The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1007 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION N - _ TUESDAY - OCTOBER 7, 2003 4:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. Chairperson Campbell informed the audience that the meeting from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. would be to hear some public hearing items. Then there would be a break until 6:00 p.m. At 6:00 p.m. they would discuss the General Plan until 9:00 p.m. After 9:00 p.m. they would consider a cominued public hearing item and then finish any public hearings that weren't finished in the earlier 4:00 p.m. session. Ill. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Mark Greenwood, City Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary �.. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 2, 2003 meeting minutes. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the September 2, 2003 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith summarized pertinent September 25, 2003 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-11 - DARWIN ALBERT DEASON, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge { Lots 74 and 75 of Tract 25296-1 to accommodate No construction of a larger home in the Canyons at Bighorn. B. Case No. PMW 03-07 -VALLEY CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLY,Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment to accommodate an addition to the Valley Christian Assembly building at 73-979 Fred Waring Drive. C. Case No. PMW 03-14 - DAVID AND MICHAELEEN PREST and JOHN AND LEIGH ANN VUKSIC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two lots into one on the east side of San Pablo, also known as APNs 627-141-021 and 627-112-010. Mr. Smith informed the commission that a faxed letter had been received requesting that Consent Calendar Item A be withdrawn from the agenda. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 tow Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner 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 Nos. GPA 03-06, C/Z 03-09 and PMW 03-05 - SCHMID INVESTMENTS L.P., Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment from residential (medium density 5-7 units per acre) to office professional, a change of zone from PR-5 N.S.P. (planned residential, five units per acre with a natural overlay and scenic '`► preservation) to O.P. (office professional), and a parcel map waiver reconfiguring two lots fronting on Village Court at the northerly end of the Embassy Suites property located at 74- 700 Highway 111. Mr. Smith said they were looking at just over an acre of land at the north end of Embassy Suites, the area north of the tennis courts, west and south of the existing O.P. zoned properties and lots on Village Court. He said the idea was to rezone this property to O.P. and then add it to the lots in Village Court. He showed what the reconfigured lots would look like. The two current lots on Village Court, the northerly most one was 131 feet north to south and 500 feet east to west. The second lot shown as parcel 13 on the map was quite short in depth, 120 feet on its northerly property line. The idea was to add this one-plus acres into the O.P. zone and then reconfigure those two lots. The northerly lot would become 150 feet deep and the southerly lot would become 350 feet. He said that the northerly section, some 100 feet by 131 feet, would go back to the hotel. So the request before them was for the zone change and general plan amendment to office professional. Staff felt this would make the office professional lots more usable and more efficient. He indicated that the 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 i hotel advised that they have no plans for the property north of the tennis courts. It is 100 feet removed from the residential to the west and more than 100 feet from the residential to the north. Staff recommended approval of the zone change, general plan amendment and the reconfigured lots. At some point in the future, development proposals would come forward on these lots and those would go through the full public hearing process with notice to the neighbors. They would know at that point what the project would look like. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification regarding the portion of the property going back to the hotel. Mr. Smith pointed out the north limit of the hotel and explained that it would move the O.P. use away from the residential area. Commissioner Jonathan had a similar question. He thought it was fine, he just wanted to make sure he understood which property they were talking about. He asked if parcel 1 was unaffected by this in terms of the zone change. Mr. Smith said it would become a deeper lot as a result of the zone change and reconfiguration. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was parcel 2 that would be exclusively receiving the zone change and the only one that isn't office professional at this time. Mr. Smith said that 80% would go to lot 2 and the other 20%, 19 feet, would be added to Lot One. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a drawing of the reconfigured map. Mr. Smith showed the commission a map of the reconfigured lots. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DICK SCHMID, 45-890 Pawnee in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He explained that the property is owned by Mr. DeBonne and the Schmid Family. He said they developed Village Court about five years ago and created the existing parcelization. Unfortunately, Lot 16 was a long, narrow lot that was part of the original property, so there wasn't much they could do about it before. The zoning for all of the property they developed in 1999 or so still remained as office professional. They made an agreement with Embassy Suites to exchange properties with them so he could extend the office professional to the west from the lots they have and give them some additional property for storage or something else at the west end of 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Lot 16 which was difficult for them to development. He thought it made a much better configuration of the parcels. He said they presently didn't have any specific plans for the development, but most of the parcels on Village Court have already been developed. He said they could anticipate being before the commission within six months to a year. He asked for any questions. There were no questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty thought it was a nice fit and was a logical change to O.P. She moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2224, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 03-06, C/Z 03-09 and PMW 03-05, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 02-20 - SBA NETWORK SERVICES INC. FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 58-foot high wireless telecommunication tower located at 100 Kiva Drive at the corner of Highway 74 and Cahuilla Way. Mr. Bagato explained that the project was located within the Bighorn Mountains golf course maintenance yard. The tower would be 95 feet west of Highway 74 and 40 feet south of Cahuilla Way. Silver Spur Mobile Home Park was to the north, Bighorn Mountains golf course and the Bighorn Canyons were to the east. He said the proposed tower would be 58 feet tall total to the top of the fronds and 50 feet to the top of the antennae. The monopalm would have three antennae sectors installed in the bulb portion r.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 i of the tree similar to what was recently approved for Sprint at Highway 111 at St. Margaret's Church. Mr. Bagato said there will be two live palm trees planted in the area to create more of a date palm grove effect. This tower would be located within the foreground and background of many towers. He included some pictures of the area. He said the project was reviewed by Bighorn's Landscape and Architectural Review Commission. They granted approval. He said the project went to the City's Architectural Review on June 24 and was granted preliminary approval on a 3-1-1-2 vote with Commissioner Vuksic opposed, Hanson abstaining and two commissioners absent. The general discussion was questioning why a palm tree was being proposed at Bighorn when there weren't any other palm trees in the golf course right now. As staff indicated during the meeting, if Bighorn wanted to add palm trees to their landscape palette staff wouldn't object and date palms weren't prohibited landscaping material. With the general area in close proximity to the other palm trees across the street, staff felt this was a good location and based on his analysis, they reviewed it pursuant to the telecommunications act described in the background section of the staff report. He said they had to look to see if there was a gap in coverage. Currently there were no towers for Gingular Wireless in south Palm Desert. They submitted a coverage map to illustrate that. He said that currently only one tower was constructed in Palm Desert and that was the Verizon Tower at St. Margaret's Church. The other part of the telecommunications act was if it was the least intrusive solution and as described in the report, the tree was in the line of sight of many other trees and two additional trees would be installed next to it to create more of a date palm effect. The tower was only 58 feet high which was one of the shorter ones they have approved. The applicant also provided three alternative sites within south Palm Desert and they would not be functional because of the lower grade. The elevations would require a much taller tree. Architectural Review Commission along with Bighorn's own Landscape Architectural Review Commission approved it, and staff recommended approval. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any comments received from the Silver Spur Homeowners Association or individuals living there. Mr. Bagato said no. t 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked how high the live palm trees would be. Mr. Bagato said they would be 45 feet and 35 feet. Chairperson Campbell noted that the tower was 58 feet and the live palms would be 45 and 35 feet high. Mr. Bagato said yes. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the monopalm would have three antenna sectors concealed within the bulb portion of the artificial palm tree. The latest stealth technology they have been exposed to had the antennas within the trunk. Mr. Bagato explained that the bulb portion of the monopalm was within the bulb of the trunk, so they wouldn't see any of the antennas. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they would protrude or if they would be inside. Mr. Bagato said they would be inside. Commissioner Lopez asked if this was in lieu of the boulder design. Mr. Bagato said no, this was a separate application and different company. Chairperson Campbell asked if the antennas could be concealed in the bulb portion,why they had other towers coming to them with the big antennas and why they couldn't all conceal them. Mr. Bagato said he talked to some of the other applicants and was told that when the antennas are inside the bulb, it shortened their range capacity. Depending on the range they are trying to cover, they might have to be on the outside to get a wider range. It also depended on the terrain. Here they are focusing on a particular area, south Palm Desert, which was smaller. They weren't trying to reach all of Highway 111, so they could contain them within the bulb portion. In other areas, if they were to contain them within the bulb portion, they would have to go taller. That is what happened on Highway 111 because he wanted a wider range than this tower. Chairperson Campbell thought they were better looking aesthetically, so perhaps they could allow more of them and higher than having the antennas sticking out. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JIM KELLY of SBA, the contractors to Cingular Wireless, 150 Paularino Avenue in Costa Mesa, addressed the commission. He thanked staff and indicated that this was a project that had been in front of them for quite some time now and it had grown and improved in its measure from where they started out. He thought the City would %mr see a very good response from all parties. The local associations, the 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 i staff at SBA and the engineers at Cingular were being flexible in their design parameters to allow the greatest aesthetic solution. Staff was correct when asked about why other carriers weren't doing this kind of solution. He said it was kind of a plus and minus. It did mean a reduction in capacity for the number of calls the site could handle and a severe reduction in the geographic boundaries. However, because it was a constrained area, a focused area of need from a local customer base, this solution could be an appropriate use and design. He said they hit it right on the head when saying that maybe they could be more flexible for more sites like this because that is what they would be looking at. They would be seeing more applications because sites would have to be closer together if that was the direction the City was going to take. But it was a plus and minus. They would have more applications and sites, but if they could be as successfully designed as this one, it could be a win. He asked for any questions. There were no questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this application. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was absolutely delighted because aesthetically it was much nicer and only 58 feet high. She moved for approval. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2225, approving Case No. CUP 02-20, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. t 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 %W C. Case No. CUP 03-15 - CHOICE ENTERPRISE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to construct a four-unit, one-story apartment project at 73-765 Shadow Mountain Drive. Mr. Urbina stated that the proposed project involved four apartment units on the south side of Shadow Mountain Drive. Access would be via a private driveway with decorative pavement. Surrounding land uses include older, one-story apartments to the east, single story single family homes to the south, the Mojave Inn to the west and the Desert Patch Inn to the north. Each unit would have three bedrooms, three baths and an attached two-car garage. He showed the elevations and explained that two buildings would be seen from Shadow Mountain Drive. Each unit would have a solid-covered patio off of the master bedroom and there would be a private walled yard for each unit. The maximum height at the ridge was 17 feet 5 inches. The zoning was R-3, although two stories are allowed in the zone except when adjacent to r., a single family residential zone and then the maximum height was 18 feet. Mr. Urbina indicated that the Architectural Review Commission approved the design of the project. The project complied with all applicable development standards of the R-3 zone and met the off-street parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommended approval by adoption of the resolution with the findings and conditions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that ARC approved the application, but they did so subject to eight enumerated improvements. He asked if Mr. Urbina would take a brief moment to walk them through the improvements and show on the renderings where that had been done. Mr. Urbina stated that the elevations on display reflected the changes requested by the Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the first requirement was to add a landscape median to the driveway. Mr. Urbina showed the five-foot wide landscape planter. He said the Fire Department requested rolled concrete curbs and that was a condition of approval. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was just that portion of the driveway and that's what ARC had in mind. Mr. Urbina said yes. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the second item was the decorative concrete on the driveway. Mr. %NW 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 Urbina said it was Omaha brown concrete with a broom finish and California edging. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the edging was stamped concrete. Mr. Urbina said it would not be stamped concrete, it would just be a brown color. The edging was just trowel lines. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was to the satisfaction of ARC. Mr. Urbina said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the recessed windows. He didn't see that in the drawings, but assumed that would be done. Mr. Urbina said yes, the windows were recessed and there would be pop-out trim as well. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were going to worry about that in the working drawing stages or at some later time. He didn't see any detail of it, so staff would be aware of that at a later time. Mr. Urbina concurred. Commissioner Jonathan indicated the next item was adding decorative detail to the driveway side elevation. He asked for clarification. Mr. Urbina explained that stone was added to the base of the columns. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was what ARC was referring to. Mr. Urbina said yes. He said the width was widened on the columns. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the reference was to the width of the driveway side elevations. Mr. Urbina said that elevation was facing the driveway. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that it said to bring the stonework up to horizontal line of the windows. Mr. Urbina said yes and indicated it would go up to the bottom line of the windows. Commissioner Jonathan thought it was the same thing that Mr. Urbina showed him in the earlier item and asked if he thought ARC was just being redundant. Item number four was to add decorative detail to driveway side elevation. Item number five was bring stonework up to horizontal line of windows. Commissioner Finerty noted that right by the driveway where there weren't any windows it looked like the decorative detail was lower, which would be number four. And then if they went over to where the windows are, number five would be where they brought it up to the window. Chairperson Campbell indicated that number one was the one facing Shadow Mountain and was decorative, too. Mr. Urbina stated that they could add a condition that the stonework at the garage bases be brought up in height as well, even with the bottom of the adjacent windows. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't need a condition, but asked staff to get clarification and make sure it was addressed. Number six was to thicken columns and Commissioner Jonathan asked if that had been done. Mr. Urbina said yes and pointed them out. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the next item was to add focal point at wood 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 r.. the end of the driveway. Mr. Urbina explained that the applicant added two raised planters, one at two feet and the back one at four feet to provide some visual interest at the end. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was Mr. Urbina's understanding that would be satisfactory to ARC. Mr. Urbina said yes. The last item was to eliminate the sidewalk at the end of the driveway and number nine was to create a sitting play area. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the elimination of the sidewalk at the end of the driveway had been done. Mr. Urbina said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the sitting/play area. Mr. Urbina explained that there was a condition of approval for there to be at least an 18-foot wide flat ledge to serve as a seating area at the two-foot raised planter. He said the site was rather small for an effective play area. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they would have a sitting area, but not a play area. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the sitting area would not be for a picnic table, it would be a ledge along the planter at the end of the driveway. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Each home would have a private-covered patio as well as walled in yard. Commissioner Jonathan thanked Mr. Urbina. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVID SECULO, President and owner of Choice Enterprise Real Estate and Investment Company Incorporated, addressed the commission. He said he was the owner of the property and the owner of this project; the brain designer of the project. His architect/ engineer was on vacation so he was present to push his project through. He asked if anyone on the panel been out to the physical site on Shadow Mountain where they were talking about the construction of this building. (The commission nodded yes.) He indicated that they all had a visual of what they were looking at as far as the already existing area per this extremely huge asset to that entire Shadow Mountain street right there. He wanted to make sure they all had the same visual of where this was going. He said he had a couple of questions. The recessed windows. He said he has been building homes for 20 years and he knew what a 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 j recessed window was, and when they asked for an entire project of the home to have recessed windows, number one, he was taken back and it wasn't consistent with any design of a building. All recessed windows throughout an entire home was not consistent with his design concept or anyone else's down there let alone the stringent Title 24 that he had to go through. It covered all aspects of any questions this committee might have as far as southern exposures. And energy calculation concerns. As a general contractor, it was so over Title 24'd that wasn't even an issue. So he didn't agree or understand a recessed window recommendation. Commissioner Jonathan said he was confused. He said he belabored the ARC conditions because he wanted to insure they had been resolved. Maybe he misunderstood staff, b::t he thought they said it had already been incorporated into a revised design. He asked if he misunderstood or if it had not been done. Mr. Seculo pointed out where there was a raised window, or recessed window. He said he could create a recessed window with the exterior. s His question was what a recessed window applicable request was for. too Commissioner Jonathan asked why he was asking the question. He belabored the issue earlier and thought it had been resolved at the staff and applicant level. He asked if he was wrong. Mr. Drell said he wanted to step back a bit further. The architectural details of this building were the purview of the Architectural Commission. This building was reviewed and he assumed that either Mr. Seculo or his architect attended the meeting. The time to have asked that question was at that meeting. Those sorts of details did not originate from the Planning Commission, nor should those questions be addressed. If there was any confusion or disagreement with any requirement of the Architectural Commission, there was a separate appeal process he could eventually take to the City Council. He indicated that Mr. Seculo could get clarification. The idea of putting stucco trim around windows had no architectural basis whatsoever. It was gingerbread. The objective was to create some shadow line over a window and the Architectural Commission's thrust in the recent past had been consistent with southwest architecture in general where they have thick walls and often the windows were set inside the wall so the shadow line was } created, not by a piece of gingerbread, but functionally by the thickness of 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 the wall. That was what is considered a recessed window. If he wanted to go into more detail, they could talk about it, but again, those issues relative to those construction details were the purview of the architects and if he wanted to redirect clarification, that was probably where it should go. Commissioner Jonathan said he continued, after nearly 15 years on the Planning Commission, to be confused about their role because it has been explained to him that while ARC has its own purview and its own area of responsibility, the Planning Commission was there to act as a second check valve and to insure that their directions are carried out. As he understood it, that was why their minutes were included as part of their packet. If they were going to depart from that and not address architectural elements, then he needed a letter he could carry in his pocket so that when everyone comes to him and tells him they don't like the color of Staples or the color of the building on Fred Waring and Monterey, or the design of the art gallery, or anything else, he could tell them it wasn't his job. They don't design projects, they just look the other way. He wanted a letter to that effect. They needed to get that clarified. They were either going to deal with design issues or they weren't. Mr. Drell said that as the preeminent body in terms of architectural +r.. details was the Architectural Commission. Appeals from them go directly to the City Council. Just as they make comments about site planning and try to be planning commissioners, that was primarily the Planning Commission's purview. He said it is a fuzzy line and if there were irreconcilable differences, then the City Council was the ultimate resolution. He didn't think it was ever the intent of the Planning Commission to get into the details to the extent of how much a window was recessed or not. The Architectural Commission was fully capable of enforcing those conditions. The Planning Commission didn't have to enforce them. ARC had a preliminary approval. When the final working drawings came in, they were fully capable and empowered to require those items to show up on the working drawings. There was a time when their conditions were expressly approved by Planning Commission. That requirement was expressly deleted from the process. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't necessarily disagree, but he thought they needed to get that clarified because that was a matter of degree. If there is a detail the Planning Commission felt was important, was it still appropriate to address it, etc. He said he would come back to that at a later time and maybe they could have discussion on that point. He felt it was something that needed to be clarified. With respect to what Mr. Drell said, he would waive further discussion of the design elements and hoped that 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 between staff, ARC and the applicant that it got done right. Mr. Drell said that if there were certain things that the commission wanted to direct that were more important, that emphasis could be placed and communicated to ARC. Mr. Seculo said as far as the comments on the stone veneer, the one thing he didn't really want to have was someone else designing his buildings or someone else telling him what was going to sell and what wouldn't sell. Not that the Planning Commission wasn't, but at the same time if they looked at the veneer stone over the driveway and the veneer stone at the windows, there were two different roof elevations. That was consistent with why those two elevations were different. He said he has been doing this for 20 years, and he respected Commissioner Jonathan's 15 years on the commission, but he has been the person who has sailed his ship and that's the reason it is sailing so strong. This is what sells. The visual finished look is what sells. He didn't want to get into a case where he was literally having a situation where a committee of professionals were making a final decision on him on exactly to the foot or to the inch on this or that in reference to his professional aesthetic finish which is once again why his company was where it is today. There was a reason why it was lower. Clearly because of the height difference. It just went on as far as everything in general. The reason he asked his first question as to whether everyone had been out to his site, he had a rat hole next to him that needed to be torn down. To the right of him Mojave is beautiful. They had done a great job, but it was a throwback from the 1970's as far as consistency of buildings on that street. That was what he was talking about. He said his was the nicest building on Shadow Mountain, period let alone architecturally and he prided himself on not only what was being built down here in the desert, the finished look of how it was being built and the bottom line and what "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" broke out the checkbook to see. Seeing that ARC had granted preliminary approval and the applicant seemed to be expressing concerns about what has been approved, Commissioner Tschopp asked if the applicant wanted to make sure they had clarification from ARC or if ARC was going to give a final approval. Mr. Drell said that the way the process worked, ARC gives a preliminary approval. It comes to the 1 Planning Commission for an overall site plan approval and if they wanted to 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 add more things or direct them to do more things they could take that under consideration. The final approval occurred when they produced working drawings. After final approval they got permits and went out to build. The relationship between final and preliminary was the same relationship between a final map and a tentative map in that all he was required to do on a final was to implement the conditions of the preliminary. If there were conditions that the applicant disagreed with, although in the minutes his architect agreed with them at the meeting, so if in retrospect he disagrees with them, then probably the appropriate thing to do would be to go back to ARC with some rediscussion of some of the conditions that either he didn't understand or disagreed with. He said this is a project they generally liked. They recommended approval. Staff generally liked it and recommended approval. He wasn't sure they needed to get hung up on how high or how many courses of stone there were. He agreed that some of the conditions were a bit vague on which stone they were talking about when they referred to the height of the windows. He thought it might be useful to go back to ARC at the next meeting and clarify all these things and exactly what they meant by the conditions. +r Given Mr. Drell's earlier comments on the ARC's commission and the commission of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Tschopp said they could leave some of these details to the perusal of the ARC and move forward. Mr. Drell concurred. He wasn't sure the applicant wanted them to delay this action based on whether or not the stone work was seven inches or eight inches, unless the Planning Commission felt strongly about it. Commissioner Lopez stated that if the applicant went before ARC, there were certain conditions outlined in the application that they were in fact going to abide by those conditions of approval. The sense he was getting at this point was that the applicant was in disagreement with some of those conditions which would lead him to believe that perhaps there is a question about what is before them today and what would be built. From his perspective, as long as the applicant was agreeable to the conditions listed in his application, as well as ARC's recommendations for improvement upon the building as it pertains to the process, then they could move ahead. If he was vehemently against the process, then he thought there needed to be a stipulation of a condition that based on if they passed this, it would be conditioned upon the review of the Architectural Review Committee and making sure that the applicant's understanding that they were in agreement with the suggestions and conditions. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 i Mr. Seculo said that was fine. He indicated that this was his first appearance on this project. He had 13 other homes going on and was a little busy. He asked if what he was doing was the final approval on the project itself with conditions. Mr. Drell explained that for development in Palm Desert, we have an architectural commission and they do influences on a project. That is reality. He could appeal the conditions to the City Council, but ultimately, they would tell him how to design his project. That was just part of the facts of life. In Mr. Seculo's case, he didn't see a big issue because he thought they were talking about very minor issues he thought could be resolved once there was a full understanding of the requirements. Mr. Seculo said he didn't like thai representation because no, they didn't have the authority to design his building within the parameters. Mr. Drell said he could take any offense he wanted. Staff believed he has a good project, but he was telling him the facts of life in this city and if they were unacceptable to him, he might not choose to do a project like this again. Mr. Seculo stated that he has already done 11 projects in this city. He has $400,000 on that street. His inference to Mr. Drell is that he is deeply insulted as a general contractor and the city's professionals telling him inevitably he has no choice and they are going to design his building was a completely inaccurate statement. That's his point. Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation that Mr. Seculo had a representative at the architectural meeting. Mr. Seculo said yes. Chairperson Campbell noted that he seemed to have agreed to many of the changes. Mr. Seculo concurred. He said if they wanted they could split hairs on the inches of the rock. His first question was if everyone had been out to the site. He has a site here that is going to improve his town and their town, Palm Desert. He was a little taken aback by the due 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 �rrr diligence in which this particular project was getting right now. He was trying to stay consistent and blend everything together. Commissioner Jonathan thought they were making a mountain out of a mole hill. He thought they could move this forward and make the applicant happy. The way the process works, the applicant brought his design to ARC, they had their suggestion (and every city has a design approval process) so that was all that was going on here. They basically approved it with the suggestions. The point the Planning Commission belabored here is that, and what he was trying to do was ensure that those issues they raised (and he wasn't second guessing them) he just wanted to make sure they were going to turn into reality. So he would leave that part of the process to the applicant, to ARC and to staff. They have done it thousands of times before so he knew they could help the applicant through it. He thought staff wanted to see his project go up, he thought the applicant would meet with a lot of support, this was just a little bit of fine tuning. If they could move this forward, he thought the applicant would be happy. He asked if the applicant had anything else to offer them. %W Mr. Seculo said yes, he had one last thing in reference to a seating and/or play area. He said there were four individual units. There was no community effect. They were all condominiumized. They would be sold as individual units, so the reality of that was that a seating area and a play area weren't really applicable for this site being four individually sold condominiums. He said it would be great if these four people were the very best of friends. What he had done, which was an excellent suggestion by the ARC, he had done the covered patios on the back side, but they could see every unit had not only a side yard, but also front yards. He clarified that in his entity of development, it was very consistent with four separate condo- minimized units. He could see if there were four units and they were all going to be the same. Commissioner Jonathan noted that was one of the design elements that ARC addressed. He asked if Mr. Seculo would be comfortable just including that, as mentioned earlier, as part of what he could work out with them and staff. Mr. Seculo said yes. The raised planter in the back, as per Mr. Urbina's suggestion, he loved. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 t Commissioner Jonathan indicated that was also a design element of ARC. He said the suggestion was made that the Planning Commission not address or micro manage the design at this point. If Mr. Seculo was comfortable with that, they could move forward. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Seculo was finished with his presentation. Mr. Seculo said yes, although he thought it was more of a question than presentation. He thanked the commission for their time. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp moved for approval, subject to the architectural review requirements. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Commissioner Jonathan said he was in agreement. He thought this would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and an appropriate use of property and when they got through the whole thing, together they would have a very nice finished product. He said he was proud. He thought it was the first time they have been criticized for doing too much due diligence, so that was a good thing. He said he takes pride in the work ARC does in particular, and that staff does, and he thought at the same time that they worry a lot about the design. He said they were also conscious of the reality that developers and owners face. Hopefully the applicant would have a good experience with our fine city. He was in approval. Mr. Erwin said he wanted to make sure the applicant was aware that this approval did not permit the sale of individual units. This is a conditional use permit for the construction. Mr. Seculo agreed. Chairperson Campbell concurred with the other commissioners. She thought it was a wonderful project, very nicely done with three bedrooms and three baths. It wasn't something seen every time in a condominium area like that one and one story. She thought it would be a great asset to the street. Commissioner Lopez concurred. a 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2226, approving Case No. CUP 03-15, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. C/Z 03-12 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-2 (7) to Office Professional (O.P.) for 14 lots located on Fred Waring Drive east of San Anselmo Avenue to San Pablo Avenue. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be abstaining from the vote and discussion in this matter and the following matter, Item E, due to a conflict of interest. (He then left the room.) Mr. Bagato explained that this area was one of the nine sub areas in the Palma Village Specific Plan that was adopted in 1985. It promoted office professional use on the south side of Fred Waring from Fairhaven Drive to Portola Avenue. He said all the lots from San Anselmo westbound to Fairhaven had already been rezoned and most were developed with office professional complexes. He said there are three lots just east of San Anselmo currently zoned Office Professional as part of a change of zone and precise plan done in 1988. The current City General Plan and the proposed Draft City's General Plan showed these 14 lots being designated Office Professional. Currently they were all zoned R-2 7,000. The change of zone was being initiated at this time because of the project that was next on the agenda and the anticipated development for the other lots located on Fred Waring. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution recommending to City Council approval of the change zone. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if Mr. Drell had anything additional to add. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 Mr. Drell stated that in the Palma Village Plan they talked about converting all the lots on Santa Rosa to parking lots. Other than the corner lots, in retrospect they were recommending that not be done. Predominately, residential streets should have houses on both sides, other than the corner lots which were kind of impacted more by the arterials around them. The expectation was that these lots would develop individually with the exception of the project before the commission today. The balance of the lots would be single depth developments and would not preclude the development of houses on Santa Rosa. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this application. MR. PETE GRIFFITH, 73-460 Santa Rosa Way, addressed the commission. He asked for clarification on if there were commercial buildings being built there, just single story ones. Mr. Drell said no, they would be one and two story buildings like those that had been built elsewhere down the street. If they were two-story, they had to be setback approximately 65 feet, but if they looked down Fred Waring, they could see the likely combination of projects that would be seen here. Going back a number of years, Mr. Griffith said there was supposed to be a greenbelt along there in front of all the commercial buildings being built there. The church was right on the corner of San Pablo and their parking lot was right on Fred Waring. The office complexes did stick to the master plan from years ago by having a greenbelt along Fred Waring. For some of the buildings the parking was supposed to be to the rear of the buildings, not to the side of the buildings. Originally that was how they started out there. Mr. Drell said some were one way, some another. He explained that the greenbelt was supposed to be on Santa Rosa as part of the expansion of the parking lots onto Santa Rosa, eliminating all of the houses on the north side of Santa Rosa. What his comments referred to was a reassessment of that program. There was a presumption that they couldn't get high quality office buildings unless they consumed both layers of lots. They have subsequently learned that we've gotten good projects without encroaching into the residential area. Given the shortage of housing in the city and his rediscovery or realization that the back ends of parking lots didn't make good frontages Ud 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 t.p on a residential street no matter how they are landscaped or greenbelted, they are still the back end of a parking lot. Nothing substituted for a house fronting across the street. Therefore, that was the substance of his comments. The department's recommendation, except for corners, would be to encourage housing on Santa Rosa, not parking lots. Mr. Griffith noted there are a lot of vacant lots on Santa Rosa and probably more vacant lots than houses. No one would build houses there if office professional with two stories with windows coming out onto Santa Rosa were built. That would affect privacy. Mr. Drell explained that the zone prohibited that. If he noticed the offices that have been built, either the windows were not there, were obscured, or were clerestories. Mr. Griffith said he had seen that on some of them and understood that. If they passed this to office professional, he asked where that provision was in the code or city ordinance that the windows would not face their property. Chairperson Campbell stated that it was a condition of approval that they make. Mr. Drell said that it was in the Office Professional section. There was a special section just for windows. Mr. Griffith said that originally he thought that incorporating their houses as parking lots might be beneficial for them if the right person came in to develop, but it hadn't happened. MR. BEN WATSON, 73-280 Santa Rosa, addressed the commission. He stated that this project would go in right behind his house and along side it. He said part would be the building and asked if the office professional rezoning and parking lots were what they were talking about right now. Mr. Drell said that although the design of the project was contingent upon the change of zone, the use of the subsequent use was not contingent on the change of zone. It was already zoned O.P. The design standards of the subject project would be determined by the character of the zone they were talking about now. Referring to the map, he said those parcels were the ones being proposed for the change of zone. The project coming next on the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 agenda was in the area already shown as O.P. The issue on this particular case only deals beginning with the fourth lot east of San Anselmo fronting on Fred Waring down to San Pablo. Mr. Griffith said that as far as the zoning goes, the buildings that have been built on Fred Waring Drive have been very nice buildings. He was sure that was why they were zoning it office professional. It was for further office professional buildings to go in there. One of the biggest problems he had was with parking and the buildings that do eventually come. He was concerned with parking and the parking lots these office professional lots would be used for and the buildings they would be used for. They were starting to have a good sized problem with the Sunlife building. He said he would use that as an example. That was across the way from Santa Rosa. The buildings built there were very nice buildings, but they didn't have enough parking for the people that work there. There was a sign out front that says patients only. The staff that works in the building had to park out on the street. He was worried that was what was going to happen all around his house. The proposed zoning, if they didn't allow or make a way for these people to park or make enough parking for these buildings that would go in there, and no one would know what would go in there, they could be doctors' offices, lawyers, dentists or something else. But there needed to be reservations for the parking for people who work there and for patients or people who go there to do their business. They also had an additional problem with the Street Fair that goes on during the weekend. He said they did a nice job with a lot of parking over there already, but it was so convenient for the students and for the Street Fair to park on their street and walk across Fred Waring Drive instead of having to pay a fee at COD for parking and to get to COD and the library. That caused the extra problems on the weekend. They had been able to handle that and it hadn't spilled down so far on Santa Rosa, but it was starting to affect that one corner. He said he would like to see some revisions as far as the parking situation goes. It had already gotten out of hand in a couple of small places. He didn't want them to forget what has happened already in two or three places, not just the Sunlife building. He noted that Ruth's Chris steakhouse was a big deal with the parking. He said they needed to have enough parking spaces for these people to do their 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 business and didn't want it to impact the people who live there. He had been there 25, almost 30 years. A couple more years and his house would be paid for. It was an old house and he was doing work on it, but it would be nice in a few more years. But he didn't want them to lose sight. One of the things he was a little afraid of was being taken advantage of and the way they had this configuration, he wanted to know if they were going to decide later to take his lot or his house for eminent domain because they were going to need it for parking later. He asked what kind of configuration of building and lots would be going in for the next project down from Santa Rosa. Would it be his house, the duplex next door, and then another parking lot? He didn't want to live on a street that had just parking lots on both sides of him. They needed to take a look at what they were doing. Mr. Watson said he had to reiterate what Mr. Griffith said about parking becoming a problem along Santa Rosa, not with just the office professional buildings, but with the Newman Center. At times they were overloaded and they did have to park around the corner and they parked in dirt. That was fine, but it was something that had to be thought about along with the O.P. changing that because there is a problem along there. The streets always had cars on the curbs and he didn't think they allowed enough parking for the employees, the patients or the clients, so it was a concern. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp said he had a couple of questions for staff. He asked where they anticipated the access would be for these rezoned lots. Mr. Drell said the access would be just like it is to the west. It would be to Fred Waring. In most cases, they would try where they could to get property owners to cooperate and either buy multiple parcels or share driveways. He said this was basically the continuation of the pattern seen to the west. Mr. Drell agreed with the comments made that parking at Sunlife is a problem. They amended the code since Sunlife was built and increased the parking requirement for medical office buildings. That building would have at least 20 more parking spaces if it was built today, which was probably the number of cars they see parked on the street. The good news was that what they were finding from developers and house builders is that there are so few empty too 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 i lots in town that some of the lots that were considered to be less desirable are now being considered to be built on because they are all that's left. Commissioner Lopez thanked both residents for taking the time to attend the meeting. He assured them that if they'd ever come to any of the planning commission meetings in the past, the commission has never been more sensitive to parking as developments come along. The zoning change in the past had been very successful in blocking traffic noises to the folks that live on Santa Rosa and in the future this would also assist that. They learned some lessons from Sunlife and they changed some ordinances, some regulations and code, and we are better at this now than in the past. He assured them that the commission would be very sensitive to the needs regarding parking. He thought it was an interesting point that was brought up regarding students parking in the area because they didn't want to pay the parking fees for COD and they would have to be sensitive to that as the college continues to increase their student body. He said they would be sensitive to that in the future, too. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan was absent for this item). It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2227, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. C/Z 03-12. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan was absent for this item). Chairperson Campbell noted that there were about six minutes before the break. Mr. Drell said he would like to start the next case. He thought they had dealt with a lot of the questions already. He thought maybe they could finish it in ten minutes. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 E. Case No. PP/CUP 03-12 - PREST / VUKSIC ARCHITECTS for DESERT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan for construction of a 7,650 square foot office medical building and a conditional use permit to allow an office parking lot on residential property. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Anselmo Avenue. (Commissioner Jonathan previously recused himself from this item and the previous item as noted earlier. He was absent from the room.) Mr. Bagato indicated that all the parcels are currently vacant and flat. The three parcels on Fred Waring were rezoned, as discussed earlier. The two on Santa Rosa are currently zoned R-2. He said the project code requirements were outlined in the staff report. The proposed precise plan would provide a 7,650 square foot medical office building. There was a total of 47 parking spaces to the rear of the building. Access would be via a driveway installed on San Anselmo closer to Fred Waring. There was currently an existing driveway approach that would be removed and a standard city curb and gutter would be replaced as part of the project approval. He said the building front setbacks would vary between 12 feet and 18 feet from Fred Waring Drive, maintaining the 15-foot average. The street corner setback varied between 12 feet and 32 feet which complied with the minimum daylight triangle for corner lots. The currently proposed interior lot setback was zero at the east which would be in conformance with the office change of zone just recommended to the city council. The rear setback varied between 160 feet closest to the Santa Rosa side and the setback was 20 feet right next to the residential property. He said the building is single story and the height varied between 13 feet and 24 feet with architectural detailing and columns. Most of the building height averaged 18 feet to 20 feet, but there were some high and low points. He stated that this architecture was consistent with what they called Desert Contemporary and earth tone colors were used. He said the preliminary landscape plan complied with all the standards for landscaping and the parking tree ordinance. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 j Mr. Bagato also indicated that the applicant was providing a 12-foot right-of- way for future construction of a bus bay turnout. Half would be from this property and half from the property to the east. The conditional use portion of the process would allow the parking lot in the R-2 zone adjacent to the O.P. consistent with the Palma Village Specific Plan. There would be a four to five-foot high block wall installed to screen any of the parking and vehicle headlights with a landscape greenbelt that was talked about earlier. That portion varied between 38 feet to 13 feet back from the sidewalk. That would be installed as part of the project. The change of zone done earlier would bring the east side back into compliance and conformance with our O.P. standards. Architectural Review granted preliminary approval and as discussed earlier, this is a major corner of Fred Waring and San Anselmo. 6taff felt this was an appropriate use, location and design for the neighborhood. Staff recommended approval with the condition that once the change of zone is approved by Council, this building would be in conformance as drawn. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the driveway lined up with the building across the way. Mr. Bagato said he didn't know. Mr. Drell said it might be further south because the other parking lot was just one lot deep and it had parking along the back of it. Therefore, the driveway would be further north. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the Sunlife building would be further north. Mr. Drell said yes. Mr. Bagato spoke with the Public Works Department representative and he informed commission that there are two driveways on the west side and it did not line up. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the maintenance of the greenbelt around the back. He asked if that was the responsibility of the owner of the property. Mr. Bagato said yes. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a condition that addressed the maintenance, etc. Mr. Bagato said yes. Mr. Drell said they are required to maintain all of the landscaping as part of the project. Property owners are always required to landscape out to the curb or maintain out to the curb regardless of if it was commercial or residential. Mr. Bagato noted that the condition was number seven. Chairperson Campbell asked if there was a home to the east of the parking lot. Mr. Bagato said yes, there is an existing home to the east. (Mr. Watson said it was his.) Chairperson Campbell asked what there would be for a buffer; if there would be a wall or if they would have a four to five-foot block 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 wall stuccoed to match the building surrounding the parking lot. Mr. Bagato said that was correct and in addition there was a landscape planter area. Mr. Drell stated that he thought the wall should be taller than four or five feet. It should be six feet along the side. Chairperson Campbell concurred because they would be required to have lighting for the parking lot, too. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Chairperson Campbell asked if there was a berm also around the wall that would be to the east of the wall of the parking lot or how close it was to the home. Mr. Bagato said they typically put walls right on the property line and then landscaping after that. There was a planter area before the actual drive aisles that would come after the wall. So there would be a wall separating this project from any of the parking and landscaping. Chairperson Campbell said that Mr. Watson had a wall around his home. Mr. Bagato said that was correct, on the property line. Chairperson Campbell asked where this other wall would be to the parking lot. She asked if it would be right next to his wall. Mr. Bagato said if there wasn't a wall now, they could install a new wall. In his report he said it was mainly the wall on Santa Rosa, but a wall there would be right on the property line six feet high. He said they could ask the architect if they were willing to install a new wall. %W Chairperson Campbell asked if there would be any landscaping from that wall inside the parking lot. Mr. Bagato said yes, there was a planter area. Chairperson Campbell asked how big the planter area was; she was concerned about the noise from the slamming of car doors. Chairperson Campbell thought there might not be any problems with that because the office hours would probably be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. Mr. Bagato said the planter was eight feet. Commissioner Lopez asked about the location of the trash receptacle and how far it was from the adjacent property. Mr. Bagato said it was 25 feet away from the corner. Commissioner Lopez asked for confirmation that it was next to the residential location. Mr. Bagato said yes, it was toward the east end of the property next to the residential property. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN VUKSIC with Prest Vuksic Architects, addressed the commission. He said he was present as the architect and was representing the owner. He thought Mr. Bagato did a great job in „ presenting the project, so he wasn't going to say a whole lot. He was 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 present to answer any questions or discuss any items they might have concerns about. Commissioner Lopez said he was concerned about the location of the trash area being so close to the residential area. He asked if Mr. Vuksic had any other options he could work with. Mr. Vuksic said yes, they could move the trash enclosure and flip flop a couple of parking spaces and the trash enclosure. That would be preferable. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Vuksic if he thought the eight-foot landscaping between the wall and the parked cars was ample to screen noise. Mr. Vuksic said something he remembered learning in architecture school was that landscaping was a noise buffer and he didn't understand that. It wasn't. It went right through the plants. So he didn't know what would buffer the noise. The wall would certainly help because the noise would reflect off the wall. He thought it was the wall ..i that provided the noise mitigation. Chairperson Campbell said they could put in a six-foot wall instead of four or five and put some not desert scaping because that wouldn't absorb any noise, but probably bushes or trees that were high enough. Mr. Vuksic said right now they have desert landscaping there which was dictated to some extent by water calculations. He said they could maybe put in more robust plants. He didn't think it would help the noise though. Mr. Drell didn't think there was any evidence that sub tropical absorbed noise better than desert plants. The wall would be the sound barrier. He said they have a boundary and they do the best they can to mitigate it, but there would also be a boundary. Commissioner Tschopp noted that in their report it stated that the wall would be four to five feet around the parking lot and asked how high it would be. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Mr. Vuksic said they left it open because they didn't want it to be any higher than it needed to be so that it didn't close in the street or close in the parking lot. They wanted there to be some sort of visual connection there, something they could see over. It would certainly be the size it needs to be to block the headlights. He said they could say five feet. Most people could see pretty comfortably over a five-foot wall. Commissioner Tschopp thought the area that was most sensitive was the house directly to the east from the parking lot. Mr. Vuksic stated that one should absolutely be six feet high. Commissioner Tschopp said the other ones with the setbacks and landscaping he wasn't as concerned about. If they could make certain the wall was six feet that borders the residential use, that would be a good idea. Mr. Vuksic concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. BEN WATSON addressed the commission. He stated that he met with Mr. Jonathan last Saturday and he went over some of the project details, so he knew a little about it. But in order to have any say so later if it came up according to the letter sent to him, he needed to say something at this meeting or else he would lose his say so. One of the things he wanted to do was read a letter that has his concerns on it. His wife wrote it up. "I am a life long resident of Palm Desert and I'm very excited about the changes of progress in town. Do I miss the good old days of no traffic, no crime and very few traffic lights? The future is what I am concerned with. My husband and I have lived on Santa Rosa Way between San Anselmo and San Pablo for almost 30 years. For the past 15 years there's been developers trying to buy our property. None of them offered enough to relocate inside Palm Desert city limits. Most recently not even enough to buy another home in the same neighborhood. Over the years I have never found another location that would be better than this one. It's five minutes from my employment, as well as my husband's, and neither .� one of us plans on changing employers. We received a notice 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 a i ji regarding an application for change of zoning of the 14 lots at Fred Waring Drive and the parking lot on residential property right next to our house. We are very excited about the changes and think they will be a great addition to this neighborhood. We do have some concerns regarding this type of building and what will be built and below is a list of our concerns." He said there was a long list of concerns and most of them could be easily addressed. Like he said, he met with Mr. Jonathan last Saturday and he explained a lot to him. He liked the building and saw the plans that were brought out. It was a beautiful building and he had nothing against that at all. But what he had concerns with was his property. It's the only investment that he has. He doesn't have any stock and bonds or retirement. Those things had escaped him so far. So the only thing he has is his house that he could put any worth on at all and he felt he needed to do whatever he could to be able to protect it. That's what he needed to do, so he was here to voice his opinion about some of the ccncerns that may affect his house as it , stands. He believed the building they were going to put up would enhance the value of his property in the long run. Some of his concerns included what kind of businesses would be allowed in the zoning change. Would it be food services, medical, or something else? That would give them an idea of what kind of traffic would be coming and going. How high would the building be? He already heard staff say the height and that was fine with him. Whatever building goes in, he figured he would lose some of the view. He had always known that. Even if they put in a single-story house with a couple of trees he would lose it anyway. So they weren't going to complain about that. He asked how the block walls would be. He stated that he would like to have a six-foot block wall around his building, around his house and property. That's what he has right now. He didn't have a block wall, but he had a fence and he just put it up about a year ago. He said he would like to have access to this block wall that they put up. If they put it on the property line, he would like to be able to build planters up against it or next to it if he chose to. He said he would like it to be high enough, at least six feet, so that it would make it a little harder for someone to jump over. He also has a large dog that needs to be kept in. 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 He said he talked to Mr. Jonathan as to the time that the building and the wall would go in and what came first. Mr. Watson was told that the walls were usually one of the last things to go in. Mr. Watson said he would like to have the wall be one of the first things to go in. That was going to guard his property from the noise, the hammering, the sawing and all the dirt and construction noise that happens during construction, the traffic and trucks pouring the concrete, laying asphalt, and all of that. Mr. Jonathan said that was a possibility and Mr. Watson was saying something now to keep that going. He asked if there would be an easement for utilities. Mr. Jonathan told him that he thought the utilities would be put underground. If they were going to be put underground, that was the pole that he got his electricity from and he asked if he would have to pay money to have his utilities put underground also. He asked if the trash dumpsters could be relocated. He thanked them for finding a new place for them. He didn't now if they could get them to move it over there or not, but he would prefer to not have it next to his wall. Windows and balconies looking down into his backyard was another concern. He understood that the commission took care of that a while back and he appreciated that. Regarding drainage, water was going to be a big problem on his property. It always has been. His property was put in 50 years ago. He believed his house is street level, not curb level. When they repaved the streets and put in sewer and gutter in that area, they built an apron up to his driveway where it flattens out he had a new driveway poured and where it flattens out, he had to cut three feet off that apron just to get the water to flow off his driveway into the street. He thought it was only going to be a couple inches above the street level. He didn't know what kind of drainage system they would have for their property, but he couldn't have any of their water on his property at all. Every once in a while there are good hard rains and water comes up to his door. The water that falls on his property, he has enough ground, plants and yard work to take care of the water that falls, but it did get very close and he couldn't take any more. He couldn't have any more water there. So he was interested in knowing what their ground elevations were going to be. He wanted to know at what level the building would be, if it would be at curb level, street level or how much higher than the curb they INV were going to go in inches and feet. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 Regarding the parking lot lighting, he understood that the parking lot lighting would be on shorter poles three or four feet high. That was fine and wasn't high enough to shine over a six-foot wall. That was fine with him. He wanted to make sure there were adequate parking spaces because it was a problem there already. He wasn't sure that 42 parking spaces were enough for employees and visitors, but it depended on what kind of business they have. Sometimes doctor offices had two or three people waiting for a one hour appointment. He noted they said they have run through parking problems before and think they have an adequate solution. He hoped they did and wished they would err a little on the plus side instead of the minus or getting right on it. It wouldn't hurt anything. He asked if the parking lot was going to be used for public parking, for the employees, and for the people that come to do business there. He asked what hours parking would be allowed. He knew that some places, some parking lots, were only allowed to be used until a certain hour. That depended on the types of businesses they would have there. He hoped it a wouldn't be after 10:00 p.m. He said he would like to see the City put r„ a sign up there that said there shouldn't be anybody in that parking lot after 10:00 p.m. They didn't need to have kids in there partying or messing around or causing mischief. He said he asked if there would be a block wall all around the parking lot and was told yes. He asked if there would be any carports or covered parking. He asked if it would stick up in his sight line over the block wall. He wanted to know if that would be allowed later. He wanted to know if this project would have it. He also stated that they would like to reserve the right to call into account any issues that might arise in the future concerning the new proposed zoning changes that were not listed, including building, parking, parking lot lighting, trees, utilities, easements, sidewalks, etc. He said he wished his wife had come to the meeting since she's a lot smarter than he is and he was a lucky man to have her. He said those were his concerns and there were a couple of them that really bothered him, but most of them he thought he would have to learn to deal with. He hoped the Planning Commission would be able to help 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 r.. him out and not make things any worse than it had to be. He thanked the commission. Mr. Griffith said he would like to second most everything Mr. Watson said regarding the parking, the lighting, the walls being tall enough to block the lighting, and closing the parking lot after certain hours. Chairperson Campbell asked for any rebuttal comments. Mr. Vuksic said that water would not drain from this property to the east. That wouldn't be acceptable. Currently there was no covered parking proposed. It was possible that in a tenant negotiation a tenant would ask for covered parking so it was a possibility. He didn't know if that was something they wanted to discuss. Chairperson Campbell asked if the parking lot would be gated or if they would put a chain on it in the evening. Mr. Vuksic said he hadn't thought about that. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Vuksic had any problem with constructing the wall first as requested by Mr. Watson. Mr. Vuksic said no, he didn't have a problem with that. He asked that maybe they wouldn't finish the wall with plaster until a later time, but they could put in the block which would create the barrier and the sound mitigation. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Drell wanted to answer a few more questions that Mr. Watson had regarding the pole underground cost and sharing. They discussed the trash being moved. Maybe a brief description of the parking ordinance would allay some of his fears. What types of business could go into O.P. and the parking regulations Palm Desert has to allay some of those fears. Mr. Drell said that in those cases where undergrounding of a pole would also require that where existing homes are served by overhead lines from those poles, we typically do not require 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 i undergrounding at the pole. If the City wanted the pole undergrounded, it would be the City's obligation to pay for the undergrounding costs of associated homes that are served by that pole. That was the kind of a call the City ends up making if we want to insist on undergrounding. There would be no obligation on any property owner. It would be the City's cost to underground. Relative to uses, they include lawyers, dentists, doctors, accountants, architects, etc. A regular office would be fine with four spaces per 1,000 square feet works. For doctors we need six spaces. Mr. Bagato clarified that the project was parked for medical at six spaces per 1,000. Mr. Drell explained that meant it was parked assuming all of it would be doctors and assumed the worst case. Regarding the closing of the parking lot with a gate, he knew that the Sunlife medical people had problems. They close it to keep Ehe street fair people from parking in their lot. They closed it on the weekends specifically for that reason. On the other hand, keeping the lot open might keep people from parking in the neighborhood. But there were some benefits to having it closed if the street fair parking became a prob!em. He said they could even make a condition that all the efforts needed to make the adjacent neighbor satisfied and if there was an impasse, then they could bring it back to here before building permits were issued. So hopefully all those design issues would be resolved. As to the last comment, every project would have a hearing and there would be notification and they would be looked at on a case by case basis to identify any peculiar problems. Commissioner Finerty thought it was a very nice project, nicely designed. She thought it would fit well onto Fred Waring. She appreciated the gentlemen coming to share their concerns. It made it easier for the commission to address their issues. She said she would move for approval with three items changed: the height of the wall to six feet where it borders the residential, moving the trash enclosure, and installing the six-foot east wall first. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought the project was a great addition to the community and would add some sorely needed parking in that area. He agreed with the three additional conditions and seconded the motion. Commissioner Tschopp also concurred. He also thought it was a well- designed building that would fit right in with the Fred Waring office professional corridor. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 ftw Chairperson Campbell agreed and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan was absent for this item). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2228, approving Case No. PP/CUP 03-12, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan was absent for this item). Mr. Drell suggested that they have a 20-minute recess. Commission concurred. Chairperson Campbell announced that at 6:20 p.m. they would begin their general plan meeting and that would last until 9:00 p.m. At 9:00 p.m. they would hear a continued public hearing item. THE 20-MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 5:58 P.M. IX. 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 6:27 P.M. 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. F. Case No. GPA 01-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from September 16, 2003) Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. Mr. Drell explained they would first have the General Plan/EIR consultant from Terra Nova, Mr. John Criste, briefly go through the text of the Urban Design Element and the Land Use Element which would be the primary subject of discussion. Then they would get to specific descriptions of the land use map and highlight those areas of which there has either been a change 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 proposed or areas where specific property owners are requesting a designation other than what was shown. They were then going to focus on three specific areas: the north area above Frank Sinatra which they were calling the University Park area; the area adjacent to North Highway 111 between Monterey and Las Palmas; and the area along Portola where due to changing circumstances there has been a lot of discussion about different sorts of land uses in these areas than those contemplated in the past. In terms of a brief introduction of the Land Use Element in the General Plan, he said general plans provide a unique opportunity to look into the future. It forced them to took into the future. While most of our lives are concerned with today, tomorrow, six months, two years, three years, five years, general plans really force them to look at the end state 20 years, 50 years and 100 years to a certain degree. What gets built would fundamentally be there for a long long time. While it was both exciting to look 20 years down the line, it was kind of frightening to be saddled with having to make a decision today about how the city would look, operate and function 20 years from now. But that really was what the task is. They hear a lot of the pressures today in terms of the market demand and everything else. The General Plan forced them to look at not just the pressures of today, but what the pressures will ..r be, what the needs of the city will be 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years from now. The opportunities to address those pressures 10, 15 or 20 years from now would be determined on what they do today. If they didn't provide and anticipate as best they could, they were going to be responding to the changes occurring around them for the next 50 years and when those changes occur, they wouldn't have any ability to respond. He said it forced the City to take that broad view and do the best they can. He said we have great opportunities in this city given the wonderful things that were happening and the wonderful things they know will happen. He thought we had greater opportunities than others and had mostly positive things to look forward to. He introduced John Criste of Terra Nova Planning & Research who would give the philosophical side of the land use discussion. He noted that there were a lot of faces in the audience of people who were members of the General Plan Advisory Committee who worked for two years to put this whole thing together. He thanked them for their work over the two years and for coming tonight to hopefully give the Planning Commission some insights into their decisions and thinking in terms of putting this plan together. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 MR. JOHN CRISTE addressed the commission. He stated that he would present and give a quick overview of two elements tonight. The Community Design Element and the Land Use Element. Although it might seem counter intuitive, he wanted to start with the Community Design Element because it really reflected a lot of the logic and philosophy that drove the development of the land use plan and other aspects of the General Plan. In their document, it started on page III- 141 of the General Plan. As with all of the elements, he said it began with a purpose statement that tries to set forth the purpose of the element. It also provided background information pointing to the way that the community design issues are integral to just about every other consideration they were making on the General Plan, ranging from land use to parks and open space, to the look of the community in the overall, as well as such issues such as street scape, building design, etc. In the element they note that the community is essentially a kind of a "tale of two cities." It is a community that consists of permanent residential development with is now it's own full-fledged business sector and as seen, a more diversified base with major educational institutions and some light industry. But they also have, what they are best known for, is as destination resort community, a second home retirement community as well. So we have these two different sets of ideas about what the city is and they needed to make sure that both of those valid conceptions of our city get proper attention. Throughout the element they referred to issues having to do with the quality of life and that was really the bottom line for all of us here--to make sure that all aspects we can control enhance the quality of life in the community. Also, they tried to take what is the leading edge or emerging kinds of ideas in community planning and design and that was sustainability. At the last meeting they talked about some of the issues having to do with air quality and availability long term of water resources. He said those kinds of sustainable community issues are expressed in detail in the element. There was a section that identified a dozen principles of sustainable development related to quality of life. They also knew that they had to operate in context so we have our own boundaries, but we're also members of the Coachella Valley and other cities have their own jobs to do in terms of land planning and 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 J hopefully were doing it in a fashion that is compatible with the shared values we have. So we have regional design principles that were elaborated upon. He said they were also trying to balance the concept of the community as a whole and harmonizing the community as a whole with individual development proposals when they come in to not necessarily shoe horn developments into a certain kind of image or type, but to make sure it is compatible and harmonizing with more of the global or over arching principles they were espousing. So they talked about issues of continuity in community design as well. Place making and places that have identity lend character and identity to the community overall as well as in specific locations. He said they also talked about community form and design planning, getting much more to the specifics that are exercised by bodies like the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Committee and the Council. Then they outlined some of the various issues important in that regard having to do with architectural design, site planning, access and those sorts of issues that bring in all the various disciplines that the City has under its roof and the professional experience shared on the various committees. He said they tried to enhance this section a little bit with graphics. Mr. Criste indicated that another important aspect of community design and development is the landscape palette. He said Palm Desert has been a leader in the integration of the desert xeriscape palette, not only for water conservation purposes, but because it really lends connectivity between the built environment and the natural environment in which we live. He said they also relate these issues to the preservation of open space and the development of parks, landmarks and focal points in the community which help to give identity. Preservation of the important view sheds we have from our various streets and developments of the mountain vistas and deserts. Issues having to do with development that could adversely affect those like signage, amassing of buildings that unnecessarily obstruct our tremendous views. Talking about some of the community design issues having to do with the type of development, we are now seeing emerge in the community things like the university and the university park planning area specifically as well. 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 He said they ended this particular element with a brief discussion of future directions and how they bring all of this together as they look at future development proposals. Then there were three goals. The first was a high quality of life provided within a liveable, sustainable and balanced community with a distinct character consistent with the city's status as a premier resort community and important commercial center. Another goal is an aesthetically pleasing community appearance achieved on all levels which preserves and enhances the city's resort identity, community image and natural setting. The last goal was for standards of community design, architecture and landscaping that enhance land use and development efficiencies and are integrated with the city's desert setting and natural scenic resources. Policies and programs followed to implement those goals. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Mr. Criste stated that before proceeding with the Land Use Element, he would like to briefly give the commission an overview of the chapter, the Community Development chapter, and that included the Land Use Element,the Circulation Element(which they would discuss next time), the Housing Element, Parks & Recreation, Community Design (which they just covered), Arts and Culture, and Economic Development. He also pointed to the introduction and Administrative Element which were discussed last time. He thought it was important to understanding how the General Plan is implemented. The Land Use Element was generally considered the key element. It was literally where development met the dirt and where the ideas were manifest literally in the community. They started with the purpose statement, the background discussion, it referenced relevant portions of the government code, and the mandates we have to develop the element. They discussed issues of land use, land conservation, and quality of life. They briefly defined the types of land uses the element covers. Then they had a table which provided a breakout by land use type: residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities. Under each of these headings they had various subsets. For instance, under residential they had the lowest densities of residential, which was one unit per ten acres which was the Desert 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 .ri Estates going up to the high density residential where they allow between 10 and 22 units per acre. Then they had the commercial designations which included general commercial, neighborhood commercial, from the most general to the more specific, community commercial (which is the larger scale), and then the largest scale development which is regional commercial and included large acreage, big box, anchors and that sort of thing. Then there were the office professional designations and a designation specific to resort commercial for our hotels and those ancillary commercial activities that they support. He said industrial was modest comparatively. There were two designations: a business park and light industrial. Under the institutional services and facilities falling generally under public and quasi public designations, they have all the subsets there that identify civic centers, fire stations, police stations, libraries, schools, and those kinds of public and quasi public facilities. Finally, open space designations, the general designation and the subsets which identify public parks, public reserve open space (which a lot of that land would be lands going into conservation under the multi species plan, or that the City has purchased for conservation), private open space which helped them to identify the tremendous wealth of private golf courses and other private open space that benefits our residents. Then open space associated with flood ways. While many of them were hard edged, armored facilities, there were also areas where there are open space amenities like the debris basin at the top of Palm Valley Channel as an example, and even the Whitewater River Channel. The element also had tables which were rather tight and to facilitate understanding some of those, he gave out some highlighted handouts, but he said it took a little patience to work through them. They had the preferred alternative which emerged from the GPAC and then compared that to the existing conditions as well. He said the element then had two land use maps: the existing designations (both of the city and the county), and the preferred alternative map. He said they made some refinements to those maps since. He explained that .. inevitably there were some mapping errors and things of that sort which cropped up. Mr. Drell and his staff, along with input from Mr. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 Criste and staff, were able to identify most of those and they would be touched upon this evening. He said what they did next was break up the discussions into these subsets of land use that they discussed, the residential and commercial. They provided a background discussion of each of those and specific goals, policies and programs for each of those subsets. He said they could go over those, but he thought they were pretty much self-explanatory. They discussed the various areas of the city and the type of development that occurs there including the RDA project areas and specific plans that we have in the community. He stated that there are tables associated with each explaining the breakout of the land use. They also did a special discussion of the university park planning area and did a breakout of land use mapping and tables as the area has been planned through the GPAC. He said the same approach had been taken for each of the land use categories and industrial, open space, public facilities and services. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that some of the sub elements like the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan, Palma Village Specific Plan, West Hills Specific Plan for example made a reference to the General Plan Appendices. He asked if they were provided or if they were separate documents. Mr. Criste said there had been some discussion about how to treat the specific plans at the end of the process because the purpose of the specific plans in many instances had been achieved or was being achieved. Mr. Drell could address that, but their intent had been to perhaps create an appendix for staff and it would be in the back of the document. It was not put into the draft. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was the intent to do so. It almost implied that the detail would be in the appendix. He asked if there was an intent to provide that information and to create an appendix or not. Mr. Criste noted that the specific plans exist as documents and they have been processed through the city, some for more than 20 years. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 i Commissioner Jonathan said that in other words they hadn't been amended. They were referenced here, but weren't here. Mr. Drell thought the most logical strategy would be to physically incorporate them, and he thought they pretty much had done that, by adding the policies of them into the general plan document. For example, relative to the land use element, all the land use policies and the land use designations of those specific plans are in the General Plan. They have treated those as amendments to the general plan. Relative to the specific discussions in that they do get down into a far greater detail, it talked about almost block by block in these areas, so logically they should be part of an appendix. He said they would try to get them to the commission for the next meeting. With regard to Table III-6, the University Park Land Use Plan, Commissioner Finerty noticed that for the Preferred Alternative there was a break down as far as the number of units for low density, medium, and high density. She asked if that same information could be provided for the other less intense and more intense ones. Mr. Criste said they could. They didn't have that break out currently for those alternatives. Commissioner Finerty said it would be helpful because when they are talking about total number of new units in that area, they knew what it would be for the Preferred Alternative, but for the Less Intense it would be nice to see the difference, as well as for the more intense. Mr. Criste explained the breakout they currently have between the existing General Plan for the City and the Preferred Alternative for the City with only a handful of other areas constitutes the lion share of the difference. So where they have 60 some hundred units available under the existing General Plan, under the Preferred Alternative the additional units are largely attributable to the university park area, which was probably another 2,000 units approximately. Commissioner Finerty asked how much less intense and how much more intense it would be based on the other amounts they have. Mr. Criste said it would be more intense by about 30% and he hadn't evaluated the less intense alternative. i 3 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Commissioner Finerty said she would like that information. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Mr. Drell said that what they would talk about first was the area south of Country Club to the southern limit of the city. He would highlight some of the areas of interest and concern, either areas which were discussed by GPAC or areas on which they received some correspondence. He explained that he would like to talk about some of the individual property issues and then they would let the individual property owners make their comments about them. Starting at the bottom, he pointed out a 12-acre area at the southern edge of the city which he said is directly south of Canyons at Bighorn. He said it was the only remaining area in the city that wasn't developed as part of Bighorn. He noted that there was an in-holding of 12 acres in the beginning of the foothills there. Under the current general plan, this was identified as flat land and was designated as low density residential and zoned at five units per acre. Based on an assessment of the exact topography, that property has slopes with an average of about 20%, therefore, it met all the physical characteristics of a hillside property. It is directly adjacent to and of similar characteristics as the Canyons property directly to the east which is designated as Hillside Reserve. Therefore, in that it shares all the characteristics of similarly situated properties,they determined it should be classified as Hillside Reserve. He said that meant a significant difference in developable potential from five units per acre to one unit per five acres. He thought that property owner would want to talk to the commission about it. Another area of change was on the north side of the flood channel at Cook Street. He noted there was a golf course and driving range there now which had been acquired by the Recreation and Park District. On previous maps it was shown as public open space and a park. In reality it is a privately owned parcel that had been leased to the driving range and was now no longer leased and wasn't acquired as part of the park. It is currently designated as low density residential. Wedged between the driving range and channel, that r.. probably wasn't a particularly realistic land use. He said the property 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 i also has a sewer that goes through it which constrains the north part of it. Therefore, although it was probably three acres, only an acre was developable. Staff was suggesting that the property be zoned for professional offices. He believed that was what the property owner was requesting. As previously discussed and would be discussed later, the area along the north side of Highway 111 between Monterey and Las Palmas was the subject of a lot of discussion in the specific plan which he would review and he would talk about those later in detail. Another item of specific interest and conversation dealt with the northeast corner of Country Club and Monterey. It is currently zoned medium density residential and they have had several applications for commercial developments and neighborhood shopping centers on that corner. Although in the preferred alternative it remained medium density residential, in the more intense alternative it was designated as neighborhood commercial. So the EIR was able to analyze the impacts of it as neighborhood commercial. The GPAC in the absence of a specific application was hesitant to recommend any changes to that. The property owner would be shortly coming before the commission and asking for that change. For that property, staff would be recommending that for the time being they keep it as medium density residential and create within the text of the General Plan in essence a study zone which says that given the unique location at Country Club and Monterey, one of the busiest intersections in the Coachella Valley, that maybe residential was not necessarily the most appropriate use. So giving it a study zone asterisk in addition to the base zoning would in essence indicate that the City still has an open mind on the property pending a specific application where they would go through the normal hearing process with focused attention on a specific project where the neighborhood could specifically see what is going on. He reiterated that staff was recommending staying with what we have, but using a study designation and keeping an open mind. An area that came before the commission six or eight months ago was the northwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. There was an application for an office project on that corner. The Planning 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 Commission recommended approval of the general plan amendment. In general GPAC declined to get involved in specific parcel issues in that they felt those were more appropriate for the normal focused hearing process on a particular project and parcel, so they declined to endorse office at that corner. Mr. Drell noted that it is at a major intersection of arterials and might be a good candidate for the study zone, both from a livability point of view from the residents that might have to live there and secondly, from an urban design point of view where they have residential projects they end up with walls around corners. Where they have commercial or office projects, they have in essence a project that faces the corner and is open. He thought this property might be another candidate for a study zone. So within the city limits, those were the primary changes other than the three focus areas (the university area north of Frank Sinatra, the Portola area, and the Highway 111 area). �..r He said the commission might want to give those property owners an opportunity to speak and make their case and either agree or disagree with the designations. He suggested that they open up the public hearing for comments on areas excluding the university park area, excluding Portola, and excluding the Highway 111 alley area. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open. She indicated that she had some Request to Speak cards where people said they wanted to speak regarding the general plan, but didn't mention which area specifically, so if anyone wished to speak regarding this specific area, they could address the commission now in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. LARRY BROSE with the Mayer Corporation, 660 Newport Center Drive in Newport Beach, California, addressed the commission. He stated that they are the owners of the property at the northeast corner of Country Club and Monterey. It is an 8.6-acre undeveloped parcel with a medium density residential general plan and zoning on it. He said he was here tonight with Herb Lundin and Greg Beaver of Lundin Development Company. He said that the commission was just handed a packet. He said Lundin prepared that packet and they 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 i i .ri would be their developer partner on this property should they be granted the request put before the city. He stated that in January they submitted a general plan amendment. He said it was included in their packet and soon they would be ready to submit all of their application for site development review and design review process. Their request right now was for the commission's consideration of the commercial designation on their property, and as Mr. Drell mentioned, this was an alternative analyzed in the EIR. To do it now, so they could move forward on a property that was really ripe and ready for commercial development. He said it is at an intersection that was if not the, was one of, the busiest intersections and cross roads in the community. It is a busy intersection and they believed that commercial use made more sense than a residential use. He said they have a lot of interest from a commercial standpoint in the property. They have a major anchor, Henry's Market, who was ready to open business there as soon as they could build a store. He „r explained that Henry's is a specialty retailer. It focuses on fruits and vegetables and was like a Trader Joe's, but leaned more toward the fruits, nuts, grains and vegetables. He said there isn't one in the Coachella Valley today. Their mission is to have one in Palm Desert and the border between Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert was a great location, one in La Quinta and one in Palm Springs. This would be one of the earlier stores. He said they also have Walgreens as the other anchor on the property. In their packets he said they would see some quick architecture designed by Jim Joffy, their architect, which would give them a little character idea of the project they intend to build. He noted it is across the street from Plaza de Monterey, which has an empty store or an empty box on it right now. The Albertson's moved to the other side of the street. They believed, and their developer partner believed, that the two centers would be complementary to one another and their center would actually help the commercial center on the other side as well. With the commercial development on their property, they would generate the trips that would warrant the signal 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 at the intersection of Via Scena and Country Club. He said Via Scena is the intersection immediately east of Monterey. Mr. Brose stated that Mr. Mayer subdivided and built the Merano residential project, which was their neighbor. He said they were conditioned to fund through their assessment district the signal for that intersection, so the money was sitting there ready to go. They just needed to generate the trips to justify the signal. The commercial center would do that. In the traffic analysis they completed on more of a focused level, it demonstrated that a commercial center would generate the trips for that signal. A residential use would not. He said they have met with the Merano neighborhood, they met with the board of directors, with the homeowners immediately adjacent to their property, and with the entire group of those that wished to attend. He said they listened carefully to the issues brought up and came back to address those issues. He said the concerns centered on views, security, traffic, setbacks, noise, and that kind of thing. He believed that they have met their needs through their site plan, through their architecture,they have a great sense of pedestrian scale on their project, it is user friendly and they believed it would be a great stroll from their subdivision or other subdivisions in Palm Desert or golf carts to their center and would make a great addition to the community. Bottom line was they were looking forward to getting this project built. Their request at this time was to facilitate that and seek the commission's recommendation to Council for a commercial designation on their property. He said both Herb Lundin and Greg Beaver were present if there were any questions. MR. PATRICK PERRY, an attorney with Allen Matkins located at 515 South Figuroa in Los Angeles, addressed the commission. He stated that he was present on behalf of Cornische at Bighorn LLC, the owner of the property located along the southern boundary along the city limit of the city. He indicated that he submitted correspondence last week and didn't know if the commission had received it or had time to look at it and had additional copies with him. He said he wasn't going to go through the entire letter in detail, but he did want to touch r on some of the major points. 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 He stated that the primary concern, as Mr. Drell mentioned, was that as presently proposed the general plan land use designation would severely restrict the amount of residential density on the property. It would decrease the residential density, at least on most of the property, an allowable density of five units per acre to an allowable density of one unit for five acres. In early August, Cornische had submitted a tract map application which proposed development of 57 units on the property which was the maximum permitted under the existing zoning and the existing land use designation. According to the Draft Comprehensive General Plan prepared in September, the existing land use designation for the entire property under the general plan is low density residential which allows up to five residential units per acre. The existing zoning on the property right now for an eastern sliver of the property was currently zoned Hillside Planned Residential and the number of residential units permitted there was subject to a slope density calculation. The remainder of the property, the bulk of the property, was zoned Planned Residential development with five units permitted per acre. 9 He stated that the civil engineer who prepared the tract map did the calculations and determined that 57 units was the maximum that would be permitted and that was why that number was applied for on the tract map application. On the preferred alternative shown in the Draft Comprehensive General Plan dated July 15, 2003, at least the land use designation on the preferred alternative reflected the existing zoning. He said it shows that the portion of the property currently zoned hillside planned residential is designated hillside reserve. The remainder of the property which is currently zoned Planned Residential five units per acre is shown to be low density residential, which is slightly reduced from the existing and allows up to four residential units instead of the five currently permitted. That was their understanding when they first reviewed the general plan. That preferred alternative is also the same one currently in the Draft EIR. It wasn't until August 18 that a new map was proposed which reflects the redesignation which is different from the July 15 map and shows the entire property now to be hillside reserve instead of a portion of hillside reserve and the rest low density residential. He urged the commission to leave the designation the way it is in the Draft Comprehensive General Plan and the EIR. Not only did the 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 preferred alternative show the general plan designation to be the combination of hillside reserve and low density residential, two other alternatives that were studied, the less intense alternative and the more intense alternative also showed that designation. The only thing they were able to identify that changed between July 15 and August 18 is that Cornische submitted their tract map application. This to them looked like it was done as an after thought in order to redesignate the entire property as hillside reserve instead of only the portion. It looked like the after thought was made in direct response to the fact that an application was submitted. As such, they felt this redesignation between July 15 and August 18 is not based on substantial evidence, it had not been considered in the Draft EIR because all of the land use maps that were shown in the Draft El are the July 15 designation and not the August 18 designation. So he urged the commission to keep the map the way it is, allow the development to go forward, allow the residential density for this property to be established through the tract map application process instead of sort of cutting it off at the knees at this point through a �.. drastic redesignation through the general plan update process. He encouraged the commission to read the letter and if they needed additional copies, he would be happy to provide them. He said it laid out these points in more detail and he was prepared to answer any questions they might have with respect to this. MR. PHIL CORDOVA, 72-624 El Paseo, Suite C-5, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the owner of the property on the wash at Cook Street. He noted that currently that property is zoned R- 1 and had some constraints to it with the sewer running along the northern part of the border and some additional costs as far as the wash was concerned and slope protection. He was proposing to have it changed to office professional. He said he is a photographer in the valley and his intent is to move his studio over there. Due to the nature of that property in that it is such a pie shape, there was a lot of area not really developable, but for him it would work well and it was his intent to create an outdoor location park on the back side of it and give him better use of it. As far as the impact on the area, he thought it would be less than homes. 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 MS. MARGARET HARTSWORN, 74-038 Catalina Way, addressed the commission. She said her home was just off of Portola. She stated that she didn't know if they were allowed to speak up with all these professionals. She didn't know how many people present were average homeowners, but she didn't think it was clear what the general plan really entailed. The comment from the developer/gentleman from Newport Beach, she agreed with Phil Drell that the corner should be left an area of study. Yes, he probably got approval from those living in Merano and he said he addressed all their problems, but they just had a market move out. She didn't patronize it much, but she did go there when it was Lucky's, then Albertson's, and they moved out and went to the other corner and left that a big empty store. Now that gentleman wanted to put in Henry's Market, which would be very compatible with whoever would be in there. He didn't know who was going to be in there, so she asked how it would be compatible. If he wanted a Henry's Market, she thought they should remodel the old Albertson's building and go in there. She also asked why they needed another Walgreens to anchor it when there is a Walgreens at Highway 111 and Monterey. All this talk about low density, it was getting bigger and bigger. She said she has been here since 1988 and it had just gotten more condensed. They couldn't see the mountains anymore. She knew it was the same old environmental comments, but they used to be able to look out and see something. Now, even El Paseo Gardens from the original plan was going to be low and only Saks in the middle was going to be high. Now they couldn't see those mountains anymore. She asked when all this concentration for business and development, and she knew they had to prepare, but they had to prepare for 10, 15 and 20 years. She agreed, but asked why they had to put in things and then tear them out two weeks later. She asked if the powers that be weren't thinking or planning correctly. The only project she thought went fairly well was Fred Waring. She thought they did a phenomenal job, but even there they put in curbing and tore it out. They put the corners in, then tore them out. She asked how many times they had to make a mistake before it could go on. In the meantime, it was tearing up all their streets, the whole area, and they start another 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 too project before finishing the last one. So she thought it needed to be planned and like the old saying plan your work and work your plan, but don't keep coming in. Then people come in and say they need a new shopping center there on the corner. Get rid of the other stores, they would move over to the new one and then the other ones are left empty in a big deserted shopping center. She mentioned the Rite Aid center and said that center was virtually dead. That was because people move on to the new shopping center. This gentleman was talking about Henry's and Walgreens, so she wanted to know how many other stores were going to be in there to concentrate in that corner. They already have Albertson's that were virtually covered by those two grotesque buildings in front of them. She thought Albertson's was going to have a glorious new shopping center. It was an improvement, but why they had to move she didn't know. So they built the beautiful Albertson's and then all of a sudden these big buildings are coming up on the comer in front of them. She knew that was over in the other area, but at the same time, why build another shopping center. Why couldn't they remodel and make new the existing one and get someone in there? That was her comment. She thought there should be better thought. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no one. Mr. Drell stated that the next item they were going to discuss was probably the most substantive change they were addressing in the General Plan. He said the easiest and greatest opportunity to change things for the future was where we have vacant land and north of Frank Sinatra is where we have the vacant land. He said when the general plan process started three years ago, it was suggested we do a new general plan and his first reaction was we'll do a couple more golf courses, we'll have commercial and industrial up against the freeway and we're done. Why spend a lot of time agonizing over it. Just for practical reasons, our old document which was done in 1980 described a city that didn't really exist anymore and, therefore, the whole thing deserved a fresh look and they went ahead and initiated the process. We also got a letter from the Attorney General that said we needed to since we hadn't done it in 20 years. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 He said that the first conclusion they reached, and if they looked at the map the color that stood out was yellow, which is low density residential. He said that the city has developed and continues to develop as primarily a low density residential area. Although they could see green, those were the golf courses at the Marriott and Desert Willow. If they saw the other golf courses, they would see that since 1978 or 1980 a good two-thirds of the real estate in the city has been developed in resort-oriented development. When they read the old general plan and if they remembered the 2000 Plan, the goal of the City was to become a world class resort destination. That is how they planned and that was the result. We succeeded very very well in becoming the resort destination of the Coachella Valley. He said they used to complain that whenever there was a news report they would talk about Palm Springs when it was really Palm Desert. Now if it is in Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City or La Quinta, they say Palm Desert. So we are the identified heart of the Coachella Valley when it comes to resort destinations. In the 1990's they began making an important decision, which.was to invite a Cal State University campus to the city. After a lot of discussions and negotiations, we ended up with a deal locating a branch of the Cal State San Bernardino campus in the city. A master plan was drawn up, land exchange agreements executed with the Cal State system which should inevitably lead to a Cal State Palm Desert. Cal State universities, despite electronic learning, could be the most dominant institution both from an educational point of view and simply as a business in the community. In that north area where they immediately focused at the GPAC, the most obvious place to look at where to change things, the vacant land, it was clear that the nature, the characteristics,the needs and the opportunities afforded by the university campus were fundamentally different than a resort hotel. Whole communities exist and economies were based on their proximity to a California State University. So they saw that was going to be different. There would be students there, professors, staff, and a class of employees that would be significantly different than we're used to. If they looked through the EIR at average incomes and the type of employment of Palm Desert, it was dominated by service employees, retail employees, hotel employees and even the managers that work at all these places at the lower rung of the economic ladder in terms of management. The characteristics of employees who work at a university are significantly higher. They also looked at what would happen along 1-10. Looking at the map, they saw the traditional, old time commercial along Highway 111 which really 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 hadn't changed substantially since 1982 or 1983 when the mall was built. It just got filled in, but still hadn't changed. There was a blue area around Cook Street, which was the almost built out office industrial area. Everything else was basically yellow. So the impact of traditional commercial in the city had been relatively small. Even with that, when looking at the EIR, Palm Desert has the highest ratio of jobs in the city to population than any city in Riverside County. We have twice as many in terms of a ratio. So even with that, we dominate economically the valley mainly because of what happens and what has been happening traditionally on Highway 111. We are now getting up to 1-10 and from a purely land use compatibility point of view, he asked what the logical use was of 1-10. It would be more commercial. So they suddenly see the re-emergence after a fairly solid swathe of green, they were suddenly hitting another concentration of commercial / industrial uses at the interchanges. Since they built them, they had also become the logical location for rather intense retail use. The first task of the GPAC was to say, okay, hypothetically what did they think the housing demand would be resulting from the development of the %W university and the commercial / industrial / retail corridor along 1-10 between the University/Cook Street and Monterey. At that time using rather crude methods, they identified six million square feet of commercial development in addition to the university. There had been a lot of focus on how quickly the university would happen, how big it was going to be, and the university was just one business in what would probably be the most desirable commercial / industrial location in the Coachella Valley. Not only was it dead center, it was at the freeway. So it was center from north and south and east and west. Most businesses who desired to capture the whole market would want to be in the center. There was accommodation of the university on the east side, the six million square feet of commercial / industrial along 1-10, and then the regional commercial area developing at the Monterey Interchange with the Costco center now filling out,the future development of the Wal-Mart center pending the resolution of a lawsuit, the slow but steady development of the Rancho Mirage Marketplace with Home Depot, and the rest. They identified up to 20,000 employees that would be working in those areas and at the university and creating a need for up to 10,000 new dwelling units. They looked at the existing zoning and the existing traditional development 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 ago pattern in the area. If they were to extend just the yellow as the expectation had been, they would see maybe 2,500 units being built. Based on current market demand they would be primarily middle, upper end units like those being built on Shepherd Lane priced in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. More than a planner like himself, who is probably one of the highest paid public employees in the Coachella Valley, that was more than he could afford and was surely more than most professors or mid level managers could afford. He said there is a requirement in state law in the General Plan guidelines and the Housing Element that says we have an obligation to attempt to house the broad range of economic needs in the community. Therefore,from a pure housing need point of view there was a thought that maybe we should try to encourage or try to plan for something other than predominately $300,000 to $400,000 8,000 square foot lot single family neighborhoods. So the question became how to house that many people in the remaining area we have left. There are approximately 1,000 acres of residential property north of Frank Sinatra. The traditional solution has been two choices. The current standards require, ..rr if we have a single family home, it has to be on an 8,000 square foot lot, which pretty much dictates based on housing value if they build a certain sized house it dictates a certain cost. Now that market is somewhere in the $300,000 plus range. If people couldn't afford to live in a house like that, you build apartments. So our pattern has been pretty much since incorporation, low density single family for a certain segment of the population that can afford that product. If they couldn't, we build apartments at 18 to 20 units per acre. What has disappeared from the housing landscape, which began to disappear soon after World War II, was the California bungalow, the G.I. home after World War II which used to be found in the suburbs of the San Fernando Valley, medium density residential, and single family detached on 4,000 and 5,000 square foot lots. It turned out that many of the communities that have preceded us in developing, like Orange County which was the last one before the Coachella Valley started getting populated, a housing product they rediscovered now that they found that a large portion of the population didn't want to spend three or four hours on the 91 Freeway. Given the few pieces of vacant land left in Orange County, to try to address that need for those folks who still want to live in town in houses they can afford and not spend their lives on the 91 Freeway, that was now the dominant new product in Orange County on the little pieces of land that are left. Unfortunately there 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 is so little left, the development of those at a 4-8 unit or 6-8 unit density with a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot lot, it really had no impact on the overall housing market since there was so little left. The conclusion of the GPAC was instead of going the traditional route of low density single family and high density apartments, we should diversify the opportunities for the home buyer and preserve what they believe to be the ideal neighborhood for families to grow up in, which are single family neighborhoods and in essence rediscovering the medium density single family product, which is seven or eight units per acre. Therefore, they redesigned the medium density category in the General Plan to be 4-10 units per acre with the goal of getting something in between to help address the housing needs while still preserving the essential single family character of Palm Desert's neighborhoods. The other important concept that came out of GPAC was we became a world class resort community by benefiting from very highly skilled and sophisticated master planning. Through the efforts of Marriott and Bill Bone, we got world class resorts and they master planned them and designed them exactly to the specifications of the client market which was the second home buyer and the vacationer. One thing we haven't seen in Palm Desert since 1980 or since incorporation, was that same sort of planning expertise applied to a permanent residential neighborhood. As it applies to the university, one of the things that make for those people who have gone to universities that have been associated with a compatible synergistic surrounded community, it greatly expands one's experience in going to college. Having the university's boundaries extend beyond the physical boundaries of the school into the neighborhood community was an important thing he experienced going to U.C. Santa Cruz. In Boulder, Colorado, with the University of Colorado, as well as Yale, New Haven and Chapel Hill in North Carolina, what people experience, according to those universities, was as much the community around it as it was the university and when the representatives of Cal State talked to us, they were quite enthusiastic about the future of the university in contrast to what they are dealing with in San Bernardino, where the University is isolated from San Bernardino. In Palm Desert we have the opportunity to create a community that takes advantage of the opportunities of the University and allows the University to take advantage of the opportunities of the surrounding community. Therefore, what they saw there was a plan that tried to create two residential 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 neighborhoods, both with a variety of housing to try to address that housing need created by both the University and the commercial. He directed their attention to the block directly east of Cook Street, between Cook and Portola, and the block between Monterey and Portola north of Gerald Ford. On the south side of the block was City/Redevelopment-owned property that might or might not develop as an extension of Desert Willow. In each of these neighborhoods, what was important was that they function together integrally and not be a series of isolated tracts which has dominated single family residential development in the past. They have convenient internal access to commercial services that surround them and they have convenient access to the University. He said one of the problems we are experiencing relative to traffic in this town is significant congestion on arterials. One of the contributing reasons is that most developments and most tracts dump traffic directly onto arterials. People couldn't travel to any destination without entering the arterial system. What their direction was in designing these neighborhoods was to the greatest possible extent, residents within these neighborhoods could access commercial services or go directly to the University without having to enter either Portola, Gerald Ford, Frank Sinatra or Cook Street. The other feature of these plans was the location of schools. Our schools are a significant destination. In this neighborhood on the west side, the school district with jurisdiction in this area communicated to staff a desire and a need to develop a K-8 school. This was seen as an opportunity to create a significant attraction for the marketing of family residential property, providing an opportunity for trips and short trips to and from school to be generated within a neighborhood without having to create congestion and traffic out on the arterial. The suggestion of these land uses immediately created some concerns among property owners who have control over these properties. In today's market, the quickest and most profitable and most obviously finance-able type of development was low density residential. He was sure the entire area could be developed as low density residential very easily and very quickly, probably before any of the housing demand or needs were manifested by the commercial or the university. Going back to the discussion of looking at the next 18 months, two years, five years or look at trying to accommodate longer term need, he thought they were fortunate, whether due to his 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 persuasion or their own interest in the projects, property owners in both those areas have seriously looked at the issue of trying to master plan these areas and have come up with solutions which he believed substantially implemented the intent and goals of the General Plan. He said he would turn it over to them to describe their alternative land use proposals for these two areas. Going back to the long term versus short term issue, he said we need to provide projects which don't just respond to the nearest term market demand because once the land is developed, there was virtually no way to change that use in the future. The goal had been to provide projects and designs which provide reasonable opportunities, both for the short term, medium term and the long term. He felt the plans that are going to be proposed accomplished that and would create some great neighborhoods out there. He said he would like to turn it over to those that want to speak to provide their alternative visions for this area. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. NANCY YOAKUM, 43-625 Portola Avenue, addressed the commission. She said her home is located between Fred Waring Drive and Rutledge Way. She said she didn't know if she was speaking out of turn, but she got up at 5:30 a.m., worked 10 hours and her family was really hungry and would like dinner cooked tonight, so she wanted to address the commission and say her piece. When she first moved into her home on Portola Avenue, Portola was a two-lane street. The City decided to expand it and make it two lanes each way, taking away the ability for her or anybody who was going to visit to park on the street, and increased the traffic flow. Now the City has plans to eventually connect Portola all the way up to Interstate 10 which would increase the traffic even greater. She received a notice dated September 19, 2003, which stated that the City is planning or discussing rezoning her property for small professional offices because of"significant noise and safety problems, especially for residents backing out of their driveways, of which she was one. She said she and her husband fumbled through the website and tried to do their best getting through the thousands of pages of the General Plan trying to get to their specific area. Finally her 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 t husband contacted the City to inquire what type of impact this would have on them. He was told that the City wasn't going to be involved with the exception of the rezoning. This wasn't an eminent domain project, but they might be contacted by a developer independently if and when they were interested in making an offer on their property. She felt this was a safety issue which the City has a responsibility to address. The City is the one who decided to rezone and the City is deciding to connect Portola to Interstate 10, so she felt the City should take ownership of their home, not a developer. The safety issues needed to be remedied immediately. The extension and rezoning of Portola Avenue didn't address the safety issues. Since the City hasn't addressed these issues, they have looked into and attempted to move to a safer street. However, realtors were declining to list their properties because they must disclose this legal notice stating that no one would be interested as far as a single family homeowner in making an offer on their property due to this rezoning. She felt they were being stripped of their rights as homeowners and that their lives were on hold indefinitely. She hated to think if her husband had to relocate to another area that they were stuck in a position they shouldn't have to be in. They should be able to sell their home at any given time and she didn't think it should just be left up in the air not knowing one day to the next when and if this will happen. She wanted to know how this would be addressed. MR. PAUL BRADY, 78-694 Cimmaron Canyon in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that having spent 45 years in local government, as well as the private sector, he could appreciate what they were going through in trying to rework the general plan. He was privy to and worked with developing a general plan for one of the nation's largest planned communities, the city of Irvine, and spent the last 28 years there, the last ten as city manager. He noted that the task before them was not an easy one as they went through and tried to continue making Palm Desert the premier community it has become. He informed the commission that he was representing Alliance Retail Partners, the developers of the 23.6-acre parcel at Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive west of the university or more commonly known as the University Village project. He said they would come before the 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 commission on October 21 with their project for their review and hopefully approval. Tonight as they discuss the Land Use Element of the General Plan amendment, Alliance Retail Partners asked for their assurance that the GPA map accurately depict their property, the University Village project land, as mixed use retail and office development as depicted within Planning Area 3 as an amendment to the prior approval of the Wonder Palms Development Agreement dated October 24, 1997. The previous map in his view didn't properly identify the parcel and he hoped that had been corrected by Mr. Drell and the staff. He stated that city staff and the developer found the University Village project to be consistent with all the elements of the General Plan. They further believed that the land use is consistent with that which is allowed on the general commercial land use designation. Their mixed use project, going to the commission on October 21, promotes and enhances the policies of the general plan including the planning uses which were complementary to the university park planning area. At the October 21 meeting, it was their intent to bring before the �.► commission the amended request presented to them at the September 2, 2003 meeting. At that time they would ask the commission to consider their zone change, the precise plan and any and all amendments to the Wonder Palms development master plan. Alliance Retail Partners encouraged the commission to hear the remaining testimony before them this evening on the land use element and any other elements that remain to be discussed and approve the GPA at their earliest possible convenience. With the correction of the map, they hoped that this would satisfy their concern. Their mixed retail / hotel /garden office project was at a very critical stage. He said they would hear that many times, but time was of the essence for their project to move forward without further delay. Any delays to the GPA approval and more specifically the university village project entitlements would result in the project losing its economic vitality and feasibility. He thanked the commission for their attention and consideration as they reviewed the two remaining general plan amendment considerations tonight. He noted that he and Rick Evans were available to answer any questions. %Now 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 In response to Ms. Yoakum, Commissioner Jonathan explained that the commission wasn't ignoring her, they were just going to defer their discussion of the whole general plan amendment to a point after which it was all presented and all the public had an opportunity to give input. Her comments were heard and they made notes of her comments and would take them into consideration. He didn't want her to be offended that they weren't responding immediately. MR. ROBERT PAUL, 74-100 East Petuna Place, addressed the commission. He said they heard discussion with regard to apartments, but didn't hear any discussion about the possibility of condominiums or town houses instead of apartments. The apartments we've had here have had lots of problems and he thought they had pride of ownership at a lower price that even Mr. Drell could afford on his salary. He thought pride of ownership was important and a big plus to the city. They wouldn't have the problems like they do at One Quail Place and other apartments. He thanked the commission. MR. MARVIN ROOS of Mainiero, Smith & Associates, addressed the commission. He explained that they were representing a consortium of property owners: Ponderosa, World Development and MacLeod Couch land. He said that was the area from Monterey to Portola, about 300 acres. They had been working back and forth with staff and had the additional intrigue and complication of a school site, etc., and they had something before the commission, something they had reviewed with Mr. Drell and thought it would make sense for this area. It would include a variety of housing types, a variety of commercial developments, as well as the school site. Starting at Monterey, he said there wasn't a lot of change. Commercial would be along Monterey and potentially they were looking at high density residential, but it was a study area. There were two high density residential pods on 35th Avenue and on Gerald Ford that would be along Gateway Drive, the new road that would be behind the commercial development north of Avenue 35. Moving a little to the east, they placed a school site with the aid of the Palm Springs Unified School District that would be surrounded by residential development with a little commercial on one side, pedestrian and street connections all around that area, and it was one 60 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 of the slightly less hilly areas of that region, which was a little difficult on a school site. Moving over the 160 acres to the east of the school site was a medium density residential area at Dinah Shore and 35th; low density residential which was basically what it had been. The existing Southern California Edison utility site was right at Portola and Dinah Shore, and service industrial which was a continuation of that service industrial area coming from the existing proposed development just north of Avenue 35. He said they have been working in concert with the staff on this and thought that the uses were compatible and meet the demands and needs. On a redesign just on a portion of the low density area, they actually picked up ten units, so Mr. Drell was giving points now to people who were picking up units in these developments. So it was zero to four on the low, four to ten on the medium, and then the higher density. He thought the service industrial was important to basically create some noise blockage from the freeway and railroad tracks. If they looked at the statistics and the circulation guide, the freeway was looking at over 200,000 cars a day at buildout. Right now it was about 60, so there were some significant increases in noise and traffic along that corridor. He hoped that Portola could happen, although there were certainly some constraints on the north side of the freeway to having any real meaningful traffic coming across Portola, but at least people could get off and come to this area. He hoped the commission would concur with their request. He said it was a little less intense than what Mr. Drell wanted to see originally, but he thought they were in the ballpark in trying to coordinate with that neighborhood formation that is part of the general plan. He said there were others from those properties here tonight and they might add a sentence or two, but they would try to keep it short. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the medium density Mr. Roos talked about, if he would anticipate condominiums, single family detached homes, rental properties versus ownership, etc. 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 ..i Mr. Roos said that in terms of what they had seen so far they still thought it would be ownership. Certainly they were working on projects up to ten units per acre that are detached, so that was still a possibility. The product they had seen in Brea and other places are a higher density detached that are single family ownership. With the changes to state law relative to construction defects hopefully helping some of the condominium market, they might see some of that. He said they were working on a couple of projects in the Palm Springs area that are condominiums, so they had their fingers crossed on that issue. That seemed to be coming back. One of the projects west of Gateway was proposed as a rental, so there would be a mixture of variety types. Commissioner Jonathan said the high density residential they would anticipate would be rental and most typically apartments. He asked if the school/park was a proposed high school. Mr. Drell said it was K-8, elementary, and a middle school. Depending on how an association develops with Palm Springs, the vision was that it would be a school / park combination like Washington Charter School or with the school on Country Club. So it would be a neighborhood park and a school site. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was within Palm Springs Unified School District. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they were also planning a high school. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked where it would be located in relation to this one. Mr. Drell said it would be across the street from Portola northeast of Gerald Ford. Back to the question regarding high density, Mr. Drell said that high density started at ten units per acre. So he would assume and would encourage that between ten and 20 there was a lot of room for condominiums. The goal was to have as broad a variety as possible, not limiting choices, and allowing people to buy. There were a lot of different variations of design they could do between ten units per acre and 20 or 25 units per acre which is what they had at One Quail and San Tropez. He hoped they could address all the facets of the housing market. Chairperson Campbell asked what Mr. Roos was planning for the commercial. Mr. Roos said there was nothing specific for the commercial along Monterey. He thought it would be complementary to what was happening to the north. At the corner there had been some discussion 62 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 of another neighborhood center to serve the residential needs that were coming around. In terms of that proposal, Mr. Drell said it fit somewhere between the Preferred Alternative and the Less Intense Alternative in terms of unit count. MR. GARY ARMSTRONG with RBF Consulting, 74-410 Highway 111, addressed the commission. He said the overall area they had been calling university village in the past was 2,075 acres and this area in this presentation they were talking about tonight was 280 acres. They have been working in collaboration with City staff, Cornerstone and ART to develop a design framework for university park and they were requesting the commission's endorsement of this conceptual vision, both for land use and community character. They envisioned a walkable mixed use residential community contiguous to the university campus and the commercial areas to the north with employment, shopping, and recreational amenities all within the community. He gave a power point presentation and explained that the property was bordered to the north by Gerald Ford Drive, to the west by Portola �•• Avenue, to the east by Cook Street and to the south by Frank Sinatra Drive. He said there were approximately 280 acres with mixed use commercial and commercial uses along Cook Street. High density residential would be around Gerald Ford and would transition to medium density and low density residential adjacent to the proposed city golf course to the south. Comprehensive multi use trail and pathway system would safely connect all areas of the community and an internal collector would enforce the walkability and the potential use for electric or golf carts in this area. The non-residential buildings would be oriented to the street and would be shaded with landscaping and have pedestrian- friendly walkways. The mix of uses were shown with approximate acreages and low density residential being the predominant use. Medium was at 58 and high density at 55. Quasi public commercial was 15, mixed use commercial 21, commercial 33, office 7 and three separate parks at 11 for approximately 280 acres. They felt this balance of land use mix would allow the residents to live, work, shop and play within the project itself, reducing the demands on Palm Desert's existing arterial highway street system. He 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 said they would also be providing design guidelines which would be incorporated in the review process to reinforce and maintain the city's image. He showed slides intended to depict the design character and the look and feel of the proposed project. He said the low density residential was fairly traditional. There were examples of typical plottings of these types of units. He said they were talking one to four units per acre and very traditional for what was in the city. Medium density residential would range from five to ten units per acre and they could see in the overall that it was a little denser, but they could still very easily provide single family residential, courtyard, and a little bit smaller lots. They wanted to focus on the street scene and getting the garage doors to not dominate the street scene, so the architecture was forward and there were varying garage placements within the project and a lot of articulation in the architecture. He said the higher density residential could be many things other than apartments. He said the bungalow style could be placed on a very small lot, there were courtyard lots, clusters, zero lot lines and a wide variety of mixes. As mentioned, the more recent legislation was allowing condominiums to come back in So. California on the construction defects. On the 10-22, ten was the upper end of the single family end and there was a wide range of products now and there were some very exciting products available based on what the market would bear. The commercial and mixed use was a very exciting area adjacent to the campus and a walkable distance from these residential uses. They wanted to create a sense of community and a sense of identity that Mr. Criste was talking about at the start of the presentation tonight. He said office might be included in the mixed use area and there was a separate office area. They wanted to put those buildings out front and put the parking behind it so they didn't have a car dominated street scene. They also wanted to provide for the jobs to housing balance that Mr. Drell was talking about and hopefully residents here could walk to work. The quasi public included churches, community centers, libraries, senior centers, day care, and public service. The concept was a resident would be able to go to church, perhaps play golf, and pick up 64 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 their dry cleaning all in their golf carts and go home. Their street scapes and gateways in the landscaping area would be in keeping with Palm Desert standards. They anticipated the Cook Street side by the commercial to be a little more town oriented and as they transitioned to Gerald Ford, the more residential side would be more natural, native landscaping, but in keeping with the desert theme. There would be numerous trails and access ways throughout the community. All areas of the project would be accessible through this trail system, especially the three parks that would act as identity nodes for the various neighborhoods. He said they were asking for the commission's endorsement of this concept so they could move forward. The next step for them would be for them to provide greater detail in the form of a master plan and design guidelines. He asked for any questions. He said there were representatives from the developers present as well as their engineering expert if there were technical questions. MR. DON THOMPSON, 43-845 Portola, addressed the commission. He said Portola is the most discriminated street he has ever seen in his life. All the trucks that come off the freeway don't go down Cook, they don't go down Monterey, they go down Portola. They have a narrow street and their parking was taken away from them. They kept dangling this in front of them that some day they were going to widen Portola. Why not do it now? Property would cost them a lot more the longer they put it off and it would be much more expensive for the City. He wouldn't be here 100 years down the line to see what they did with the city. He said it is a wonderful city and what they did with Fred Waring is outstanding. He said it was time to do something with Portola. And now they were going to open it up to the freeway. He suggested they live on Portola to see what goes on there. When he wanted to back out, he had to watch out for the kids, then he had to watch out for the trucks, and then the traffic because of the school, there was no point in him even trying to get out of his driveway from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. because of the schools. He thought it was time for them to do something about Portola and get them out of this. They couldn't sell their houses, they couldn't get in and out comfortably and he didn't know what was going to happen. r.. He was told 20 years down the line they might take their houses. He 65 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 didn't know at age 99 how big of a house he would want to buy, but it would be in Palm Desert if he could make it. He asked them to please give them some consideration and straighten out Portola. He was speaking for a lot of people on Portola. One young lady lived at the corner of Portola right where the right turn is and he suggested that she get a hummer to get out of there in the morning because she had to work at the hospital. He said if he was her, he would get a tank to get out there. They couldn't move on that street. He appreciated the fact that Monterey is a prettier street to have nicer homes, and Cook is a wonderful street with nicer homes and golf courses, so he didn't represent all those people with all that money. He represented a bunch of people who would like to be able to move out there or do something with the area to straighten it out for them. He said he didn't expect an answer tonight, but tomorrow would be okay. MR. JEFF SCHROEDER, a Vice President with Ponderosa Homes, 400 S. Farrell in Palm Springs, addressed the commission. He said they are a private home builder based in Pleasanton, California, and they have local offices here. He thanked them for the opportunity to speak about the General Plan Update. They are relatively new comers to the Coachella Valley. He said they opened up their first project earlier this year in La Quinta called Mosaic at the corner of Fred Waring and Jefferson. He said it was a traditional single family project. It wasn't in a resort community and said they were addressing a market they thought there was a lot of demand for, which was move up families from the local area. He said the homes are very attractive and encouraged them to go visit that project. He hoped they would be impressed with the Ponderosa quality and style they were bringing to the Coachella Valley and hoped to add to Palm Desert. They purchased the property located at the corner of Portola and Gerald Ford in November of last year with the anticipation of developing under the existing zone at that point. He said they were a little bit shocked to be forced into a moratorium along the way; however,they understood the desire of the community to look into the future and plan for changes that would occur with the university and other things they wanted to plan for. So they stepped back and had taken some time to work with their -, neighbors, including the MacLeod Company and World Development, the school district, and Noble Company LLC to try to come up with a 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 `W plan with Mr. Drell's guidance that might be a more acceptable alternative for both the city and the owners out there. He said that plan was recently presented by Mr. Roos and they believed they were on board with that concept. He thought that was a concept that would allow them to move with a project that meets a serious need for existing move up housing in the area and provides for future higher density options on a portion of that site. He said it was connected to the school district site and would create a very nice neighborhood for the community and he urged them to support that alternative. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification on the location. Mr. Schroeder said it was approximately 130 acres at the northwest corner of Portola and Gerald Ford. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there were 130 acres and they had a yellow square on the map indicated as 80.87 acres. Mr. Schroeder said there were 80 acres they were proposing as low density and approximately 37 acres as medium density to the north. MR. RICK POST, 77-125 Indiana Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he had the privilege and honor of serving on the General Plan Advisory Committee, as Mr. Drell alluded to as GPAC. As they knew, because both Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Finerty both served on that committee, there was significant debate and discussion regarding the university village concept. The feeling was that there is a need for mixed use commercial, but also housing for families and seniors, as well as faculty, staff and students that would in the future be coming to the university. Probably one of the most significant aspects of this whole area was he heard many comments from very good folks, well-meaning folks, saying in essence that we have a certain formula that has worked for us in Palm Desert for many years. Mr. Drell alluded to that. When the City invited Cal State and then later UC Riverside onto the 200 acres at the corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook, those things changed and 67 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 the formula changed. The commitment the City needed to make to the university, to the families and folks that work there, changed as well. He thought it was important that the whole concept of the university village was to enhance both the education and the cultural experience for the folks in Palm Desert, as well as individuals around that area. He said he was very encouraged by the presentations by the developers, particularly the last one with the university park because he thought that was what many of them had in mind. He was also pleased to see how the apartment concept was addressed. For a lot of folks when they think of a university and for most of the folks in the audience that weren't aware, he spent about 30 years in the education business, was currently a dean at the College of the Desert and worked 14 years for Cal State University as a business law professor. He wanted to kind of dispel a couple of myths. One was that this Cal State campus would be populated by a lot of youth desiring to live in big box apartment complexes and tune their cars and drive their motorcycles in the neighborhood. The average age of ' the students that would probably be attending this campus would run between 22 to about 35. They would be taking upper division and graduate studies classes. Something else most people were not aware of is that student housing was virtually nonexistent on Cal State campuses. Some of the larger campuses with many more hundreds of acres than this facility would have house less than 10% of their freshman class. This particular university would probably enter a genre that was brand new to the Cal State system. Because of budget cuts, he proposed and submitted to them that this campus would probably, once it was built out, would concentrate primarily on upper division and graduate studies. That was because of budgetary constraints and other problems. That wasn't to say they won't have a freshman or sophomore class, but it would be a reduced population. As an example, Cal State Fullerton has quit accepting applications for freshmen and were cutting back the freshmen class applications to a fraction of what it has done in the past. Cal State San Bernardino has had to do likewise. So they were going to see more resources in the Cal State system given over to upper division and graduate studies. 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 woo Consequently, the average age of the student population was going to increase. The faculty staff in that area would be a significant portion of that population, as well as seniors who would find that the cultural opportunities from the campus once it was built out would be substantial and significant. They would be drawn to concerts and plays, poetry readings, and other cultural events on the campus like art shows. He thought that was important. In closing he wanted to say that a lot of effort went into this plan. Two years of the committee's time, and he said he would embrace the plan and that it was positive for Palm Desert and it was very important to be patient and allow this area to develop according to the plan and not respond, as Mr. Drell indicated, to market forces that would have us surround this university with country clubs and other forms of retail rather than some of the more thoughtful plans introduced this evening. He thanked the commission. Commissioner Jonathan said they had not been provided nor asked for minutes from GPAC. He said they received periodic updates. He understood the conclusion and the majority vote that resulted from two years of dynamics, but he asked if Mr. Post could give them some insight into the dynamics that resulted into that conclusion. In other words, was there dynamic discussion, was there an opposing position, was that opposing position strong or was their unanimous direction right from the start. Mr. Post said there was vigorous discussion, dramatic opposition to some of the concepts and frankly many of the folks who went over to the notion of the university village concept. There was never unanimity from the beginning. There happened to be what he felt was a very good mix on that committee, both from folks from the developers' side, the public side, from the private sector and again, Ms. Finerty and Ms. Campbell both sat on that committee. He thought there was a good cross section. He felt very privileged to actually be on the committee. He said there were a number of current educators as well as past educators. Dr. Bill Kroonen, former President of COD was on that committee, and others from the educational community. 69 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 He thought there was a good mix and excellent discussion. He felt the City was extremely forward thinking in bringing this process together and it was one of the reasons he was so pleased to serve on it. It was not an easy sell on the university village concept. He wasn't quite sure who coined the phrased. He borrowed a similar phrase when he made a presentation to the group and he had borrowed it from the notion of campuses like Westwood Village, UCLA and other campuses like Chapel Hill and others that Mr. Drell alluded to. For him, it was the notion of having a place that is very positive and very proactive for students, their families, but just as importantly the faculty, the residents and the staff that would be in that area. He said there was vigorous debate and he felt very positive. He thought there was, after a time from the developers, there was an acceptance that this did make sense given the direction that the City placed themselves in by giving this land to the Cal State system. Going back to the student housing issues, even completely built out this would be one of the smallest if not the smallest Cal State campus in the system. They weren't going to use their resources to build student housing. MR. JIM LEWIS, 43-210 Silktree Lane in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He informed them that yes, at the beginning the developers that were involved on the committee as well as some public, they were adamant to let the market drive. And that was basically what they heard until they started talking about it and thinking about a concept, about realizing that this university campus was going in there and what it would be like surrounded by gated communities. So he was awesomely delighted by the positive attitude he had heard tonight by some of the developers. It seemed that the initial shock of not letting the market drive, they had taken a step back and thought about it and looked at it and actually came to conclusions that we can work together. That this whole concept, given the last small bit of land we have so far in Palm Desert, we can work together. It was too valuable to leave to happen stance. Some say let the market drive it, but if they did that, they would see haphazard development here and there, as they were seeing already, that would somehow get put together. But they all have walls. Every 70 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 development out there has a wall that will keep us from having a cohesive plan out in that northern area. What the Planning Commission was not doing tonight, they were not deciding upon details, and they have seen quite a lot of detail of what might be going on. They really weren't doing that and they weren't limiting development, although they might be delaying it. Would they be supplying all the housing necessary for all the jobs and the university? No, they weren't doing that and didn't plan on doing that. But he thought they could tread lightly and slowly and come up with a plan that could envision that university. A few years ago that decision was made to give the land to the university. That irreversibly changed the outlook of the city of Palm Desert from now on. What they were doing tonight was attempting to come to a consensus with an overall general plan that would accommodate housing and commercial needs of the university for years to come. Some voices had deemed it desirable to allow just market driven development to come in and even people on the committee did say they could live in Cathedral City, they could live in Indio and Mecca and get on the bus r.. or it was right next to the freeway, so they could drive. Why not envision something they could put together like they heard tonight? They could live there, work there, go to school there and they wouldn't need the buses, they wouldn't need the parking lots or at least less of them. Forward thinking people should not expect Cathedral City or Indio or Thermal to house students coming to the University of Palm Desert. We have a choice tonight and in our future to accept an abstract pieced together puzzle of this northern area, or a blended and cohesive plan. He urged along with what he considered a somewhat consensus of GPAC, that they would endorse the village concept of actually planning that northern sphere appropriately as it is outlined in the general plan. MR. TOM NOBLE, 42-620 Caroline Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He apologized for the lateness in providing the commission with a letter prior meeting and a letter from today with a little hand colored map he did. He said he was just addressing one piece of property. By seeing the street alignment as it would be when Dinah Shore Drive was extended to meet Portola Avenue, they would 71 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 too 9 see roughly the 29-acre piece of property which is now Parcel C of a parcel map waiver they did last year. As he read the proposed plan and taking the street alignment into account, they have a large portion of high density residential butting up to an oddly shaped piece of service industrial or business park industrial as it would be called, which in turn was contiguous to the south of an industrial park they were currently getting ready to start construction on. It seemed to him for a number of reasons that residential was not a good use in that area and it basically rendered the industrial portion, the light industrial, almost useless. He could see a lot of conflicts between the industrial and residential there. His request, and it went along with the other property owners in the area suggested, was that the entire piece stay with a business park/industrial use. He asked for any questions. MR. MYRON MACLEOD, 4035 Avenida Brisa in Rancho Santa Fe, addressed the commission. He said they had been jumping back and forth from different projects and he just wanted to go back to the one Tom Noble was just talking about. He said he would be brief and wouldn't repeat the things Marvin Roos already said. To tie this together in his mind, he wasn't a professional consultant, he was a member of a family group that has owned 70 acres here and this parcel for about 30 years. The commission heard different people before them tonight. Using the map he showed the commission the location of World Development, Ponderosa, Tom Noble's property, and their own property. In listening to the previous speaker regarding the advisory commission, it struck him that he was very accurate. What they have here, and they have had their parcel 30 years, Ponderosa just bought theirs, World was somewhere in between, Sares Regis was further down, and they were all shocked by the moratorium, yet it brought them all together. So his comment was to bring more of a personal comment to this. He said this proposal was a best effort from all of them, and they were all motivated by what they want to do with their parcels, but it represented a best effort of them trying to get together with Phil Drell's department, with the school plans, and come up with a proposal. When they thought of the word that it is an alternative 72 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 o.. plan, to him it wasn't so much alternative as it is a refinement of what the commission already recommended in that area. Looking at the map, the same uses were applied, they were just slightly modified to fit in more practical uses as to how these properties would be used. As an example, the original plan showed a different location. That seemed like a good idea because the school would be embedded in this nice, cozy neighborhood. In reality the school district wanted to have one side of their property on Gateway so they would have a better traffic flow for buses and a lot of parents wanted to bring their kids to school because they are worried about security. So there were things that all evolved out of this process. He said that was just an example of how they put their heads together to try to come up with a solution they thought was a good alternative. He asked them to give that some consideration. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that the drawing indicated in the upper right-hand corner, the northeast corner, as service industrial use and they just heard from Mr. Noble and he presented a map that showed that as high top density residential. He asked if that was because they were looking at different proposals for that same area. Mr. Drell said the preferred alternative showed it as high density residential. The fifth alternative restored it to industrial business park (since they would no longer have a category called service industrial). That was the difference. MR. TERRY GREEN, 48-555 Verbena Road in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he was also the point course person for the University of California Riverside and its development of the campus site adjacent to Cal State San Bernardino. He stated that he wanted to make some very brief comments in support of the concept of the development of a university village/university park adjacent to the university properties. He was speaking to them in two capacities. One in his former role with the University of California Riverside on behalf of their project and one as a 25-year resident of the city of Palm Desert. He commended the Planning Commission and the City Council, both current and past, for the magnificent job of planning and developing this community. He said it was one that all of them that live here are so very proud of and it was really thanks to the hard work of the planning commission and council members and advisory committees that have come together over the years to give 73 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 careful thought as to how this community builds and what the role this community plays in the overall development of the Coachella Valley. He thought their leadership was to be commended over and over again. The University of California Riverside would begin construction next month on its building complex. They have a 20-acre parcel within the 200 acres thanks to the good collaboration with Cal State San Bernardino. As Dr. Post indicated, and he himself was also a 30-year veteran of higher education as well, what they were seeing evolve here in Palm Desert was unlike anything they would see in California. The adjacency of two of our primary university systems developing satellite campus facilities side by side. Not only that, the continued collaboration between these two institutions, both on what they are going to do here in Palm Desert, but in also tying those two programs together with College of the Desert, they were going to see a rather unique model for higher education in California and one which many of the state educational leaders are looking at as examples of what can be done in areas where there aren't full-blown university campuses yet. So for the City of Palm Desert to pause, take a step back and carefully look at the surrounding areas he thought was extremely important and commended those that have been involved in the planning process. The plans and concepts he was seeing and that they have looked at from UCR and what was being thought of as the development around this campus site were very pleasing for them. They were somewhat concerned about the nature of the development adjacent to this campus site. Like Cal State San Bernardino, they would not be able to provide resources in their initial development for student housing. Their initial focus would be at the graduate level and they were developing their primary focus around master degree programs and entrepreneurial management. They would be marrying that concept and degree with other technical majors in environmental science, engineering, arts management and medical management. What they would be seeing at the UC Riverside component here were graduate students from several majors taking the dual degree option for entrepreneurship and management at the Palm Desert campus. So they would be having , a lot of the best and brightest students, not just from UC Riverside, but from the University of California system and with other universities 74 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 around the nation they were entering into agreements with to do joint programs with them. He said those students would be needing housing and they would need faculty that would need housing. He said they would very much like to see a university environment developed around this campus. They have a great collegial relationship with Cal State San Bernardino and they were actively working on joint degree options with them and joint degree possibilities with College of the Desert. He said it was a very exciting time for all of them and higher education in the Coachella Valley. He added that UC Riverside completely supports the development of a university village concept around this property. He thanked all the hard working committee members who worked on this. Since Mr. Green had been here a long time, Commissioner Lopez asked what he envisioned student attendance to be initially. Mr. Green said their initial core enrollment would be about 250 �•• graduate students. In addition to that they would be having a number of other program options that would bring students from international destinations and other universities. He said some of those partnerships were still being formed, but their building capacity would only allow at one time 250 students in their two first facilities. He expected it would grow expedientially over time and student enrollment, but they would start out with about 250 full-time equivalent students and probably 600 or 700 bodies coming through the first year of operation. They would only develop the first eight acres in the first year and then they would grow from there. MR. JOHN COVER, Baxley Properties at Hovley and Cook, stated that he would be very interested in seeing an ice center somewhere in the quasi public. They had been thwarted in Indio and were shut down in the mall. He said he had been working with them somewhat and they have come up with a business plan. He hoped they would look at it as a possibility to do a joint effort with the public, the ice groups, the university with a sports program, it was a 501 C3 charitable amateur sports situation and he thought it would be great to have a place for everyone to skate. 75 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 Mr. Drell asked for a show of hands of those who were present regarding the Portola issue and how many were present for the Highway 111 frontage road issue. (It was about equal.) He said they could address it all at once and have people talk all at once. Mr. Drell said that to a certain degree these were similar issues. Chairperson Campbell asked if they were going to do both of them this evening or if they should postpone it to next time. Mr. Drell said people were here and hopefully they could at least take their testimony. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that it was the commission's intent to stop this part at 9:00 p.m. and hear some other public matters. Their other option would be to take public testimony, unless Mr. Drell's presentation was brief. Mr. Drell said he would try to make it brief. The Portola one was especially brief, but he would start with the frontage road one. He said the city developed and was :aid out in certain ways 30 or 40 years ago. Over time things have changed and they have been trying to figure out ways to adjust to that change. In the area between Monterey and Las Palmas, they have a unique situation with a rather shallow commercial strip. They have an alley behind it and residents that back up right behind it to the north. Back in 1983 they examined this in the Palma Village Plan. The solution at that time was to take this entire strip, expand in a President's Plaza style parking area with lots that back onto that alley to create a common parking area and use that as incentive to encourage business property owners on Highway 111 to remodel, expand and everything else. Typically with the ownership pattern in this area, the size of the lots created a great constraint to invest in these buildings. One couldn't expand a building without adding parking and property owners typically didn't want to invest in their property unless they could add square footage and increase revenues. If they drive up and down town, this was 20 years later and was still a strip that had fallen behind the advances which the rest of the city has made. Although this scheme of creating this parking situation in the back was described in 1983 and again in 1987, it has never been implemented. The residential property owners had been left in limbo. They didn't know if they should fix their roofs tomorrow or if the City would turn it into a parking lot. The business property owners who might have plans to do their remodels didn't know when the City would provide parking. When the GPAC looked at ' it after 20 years and got some input from property owners, an alternative 76 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 scheme was suggested and they created a double row of parking down the center and only take 45 feet of the back ends of those residential lots, leaving most of the houses undisturbed. Some of the houses, depending on how the design went, might have to be demolished or purchased in their entirety. The main feature of the plan would be that the remaining lots would be, whether they had existing homes or not, would be developable with new homes along some of the lines they talked about previously relative to the smaller lot, single family detached design. That would finally finish out these circles with houses on both sides, which he thought was the most desirable residential environment for a residential street--to have houses on both sides. Part of the conclusion was based on their disappointment with the appearance of the back of Walgreen's. Back ends of parking lots no matter how they are landscaped still look like the back ends of parking lots. So that was the endorsed plan by the General Plan Committee. He said there could be an alternative three which only took 25 feet and therefore would provide half the amount of parking, but it would probably save all the houses. The last plan was to do nothing. He thought the consensus conclusion was that whatever we come up with this time, whether it was do something or do nothing, they have to follow through on it. To provide programs like this and not follow through was an almost blighting policy itself. It created a great deal of uncertainty and in itself created a disincentive to invest in the property. He asked for any questions. He noted that there were residential property owners present who wanted this resolved, as well as commercial property owners who wanted it resolved. It was now time for the City to make up its mind to do something or nothing, but whatever it was, create some sort of certainty for the future. Chairperson Campbell asked if they should hear testimony with regard to that issue. Mr. Drell said Portola was pretty simple. Forty years ago Portola was a quiet little residential street and houses were designed that front right on that street or with driveways that back on that street. For better or worse, the character of Portola had changed and it was now a major arterial. In the same way they dealt with a similar situation on Fred Waring where they had houses that backed onto Fred Waring or fronted onto Fred Waring. It was the same situation on Monterey. He wanted to make a kind of distinction, although the input and all its aspects was important for the public, the function for the General Plan is to create the land use basis for change. It didn't necessarily create the change. 77 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 In our system of real estate development, predominately the private sector still followed through on land use definitions. Occasionally the City got involved and that was something that they could weigh in on as to whether they thought the City should get involved in solving in terms of giving advice to the Council or Redevelopment Agency. The general plan discussion's motivation was exactly the same discussion which we heard. That this whole line of houses that back onto Portola were built in another era and a different set of circumstances. His understanding about the value of the property being devalued was not because of our notice, it was because of the physical conditions that exist there. Most people looking for single family homes were not looking for a single family home on a street like that where they have to back out into traffic that is coming 40 mph 18 inches from the curb. From a land use point of view, the solution is, what is a land use that not only is compatible with that traffic, but even benefits from the traffic? That is how they create value in property. In this case they successfully on Deep Canyon, on Fred Waring, and on Monterey have been able to, by changing the land use and allowing the market and there is a significant market for small office buildings, to come in and they have seen the conversion of homes in those areas to offices and the consolidation of parcels so people wouldn't have to back out onto the street anymore. ..r The issue of the urgency of making that conversion is a different question that the Council and the Redevelopment Agency would have to answer. The same issue, although he didn't have a photograph before them, the same issue exists to a lesser extent south of Fred Waring on the west side of Portola. There is a block of homes that also back out onto the street which in examining, the General Plan Committee stood pat in maintaining the residential density. Staff recommended the same solution-- that we are not going to see new investment in homes on those lots at medium density. That the characteristics of the traffic on that street are such that there are a lot of better places to put money in if they want to live in a home. So the option was to provide those property owners with a land use for which they believed there is a strong market which is the small office market. It was both compatible with the street and they found it was compatible with the houses that remain behind it. He recommended that the commission open it up to anyone who wanted to speak on these two issues. i 78 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 tow Chairperson Campbell stated that they would start with Highway 111 and asked if anyone wished to address the commission. DR. JERRY MEINTS, 71-450 Painted Canyon in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He informed them that he also owns an office building located at 73-302 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, Village Counseling. He said he is a 38-year resident of Palm Desert and he was amazed at this city and the progressive planning he heard tonight. He said it was incredible to be a member of this community. He was really proud and really impressed. He thought that Mr. Drell described pretty accurately their situation on Highway 111. They have been called the blighted community, at least the blighted commercial community, along the Highway. The City a couple of years ago approached many of them and provided them with funds to do facelifts to their buildings. The Planning Commission and Architectural Review approved their changes and he thought many of the property owners put a lot of money into making their `.. building and businesses more attractive to do a better job in serving the community, particularly from their perspective as a counseling clinic. A challenge that has created is that they are all doing a lot of business. In fact, they had a letter of support from most of the property owners and business owners along Highway 111 encouraging them to do what Mr. Drell suggested and that was to finally do something. For many many years they have struggled with inadequate parking. The City has overlooked the number of parking spots they probably should have and let them go ahead and do their facelifts and beautify their buildings, but some of their colleagues on Highway 111 were losing business because there is no parking. People that used to drop by and get their hair cut at Scissors can't stop because there is no parking. They have to walk two and a half blocks back to the barber shop to get a hair cut and that was untenable in 115 degree weather. So he was strongly encouraging the Planning Commission to move forward with the suggestion that finally the City access the property along the alley way, create parking spaces so the business owners could continue to serve their clients and their community members, and that the City could finally focus on beautifying that particular area 79 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 so they could continue to do business and continue to help Palm Desert prosper. MR. GORDON SPIELBERG, 73-394 Highway 111, stated that he, like Dr. Meints, owns a piece of property in the same area. He said Dr. Meints pretty much covered exactly his feelings and the feelings of a lot of the other property owners in that area. He thought the back end of the alley had been neglected and there was a lot that could be done. It hinged on parking. What they would like to do is expand their facility and they would definitely need more parking along with that expansion. They needed more parking now, but with the expansion they wanted to do, they would need even more. He hoped the commission would see fit to move that along and allow them to begin construction. He was sure a lot of the other business owners along there would like to do that as well. MS. DONNA MATSON, 73-341 San Benito, addressed the commission. She said that house has belonged to her for 25 years, it belonged to her mother for about 15 years and before that it belonged to one of her mom's best friends. She has been coming to this house and to Palm Desert for over 50 years. She loves Palm Desert and loves her little house. This house was one of the first ones built in Palm Desert. It has the slab with the colored cement, it has a swamp cooler, it has overhang and 20 years ago they were told that the house might be condemned for a parking lot. Over the last 20 years she had been offered quite a nice price for the house and she thought she should probably sell it, but she wasn't able to because when she told them about the pending condemnation of the house, it couldn't be sold. Now she is close to retirement and she has planned and fixed up the house and would like to live there. Twenty years ago they were told all of the houses would be taken. So the person next door, his house was in bad shape and he said he wasn't going to spend money fixing it up if the City was going to take it, and he bulldozed it. So for 20 years they have had an empty lot next door. Then they were told they would probably take 20 or 25 feet of the back yard. That would save Lucy Perez's house, it would save her house and some others and would provide some parking for the commercial district. If they took 45 feet, that would take off the back 80 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 wall of her bedroom and her porch. She showed a picture of her house, the back yard, the alley, and the lot next door. She said there were several things they needed to think about. They were talking about daytime use and night time use. McGowan's, the Irish Inn, was a night time use. The Red Barn was a night time use. The rest were daytime uses. She thought they needed to balance that. She kept checking the parking situation and they said they didn't have parking, but with the front parking and the back parking that faced the alley, many times there were only one or two cars there. She didn't know if people didn't understand that there is parking behind their buildings. She showed a picture of the area behind Peter Hartwig's property, Mary McGowan's property, and the golf building which she thought was a beautiful new building. She asked how many people he had in a day. She watched and he has maybe three or four cars and he has 12 or 13 parking spaces. Then there was the family therapist and the doctor said he didn't have room, but whenever she went by, there was plenty of room and very few people parking there. They also had the other small little shops which had a great turnover. They very seldom survived a summer. She showed pictures of the other parking lots and a huge parking lot area which she said belongs to the City which could be a major parking area and could be used by all of those small shops. So her request was to please do something. She has been waiting for 20 years. Are they or aren't they? How much are they going to take? When are they going to take it? When is she going to get paid? For her neighbor, that was her only house. She herself had another house or so, so she wasn't locked in as many of the other people are, especially on Portola. That was sort of their life big investment. They just really needed to know. To make a wall and take 45 feet off of everyone's property along there, that wasn't necessary. They have a vacant lot that Mark from the golf place had and there was a huge lot that the City has, so they could jog and take 20 feet there, put in a pretty wall and a little landscaping. It didn't have to wipe out two of their houses that they've had for 30 or 40 years. So she was requesting if they really needed it, and they've been saying for 20 years that it was going to grow, there are two lovely buildings there, Mark's and the family therapist. She asked if they really needed this parking, if they could use the City parking, some of the lots that are already vacant, but if they do take property, 81 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 f please take 20 or 25 feet. That would at least save their houses. And please make a decision and let them know where they stand. She thanked the commission for their attention. MR. HAL PARADIS, No. 4 Conejo Circle in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He informed commission that he publishes the White Sheet shopping guides and they are right on the corner of Highway 111 and Las Palmas. He said he would like to echo all the comments they have heard tonight. He believed it was very important to bring this to a conclusion or at least some direction so that they could plan for the future. He thought it was imperative that they have more parking in that area and he would look to have some direction from the Planning Commission and the City Council to move in that direction and get something done as quickly as possible. If nothing more,just to say they were going to do it would be a tremendous help as far as their long range planning. They have an 1" shaped building there and they have looked at a number of proposals to upgrade the plan, but they were also in a state of limbo. He asked the commission to give some consideration to it. They would like to move ahead with the project as soon as they could. He thanked the commission. MR. PHIL WITTE, 44870 San Antonio Circle, addressed the commission. He said he would like to encourage the Council and the Commission to do something. He has lived there since 1977 and it seemed like the place had been in limbo for a long time. They have invested a lot of money, time and effort in making a nice place to live. Whether they took 20 feet, 25 or 45, it would still wipe out a good portion of his property and put a wall right on his pool. All he could ask was to please treat the residents fairly. If they were going to do this, compensate them properly and please be humane. This had been going on too long. He thanked the commission. MS. PAT LA MARSH, 73-098 Highway 111, addressed the commission. She agreed with the last speaker. They needed to help the owners as well as the business owners. She said they have approximately 100 to 250 cars at night in season at their restaurant and they desperately needed parking. She didn't want to have to relocate anybody if it wasn't going to be advantageous to them, the homeowners. But they couldn't expand anymore and they didn't have any parking in the back except for a dirt lot. They had to use the bank 82 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 ar or Walgreens and their clientele had to walk a couple of blocks through the alley or in the dark. That wasn't safe. She said there are businesses who have tremendous parking problems. Radio Active as well and he asked her to speak for him as well. MS. CAROL WILLIAMS, 44-850 San Antonio Circle, addressed the commission. She said she has a garage that would be affected by the extension of the alley, so she would not like to have the alley way extended. As her previous neighbor said, she felt a lot of the parking could be applied in the vacant lots in the residential area. Those vacant lots seemed to depress the quality of the homes in the area. If the City could landscape the open lots and turn them into parking lots that perhaps might help the situation. She thanked the commission. MS. FRANKIE RIDDLE, 44-805 San Clemente Circle, addressed the commission. She said her issue was if they convert the alley way into parking as proposed on the map, San Marcos would be left open and that would divert all the traffic and the people that park back there onto their residential street. She felt there should be some consideration made to closing off the street so that all the traffic wasn't diverted into that residential area. She thanked the commission. MS. MARY ARNOLD, 44-818 San Clemente Circle, stated that she has addressed the City on two separate occasions to see if they could do something about San Marcos Avenue. She said they moved there three years ago and immediately noticed how the traffic circulation was on Highway 111 and use San Marcos Avenue and San Clemente Circle as a byway to San Gorgonio Way. San Clemente Circle is a street, not a byway. She said they would like that byway changed. Everyone who signed the petition she submitted before who lives on San Clemente Circle would like to see San Marcos Avenue and San Clemente Circle closed to traffic. There are only two properties on San Marcos Avenue. There was like a little four-plex and a window tinting business on San Marcos Avenue. So those were the only two properties that would possibly be affected and she didn't see how they would be adversely affected by closing off San Marcos Avenue. So she would appreciate that given some consideration. She thanked the commission. 83 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to address the commission regarding Highway 111. There was no one. She asked if there was any testimony regarding Portola Avenue. MR. CHRIS McFADDEN, McFadden McIntosh Architects, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 204 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he has been a resident in Palm Desert for 12 years and has had his business in Palm Desert since January of 1989. They love the community so much they want to build an office building and address some of the concerns discussed along Portola Avenue in particular. He noted that it is a major north-south arterial. There are presently two residences that must back out onto the street and one residence that has access to it. There are four parcels complete in there and they have three of them in escrow right now. He has another partner and they would have all four of the parcels. This parcel was a particularly unique shape. It has a large flag lot on parcel three that goes all the way down the back that they propose to buffer. 3 Mr. Drell asked for a better description of the location of the parcels he was identifying. Mr. McFadden said the property is south of Fred Waring at the intersection of Catalina and Portola. They were proposing to have their driveway off of Catalina. He pointed out the two existing residences that currently back out onto Portola. They were proposing to demolish the three residences that exist and there would be a complete driveway through there with a right-hand turn restriction only. That would allow a fire truck and trash truck to get through there and for them to get to Catalina and do a left/ right movement. He said that eventually there would be a median down the middle of Portola and Portola would connect to 1-10 eventually, so they would see an increased traffic movement in there. The massing of the building was very conducive to this use, but it was currently zoned R-1 and they would like to propose to the commission that it be changed to O.P. and that would allow them to proceed forward on this. They had these properties in escrow and they were prepared to do this as quickly as possible. Ali 84 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 w Mr. Drell said this was a demonstration of how a change of land use could result in a physical change if there is a market for it_ Referring to Mr. McFadden's drawing, Chairperson Campbell asked about an area in the middle and if it had a building. Mr. McFadden said it was parking in between the buildings that was buffered with landscaping. So they propose two separate buildings. Initially they would probably build at the top and do a build to suit down below. MS. LISA BILLINGHURST, 74-041 Aster Drive, addressed the commission. She said her back yard actually backs up to Portola. She said a lot of the residents, because they weren't involved with this on a daily basis, didn't get a lot of general information on exactly what was proposed to happen. Using a map she pointed out the homes that were going to be sold, removed or having businesses going into the area. She pointed out her house, the third house off Desert Star. She said they have been there for 12 years. The traffic there was '`► atrocious and was like a freeway. Visually it didn't look very good. They had some concerns. They already have a four-lane highway. If they were going to put a median in there, that was information they needed to know as homeowners on how they would stick a median in between there when they already had sidewalks. No one was talking about taking anyone's property. The City was proposing this and they were discussing this and they didn't know how they were going to widen that particular area and who it would effect. She didn't think as homeowners they had all the information. They just needed basic, simple information on what was proposed for development in the area. The City did a great job on Fred Waring. They extracted all the homes and put the park in there, but they listened all night long about property that isn't developed yet and now they were talking about areas that are developed that need to be redeveloped to accommodate the area, but they had byways off of Magnesia Falls that had beautiful block walls, they had finished block walls off of Fred Waring and then they had this area with old walls and it was like they weren't finishing anything. They were starting new projects before they finish a particular area. She thought this was an area with a lot ir.► 85 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 of traffic, people come into the valley this way and visually that was what they were seeing. They were seeing all of these houses that are having trouble backing up and she didn't think they as homeowners had enough information on what was going to happen from the Planning Commission. All this general information didn't affect a lot of them. It was interesting but didn't affect them directly, so she was asking Mr. Drell if they were going to get a little more personalized information on how the development would take place on Portola because they were confused. Mr. Drell explained that he didn't know if those decisions had been made yet. He said there had been thoughts and proposed ultimate designs for Portola. He thought this might be the appropriate process to discuss what those are and what the solution might be. M,. Greenwood explained that right now there was no plan whatsoever. They were waiting for the General Plan process to determine what needs to happen and the Circulation Element needed to address the road width on Portola. Mr. Drell hoped they would get to it at the next meeting, but the intention is, and he recalled the agony the City went through for ten years on Fred Waring, and the decision to take single family homes was very hard for them. On the other hand, talking to the people who live on Fred Waring, not making a decision didn't do them any favors. He thought there were two ways to deal with this. They have this big General Plan and he used the term Study Zone. A program in the General Plan didn't necessarily have to resolve this now, but it needs to place on a priority as something that needs to be solved and pursued. That could probably take up a lot of discussion all to itself focusing on one group of people that doesn't necessarily take in the whole city. Like the area on Highway 111 and the frontage road, it probably took in some very focused discussion among the people impacted to then come to a resolution. Whether they should hold up the whole General Plan for it was another issue. To verify the Public Works position, Mr. Greenwood stated that the Public Works Department develops a five-year capital improvement program. Widening on Portola or any work on Portola was not currently included in the five-year plan. But the plan is updated every year and projects could be inserted in any year of the five-year plan, so a plan could go from not on the list to the first year at any given time, but right now there was no plan for any work on Portola, other than what was currently under construction. Mr. Drell 86 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 said that was designed to minimally create four lanes all the way to Highway 111 . At the GPAC it was discussed that it was not the ideal end state for Portola. It is through a residential area and the fact that we have a side walk where people are capable of walking to school where we have traffic going 45 mph 18 inches away from the sidewalk, this was something that needed to be a program in the Circulation Element of the highest priority so that in a reasonable period of time that gets resolved. They couldn't deal with all the details in the General Plan, but this is one. It was identified in the Palma Village Plan as a problem 20 years ago. Ms. Billinghurst said their main concern was children on the sidewalk. They drive down there and traffic was going 60 mph when it was supposed to be going 40. There were kids pushing each other on the street and she was just waiting for one to go into the street. She wasn't opposed necessarily to businesses if that was what takes place in the area of the 15 homes, but she thought they needed to make provisions for the walking traffic and the kids. They had a school that was not going to be moved from there, so it needed to be taken into consideration when these plans were set forth. She just wanted a little more general information. She didn't know there was going to be a median. Mr. Drell said staff didn't know if there was going to be a median either. It was something that had been discussed as potentially desirable to create residential ambience. MRS. ESPANA, 43-825 Portola, addressed the commission. She said she they came from Chile and moved here. The only thing they had was their house. She agreed about Portola, but wanted to know when. Mr. Drell asked where her house was located on Portola. Mrs. Espana said it was at the corner of Portola and Rancho. Mr. Drell asked if she had to back out onto Portola. Ms. Espana said yes. Mr. Espana also addressed the commission and said their house is at the corner of Portola and Rancho. ... 87 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 Mr. Drell said that meant their house fronts and their driveway backs out onto Portola. He said the proposal at this stage in terms of the land use element was to say that they would provide the land use ability for someone like Mr. McFadden or another architect who would like a little office to buy the property and was willing to pay far more for that property to put an office there than someone would pay to buy it for a home. At this time that was all they were talking about. Unlike Fred Waring where they had to take so much that it would wipe the houses out, he didn't think it was contemplated that we would have to take, no matter what happened, there would be enough lot depth to develop something. So at this stage, unless they convinced the City otherwise, they would be leaving it to people like Mr. McFadden and other office developers, once they gave them the go ahead through a land use designation, to in essence get value out of their property and move somewhere that was more compatible for a home. Mr. Espana said they were concerned about how long they would have to wait in indecision. There was a letter sent before about two years ago. Mr. Drell said the decision would be made in the next two or three months. MS. SUE FAIRFIELD, 73-969 Krug Avenue in the Vineyards, addressed the commission. She said her house is at the end of Stoney Hill and Krug Avenue. It wasn't on Portola, but if they put office buildings in place of the houses they tear out of that strip, her house would back up to that. There would be a parking lot or an office building probably cater corner to her behind her. She has been in Palm Desert since 1967 so she has seen a dramatic change in growth. Portola is a very busy street. She drives down Portola toward Country Club and worked at Eisenhower for a very large physician group there. She drives that way every day and there was a huge amount of traffic. A lot of the parents who have children at Lincoln School park in their neighborhood in the morning and around 2:00 p.m. they were all pulling off of Portola and parking there off of Stoney Hill and Rutledge. They were there every day waiting for their children to cross the street. One of her neighbors had his truck or car stolen out of his driveway and he was the first house there on the comer. That was in broad daylight a couple of afternoons ago. So they had that traffic. Magnesia Falls was now going through and that 88 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 would be a major thoroughfare. If they go down Portola at Magnesia Falls in the morning when parents are bringing their children to school, there was a huge traffic backup down Portola, down the wash almost back up to Chaparral of people trying to turn left at Magnesia Falls to drop their children off at school. They had that traffic situation morning and afternoon by the school. Now when she travels down Fred Waring between Portola and Monterey, they have three or four vacant lots with signs on them saying they are going to build office professional buildings. There is a brand new building on San Pascual and Fred Waring that still shows a vacancy sign and wasn't filled. There was the professional building at Monterey and Fred Waring still showing leasing office space. There was the old Pier 1 Imports building on Town Center Way and Fred Waring sitting vacant because Pier 1 moved, so that was office space. She felt sorry for the people who back out onto Portola. That was a problem that needed to be addressed. Her feeling was that the City should buy the property from these people as they did on Fred Waring and put a park or something, but if they put more professional buildings on there, she asked how much traffic that would cause on that corner. That was a major artery there and there was a lot of traffic. By buying those homes in that area, and that area if they looked at the highlighted map in the mail was totally residential from Fred Waring down Portola across the wash up to Country Club, it was all residential and they were now encroaching into that neighborhood and putting small office professional buildings there. She didn't see the need for that. She thought there might be another way to buy that property because people are having a problem and put a little park there or put something, but they didn't need any more professional buildings encroaching into the residential area, even if it was an older area. When she bought her home there four years ago, she loved the area because it was central to the area. She could run home for lunch in ten minutes, but when she stands in her backyard now, the traffic from Portola and Fred Waring, if she had her door open it was deafening at night. There was a lot of traffic and she didn't feel that putting in more professional buildings was going to alleviate the traffic problem. She felt the homeowners should be given some restitution and be allowed to move out of the area, but she didn't think putting in 89 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 another small office building there was something they need and to a community that is a residential neighborhood now when they have all these other areas in Palm Desert mentioned tonight that they would be developing, she didn't see the logic to that. She was told there was another meeting in a couple of weeks when more would be decided. Mr. Drell said they would be continuing this meeting to October 21 to see if they could come up with some conclusions. Ms. Fairfield hoped they wouldn't encroach into the residential neighborhood. When they were talking about a small office professional building, she asked if they were talking one story or two stories. Mr. Drell said most were one story. They had the ability to specify. It was usually a mixture of one or the other or both. On Monterey they were primarily one story. On Deep Canyon they have been primarily one story. Sometimes they are two-story. He commented that if she thought the noise was deafening now, if those houses disappear and they aren't replaced by some other structure, their noise impacts would go up expedientially. There was nothing like a building to stop noise and that was what they were now hearing from the people who now back onto Fred Waring. They used to have houses in front of them and now that they had open space, the noise issue is that the wall doesn't do the job that houses or buildings might have done. So they have to be careful what they ask for. Ms. Fairfield said she would take that into consideration. She just felt that like a lot of people who have lived there for years, she chose to live in Palm Desert because she thinks it is a forward thinking community and they have been recruiting a lot of physicians to their group and when they talk about settling in Palm Springs or other areas, she tends to lead them to the center of the valley in Palm Desert or Rancho Mirage. But she thought they had gotten out of hand. Like the other person who spoke earlier, how many Walgreens do they need? How many Wal-Marts? How many Costco's? She has friends that have been in the valley in business for years and they were talking about moving to Oregon. She has a friend who has a pest control business and he talks to clients and they are selling their homes and moving to Tennessee or other areas where it isn't as 90 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 congested and they can have some land. She hated to see Palm Desert become Orange County. The growth had to stop somewhere and when she saw them talking about encroaching into a residential neighborhood and adding more small professional buildings, there were a lot of vacancies along Fred Waring. She knew they were looking at a long range plan, but thought they needed to look at it seriously. If they started encroaching into her neighborhood, her house has gone up quite a bit in value over the last couple of years, but she wouldn't live there and have professional buildings encroaching into her backyard. She wouldn't want to be there. She liked the area now, it was a nice little community and people have taken pride of ownership in these homes. She didn't want to look out the backyard by the pool and look at professional buildings. That wasn't why she moved there. She hoped they would think this through very carefully. There was no further testimony and Chairperson Campbell asked if there was a motion. r.. Commissioner Finerty said she would move to continue this matter to October 21. Chairperson Campbell seconded the motion. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wished to consider meeting at a different time other than 6:00 p.m. since there were several public hearing items to be considered which had been continued from previous meetings and depended on the General Plan decisions. After further discussion it was determined that the commission would continue this item to 8:30 a.m. with discussion to 11:30 a.m. on October 21. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, continuing Case No. GPA 01-04 to October 21, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case No. PP 03-10 - GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., Applicant (Continued from September 2, 2003) Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a ten-building medical and general office complex(93,842 91 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 square feet)on an 8.72-acre site at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane, 41-340 Cook Street. Mr. Smith reminded commission that this matter was before them at the September 2 meeting. At that time the applicant had not had an opportunity to meet with the homeowner's association at Belmonte Estates which is the development to the east and north of the property. He advised that a meeting was held on September 24 and he attended the meeting along with 15 or 20 of the homeowners. As well, one of the Commission's requests of the applicant at the last meeting was to put up some poles on the site so they could get an idea of the placement of buildings and heights. He noted he advised Commission of that last week and knew that some of them visited the property. At the September 24 meeting a series of issues were brought up. One was the traffic access onto the site. In response to those concerns, there was a condition added by Public Works to increase the left-turn pocket from south bound Cook Street from 150 feet to 300 feet in length. This would allow for considerably more stacking. There was a question on parking lot lighting. The applicant, Mr. Ricciardi, said it was his intention to light the parking lot with maximum 42" bollard lights, plus some lighting under the carport structures. That was conditioned in the draft resolution. He said there was a request for the installation of a screen wall across the north end of the property which the applicant's representative agreed to. Mr. Smith pointed out that it was possible that the grading plan could be such that the northerly portion of the property could drain to the north in that they have a 27-foot setback which could be developed into a partial retaining area. They didn't want to preclude that from happening because that would lower the site in that area, which was desirable, so if they chose to do that there wouldn't be a wall. If they chose not to do that, there would be a wall per the conditions staff put in. The applicant indicated they would put lights on the building at night. There was a condition requiring adherence with the dark sky ordinance which requires that the light sources be fully cut off. There was a concern relative to the location of three trash enclosures on the east property line. The applicant agreed to relocate these trash enclosures. He said he meant to pass out revised site plans to the Commission which he received today which indicate that the east landscape strip has been increased in width and the three trash enclosure areas have consequently 92 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 law been moved further away from the wall. He said there are still three on the east parking area, however, they were further away from the wall. He noted there was a question about the possible restaurant use on the site. It was explained that the O.P. zone category allowed through the conditional use permit process restaurants on sites of this size. One was not proposed at this point. It could happen at some point in the future. If so, it would go through the usual public hearing process. There was concern about the evening use of the site and whether or not it should be gated. Part of the proposal was for a bank on the corner which typically atm's had access 24 hours. And also a gating system if the rest of it was just landscaping would not keep out area teens if this was where they would choose to congregate. If that were to become a problem, staff felt the appropriate solution was through police enforcement. He indicated most of the evening was spent discussing the two-story building. He said there were two points: in the O.P. district the height is measured from the average curb height. It could also be measured based on �.. the average height of adjacent properties, however, in this instance the lots in Belmonte along Sutton Place were raised. If they went in and drove through there, those properties were raised. If they used that method of height calculation, that would tend to raise the height of the two-story building which was not what they wanted to do, so they would use Option A, the average height of the curb along Cook Street. The applicant had some elevations shot on the site. The curb height at mid point was approximately 28.7. Against the wall there were dunes that accumulated there and perhaps there was some fill dumped there when Belmonte was developed. That area was three to three and a half feet higher. That fill would be coming out of there. The applicant indicated that the pad for the two-story building would be set at 28.5. Per code, the building could not exceed 28.7, the average height of the curb, plus 25 feet, so 53.7. At the September 16 meeting, Mr. Pratt spoke on the appropriateness of the General Plan designation on the site. Staff responded to that and noted that the site has been zoned O.P. since the 1980's. The original approval had been for 139,000 square feet of office on the property. They were now looking at 93,800. As heard earlier this evening, the City has used office professional consistently on arterial streets to buffer lower density land uses 93 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 4 and this was no different. Staff concluded that the O.P. land use is appropriate on this site. Relative to building separation from the residential developments, he noted that the two-story building was some 171 feet from the nearest residential unit. Where they used office professional to buffer single family along Fred Waring and along Monterey, it was quite common to have the minimum setbacks of 20 feet for single story and 65 feet of separation for two-story. In this instance the minimum separation was 30 feet on the single story and 89 feet to the property line for the two-story building. He had an aerial of where the nearest buildings were plotted. There were also a series of photographs they shot in Belmonte and on this property. He went through the photos for Commission. He indicated that Mr. Ricciardi provided some additional photos yesterday. He passed them out and thought they were pretty indicative of what was evident there. Staff felt with the additional conditions that the project could be supported subject to imposition of the conditions which have been added to the draft , resolution. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked what the actual height of the two-story building would be. Mr. Smith replied that as designed, it was 25 feet. As set with the pad at 28.5, it was slightly below the maximum about three inches. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He pointed out the location of the house in question for which Mr. Pratt said his view would be blocked. As seen in the photographs, the trees basically blocked his whole view of any of the windows. The only place he really had a view was out his patio, so when he was sitting down on the patio the block wall pretty much hid everything they would be doing and pointed out Mr. Pratt's pad elevation. Mr. Ricciardi asked Mr. Smith what the difference in elevation was that they calculated right up against the wall. Mr. Smith said that it was three and a half feet higher, 32.45. 94 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 ism Mr. Ricciardi noted that was almost four feet higher. Mr. Pratt's house then would be about three feet higher than that. So that was seven feet off of the 25 that he would above, so that took them to about 18 feet. He would be seeing approximately an 18-foot building because of the height of his pad. Mr. Ricciardi had one other photograph needed to be shown for clarity. Using the revised site plan, he showed the location of Mr. Pratt's house. He said the trees blocked everything that could be seen out any windows. They totally blocked it as Mr. Smith could confirm. He showed the line of site based on the buildings not being three feet lower, but being actually at the same elevation as the curb. But Mr. Pratt's house was three feet above that, so if they were to have a house there at 18 feet, which would be allowed if they put in a residential zone,the two-story would not block his view any more than an 18-foot house. Now that they were three feet lower, Mr. Pratt would be able to see the top of the mountains. He wouldn't have as nice of a view as he had now, but he would be able to see the mountains. So they weren't totally taking away the mountains from iWW him. The two-story building made it more economically viable and the two-stories weren't going to be built right away. It was phase three in the project and basically the smaller buildings would be built as phase one. They didn't know how many would be built yet, that would depend on a market study which had not yet been done. He showed the buildings they would start with, the ones that would be phase two and then the two-story would be done at a later date. In meeting with the homeowners, they discussed the trash enclosures. Mr. Ricciardi pointed out the location of them. He said he moved the trash away so that the trash was 15 feet away from the wall, plus it would be lower than the wall, so no one would ever see the trash from it. He also added some extra landscaping around it so it would be totally hidden. He indicated that some people mentioned that there would be some smell from the trash, but he said there really wouldn't because most everything these days were bagged and there really was no smell. He was in the industrial park and they never smelled their trash and there were plumbers and a bunch of other people there. 95 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 i He said they agreed to build a wall as mentioned by Mr. Smith; however, some people already had a wall so adding another wall wouldn't do much, but if the grading worked out where a wall was required, they would be glad to put in the wall. If grading worked out that a wall wasn't required and staff felt there shouldn't be a wall, they wouldn't put it in. Either way it wasn't a problem. A ten-foot planter strip was also requested to go along with their approximately ten-foot planter, so there was 20 feet of planter with a wall going in there. The wall was a couple of feet lower than the street, so any cars driving by there would really not be able to see too much over that wall. So it was pretty well hidden. The two-story building in the center hid it pretty much from the street and he didn't think anyone would have :oo much of an impact. He pointed out two houses and noted that because of the trees that were planted there, they really didn't have a view. Two houses did and that view was preserved for them. The only house that really had any impact was Mr. Pratt's, but he thought they had minimized it. That was only one house in the development and they were over 170 plus feet away from him. They had no glass looking back toward those residents, so no one would look down on them. He thought they had done pretty much everything that had been requested. He hoped the Commission would approve the project and let them move on with it because it was a fine project for the city. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. PATRICK PRATT, 79 Beekman Place in Belmonte Estates, addressed the commission. To clarify one representation that was made, he said he never contended that he was concerned about views out of his windows, they were the views out of his backyard. He said Mr. Ricciardi was right, if he looked out the windows of his house he wouldn't impact him, but he had one window that was a high window looking into a bathroom. That wasn't what he was concerned about. Were there any other trees from that point to the end of his wall? No. They weren't planted there specifically to have a view corridor of the mountains. So if he looked out from his backyard, the pool and everything else done in the back yard, he left that corridor 96 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 open. He guessed he was the fortunate one that has the house where the two-story building was stuck. As Mr. Ricciardi said, for houses further down, they preserved their view corridor and he thought that was great. They shouldn't be impacted any more than he is. He didn't think there was any need from a practical standpoint for a two-story structure at this location. It was just not necessary. If it was the Planning Commission's desire to have a two-story building in this location, he believed the mass of the structure, which was basically just a two-story box, was offensive. He noted that Commissioner Jonathan suggested at the last meeting that there might be some offsets and some relief in that second story unit to at least give a more attractive appearance if there was going to be a second story element. If they were going to allow that, he thought something should be done other than just a square box. He said he needed to clarify the issue of the pad elevation because at the meeting with the Association, he asked the comment about what that differential was and Mr. Ricciardi indicated at that time he didn't know and the grading information was not available. Mr. Pratt said he appreciated Mr. Ricciardi's efforts. It sounded like they had done some work. The actual white post had been put up and they didn't know if that was the height of the building off the current top of the dirt or from a pad elevation. He indicated that Mr. Smith mentioned it was 28.5 or 28.7 off the curb from Cook, so it was two tenths lower than the curb height on Cook Street. The average. That really didn't help him in relationship to his pad, but the comment was that it would be about three and a half feet. (Mr. Ricciardi spoke from the audience and said seven feet.) Mr. Pratt said that was seven feet from his pad to the top of his building. If that was in fact the case, speaking for himself he said he could live with that and suggested there could be a condition to that point. He noted there were representatives from Belmonte that were present. He explained that Mr. Bill Winterholder was unable to attend, but asked Mr. Pratt to make some comments on his behalf. He said Mr. Smith covered a lot of the issues that were addressed at the meeting with the homeowners association and if those had been incorporated into the plan or into conditions of approval, that was helpful. He thought two were still somewhat up in the air. One was the 97 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 �r six-foot wall along the north edge of the project. If he understood the comments, Mr. Ricciardi had said he would be willing to do that to drain properly. He asked if he was intending to drain into that swale that is on Belmonte's property. He asked if that was how the property was intended to be drained and didn't know if he had the right to do that. Mr. Smith explained he would only be able to contribute into what he could create for storage of water. In talking with an engineer who was interviewed for this job, he thought it might be possible to lower that north end of the site. How far it would come south with lowering the site would be contingent upon the amount of storage that could be created. If it wasn't possible, they would just sheet flow it all to the south and then the wall could go in, but the question staff had was what the benefit would be to have a second six-foot high wall on the property line if they could lower the site without the wall. He said there was a condition for either/or. Mr. Pratt said that was a comment derived by other residents along that north boundary line of Belmonte Estates and their concems. The last thing was the comment at the meeting about security and a concern about activities in the project after hours. He didn't know if Mr. Ricciardi could address this as to whether there was a commitment or just a comment about gating. There was a comment about gating the project and he didn't know if that was still something he was intending to do. He asked if he could address that. He understood staffs comment about that being something best done by policing, but he knew that was an issue raised by residents at that meeting. He thanked the commission. MR. BEAZLEY, 90 Hudson Court at the corner of Sutton and Hudson, addressed the commission. He said that at the last meeting they discussed trash bins. He was told that the trash bin in front of his house would be moved. The trash bins were really important to him. They were along the wall and all had been moved except for one, which was moved closer to all the houses in Belmonte Estates. Mr. Ricciardi told them they wouldn't see it, but he disagreed. Mr. Ricciardi said there wouldn't be a smell, but he disagreed. His office is across the street, they have a trash bin outside their office on Morningstar. He lives by it and he smells it and he knew what happens. They had a portable restroom in it. He wasn't saying they %DW 98 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 would put one here, but he was sure Dr. Shah didn't want to put one in his trash bin either, but it was there along with a lot of other trash. These things happened when they put them right next to all the houses. Right there on the comer there was a lot of space where the trash bins could be put on this property besides right next to his bedrooms. Plus the other homes had bedrooms close to the trash bin that was moved closer to their property. MR. DENNIS LORIE,42 Sutton Place, addressed the commission. He explained that he was on the back side of the complex and wasn't directly affected by the things the other speakers were talking about, but he was concerned about the storm drainage. He didn't understand what had been said tonight. His understanding was there would be a six-foot wall there. Now he understood that they would drop the surface to accommodate an additional drainage ditch right next to theirs. He asked if that was what Mr. Smith was saying. Mr. Smith explained that it was a possible direction they could go, but they hadn't made that decision. Mr. Lorie asked when that decision would be made. As far as the drainage for the whole property was concerned, where else would they drain? He asked if it would be out into Cook Street. Mr. Greenwood stated that he believed they would be required to provide onsite retention of some form. They would not be allowed to just drain into the street. Mr. Lorie asked if that imposed on their property rights. They owned that existing swale. Mr. Greenwood clarified that they had to create their own. Mr. Lorie guessed that would abut theirs. Mr. Smith explained that they have 27 feet in there in which to create their own area. Mr. Greenwood said it could be anywhere on the site, but was generally at the lowest corner of the site. 99 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 Mr. Lorie said that, and the other aspects of the grading, were gray areas as far as he was concerned and he wanted the opportunity to address the Commission again with the final grading aspects. He said maybe Mr. Ricciardi could comment on that tonight because he was confused how high the buildings were going to be and where the drainage would be. Mr. Greenwood stated that Public Works Condition No. 1 required construction of a retention basin for a 100-year storm. MR. GEORGE WYATT, 9 Belmonte Drive at the corner of Belmonte and Sutton, addressed the commission. He said broadly speaking he was in favor of the project, but specifically, he didn't understand the second six-foot wall. They already have a wall. If the wall didn't go in there, from talking with the Planning Department, it seemed to him some of the discussion had been that they could lower the elevation at the north end of the project which would bring down the building height which was 27 feet away from his backyard. So it seemed to him that the grading and whether they could excavate was a significant question. He just didn't know what to say about a second six-foot wall or four-foot wall. He didn't know what purpose it would serve, but if they could figure out a way to have the retention basin lead to a reduced elevation of the whole north end of the lot, because if he understood it right, the north end was the high end. So the water would either run all the way down to Hovley, or they had to figure some way to drain off part of that coming back the other way. That was a question he wanted them to give some serious consideration to. Could they lower the elevation at the north end of the project and bring those buildings down and then they could decide what they wanted to do with the wall. He said he didn't know about the garbage bins. One of those would be right at the corner where his property is. He knew they had to put garbage somewhere, but it seemed that with a site as large as that they might be able to move them away some distance from where those of them in Belmonte Estates live and would be impacted by them. Garbage with the heat we have here would be an impact. So if it is and they all acknowledged that, then they needed to figure out the best place to locate it. He thought they could find a resolution for that. He thanked the commission. %Now 100 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 MR. JAMES SABIN, 71 Sutton Place West, addressed the commission. He said he had one of the four houses that faced directly onto the project. He said they moved there eight years ago and at the time wondered what would go in there. When they bought, the salesman told them that sometime in the future, it was a commercial lot, there would be some one or two-story buildings going into the area, so they were holding their breath hoping they would see a good development. He was happy to see that the plans they had seen and the drawings and landscaping was a project that would complement Belmonte Estates very well. He was in favor of the project. He said he had some concerns and most of them had already been addressed and taken care of and others were being resolved or would be. He realized that if they had a house where his view would be obstructed, he would feel the same way, but at the present time he thought it was a good project and was in favor of it. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Ricciardi wished to readdress the commission with rebuttal comments. With regard to the trash, her. Ricciardi showed the location. He said it wasn't in front of the one speaker's house. He said the trash bins were 15 feet from the wall, then another 10 feet, for 25 feet from the curb. The elevation was approximately two feet higher than the curb and they would be a little bit lower than that because they were sloping everything away, so they wouldn't see the trash unless they stood up and looked over the wall. The next thing having to do with the slopes, Mr. Ricciardi said they were going to try to use the area for most of their retention. They would come back with area drains, pick up the water, and he showed the locations. They didn't plan on using any of it for water retention. So when the rains come, the water wouldn't go to Belmonte Estates at all. He showed the location of the retention area for Belmonte Estates. He said the houses there all had walls there, so if they could lower it, then they would use that area as retention. There would be a swale. He thought it should work out well and there shouldn't be any flood problems that would affect those people whatsoever. They 101 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 would be lower than what Belmonte is because Belmonte built it up pretty high. Regarding the two-story building, they didn't get into the redesign of the two-story building. He talked to his clients about it and with the economics of it, they would rather not step it. The building would not be built for a couple of years and the economics of building it in a couple of years would be more expensive that what it is today. He said it had very nice overhangs on it. The building had some four to five feet of overhang all the way around to give it some nice shade and protection. He said they looked at stepping it, but the economy of scale just to have it stepped would hurt the economics of the development. So they would rather not do that. The Architectural Review Board thought it was a very nice looking building and there was no comment against it and they approved it. He said they were using very nice materials on it with the river stone, the ridge stone and the canterra stone. It would have nice rich colors on it and more of a residential type by using the stone rather than plaster. He hoped the Commission would approve it as is and not ask for it to be stepped. �.. He thought they really tried to help everyone in Belmonte and meet everything they could. He was sorry they couldn't make it 100% for Mr. Pratt, but because he was higher, he wouldn't be as effected as some of the others could have been if they had been lower. That showed in the picture of Mr. Pratt's house and the extra retaining wall he put in for the planters which looked nice. Regarding the gates, he said they would rather not put in gates if they didn't have to, but if it was a condition of approval they would. Mr. Drell said they could add a condition that if a security problem develops, we would have the ability. Now was the time to put in that contingency. Right now it was a vacant lot open to the world and there was no reason to expect that because there would be an office building there that it would be worse that it is now. They haven't had problems in similar projects, but if they wanted to deal with it they should condition it. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. 102 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 i Commissioner Tschopp thanked Mr. Ricciardi for putting up the poles on the lots. He thought that was very helpful. He also said he was sympathetic to the Belmonte homeowners. Having lived in the area for a while and bought in areas where suddenly other people developed around him, he learned that the only way to control what happens on the lots next to them is to buy the lot. The zoning here from 1987 actually predated the development of the homes so they have known that there would be commercial development going in there for a number of years. He thought the applicant had taken great strides with the setbacks. There was actually one and a half football fields between some of the houses and some of the buildings and 171 feet from other ones. There a commercial area to the south of this development. There was a major intersection. Cook Street being the major street it is, he thought when it was built out it would act as a good traffic buffer. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the height of the building was within code and he thought that it was actually less intrusive upon the neighboring development than a single family housing development would be because of the proximity that it could be to the back setbacks. It was actually a much less intense land use than permitted and he thought the applicant had made some great strides in trying to take into consideration the surrounding development. He was in favor of the project. Commissioner Jonathan concurred for the most part. With regards to the gate, he wasn't a fan of gates in an office professional park as a solution to some of the potential problems. He thought policing was a better solution and was what they were there for if problems should arise. He didn't see a need to condition the project with a gate. He said he would like the applicant to work with staff to insure that the trash location on the northeast corner was optimum. He didn't think there was a problem, but wanted to make sure because the last thing a homeowner wanted was to come home to a bad situation with trash. He thought they were okay, but wanted them to be aware of it. If there was a better location that worked better and didn't create a problem, fine. Along the same lines, he said he would like to see the applicant work with staff and his engineers to insure that if there is a way to avoid the wall on the 103 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 tow north end of the project that they avoid it. He thought that was probably the preference of the applicant and the residents and if they worked together toward that mutual goal, maybe they could make it happen. With regard to the use, he concurred with Commissioner Tschopp. The intensity was good and everything was wonderful. He thought the two-story element in that location was probably something they needed to live with. On the other hand, as much as he liked the design of the single story, he didn't like the design of the two-story. He thought that stepping it back might be a bit of a financial burden to the owner, but was hopefully doable. It was a small part of square footage that would be lost; small in comparison to the entire project, while at the same time would enhance the appearance and hopefully mitigate some of the view consequences to some of the residents. He thought that might be a reasonable compromise. He might be in the minority on that, but said that was really the only problem he had with the application. He would prefer to see that second story element stepped back. Commissioner Lopez concurred on a couple of items. He said he has always been concerned about having trash near residential areas, especially as it �•• pertains to commercial trash which could be just about anything. It could be cokes and sandwiches, food and whatever might go into those areas. The fact that the prevailing winds could perhaps take it toward the homes, he thought the trash needed to be as far away from the residents as possible. He also requested that staff work with the applicant to make sure that situation was okay. Regarding the retention area, if the applicant could work to bring those buildings down, that would be a big plus for everyone, while maintaining the ability for drainage and for appropriate handling of a 100-year flood. He noted that he has been here for 200-year floods in three years, so it was a possibility that could happen. He said he's had a problem with the two-story building the whole time. Tonight he had been swayed slightly by a couple of comments. The elevations could be either conditioned or at least worked on with the seven- foot factor that was talked about regarding line-of-sight and grading so that it was at least a liveable situation. He thought the stepping idea was a great one. It helped to mitigate one of the problems and he thought the grading element also helped the situation to a point where he was okay with it. He admitted that when he arrived at the meeting he wasn't very happy about 104 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7. 2003 .r1 having a two-story building in this area, but if the residents could live with the grading situation that would lower that building significantly and their line of sight could be addressed with the stepping of the building, he thought that should be part of the conditions and actively worked on by the applicant and the residents. If those items could be addressed, he was okay with it. Mr. Drell asked for confirmation that if they could confirm that the grade elevation between Mr. Pratt's house and the elevation of the office building is in fact seven feet. Commissioner Lopez said if he understood Mr. Pratt, he could live with that and if he could live with that particular one as the most impacted residence in the area, and also by stepping it. Mr. Drell said they have the tract map for Belmonte and they should be able to tell Mr. Pratt's elevation. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioners Jonathan and Lopez regarding stepping back the second story. She thought it would help make it a perfect solution, especially for Mr. Pratt. She also concurred that the trash should be kept away from every house at Belmonte. The site was large enough to position the trash cans away from Belmonte Estates. She said she would also want a condition with the gate. It was there incase they needed it and hopefully they wouldn't. She would just like to have it in place as a precaution. She said with that, she would be prepared to move for approval. Chairperson Campbell also concurred. She said she would like to avoid having a wall between Belmonte and the other buildings. She didn't have a problem with the two-story building as presented. She had been to the site and homeowners knew that something would be built on the empty lot, but would go along with the other commissioners. As far as the gate, if the bank went in there, there was no way the gate would be feasible in that area. Sometimes with a gate kids could hide in there and then security wouldn't be able to drive around the parking lot to see if anyone was hiding there, but she would go along with her fellow commissioners. She was in favor of the project. Mr. Drell asked for a summary of what the conditions would be for the motion. Commissioner Finerty moved for approval of the project with: A) the trash enclosures all being away from Belmonte Estate homes; B) condition the gate, if needed; C) step back the two-story; D) eliminate the second six-foot 105 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 wall, if necessary; E)grade away from Belmonte Estates; and F) confirm the seven-foot grade elevation between Mr. Pratt's house and the project. Relative to the stepping, Mr. Drell said they knew it was phase three and could say that before they proceed with phase three, that building should come back to Planning Commission. Commissioner Finerty said yes, they would like to see the building and would like the homeowners to have that option as well. She asked if it was correct that it would be a noticed hearing. Mr. Drell said that was up to them. Commissioner Finerty thought it should come back. Commissioner Jonathan said he was willing to give on the gate. He thought it wasn't a good solution, but if it was conditioned such as a precautionary measure if other measures didn't prove effective, that was fine. But on the stepping back, he had faith in Architectural Review Commission and was comfortable sending it back to them. It had to go back to them for final approval. If they heard Planning Commission's comments and staffs input, he was okay with that. He didn't want to see the project come back and then other questions come up and then have the whole issue renewed as to �.► whether two story was appropriate and so forth. He hated to leave that open. He had no problem with this whole project moving forward and trusting ARC to approve a two-story design that incorporates the step back element. To clarify, Mr. Drell asked if the goal of the step back was to break up the horizontal line. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He thought it was too boxy and the single story had nice design elements and a lot of pop outs, ins and outs and contrasts. The two-story building was lacking that. Mr. Drell said something to break up that continuous horizontal line. Commissioner Jonathan said that was correct and at the same time it would reduce the line- of-sight and improve that situation as well. Commissioner Finerty said the only reason she wanted it to come back to the Planning Commission was because ARC had the opportunity to make the adjustment to the big box and didn't; therefore, since the Planning Commission has an idea of what it is they are looking for that ARC apparently didn't wish to see, she had more confidence in it coming back to Planning Commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a middle ground where it could come back without a public hearing as an informational item. Mr. Drell said they could require that the solution also be circulated to the homeowners so that it wasn't a noticed public hearing, but the homeowners would be aware of it coming to the commission and they 106 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 would solicit input from the homeowners for that meeting. Commissioner Finerty said that would be fine. Commissioner Jonathan said he would second the motion. Commissioner Tschopp said he had a couple of things to say before they voted. They do have a compliance department which enforces codes which deal with trash and he thought they did a very good job. He didn't want to get into too much of micro managing when homeowners and businesses have remedies when there are problems with trash. Secondly, he didn't think a gate was called for in any kind of development. He didn't think it did anything for this development. Thirdly, ARC has looked at the project and approved it and he didn't think stepping back was necessary. If they applied the same setbacks to other buildings being built on Monterey, Portola or Fred Waring, they would never see two story buildings, but they were talking about 171 feet from the nearest house and making the applicant then go through potential additional architectural things to set it back. He didn't have a problem with that as long as they were going to be applying those same standards to other buildings that come up in the future. He was in favor of the development and thought it should go forward, but he wasn't quite in favor of some of the conditions placed on it. Vill Chairperson Finerty said that the reason they wanted the second story stepped back was mostly aesthetics. It is just too boxy as compared to the single story buildings. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. He also agreed with the opinions expressed by Commissioner Tschopp. He was willing to live with a gate as a fall back and was willing to accept the trash. The two-story element, though, he thought there was a reason why ARC comments and what ARC approves, the design is part of what the Planning Commission looks at and this issue was coming up frequently. He thought they were a stop gap to offer another opinion and the Council wanted and expected them to look at the design element and not micro manage it, but if there was something that was significant enough to them to make it an issue. When he saw something that in his opinion was on the plain side and could be improved on a little bit, that was where he was coming from on the two stories. Chairperson Campbell didn't think it should be a public hearing and have Belmonte look at the building again. Commissioner Finerty suggested having it brought back as a miscellaneous item. Chairperson Campbell thought that was fine. Mr. Drell said what he was hearing more than anything else was to 107 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2003 low better incorporate the style of the one story buildings into the two-story building. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said it was specifically to include a step back element on the second story. Whatever ARC came up with as the final approval, if the Planning Commission could see it as a miscellaneous item, he was okay with that. Commissioner Finerty said that would work for her. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by, Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2229, approving Case No. PP 03-10, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMPLETION OF ITEMS HELD OVER FROM 4:00 P.M. SESSION None. XI. MISCELLANEOUS None. XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Chairperson Campbell stated that AIPP approved the entrance signs on Monterey at Dinah Shore, Fred Waring and Washington Street. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XIII. COMMENTS Commissioner Tschopp said he felt a little bit at a disadvantage tonight on a couple of conversations, specifically dealing with alley and Portola areas 108 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2003 because what he received wasn't specific enough to even understand some of the concerns. For instance, on the parking area for the alley, they were talking about 25 feet or 42 feet. He asked if they could get some more information. Mr. Drell said staff would give commission copies of the aerials and put the various plans on them. Chairperson Campbell said she would like more information on Portola. Mr. Drell asked if prospective end-state road designs, if that was the question. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification on what was being done now. Mr. Drell said that was what they minimally needed to get to four lanes. The question was what they wanted Portola to look like when they finished. At GPAC they had various road widths showing the impact to adjacent properties. He thought they needed to do that for Planning Commission as well. XIV. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Drell noted that they would be adjourning the meeting to October 21 at 8:30 a.m. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting to October 21, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m. PHILIP DREL , Secretary ATTEST: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm s 109