Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1118 6:00 p.m. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 18, 2003 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty .. Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent November 13, 2003 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-16 - RICHARD M. SHALHOUB, ROBERT F. EBBERT AND GRACE M. PESCHELT, Applicants Request for consideration of a parcel map waiver to merge two parcels into one. Property is identified as APN's 633-033-009 and 630-033-010 located between Grapevine and Desert Lily. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to approve the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. TT 31346 - CENTENNIAL HOMES, Applicant (Continued from August 19 and October 21, 2003) Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 2.53 acres into 9 single family residential lots (10,000 square foot minimum lot size). The project site is located at the southeast corner of Bel Air Road and Alamo Drive. Chairperson Campbell announced that the Commission will conduct public hearings on regular cases first, and then will conduct its public hearing regarding the Draft General Plan. Mr. Urbina reported that when this case was continued from the October 21 s` Planning Commission meeting, the applicant was directed to reduce the number of lots from nine to eight, and this has been accomplished with a 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Now revised map which is now before the Commission. Lot No. 9, which previously fronted on Alamo Drive, has been eliminated. As a result of the revised map, a variance application is no longer required because all lots meet the 90-foot minimum lot width and 100-foot minimum lot depth of the R-1-10,000 zone. All lots are now 92 feet wide and approximately 130 feet deep, and the lot sizes range from approximately 11,900 square feet to 15,600 square feet. Mr. Urbina noted that since the last hearing, the applicant has requested amendments to some of the conditions of approval. The applicant requests that Condition No. 8 be amended so that the previously recommended 15- foot height limit for Lots 1 and 8 be lifted so the maximum height for all eight lots be 18 feet. Of course, any homes over 15 feet in height would still require approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The reason for the requested amendment is to preserve maximum design flexibility of future custom homes pertaining to the roof and avoid having a more complex engineering roof system that would be required for a roof limited to 15 feet in height. Another amendment proposed by the applicant is, in return for allowing a maximum height of 18 feet on Lots 1 and 8, a 15- foot easterly side yard setback would be required for those lots. The applicant indicates that impacts would be minimal to adjacent property owners to the east due to the proposed increased side yard setback from 12 feet to 15 feet. Mr. Urbina noted that the applicant also requests deletion of Condition No. 10. He stated staff did not agree to delete Condition No. 10 as requested by the applicant, but would recommend amending Condition No. 10 to require that, in the event a future homeowner proposes a home in excess of the 15- foot height limit, immediately adjacent property owners of the subject lot must be notified of the ARC meeting date and time, because they would be the most affected by an increase in the height above 15 feet. Mr. Urbina stated that the applicant has requested that Condition No. 11 be amended by deleting the requirement that a future home on Lot 7 have a side entry garage. He stated staff is agreeable to the requested amendment, as it was originally suggested to help mitigate view impact concerns of the Karlbergs, who live in the Monterra subdivision. After further analysis, staff concluded that a front entry garage on this lot would have minimal impacts to those views. Condition No. 11 would still require a side entry garage on 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 s� Lot 8 with decorative windows in order to avoid creating an elevation where the front is dominated by garage doors. Mr. Urbina advised that staff recommends that the Commission adopt a resolution approving TT 31346, subject to the conditions, with the aforementioned amendments. Chairperson Campbell announced that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. DAN MORGAN of Centennial Homes, the project applicant, explained that the basis for his requested amendments is that since the number of lots has been reduced, thereby eliminating the need for a variance, he didn't want this property to be constrained any more or any less than the other properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Morgan presented a diagram illustrating the differences between the 15-foot height limit and the 18-foot height limit on Lots 1 and 8, and noted that the difference is negligible. Mr. Morgan expressed appreciation to the neighbors and the Commission, as their suggested revisions will result in a much nicer project. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there are indeed sidewalks on Alamo to the south of this property, but not to the north, and asked if the sidewalk will be continued from the south up to Be[ Air. Mr. Morgan responded that the condition is written as such, and he is agreeable to that. Mr. Morgan clarified that the requirement in Condition No. 10 for notification to adjacent property owners of the ARC meetings should only apply to Lots 1 and 8, because those are the lots that have view impacts to the neighbors. Chairperson Campbell concurred with the clarification to Condition No. 10. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public is still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003 MR. JIM KANE, 73-015 Skyward Way, stated that the revised plan is much improved, and suggested that the height restriction on Lots 1 and 8 be such that the homes be allowed to go to 16 feet with one area in the middle of the lot that could go to 18 feet, as long as a 4:12 slope is maintained. Mr. Kane commended the developer for preparing a much improved plan. Chairperson Campbell called Mr. David Ware, who indicated he would prefer to defer his comments to later in the meeting. She next called Ms. Betty Karlberg. MS. BETTY KARLBERG, 73-062 Monterra Circle North, commented that the project has progressed to where it is now much better than before; however, she didn't see any reason why Lot No. 8 can't have a 15-foot height limit, because nothing has changed, and the view from the north will be impacted. On Lot No. 7, she preferred to have a view of the garage rather than the garage door. She was also opposed to being confronted with a view of a flat roof. Chairperson Campbell called Ms. Lorraine Kavanaugh, who indicted she would defer to Dr. Bergmann. Chairperson Campbell next call Dr. Rainier Bergmann. DR. RAINIER BERGMANN, 73-00 Loma Vista, expressed appreciation to the Commission for its efforts toward improving the project. Loma Vista has a 36-foot wide street which allows parking on both sides, and there are no neighbors on one side of that street because it is occupied by the wall separating it from the Monterra subdivision. The sidewalk which continues from Mesa View down to Alamo is only interrupted by the property in question, and the same situation exists on Barberry looking down onto Bel Air. Dr. Bergmann noted that currently the retaining wall on the corner of Bel Air and Alamo is a traffic hazard because it does not allow drivers turning right or left onto Alamo to see onto the streets, and he suggested a side yard design similar to the other corner on Bel Air and Barberry would make that a safer corner. Dr. Bergmann stated that after the last meeting, the neighbors uncovered a new issue. Bel Air is a very long block between Highway 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 74 and Alamo, and is 36 feet wide; however, the current property only leaves 32 feet for road width. This came to his attention when he drove through the area the other night and noticed a gardener's truck parked there, which made it seem very narrow. It thus far hasn't been an issue in the neighborhood because the current tenants don't park on the street, but it is a concern that he wanted to have addressed by restoring the width to 36 feet, especially in view of the high amount of traffic on this street which provides access from the neighborhood to Highway 74. Dr. Bergmann opined that Loma Vista Lane is a wonderful model for the property in question. He stated that he lives at the corner of Loma Vista and Barberry, and his house is 18 feet with a gable roof and was the first home built in the area. All subsequent homes were required to have sloped roofs, and that is a big issue for Lots 1 and 8 of the subject property, because the lots on Barberry have yards facing the property, so these three properties on Barberry would be very much affected by the increased height because that is a view corridor for those properties. Dr. Bergmann stated that his biggest issue is with the unchanged access drive of 24 feet in width, as this would detract from the proposed lots because it leaves little room to navigate. He suggested deletion of the gate at the access drive, because it's not a guarded community, and once a gate is installed, any parking issues cannot be policed or enforced, and he anticipated that guests and service vehicles will park on the access drive. Dr. Bergmann suggested that since two of the 10 proposed lots have been eliminated, the proposed roadway width should be increased from 24 feet to 36 feet. MS. LORRAINE KAVANAUGH,48-999 Barberry Lane, stated that her husband was unable to attend the meeting due to the fact that his speaking voice was affected by a stroke, but wished her to pass both his and her concerns along to the Commission. She preferred that the Commission require Mr. Morgan to honor the commitments he made in October. These commitments include a 20-foot setback from the front property line, a 15-foot side yard and 15-foot maximum building height with sloped roofs. Mr. Morgan rescinded those 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 commitments in November, and she acknowledged that he has a reason for that, but the commitments he made in November are consistent with code requirements, and she wanted that original commitment honored. Ms. Kavanaugh was opposed to allowing a maximum building height of 18 feet on Lots 1 and 8, as these pad elevations will be three to five feet higher than the adjacent three homes on Barberry, which means the privacy of the Barberry residents will be compromised because the future residents of the subject lots will have views into their yards and homes. She noted that Mr. Morgan does not live in this community, and has proposed a homeowner's committee which he will chair, and he is not building out the property. She stated that the present property owners wonder how much control will be met by the proposed homeowner's committee with Mr. Morgan as chairman. She indicated that the neighbors want the proposed lots to have the best looking homes possible with the least amount of negative impact possible, and looks to the City for protection because the neighbors are not experienced in these matters. tow MR. DAVID WARE, 72-987 Skyward Way, located at the corner of Skyward and Alamo, concurred with Ms. Kavanaugh's point regarding the commitments made by Mr. Morgan. He stressed the importance of understanding that Mr. Morgan has a pattern of not meeting his commitments, and it has come to his attention that there exists pending litigation in Marin County against Mr. Morgan and his partner in Centennial Homes by the City of Novato. He explained that it is a cross-complaint, and they are cross-defendants. It is his understanding that this has been ongoing for a period of time, and the last knowledge he has of this was in September, so he wasn't sure what has transpired since that time. This had to do with the abrogation of certain terms and conditions of a subdivision improvement district where certain matters in the conditions were not met, and as a result, the litigation, to his knowledge, may still be pending. However, this is not really the issue, and the real issue is whether or not one lives up to their obligations, and this gave him cause for concern about any agreements that are made. Mr. Ware commented that these eight lots will not be developed simultaneously with eight different buildings with eight different 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 arrangements, and he doesn't think the neighborhood wants to play watchdog to every home that is built there. Traffic on Alamo currently moves fairly freely, but with construction trucks and difficult access road situations over a long period of time, that situation will be compromised. Mr. Ware closed by saying that the neighborhood truly appreciates the Commission's careful consideration of this matter. MS. BEVERLY CHUCHEN, 73-045 Skyward Way, remarked that she has lived in the area for 15 years, and she has accepted new construction in the neighborhood. Mr. Morgan's plan is within the guidelines, though some of the areas may require a bit of adjustment. She has heard other residents in the neighborhood welcoming a new subdivision. She thought the plan was great. She indicated she sells real estate in the area, and she knows of potential buyers interested in purchasing and combining two or three lots upon which to build a single home. Mr. Morgan addressed Ms. Karlberg's concern about Lot 7 not having a side entry garage, and expressed willingness to move the front entry garage door to Lot 7 to the west of the property line so as not to impact Ms. Karlberg's view. Mr. Morgan commented that he would be amenable to a condition prohibiting flat roofs on Lots 1 and 8; however, he would be opposed to a 15-foot height limit on Lots 1 and 8, and he would point out that the existing lots enjoy a 19-foot height limit. Mr. Morgan clarified that the access road will not be a private road, but a gated private driveway, and the minimum required width for a private driveway is 24 feet. He stated he would agree to a condition requiring four on-site parking spaces to lessen the impact of people parking. He noted that the road will be fire painted red to prohibit parking. He stated it is his understanding that trash pickup will occur outside the access gate, and residents will be required to pull their trash bins out to the public street. There being no further public input, Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Commission. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Commissioner Tschopp agreed with Mr. Morgan's assessment that he is not asking for anything more or less than what is enjoyed by the surrounding neighbors, and this is a case of who was there first, but just because someone was there first doesn't mean they have the ability to limit the development rights of future residents. The eight lots are in excess of what the standards require. The significant grade differences have been mitigated with larger setbacks and lower maximum building heights. Although sympathetic to the loss of views, it should be noted that views are not guaranteed unless one purchases all the surrounding property. Chairperson Campbell concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Tschopp and commented that Mr. Morgan has done everything in his power to accommodate the wishes expressed at the last meeting, and supported the application as it currently stands. Commissioner Jonathan commented that he doesn't care for front facing garages, but it seems most homes in California, including his own, have just that. He noted that the application before the Commission tonight does not request a variance, therefore, the Commission would be hard pressed to place any restrictions on the project beyond that which the zoning ordinance requires and beyond that which applies to existing homes in the neighborhood. He appreciated the applicant's offer to a condition requiring Lots 1 and 8 to have sloped roofs, and suggested that the Commission impose such a condition. Commissioner Finerty concurred with her fellow Commissioners and agreed that a condition requiring Lots 1 and 8 to have sloped roofs would be beneficial. Mr. Morgan's comment that he is asking for no more and no less than what neighboring properties enjoy was a key element to her, and she appreciated the improvements that have been made to the plan and the efforts made to work with the neighbors. Commissioner Lopez echoed the comments of the other Commissioners and expressed appreciation for Mr. Morgan's efforts to improve the plan and address the neighbors' concerns. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2232 approving Case No. TT 31346, with an additional condition which requires sloped roofs on Lots 1 and 8. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. TPM 31658 - CANYON NATIONAL BANK, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 2.31-acre parcel into two parcels. The parcel is located at 74- 150 Country Club Drive, 450 feet east of Portola Avenue. Mr. Bagato reported that on November 19, 2003, the Commission approved a precise plan for a 21,520 square foot office building with approximately 110 parking spaces for Canyon National Bank. The proposed parcel map will subdivide the existing 2.31-acre parcel into two parcels, with one measuring 42,253 square feet and the other totaling 58,370 square feet. A mutual access and parking agreement will ensure that parking requirements are met for each parcel. Staff has included the findings of approval for the precise plan, and for purposes of CEQA this is a Class 15 categorical exemption, and no further environmental review is required. He noted that staff recommends adoption of the proposed resolution approving the parcel map. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JONATHAN WICK, 22 Perris Way in Rancho Mirage, introduced himself as Chief Financial Office of Canyon National Bank, and indicated he is available to entertain the Commission's questions. Mr. Wick added that he has communicated with the adjacent property owner, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, who expressed support for the requested lot subdivision. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public is still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being no response, Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 rr . It was moved by Commissioner Finery, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2233, approving Case No. TPM 31658. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 03-21 - SARITA AVERY, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a single family home in the hillside planned residential (HPR) zone at 45-815 Willow Street. Mr. Joy reported that this application for a single-family home requires a conditional use permit because it is to be located in the HPR zone. The 5.5- acre property is located off of the Greene Way Bridge behind the old Recreation Park District tennis court area. The residence will utilize the same footprint as an existing house in the area which will be demolished. The house is of an equal caliber to existing homes in Bighorn, and will include a 2800 square foot main building with a 724-foot casita. The exterior of the home will have a stone veneer to blend in with the natural surroundings. The HPR zoning designation allows only five percent of the entire 5.5-acre site to be developed, with the remainder to be dedicated as open space to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. The proposed project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)on September 23, 2003 and received preliminary approval. He stated that the staff recommendation is for approval. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the building height, to which Mr. Joy replied that the overall height of the main building is 17'6", with a single tower element in the middle that will reach 21'3". Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, 73-626 Highway 111, stated that he is the project architect, and was available to any questions. He pointed out that the proposed height is the same as that of the existing structure. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public is still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being no response, 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and invited comments from the Commission. Chairperson Campbell opined that the home will be gorgeous and blend in nicely just like the homes in The Reserve. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, second by Commissioner Tschopp, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, second by Commissioner Tschopp, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2234, approving Case No. CUP 03-21, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP 03-19 - PRESTNUKSIC ARCHITECTS FOR SCOTELLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of four office buildings totaling 22,544 square feet and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. The property is known as APN 620-430-018. Mr. Bagato reported that the subject property is located on the east side of Portola Avenue north of Country Club Drive, and the vacant parcel totals 4.27 acres, and is currently zoned Office Professional. The property is surrounded by Desert Willow Golf Course to the north and to the east, with an existing office complex to the south, and Palm Desert Greens Country Club to the west. The current proposal is for two phases of a three-phase office complex. Phases 1 and 2 include four buildings, and Phase 3 will be a separate application for a two-story building. The four buildings total approximately 22,544 square feet and, at completion of Phase 3, will be served by 235 parking spaces on site. The primary access will be via two driveways off Portola Avenue. The applicant provided a 12-foot public right- of-way, per the Public Works Department condition, for a deceleration lane on Portola. The applicant has agreed to the Public Works Department condition requiring recordation of a reciprocal offer for the office project to the south to provide an offer for a driveway that will connect the two projects, thereby providing a total of three accesses off Portola. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Mr. Bagato noted that Buildings A and B will have different building materials, while Building C will mirror Building B, and Building D will mirror Building A. All four buildings will be single story with roof lines varying between 15 and 20 feet to provide architectural variation. The architectural style is considered desert contemporary, and incorporates strong vertical and horizontal elements, with earth tone finishes of varying textures. Approximately 23% of the site will be covered with trees and shrubs. Some of the trees will shade parking areas, but the majority of the parking area to the rear will be covered. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted preliminary approval on October 28, 2003. For purposes of CEQA, staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Mr. Bagato noted that the project complies with applicable development standards, and the use is compatible with the location, and the architecture is of high quality. He stated that the staff recommendation is for approval. Commissioner Lopez asked if the third driveway behind Building A next door to the existing office building is an emergency exit only. Mr. Bagato confirmed that it is an emergency exit only. Mr. Joy clarified that with the construction of the deceleration lane, the existing four-inch curb will be eliminated to allow for full access rather than an emergency exit only. Mr. Drell pointed out that staff discussed with the applicant a condition that Phase 3 is part of the approval, but the applicant will be required to submit a separate precise plan for that two-story building. Commissioner Finerty noted that the current application acknowledges that the pad for the two-story building exists, and for the time being, that is all the Commission needs to know, but commented that the Commission may be of the opinion that a two-story building may not be such a good idea sandwiched in between Desert Willow Golf Course. Mr. Drell noted that the zoning designation has specific standards for setbacks, heights, architecture, etc. for two-story buildings, and this would be subject to those standards. He added that the fact the City owns the adjacent property doesn't change how the zoning ordinance applies to the subject property. *M 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Commissioner Finerty asked if voting in support of this project would infer approval of the two-story building since the Commission knows that Phase 3 is to contain a two-story building. Mr. Drell replied that the Commission will have an opportunity to vote either for or against that two-story specific building. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the dual driveway will work better than a driveway between Buildings A and B. Mr. Bagato replied that the architect prefers the flow of this driveway, which is 30 feet wide rather than 24 feet wide, and it breaks up what would otherwise be the typical straight, narrow driveways. Mr. Drell noted that the existing office building to the south also has two driveways, and driveway design involves limiting access points on a major arterial balanced against not concentrating all the traffic at one point. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the access for both driveways is for right turns both in and out. Mr. Bagato confirmed that the access for both is right in and right out, and added there is currently no median on Portola, but there will be in the future. Chairperson Campbell asked if one of the driveways will be located directly across from Santa Rosa Country Club. Mr. Drell replied that the driveway will be further south from Santa Rosa Country Club. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MS. MARY STOLTZMAN, 74-401 Hovley Lane East#1422, co-owner with her husband of Scotele Development, stated that she and her husband have owned this property for a long time. She commented that the two-story building is something she would like the Commission to consider this evening, because if the site plan works with the single-story buildings in front, it would be over parked to have Building 5 limited to a single story. She noted that the golf course is 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 .. zoned PR, and while the OP zone has a zero setback, on that particular property line, there will be an approximate 20-foot setback, and that adjustment has been made on the site plan. MR. DAVE PRIEST, 72-624 El Paseo, introduced himself as the project architect, indicating that it is critical tonight that, even though a building is not yet designed on that pad, a two-story building be allowed, subject to approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). He explained the reason it is critical to the site plan is that it is designed and parked for a two-story building, so the request is that the site plan be approved with a two-story building. Chairperson Campbell noted that the proper procedure is that the buildings go before ARC for preliminary approval prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. Mr. Prest noted that the zoning designation allows for two-story buildings, so he assumed it would not be prohibited. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the Commission has the ability to approve a site plan that specifically includes a two-story building, assuming that it receives ARC approval and is within applicable development standards. Mr. Drell replied that it is hard to approve a building without seeing it, and noted that elevations have been presented for the single-story buildings, while no elevations have been presented for the two-story building. Mr. Drell added that the code has provisions for two-story buildings, and if and when an application is submitted for development of the two-story building, if it complies with applicable development standards and the architecture is acceptable, it can be approved. Given the controversy of two-story buildings, the venue for the public hearing is before the Planning Commission, and it provides the general public with a better opportunity to look and comment on the plan. In the past, the Commission has had the benefit of reviewing elevations prior to taking action, so its up to the Commission whether or not it wishes to theoretically defer that decision to the ARC. He suggested that the applicant present a rendering of the two-story building elevations to submit for consideration by the ARC. Mr. Prest explained that two buildings will be built with one of the parking lots and the cul du sac, which is a 90-foot circle for Fire rr.► 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Department, but it wouldn't make sense to build the entire parking lot if Building E is limited to a single story because the project would end up with twice as much parking as is required. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the applicant has two options, the first being approval of the site plan as shown without the two-story element, and probably just prior to the time Phase 1 is ready for construction, the applicant would be ready to process the precise plan for the two-story element and know how to proceed from that point forward. He stated that the other option is that, if the two-story element is critical, then the matter should be continued and the entire project be processed as a single package. Commissioner Finerty commented that, depending on the massing of the building, the Commission may prefer the placement of the two-story building in a different location on the site plan. Commissioner Jonathan felt uncomfortable deferring such an important aspect to the ARC without first having them review and make a recommendation, but if the applicant does opt for a continuance, then he would be happy to provide input regarding the two-story component. Ms. Stoltzman expressed preference for a continuance, and requested input from the Commission regarding the two-story building. Mr. Prest asked if the Commission is opposed to a two-story building regardless of its appearance or location on the site. Mr. Drell replied that there are two-story buildings within the Desert Willow project itself. Mr. Prest noted that the height limit for a two-story building is 25 feet, and the proposed single-story buildings will be 20 feet tall, so there will only be a five-foot difference. Commissioner Finerty stated that her primary concerns would be that it may be better to locate the two-story building more creatively in order to minimize impacts on views, and a sloped roof may also be preferable. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 %MW Chairperson Campbell stated that the public is still gpen and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There being no further public input, Chairperson Campbell invited comments from the Commission. Commissioner Jonathan believed that the proposed site plan is ideal, and the two-story element within the standards and subject to appropriate architectural design would be completely acceptable to him. He also liked the design of the single-story buildings and hoped those design concepts are carried out in the two-story building as well. Chairperson Campbell commented favorably on the architecture presented thus far, and she didn't see any problem with the proposed location of the two-story building. Commissioner Tschopp believed that this application is not proposing any more or less than that enjoyed by neighboring properties, and expressed interest in some type of setback for the two-story building, although he didn't foresee any problem with it as long as it meets development standards and maintains high quality architecture. tow Commissioner Lopez concurred with the comments of the other Commissioners, and stated he didn't have a problem with a two-story building, and commented favorably on the site plan and architecture of the single-story buildings. He cautioned the architects to take errant golf balls into consideration. Commissioner Tschopp expressed disappointment that the applicant got this far without being clear that the two-story building elevations must be submitted for approval. Commissioner Finerty noted that one of the conditions requires a separate submittal for approval of the two-story building. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to continue Case No. PP 03-19 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-0. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Augusta Restaurant's Valet Parking Permit Chairperson Campbell announced that the Commission would address the Miscellaneous section of the agenda as well as the Committee Meeting Updates portion of the agenda prior to discussing the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Diercks reported that staff sent a letter to Augusta Restaurant, and although staff has not yet an opportunity to monitor the situation at night, it is staffs understanding that the situation has ceased and there are no longer any cones preventing access to the parking lot. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES (No meeting) B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE (No meeting) C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. E. (If necessary and continued from the 8:30 a.m. morning meeting) Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. Chairperson Campbell announced that the public hearing regarding the General Plan is still open from this morning, and the Commission will be adjourning from the General Plan at 9:00 p.m. this evening. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Mr. Drell reported that the recommendation regarding the northeast corner of Monterrey and Country Club Drive is that it remain designated medium density residential, placing a study zone on it with perhaps some discussion of the possibility of an alternative use, subject to a specific proposal. Commissioner Finerty suggested that it be specifically designated Office Professional. Chairperson Campbell agreed felt this would a great location for that type of designation, especially since commercial didn't work there previously and it doesn't need to have any residential use. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public is still open and asked if anyone wished to speak with regard to this corner. MR. LARRY BROZ, 660 Newport Center Drive #1050, Newport Beach, believed that this corner is best suited for commercial opportunities because it is at the confluence of two major arterials in the City of Rancho Mirage and City of Palm Desert. He added that the trade area is growing and the need and demand and justification for commercial uses are present. The EIR has considered commercial as a land use alternative, and he encouraged the Commission to keep commercial use as an option. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would be a regional commercial designation or community commercial. Mr. Drell replied that it would be community commercial if the Commission chose to go with a commercial designation. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Broz if he envisioned a grocery store within that land use. Mr. Broz noted that there is a very strong possibility for what is characterized as a ranch market which caters to fresh produce, grains, nuts, nice meat selection and herbal vitamins and remedies. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing is still open. There being no further public input, Chairperson Campbell invited comment from the Commission. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Commissioner Finerty remarked that with regard to both corners, there is already one vacant building that needs to be replaced, and it appears that there may be a viable tenant; however, there is concern that there would be three grocery stores at this intersection, which would be too much. She opined that the vacant store should be filled prior to designing something brand new that is probably also going to be a grocery store. Several applications have been submitted for grocery stores, but none of them worked for various reasons. Therefore, she believed Office Professional would be more compatible with the residential neighborhood in that area. Chairperson Campbell concurred with Commissioner Finerty and recalled that the neighborhood has made it clear that they don't want a grocery store at this location. Commissioner Tschopp believed that this corner cries out for a commercial use, and housing would not work so there is no need for a special study. Flexibility for this corner should be preserved so that an applicant can develop whatever uses are economically best for the site, be it office, commercial or mixed use. The vacant store across the street is not the problem at this site, and there is no assurance that a grocery store goes in across the street because of the problems inherent with the site in terms of circulation ad so forth. There may also be other uses for the vacant building across the street. He preferred that the zoning designation permit office, commercial and mixed use. Commissioner Jonathan concurred with Commissioner Tschopp, and noted that the loss of Albertson's to Rancho Mirage was unfortunate, but may be as much the City's fault as anyone's, and he would hate to see the other corner be somehow affected by that, because that intersection as a whole does indeed cry out for commercial use, as it is one of the busiest intersections in the Coachella Valley. A commercial use is highly appropriate, but he didn't want to assume that a grocery store will go into the former Albertson's site and therefore this one shouldn't, because it is possible that a use occupies this site before the vacant Albertson's building is occupied. Completing development on this corner should enhance the appeal of the vacant Albertson's building because a vacant lot across the street is a detriment to attracting an occupant for the empty store. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 low Commissioner Lopez agreed with Commissioners Tschopp and Jonathan, and believed that all the corners will be fully developed because the demand is high, and there is no need for a study. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to designate the northeast corner of Monterrey and Country Club Drive as Community Commercial. The motion carried 3-2, with Commissioner Finerty and Chairperson Campbell dissenting. Mr. Drell reported that there are a number of little changes which he has pointed out in the past, but are not identified in the staff report, and he asked if the Commission had any issues with the corner of Cook Street and the wash. There being no response, Mr. Drell indicated that the designation of a couple of OP sites would appear on the plan. Mr. Drell recalled discussion regarding the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola wherein the Commission recommended approval of an office project there that was held up at Council pending resolution of the General Plan, so this could either be handled as a study zone or the Commission could redesignate it from low density residential to Office Professional. Mr. Drell noted that the OP designation actually results in opening up the corner as opposed to having it walled in to buffer residential. Chairperson Campbell agreed with an OP designation for the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola. Commissioner Jonathan didn't see any point in creating a study area if the Commission has already approved an office use. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission regarding the zoning designation of the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola, to which there was no response. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to designate the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola as Office Professional. The motion carried 5-0. VARW 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Mr. Drell reported that the staff recommended alternative for the area north of Frank Sinatra in terms of total number of units is almost identical to the less intense alternative and only slightly more units than the existing General Plan prior to the deletion of the university site which was originally zoned for residential use, as well as the Shadow Ridge site which was also originally zoned for residential use and the 170-acre future potential expansion of Desert Willow Golf Course which was also originally zoned for residential use. In all alternatives, the commercial percentage is approximately 32% or 33%, and the two driving considerations in putting these plans together was land use compatibility, especially as it concerns the major arterials, interchanges and railroad tracks, and secondly coming up with a mix of housing that is responsive to the housing needs generated by the commercial and the university. The GPAC original analysis showed a demand of close to 10,000 units, and the GPAC alternative generated approximately 6,000 units. Mr. Drell explained that the change that occurred in the Preferred Alternative which had 36% of the real estate devoted to housing with 14% low density, 13% medium density and 9% high density. In the low intensity alternative, the commercial development was actually slightly higher, residential development slightly lower with 19% low density residential, 9% medium density residential and 4% high density residential and generating 4300 units. Mr. Drell noted that the staff recommended alternative had 21% low density residential, 6% medium density residential and 5% high density residential, and this is based on acreage. This meant there would be 102 acres devoted to high density residential uses out of the total 2100 acres in the study area. He noted the City is already considerably below demand in terms of what is being created, and if the Commission feels it would be appropriate to make at least a modest attempt to address that demand with a reasonable balance, then the staff recommended alternative would achieve that. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the actual number of high density residential units that would be generated on the 102 acres pursuant to the staff recommended alternative. Mr. Drell replied that it would potentially generate approximately 1,800 high density residential units, and the majority of units would be generated within that 102 acres. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Commissioner Tschopp asked about the actual number of high density residential units that would be generated for the less intense alternative as well as the GPAC. Mr. Drell replied that it would potentially generate approximately 1,471 high density residential units pursuant to the less intense alternative, and it would potentially generate approximately 3,255 high density residential units pursuant to the preferred alternative. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that for the staff recommended alternative, the low density residential would be 31%, the medium density residential would be 21% and high density residential is actually a combination of the high density number and the high density that is contained within the mixed use, and that comes to a total of 48%; so approximately 50% of all the new units in the north sphere as proposed by staff would be high density residential. Mr. Drell noted that if the goal is to maintain the same number of units, it would have to be taken out of the low and add to the medium and then subtract from the high. Mr. Drell commented that the current market is more comfortable with building low density projects than apartments. He added that based on Commissioner Finerty's suggestion, the Commission may wish to consider the south side of Gerald Ford between Portola and Shadow Ridge where staff is showing professional offices at the corner, and beyond that showing low density residential, partly because of input in that area from all the property owners except the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Jonathan expressed appreciation to staff for creating the charts and maps, which were quite helpful to the Commission in these deliberations. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission regarding the zoning designation for the area north of Frank Sinatra, to which there was no response. Chairperson Campbell opened the floor to comments from the Commission. Commissioner Finerty suggested the Commission consider the existing use at the university park that currently would have 3,648 units of low density residential, and then 180 of high density. She noted that there is a study zone for low density residential with a possibility of 219 units for a grand total fto 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 of 4,047 units. Mr. Drell pointed out that it could no longer be achieved because 700 acres of that was deleted and designated for non-residential uses. Mr. Drell directed the Commission's attention to the memo from the City's Traffic Engineer which responds to the question that, given the fact that the existing General Plan actually produced fewer units, why did the model generate fewer trips for the low intensity alternative, which is an approximate 10% decrease in total trips even though it's approximately 10% more units. The Traffic Engineer's memo indicates that the more efficient land use pattern concentrating the housing closer to the destinations created a greater percentage of internal capture of trips that stayed within a particular zone which resulted in a 10% increase in internal capture, which explained why total trips decreased. Mr. Drell noted that another interesting and important aspect of any of the plans, and to a certain degree by eliminating the southern part and concentrating the units somewhat along the proximity of the Gerald Ford corridor, it creates the opportunity for the future solution of transit. This is because the more one concentrates potential users of transit, the more likely it will be successful and efficient, whereas the more units are dispersed, as is the case in Southern California, transit will be less successful and efficient. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification as to the recommendation in the staff report. Mr. Drell replied that the recommendation is the plan shown as the staff recommended alternative. For the area north of 1-10, staff recommended the less intense alternative, and for the area south of 1-10, staff developed a refinement to the land use plan that is comparable in intensity in terms of number of units, number of commercial, etc., and which is the staff recommended alternative. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff recommended alternative along the 1-10 corridor has an industrial business park designation, whereas the less intense alternative has an industrial light designation, and asked about the difference between the two designations. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Mr. Drell stated the difference is flexibility, so only one designation is actually needed based on market demand, and industrial business park encompasses all the desirable uses based on market demand. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that designation would include the types of uses that exist along Cook Street. Mr. Drell confirmed that the designation would include the types of uses which currently exist along Cook Street. Commissioner Finerty noted that Table 3-1 in the Draft EIR shows for the entire City the potential number of high density units is 537, and the staff recommended alternative is to more than triple that. Mr. Drell clarified that the bulk of those came from the built on property on Hovley, and in the existing General Plan there is almost no high density residential designation, and historically it's been very difficult to get. He explained that the City never did the math to determine how much housing it needs, so there is no question in response to the perception of this huge housing demand generating zone that will be created, unless the desire is to scale back the demand generator, which is the 10 million square feet of commercial use that will be constructed along the corridor, because that is what generates growth. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the staff recommended alternative meets 50% of the projected demand created by the university. Mr. Drell replied that it's not the university, because that is only one large business, because the 10 million square feet of commercial use being projected doesn't count the university. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the staff recommended alternative meets 50% of the housing demand based on both the commercial and the university. Mr. Drell responded confirmed that the staff recommended alternatives meets 50% of the housing demand based on both commercial development as well as the university. 400 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 Commissioner Finerty asked if it is still true that the university is providing 600 rooms with 1,200 beds. Mr. Drell replied that it may occur, and it is in their master plan, and in the original projection it was assumed that the entire region will bear part of the responsibility for the housing needs of the students and faculty. Commissioner Finerty asked if the university has other acreage that could accommodate additional rooms should the need arise. Mr. Drell remarked that is incorrect, because the master plan only identifies the 600 rooms and 1,200 beds, and the site is actually quite small. Commissioner Finerty asked if there is a time estimate on how long it will take to fill 1,200 beds. Mr. Drell replied that this relates to enrollment of 15,000 at full build out which is estimated to happen 20 years from now, and typically that 1,200 is slightly more than 5%, and the university projects approximately 3,000 employees at build out, but some of those are student employees and some are also part-time workers. Mr. Drell noted that the requirement under the housing law is for the City to provide its fair share of housing, and the City's fair share of housing is a function of employment, so if every city provided their fair share, there would be sufficient housing for everyone. If every city made the choice not to provide that much housing, then half the people will be living in San Bernardino, Yucca Valley and Twenty-nine Palms. Mr. Drell stated that the staff recommended alternative is a fairly modest proposal. Commissioner Finerty clarified that the staff recommended alternative is modest for that area, but when compared to the density in the rest of Palm Desert, it's drastic. Commissioner Lopez felt that the census assessment that 50% of the people who work in Palm Desert live in Palm Desert was high, because he thinks the majority of people who work in Palm Desert are unable to live here because of the lack of housing. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Drell noted that the Palm Desert doesn't have a lot of higher end office product which employees a good percentage of the work force, because the City's commercial development is dominated by retail hotels, but all that will change when the area north of 1-10 is developed, because that will make Palm Desert more of a business center, whereas Palm Springs still has a higher concentration of high end business space. Chairperson Campbell again asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission regarding the zoning designation for the area north of Frank Sinatra. MR. PAUL BRADY, 78-694 Cimmaron Canyon, represented the Sares Regis Group, and commented that balance is key, and the balance in Irvine, which is the nation's largest planned community, is 38%industrial/commercial development,39%residential development and 25% parks and open space. Balance is what makes and drives the City's financial success. Irvine also has a large university, UCI, and Palm Desert is developing a large university. He hoped on December 2"d the Commission can wrap up the General Plan discussion. He asked that staff place on the December 2"1 agenda the Sares Regis project, because time is of the essence and time is money, and it is nearing a six-month time period with the General Plan discussion and the moratorium. He invited the Commissioners to meet individually with Sares Regis representatives to go over any last minute questions the Commission may have. MR. MYRON MCLEOD, 4035 Avenida Brisa in Rancho Santa Fe, believed that the staff recommended alternative represents a lot more than is being said, because it has involved a lot of meetings with property owners and staff. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, second by Commissioner Jonathan, by minute motion, to continue Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto, to December 2, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. Motion carried 5-0. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 18 2003 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, to adjourn the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: Ab SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /kc j Fi 28