 He believed the applicant had succeeded very well in accomplishing that, in creating a project that should be successful given today's market and had the ability to evolve into a different sort of project ten or 15 years from now. He could see some of the retail expanding into some of the offices as that need and desire changed in the future. Behind this project would be a significant residential development and hopefully this project would be able to respond to it as it develops over the next ten or 15 years. He thought they had a very well designed project that could uniquely meet both the demands of today's market and the evolving demands over the next ten or 15 years. He said there were a few issues left unresolved so they would need to continue this project, but in general staff's feeling was that it was a very positive design for the site. Mr. Smith displayed the site plan. He stated that the subject property was bounded by Gerald Ford on the north, Cook Street on the east, the site extended to the current access point into the Cal State site at , Berger Drive, which was signalized. Along Gerald Ford the site would extend westerly to a point where it would align with Technology Drive to the north which exists and provides the secondary access into the Hampton Inn and ultimately into the industrial area to the northwest. On the site plan that street was identified as Wonder Palms Drive. It extended southwesterly from Gerald Ford. Berger Drive West, which on the plan was called University, was connected. The two streets, Wonder Palms and University, were connected by a spine road which provided access to this project and was also the main street as part of the residential development to the southwest, which was part of the General Plan Update. He noted for the record that in the staff report staff refers to the area called Planning Area 3 of the Wonder Palms Specific Plan as being six acres. He said it was currently 11 acres and extends along Gerald Ford Drive. There was a parcel on an underlying map that is six acres on the corner, so what they were doing was looking at expanding that PA3 from 11 acres to 23.6 acres. He said he would let the developer a describe the project. In the staff report he explained that the applicant 60 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 was seeking approval for 21 ,000 square feet of medical office. The applicant would prefer 30,000 square feet. He said that office was currently proposed in retail building number three on the second floor and in office buildings 12 and 14 located toward the interior of the site. When staff did their calculations, they were basing it on 50% of each of those buildings 12 and 14. In actual fact they would prefer to have it at 100%. Staff s response to that request was they needed some quantitative information showing the relationship between office users and retail. They knew what the offset was between hotels and restaurants. They had dealt with that for many years; however, staff wanted to see something quantitatively. What the applicant had done up to this point was to provide staff with zones of influence where the areas in various colors showed the main parking areas for the particular uses and then the excess parking in the fringes of those areas. That was the argument they were making at this point; however, they were continuing to look for the quantitative studies staff was requesting. Mr. Smith noted there was an issue with the number of access points to Cook Street. The site planning relative to parking complied with either one or two access points if they didn't mix in the medical office use, which would change the numbers. At 30,000 square feet of medical, they would need to find or account for 60 parking spaces out of almost 1,200 spaces. Architecture for the retail portion had been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. He noted there were various colored elevations to display. The plans received last week were included in commission packets differed from that shown to ARC back on July 8. The more recent efforts were done in an effort to address issues that ARC brought up at that time. The requested project required amendment to the Wonder Palms Specific Plan. Staff felt it was appropriate to amend the plan to lengthen the commercial development along Cook Street given what had happened since the Wonder Palms Specific Plan was adopted. With 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 respect to a height exception, the applicant felt the hotel would need to two be in the 37 to 44-foot height range and the most recent rendition of the commercial buildings showed them at 38 feet in height. Staff felt the retail buildings at 38 feet with diversified roof lines created sufficient architectural interest to warrant the height exception. With respect to the hotel, staff did not have building plans for it and staff suggested that the language allow for up to 40 feet of building with City Council confirmation. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant was also requesting provision in the development agreement which would allow for a 15% increase in building size without additional hearing. Staff was suggesting that the language in the development agreement define a minor modification as an increase of up to 10% as being acceptable without additional hearings assuming that the project complied with all other provisions. Based on the commission's action two weeks ago on the Sares Regis project in that the commission was clear that they didn't care to be considering actual projects at the time they were considering the general plan, staff was recommending a continuance to October 21 if ..� that was still the commission's position. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that all offices would be single-story. Mr. Smith clarified that the 14 office buildings were all single stories. There were 2 two-story retail buildings toward the center of the site and on the second floor there would be offices. Commissioner Tschopp noted that there was commercial shown to the south and on Frank Sinatra to the west there was a big piece of property that wasn't identified. Mr. Smith clarified that the street on the left side of the plan that they were looking at was Portola. Mr. Drell said that the east side of Portola was land purchased by the Redevelopment Agency for a possible third Desert Willow golf course. Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff didn't mention the extension of the Freeway Overlay area and any exceptions or changes. Mr. Smith 62 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 tow explained that currently it was 11 acres in PA3 and staff was suggesting that it be expanded to 23.6 acres further to the south to align with University/Berger to the south. Staff felt it was warranted to expand the commercial along Cook Street for the reasons that Mr. Drell mentioned. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that would facilitate drive- thru restaurants on Pads 3 and 4. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Wonder Palms allowed drive-thrus. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK EVANS, 71-800 Highway 111 Suite A224 in Rancho Mirage, addressed the commission. He explained that he is a partner in Alliance Retail Partners, the developers of the project. He said they were very new to the desert and just moved from the Newport Beach area and made their home here in the desert because they were so excited about this project. �•. He said that the project has grown with them over the last year in working with staff, Mr. Drell, Mr. Smith and a lot of other staff people. The project was intended to encompass the entire 23 acres as a master plan kind of project. Using a power point presentation, he showed the commission the project location and the surrounding area. The next picture showed an overlay of their project with the proposed General Plan so the commission could see the relationship between the project and the future General Plan. They endeavored to create a mixed use office, hotel and retail development along the corridor, focused on the freeway and the university traffic. He thought the residential would be a very important aspect to their community that they intended to serve with the project. One important thing about the project was that it was organized by a main street. He said they tried to pay attention to the master plan with regard to residential access to the project. He pointed 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 out the office zone, the hotel zone, the retail zone and they were organized by main street. He noted that there was no central parking area. They intended for people to access the project and come into the project in a way that they could walk and/or drive to their different destinations. He said it was a little difficult to do in the desert because of the heat. But they also thought there was plenty of time during the day when people would traverse as many as five or six different shops or even walk from the office space to the retail for lunch. He showed where they thought the pedestrian traffic zones would be in the project. Commissioner Jonathan asked if main street was a real street. Mr. Evans explained that it was a street with parking on it. It was intended to be an organizing street that people could drive down and park head in. It was intended to set up an organization of main street where buildings would be on both sides of the street, sidewalks were on both sides and they would be looking at the flavor of an old downtown with buildings that evolve over time. Commissioner Jonathan said that in the other drawings he saw it looked like it was just a lane through the parking and not a street with sidewalks. Mr. Evans said he wanted to correct the record in one regard. The office in GLA for the garden office one story was 130,000 square feet. The second floor office above the retail buildings was 28,000 square feet. Rounding the numbers, he said the retail GLA was 90,000 square feet and the hotel was 140 keys. Regarding phasing, he thought it was important for everyone to know early on that they intend to phase the project. Phase 1 would consist of about 50,000 square feet of office and 40,000 square feet of retail. 64 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Currently access was intended to be from Cook Street and Gerald Ford. At the hotel end of the site was the Berger/University end of the site. The hotel was pictured as an "I" shaped building with a swimming pool in the back and two restaurants in front to support not only the hotel guests, but the other guests. Those were the two sites they saw as sit down restaurants and freestanding pads. He showed the commission a picture of what they thought the exterior of the hotel would look like in the future. The height elevation changes were intended to give them some articulation to the building. It wasn't for building volume as much as it was for just giving the building some stature and prominence. He showed a picture of the elevation views of the restaurants. In this particular case there would be arcades and shading in between. r.. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the hotel area was a numbered phase. Mr. Evans said no, it was just called the hotel phase. They thought it would come along with the second or third phases of the retail. Right now they were seeing the hotel market as being a little soft. He said that he and Mr. Drell had discussed the possibility of another retail use showing up. So in the evolutionary conversation mentioned in the staffs introduction, they felt there were some evolutionary ideas in the project so it could end up being something completely different down the road. While they hoped it wasn't a place holder because they were actively trying to market it for a hotel and the hotel uses they were looking at were very much highway style hotel, business hotel. They didn't want to be in the resort business or compete with that business. They didn't have a golf course or those things, so they saw it as a limited service and maybe limited service with suites. It would be a very nice, very well placed moderate priced hotel. He indicated that he would turn 65 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 the floor over to Chuck Crookall, the President of Shaw Properties and he was their office developer of choice on this project. MR. CHUCK CROOKALL, Shaw Properties, 160 Newport Center Drive in Newport Beach, addressed the commission. He clarified that he wasn't the President of Shaw Properties, but he would accept it. He outlined the component which he said was the totality of the single story office component. They intended to build 130,000 square feet of gross area in 14 buildings, all single story. As Mr. Evans pointed out when they were doing the phasing, they recognized early out the synergy between the office component and the retail component was very important. Although the area was going to be fabulous over time, right now if they drove there and looked at it, they loved the location, but there was still a little pioneering going on. Being able to go in and provide an appropriate amount of office space and retail space a to kick it off would work very well together. He indicated that one of the comments made at the Architectural Review Committee, he thought that the office people that would reside there for daytime activities were going to try to take advantage of the retail element. What they tried to show were walkways and shaded areas that people could get to and from and then feed down to the covered retail areas. He showed a picture of the entry on Gerald Ford Drive and Building Nos. 10 and 12. Then the view of Building Nos. 14 and 12 coming in off of Cook. He said there was a trellised area that would lead down to the retail area on the corner. He said that area was a total of ten acres that would be mapped. The parking would be four spaces per 1,000 square feet per code. Mr. Evans stated that they were trying to walk the commission through the project from the hotel to the office and then back down to the retail because they thought it was important for the commission to understand or at least get an introduction to the 3 pieces. He said the next set of pictures was intended to show 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 them the layout of main street as well as the architecture of the retail buildings which they did in a great amount of detail. He said they intended to have awnings or some kind of canvas structure or cover of that kind which was shown on the architectural renderings. Some areas were designated as tree-shaded walkways as opposed to mechanical. Mr. Evans showed a picture of Main Street and explained that it was intended to be as much a walking street as it was a connector. They saw it as a connector / organizer for people walking from the hotel. They could walk on either side of the street. One of the comments from ARC was for them to add a little bit more pedestrian-like feel for their fast food pads which they made significant strides on and they still intended to do some more work in that particular area. From the plan in front of them, all of the fast food pads had plazas or patio areas to enhance and keep a free-flowing main street free-flowing kind of feel without it being an in-line kind of a building. He thought they two had come up with a very unusual, very street-like downtown kind of feel from the street lights down to way the sidewalks were organized. When they started planning this site, they were asked by staff to insure that they had a feel of the gateway into the city at the intersection of Cook and Gerald Ford. So they took it upon themselves to not cover the corner with buildings that were too close together and to offer a view corridor right up the middle that was bracketed by landscaping, trees and a real strong feeling of corner and views right through the site. He described the buildings at the corner as bookend buildings. He indicated that they added two architectural towers and they weren't really looking at them to be signage towers, but saw them as an architectural treatment. They thought it was important to not only bring the buildings up visually a little higher, and it was one of the things that Mr. Smith brought out about these buildings being a little bit higher than was allowed in the current planning area, but 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Y they thought it was important to give better articulation to the buildings down below with towers. He showed the commission another rendering of the plaza. He said the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford they had taken extremely seriously in their planning. They had a meandering sidewalk coming down both sides. There would be a small water feature, something that gave them a feeling of water and there were three spots of water that stuck up in the air that were bracketed by some palm trees and some other trees. It was intended to give another overture to the street. That was something important and a special place to be. He thought another important aspect was there weren't many places where people wanted grass. He noted that he was a grass lover. They opted to have little depressed grass areas where people could sit and lay in the grass and enjoy lunch. It wouldn't be flat, but would be sort of comfortable to have picnics on. As someone walks up the ramp from the street intersection, the project got a little higher and that was where the fountain would be with landscaping. Then they would come across sail- like awnings that bracket both buildings. The awnings were intended to be big shade factors and very colorful. They didn't know what the colors would be. They were portraying them in blues because they really liked some of the warm desert colors that came out from the mountains. The lavenders and some of the earthier blues, taupes and sand colors to give it a lot more of that visual strength. He showed a view within the plaza looking back at the shops, the kind of trellises they would have around the plaza and the seating. He said they planned for the entire plaza to be DG. Not concrete, not asphalt or pavers. He worked with a restaurant for a number of years that had been able to use DG very successfully in patios and around food eating areas. It was very comfortable and was even more comfortable when not delineated by concrete so it became a place to look at. They 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 wanted it to be a place to enjoy sitting with tables and chairs on the DG surface. They actually experimented with some ideas they thought worked exceptionally well and gave them an interesting color pallet to deal with the desert palettes on the ground rather than a harder surface. Commissioner Tschopp asked what Mr. Evans was referring to when he said DG. Mr. Evans said that meant decomposed granite. It could be seen in landscaping zones, but this would be a little bit finer grade and it got compacted with a vibrator and became very firm. He thought it was very much like the desert. So there would be a lot of pots and a lot of character in the plaza, not just the normal pavers seen around in projects and shopping centers in So. California today. And it wasn't experimental. He had seen it used in several very high traffic restaurants, particularly the Houston's chain. In Newport Beach it was in the Gulf Stream Restaurant and they used it in their chain in Rutherford, Napa and a couple of other places and it had been very successful. He said it felt like a patio. It didn't just feel like a commercial concrete zone. He pointed out their first entrance on Gerald Ford and indicated they had future locations for entrances off of Wonder Palms Drive. He said they still had issues with Public Works with regard to entrances. Public Works asked them to consider a single entrance into the project. He said they had resisted it only to the extent that they think the project worked better with the dual entrances, but they did want to see and test what that looked like and worked like and how it organized the main street, what it did for them and what concerns they might have from it. One of the things Public Works asked them to do, which they just finished that day, was to look at their traffic report / traffic study and advance it to the 20/20 version that was in the GPA. Neither version was really overwhelmingly supported by the traffic study. There wasn't a material amount of difference between the current version and the future version. So it seemed to them that 69 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 there was some argument as to whether or not one or two was the right thing to do from the Cook traffic standpoint. From the project standpoint, they continued to believe that the two entrance version worked better. They liked it because it brought customers in for the hotel, got them to park quickly, it wasn't frustrating on the exit, and it was the same way with the office customer. They also asked in the two entrance version, which had been modified from their original, that the entrances be right-in, right-out and left-in for two of them and a right-in and right-out only on the other one. They still needed to work through those questions with Public Works. He repeated that the traffic study didn't support or invalidate either version. He said that when they studied the single entrance version, there were some things about it that were very nice. One example was they would be able to add a little more square footage to the project. The other thing that was nice about the project was they liked the way it organized main street a little bit differently. It required an entrance for the hotel so that people coming up from the freeway could make their right, right- in and that worked out pretty good. When the hotel people exited, they could exit to the spine road, turn and be out. So it was a nice plan as well. He said they needed to have the conversation with Public Works and try to work it out for the best plan. His only comment about it at this point was that it was a toss up between the two. He thought the two entrance plan organized the traffic for the customer better and they would be happier with the project when they were there. The marketing people talking to clients preferred the two entrances. They hadn't resolved it and they just had to figure out which way to go. Today if asked which one he preferred after talking to their marketing people, he would much rather have the two entrance plan. As he told Public Works, if there was a demonstrable safety issue with either one of them, they should go with the one that was safest. { 70 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 The other thing he wanted to talk about was the parking Mr. Smith talked about and the influence zones for parking. He had been fortunate enough to be in the business for a long time and had developed a lot of retail projects around the country. Some of his most favorites were in So. California and Irvine. In those particular experiences he learned more about parking than he ever thought he would learn. There was still a big curve out there for everyone. Parking was without a doubt a big question. Mr. Smith asked them last week about parking and how they could come up with a methodology for dealing with the parking for medical office to justify the 30,000 square feet. They heard from a lot of people that it was a sensitive issue. He said they did a parking count with the architect and it was very simple. He showed the areas that were designed for parking for the single story offices. He pointed out the buildings that they were requesting as garden office. That was about 22,000 square feet. Those 64 spaces in that zone were what he called in the donut hole because the area below it was parking for retail at five spaces per 1,000 square feet. If everyone was there at the same time to use the place, based on what they all knew about parking right now, there would actually be a donut hole of about 60-80 or 50-80 spaces that were out there. He noted that doctors' offices close at noon and people were out of there at 11:30 a.m. and they didn't get back in until 1:30 p.m. So the retail to medical office overlap was very small during the peak for this project which was primarily going to be lunch time. For the medical office they were requesting and the two-story retail in the other zone, the main street zone of retail parking influence with parking at five spaces to 1,000 square feet, again they had excess parking primarily due to the fact that they had a very time of day helper when it came to parking in the hotel. It was a very simplistic point of view and one developers used a lot when doing mixed use projects. The 30,000 square feet that they were asking for was less parking than that demonstrated on the 71 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 plan. He said he owed Mr. Smith a parking lot study that was done by ICSC and LILL Mr. Evans asked for any questions and indicated that they were present to request approval of the project. He knew there were some conditions that they would probably have to levy on the project. Wonder Palms was almost 50% covered by a current development agreement. Staff said consistently that the intersection was going to be commercial and not residential. The residential delineation on it was an old plan and not the current GPA. He said it matched the current GPA to the nines and they knew that the conditions were probably going to be the entrance conditions for Public Works and working with Mr. Smith and Mr. Drell on the medical office parking ratio and justifying that. He said they knew they had some questions that they had to go back to ARC about. He thought they probably should have gone back to ARC before they went before the Planning Commission, but they were under the impression that they were going to do that after the Council meeting. This was a project that from a design standpoint would not stand still. It would be up front, objective and approach the customer, the city and everything they had learned over the year was important about the Cook Street gateway. Commissioner Finerty thanked Mr. Evans for his presentation and explained that the reason she was not commenting was because they had not yet gone through the general plan amendment process. They hadn't heard testimony in favor of what the residents and citizens of Palm Desert would like. She said she would be more comfortable commenting when they saw the project back on October 21 . Commissioner Jonathan concurred. The lack of response was a function of the time and the fact that they had been there four hours, but it was also the fact that Mr. Evans referred to the new general plan. They didn't have a new general plan and the commission didn't know what that would be yet. They only had the existing one and didn't know where the new general plan would go. It was an unknown. Mr. Evans 72 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 might have been talking to others, whether it was to the Council or other levels who have opinions or expectations, but from the commission's perspective, they didn't have that. Once they crossed that bridge, they would have typical concerns. He did with regard to some of the parking issues, internal circulation issues, the access and one of which was whether to have one or two access points on Cook, but there were also some other access issues. Some parts of the design he really liked, but others looked a little too Orange County/Newport Beach which were lovely communities, but that wasn't Palm Desert and they needed to perhaps find a balance of something that was refreshing to the desert and didn't necessarily need to be the same thing they already had, but in his opinion they didn't necessarily want to go overboard in terms of creating more of a metropolis type retail center either. So there were some design issues and issues about the two and three stories. Commissioner Tschopp said if the applicant was asking for opinions, if this was zoned commercial and if the applicant was just looking for +�•► comments, not knowing what the general plan would be, he thought it would be appropriate to get some feedback. The applicant was obviously spending some time and effort on it. He thought it was appropriate for the commission to give general type comments. First, he hoped they would change the name Wonder Palms. Mr. Evans said they actually had been waiting to find out what the name would be on the GPA. The name was currently a place holder. Mr. Drell explained that Wonder Palms Drive was a historic name for either Frank Sinatra or Gerald Ford. Mr. Evans said they picked it up only because of the existing development agreement. Giving general comments, Commissioner Tschopp said if commercial was going in there, University Drive that lines up with Cal State, he wasn't too enthralled by the lack of any real corner designation there or r. 73 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 any kind of architectural element on that corner. The City and the State have a huge investment there in the Cal State campus and high hopes for it so he hoped that what went on across the corner would mirror that on those corners. The way Cook Street is set up now, he didn't think it was very pedestrian friendly so people coming out of that university would probably drive their cars across unless something was done to encourage pedestrians. Mr. Drell said they discussed at some appropriate time installing a pedestrian bridge across Cook Street because Cook Street would be a virtual freeway with six lanes. When there was enough traffic from the university to warrant it, that's when they would consider it. Mr. Evans said they had actually discussed ideas about the sidewalk and he wasn't against the meandering sidewalk along Cook Street, but it seemed to him that where they were and what they were doing there, that the sidewalk really belonged in front of the shops to encourage people to walk across the street to walk in front of the shops. To walk across the street to walk in between the buildings and street wasn't as much fun as walking slightly up the curb and down the main street, so they had talked about it at ARC and it was an element they needed to get a handle on. Regarding pedestrians across the walk ways, Commissioner Tschopp commented that knowing how that worked in some of the other developments in the city, they come up to those driveways and entry from Cook and it just became a barrier so somehow that needed to be addressed. He knew that the university spent tremendous amounts of time looking at the winds out there, which could be extreme and hoped Mr. Evans did the same thing at this location because that would in some ways dictate the architecture. At certain times of the year, that's one of the worst places in the valley. The hotel was only a concept, but it didn't do much for him architecturally at this time. It looked to him like a very cheap hotel and being across the gateway he hoped they would see something a little better architecturally. 74 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2. 2003 He also noted that it looked like Main Street was actually phase two and not phase one. Mr. Evans said it began in Phase 1. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the real gist of it was not done until Phase 2. Mr. Evans said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp thought the Main Street concept was great. He really liked that and hoped that somehow in Phase 1 it was incorporated a little more because sometimes things got delayed for years and he'd like to get that pedestrian access going. He asked how wide the walkways would be throughout the project. He hoped they truly looked like walkways and encouraged people to walk and not where they would be fighting bumpers of cars and only a few trees. �.. Mr. Evans said they were 20 feet on both sides. He said they really tried to put space in that zone so they had the overhangs, the awnings, the shade, and the stores were sort of tucked back a little bit and then they had more of the street scene in front of that. Commissioner Tschopp commented that some of the best areas in Palm Desert like on El Paseo and in other cities, were the ones where people could walk down and people were outside dining. He hoped Mr. Evans really encouraged that because there was nothing more fun than to people watch sometimes. He also hoped that the University was in the loop. Mr. Evans said they had two or three meetings with Peter Wilson before he left and they had his support throughout the project and they worked with him on some of the access questions and access issues. They also had worked with the Cornerstone Development people behind them and the Hampton Inn person across the street. He said they saw themselves as their own little 75 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 s neighborhood that they were trying to nurture up and grow and build. The more people they could talk to the better off they were and the better they felt. Commissioner Tschopp commented that in a lot of the projects the concepts were great, but then sometimes putting them into actual practice didn't work. He thought the Main Street and the pedestrian friendly concept was very good if the General Plan review went that way. Mr. Evans thanked him for his comments. Commissioner Lopez said he found it a very exciting project. The potential, the vision, and the possibilities if everything fell into place. He pointed out that the entrance or gateway to the city on Cook Street would be pretty neat. Regarding hotel occupancy and usage, if in fact the project was full and people were there, it would be a destination. It would be a draw and a destination very similar to the River. The River has driven occupancy up at Rancho Las Palmas Resort and it increased 5% after the River opened. People who wanted to be at that Iwo location stayed at Rancho Las Palmas. It could be the same thing with the proposed hotel. He echoed the concern regarding the look of the hotel. He thought it looked very simple, but was something they were going to work on. Mr. Evans said they had a hard time designing it. He said the one thing that had been thought through a lot on the hotel was the exterior shape and it was primarily dictated by wanting to stay as close to within the guidelines as they possibly could and still keep some articulation. They saw a lot of stone in the right places. He said they actually found some better stone than the cultured stone. They found real stone in Arizona that was done like cultured stone that was really fabulous. When they got into the up close locations, it was a product that they really wanted to use rather than the cultured stone that always looked fake up close. They were looking at a lot of products that were different in the market. They suggested to Public Works and Planning a 76 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 couple of weeks ago a different kind of asphalt material that allowed for retention of water within a parking lot that was very interesting and positive. They were starting to look at things like that. They thought their DG idea was a different idea and worked. It looked good, it was easy to take care of, it was maintainable and people would feel like they were in a desert park scene. They had a ways to go on some of their architecture. He said he was very excited about the project. Chairperson Campbell stated that the site had a lot of potential and a lot of good features to it. Regarding the retail buildings on Cook Street, they would be seeing the back side of the buildings. She asked how they were going to draw customers into the center. Mr. Evans said they tried to make the backs of the buildings on Cook Street and Gerald Ford look like the fronts of the buildings. They had gone to a great deal of effort to give it character in an unusual way. He showed renderings and said they were •.. basically fake facades. The idea was to incorporate storefront- like signage rather than someone plastering or nailing a neon sign to the back of the building and organizing it with awnings and columns. He said ARC really recommended that they try to keep them open. The windows were really show windows and were not really windows unless there was a restaurant and then they could have real windows that faced out. He said they could even be murals. So all along Cook and Gerald Ford on all of their buildings that face those streets, that element was going to be incorporated. He said they expect the corner buildings to be restaurants with seating and umbrellas where people could sit, enjoy and relax. Chairperson Campbell thought the feature on the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook was a very nice feature and she said there was some nice public art to go there. 77 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing ppen and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03- 10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 97-2 Amendment#2 to October 21, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. The commission thanked the applicant for a good presentation. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES No meeting. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE No meeting. C. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE No meeting. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE No meeting. 78 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2 2003 XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Campbell asked when the commission would receive something summarized in writing for the General Plan so they could study it. Mr. Drell didn't think it could be summarized. They really just had to read it. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there would be a staff report. Mr. Drell didn't think there would be a written staff report. He thought they were going to orally try to summarize each section, but there was no real substitute to reading it. The General Plan was available on the City's website and the printed version would be distributed as soon as it was received. Chairperson Campbell asked if they were going to put a cap on how much time they would spend on September 16. Mr. Drell said that Mr. Criste wrote most of the verbiage and could probably quickly summarize the gist of each section. Chairperson Campbell asked if they wanted to stay from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. or set an ending time. Mr. Drell recommended that they go until 9:00 p.m. Commission concurred. Commissioner Jonathan thought it would be appropriate to announce that at the beginning of the meeting and indicated that the public hearing portion would be continued as many times as they needed. Mr. Drell said he changed his mind and would write a staff report. The staff report would highlight those areas he believed were significant in terms of what was changing and what the gist of those areas were: the vacant area north of Frank Sinatra, Portola, the 111 alley, and then a couple of isolated, vacant parcels like the nine acres at Monterey and Country Club. He would have that to the commission the Friday before the meeting and it would only be two or three pages. He noted that they would be receiving an application relative to the World Development project which was now being put together in the context of a master plan and integrating an elementary school site. With those two projects, that would cover about 80%. He said those projects would probably come in at something closer to the lesser end. There were four land use alternatives: an existing plan, a lesser alternative, the preferred alternative and a more intense one. 79 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Commissioner Finerty stated that it would be helpful if the maps showing each of those alternative plans were provided in everyone's packets so that everyone would have a clear understanding. She asked if Mr. Drell would give the commission all four of them. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the school site was part of Palm Springs Unified School District. Mr. Drell said yes. If they were going to get a school, he thought it should be best located to meet the needs of Palm Desert residents and they wanted to do that. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. PHILIP DR L, Secretary ATTEST: 'SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California /tm 80