Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0420 /"���� MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - APRIL 20, 2004 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER ' � 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * �. � �. * * * .� � -� �. � * .� �. � * � � � �. * � * * .� � .� �. * � .� �. .� � �- �. � � � -� I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez i�r. Members Absent: Sonia Campbell Dave Tschopp Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Jeff Winklepleck, Parks& Recreation Planning Manager Mark Greenwood, City Engineer Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for consideration of the March 16 and April 6, 2004 meeting minutes. �.�. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 � ..�► Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Chairperson Jonathan, approving the March 16, 2004 minutes. Motion carried 2-0-2- 1 (Commissioner Finerty abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the April 6, 2004 meeting minutes. Motion carried 3-0- 2. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent April 8, 2004 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR ; None. � VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PP 03-19 - PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS FOR SCOTELLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for five (5) office buildings totaling 53,662 gross square feet and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. The property is located on the east side of Portola Avenue, known as APN 620-430-018. Mr. Bagato reminded commission that this item was before them on November 18, 2003. At that time the applicant was proposing four single ; story buildings that front on Portola and show the footprint for a second ' � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 � story building. After discussion, the applicant requested a continuance to allow all five buildings to be presented together. This application was now complete. He explained that the project would be done in three phases with the single-story portion being constructed in phases one and two. The third phase would be the two-story office building. Mr. Bagato continued to outline the salient points of the staff report, recommended approval and asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty noted that when the commission heard this item back on November 18, 2003, she made a request to relocate the two- story building or perhaps making it go width-wise instead of length-wise where it backed up to Desert Willow due to the view impact. She indicated that it was stil! in the same location and asked if any thought had been given to that issue. Mr. Bagato deferred the question to the applicant. Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. �""" MRS. MARY STOLTZMAN, 74-401 Hovley Lane East in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She informed them that she is one of the members of Scotelle Development. Another member was also present, David Stoltzman. She said the commission wanted to see the two-story building and so they spent some time and money and thought overall it was a good suggestion and would now be part of one precise plan and they could see it as a whole package. She said that Dave Prest was also present if there were any questions relative to the design. She asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty said she just had the same question posed to staff. Mrs. Stoltzman said they wanted to maximize the views of the golt course for the two story. They thought that instead of having one big building out on Portola it would be better to have the smaller ones. They thought the circulation would also be better and tried to maximize the property with a lot of parking and a good flow. Also, for the two-story views and the building on the east side. `.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APR1L 20, 2004 � � Commissioner Finerty asked if they gave any thought to turning the building and instead of going lengthwise against Desert Willow to have it width wise. Mrs. Stoltzman said no. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION on this item. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily Drive, stated that he is the owner of the adjoining property to the south. He thought it looked like a very nice project and didn't have any comments to make about the project. His comment was about the opening of the wall between the two properties, which he understood was a condition of approval. He said the properties are both bigger, they aren't small properties that need to have that littfe connection. There are plenty of openings out onto Portola. That opening really created a problem. It took and forced traffic through parking areas and where it came out onto his property, he actually has a traffic lane ; $ there. So it makes a little "T" intersection. He was really „� concerned about traffic going that way, not only as a hazard, but just the additional traffic that has to go through. He said he also has a lot of problems with people that come to the property and get lost and wander. So his reason for coming was to see if that condition could be removed. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Drell if the wall broke up the shared ingress/egress between the two properties. Mr. Drell said that was correct. He liked to think if anyone was parked in one center and for whatever reason wanted to get to another, they would just walk. People probably won't, but this would allow someone without going back onto Portola to get from one to the other. He said he was constantly irritated going into another city when he went into one center and wanted to get to the other one and couldn't. He said it probab{y worked to a greater degree when someone comes to this center first and then wants to go into Mr. Homme's center since eventually there was going to be a median on Portola that would probably prevent a left turn out. That person would probably have to go all the way down to Frank Sinatra to make a U-turn i to come back on Portola. So it creates a whole lot of unnecessary traffic ' � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 `.. on Portola when the destination is 50 feet away. It wasn't a big deal, but given the level of traffic he didn't think it would create any hazards. He said he would like to see the whole wall taken down. He didn't think there was a reason to have a wall between the two projects. He thought there should be lots of opportunity for pedestrian movements between the two projects. He thought the wall should disappear entirely. That's the theory. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Homme's property was required to provide a reciprocal access easement. Mr. Drell said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was pedestrian access, for example if the wall was up and there was only pedestrian through space, he asked if that would accomplish Mr. Drel!'s objective. Mr. Drell said it probably accomplishes three quarters of his objective. Given the inconvenience, hopefully people would get some exercise and walk. He thought perhaps Mr. Greenwood had some input. Mr. Greenwood said he believed there is a great deal of interaction when there are two office projects side by side, whether they are going from '`""' an office in one of the projects over to an office in the other projects or they simply entered into the wrong driveway and are trying to find their way to an office they are looking for the first time, there is a great deal of interaction between these projects. As Phil pointed out, when the median is ultimately built on Portola, if they were to enter the northerly project and intended to go to the southerly project, they'd have a two- mile round trip circuit to get back to the project they wanted to be at. Palm Desert has a long history of acquiring these reciprocal accesses between projects of all sizes. A lot of the smaller projects say they are too small and the bigger projects say they are too big for that and don't need it. But he thought it provided a really improved flow, both pedestrian and vehicle wise, to have that access for very little negative side effects. Mr. Homme commented that when he originally did his project in the beginning, the reason for the access, at least for the kind of agreement to have an access there, was that he was too close to the corner to have a left-turn out. Originally at one time there was a road at the north end of Mary and Dr. Stoltzman's property that had a left turn out so for those projects there was at least one left � turn out. That would have made it far away from the corner so 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � � � they wouldn't have cars crossing at the intersection. So if there would be a left turn out that would be a whole different situation. But what really happens is that they do have those walls up and on his side he has covered parking so people who drive around really don't get a view of people coming from the north property and those cars could just motor through there. He said he has this problem in a project in Rancho Mirage where there are long parking runs and cross traffic. It is really dangerous. You put signs up and people just drive right through. People aren't paying attention. What he was afraid would happen, and he really didn't realize it until it was just mentioned now, was that the far north entrance wasn't a north turn out also. But he gets all the traffic from this project going through to Country Club Drive. He has a Country Club Drive access that is only 20 feet wide which he shares with his adjoining property owner, too. So it gets to be a lot of traffic in projects when they get this big when they know they literally have hundred of people coming and going all day long. He liked the pedestrian access much better. He thanked the commission. . � Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the � commission regarding this matter. There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan asked the applicant if they had any final comments. MR. DAVE PREST, Prest Vuksic Architects, said they didn't have a problem with not having the access and just having pedestrian access. That would be fine. Either way. Chairperson Jonathan losed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Lopez thought the project was a very handsome, well put together project. The building that is two-stories, 25 feet high, he walked the property and actually went on the other side of the wall and looked from the Desert Willow side also and he was okay with it. This new part about the parking and the access in the parking lot area is an interesting situation because he knows people will go into Mr. Homme's project off Country Club Drive and they might make their way all the way through to his project going through that access. But there was also only right- turn access out of both projects when the median goes up so it will � create a situation where people will have to go down to the U-turn, so he � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � would rather see the access between there and he liked the idea of not having any wall there and opening it all up. He did think by creating a wall there is a safety factor involved, but overall the project looks good and he thought they needed to give a little more consideration to access between the two projects. Commissioner Finerty thought it was a nice project, she was just opposed to the two-story building, no different than what was in the minutes from November 18. She thought the project could have been designed a little bit differently. Having sat on the Desert Willow Committee from the inception of the golf course, she has an affinity for the project and thought this could have been laid out in a more view friendly layout. So for those reasons she would be opposed. Chairperson Jonathan liked the project. He had some sympathy for the concerns for the views from the golf course, but thought if a golf course wanted to protect the views from the course it buys land around itself as a buffer and creates that. This is a property adjacent to the course and has a right to develop within the standards. He could see worse designs ` that would create more massing and this was a small part of the overall project that has potential intrusion into the golf course. He was okay with it and thought the design was very attractive, the flow is good and he was in favor of the project for those reasons. With regard to the access, he was sympathetic to Mr. Homme's concerns, but they have good experts in the city and he found himself often relying on their opinions and recommendations and it was clearly their preference and has been a policy of the City to create reciprocal access. What he would suggest is they retain the reciprocal access, but they monitor it. He encouraged Mr. Homme, if there are problems, he thought it was an easy fix if they wanted to go to Plan B to put up a barrier and just leave up enough room for pedestrian access. So if problems do materialize, they could deal with it. Hopefully the shared access would benefit both properties and would turn out well, as has been the city's experience in other shared access situations. He was in favor of the project and asked for a motion. �..► 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 e � � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Chairperson Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 2- 1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Chairperson Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2260, approving Case No. PP 03-19, subject to conditions. Motion carried 2-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). B. Case No. CUP 03-12 - LISA D. STINSON, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a .55-acre vacant lot planted with grass to be used as a playground by children from an after school tutoring and home work club operating within an existing building at St. John's Lutheran Church located at 42-695 Washington � Street. � .ri Mr. Drell said Mr. Urbina would give the staff report, but he wanted to emphasize that the conditional use permit before the commission was purely the use of an empty lot as a playground. While the report contains information about other traffic issues that have more to do with the overall operation of the church as it relates to surrounding properties and they could comment on it, it is not really relevant to the specific issue of the use of this empty lot. Mr. Urbina noted that this case was continued from January 20, 2004. At the previous meeting most of the discussion seemed to center around traffic impacts from the church, but as Mr. Drell mentioned, they needed to focus on the impacts that are directly attributable to the playground. He said in the staff report they tried to separate the impacts from the playground from the traffic impacts caused by the church. He said the two main impacts from the playground deal with noise for the Avilas who live in the house immediately to the east, as wefl as errant recreation balls making their way over the existing five to six foot high block wall. Since the January 20 meeting, in an attempt to deal with those issues, the applicant placed plastic cones 50 feet away from the Avilas westerly ; property line and asked the children not to play within 50 feet of the � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 i..► Avilas' home. Staff spoke to Mrs. Avila and she said the frequency of balls making their way onto the Avila's property has gone down. Staff didn't quantify how much it had gone down, but if Mrs. Avila was in the audience, she could say what the frequency is. To deal with that issue of preventing errant balls and keeping children 50 feet away so the noise impacts are not right on the Avilas' property line, staff didn't think the applicant's proposed solution of placing plastic cones 50 feet away would prevent children from chasing balls that might make their way past the cones. Therefore, staff recommended a condition of approval for the playground that would require the applicant to construct 100 lineal feet of chain link fence at a 50-foot distance from the Avilas' property line. Most of the fence, the southerly 80 feet, would be at a six-foot height and the northerly 20 feet would be at a four-foot height. The reason for the recommended four-foot height for the northerly 20 feet is that staff spoke to Mr. Avila and he was concerned about the negative impacts that might be created on his views toward the west if there were a six- foot high chain link fence. Staff visited the site and with permission from '�'■' Mrs. Avila took a picture from their front yard of where the six-foot high chain link fence would be located at 50 feet from the property line. They determined that the top two feet of the chain link fence would be visible from the front yard; however, from the rear yard the six-foot high chain link fence would not be visible because the block wall increases in height from approximately five feet in the front aFea to six feet high along the Avilas' rear yard. Staff recommended that Planning Commission approve CUP 03-12 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. That included a condition for construction of 100 lineal feet of chain iink fence, 80 feet at six feet high and 20 feet at four feet high. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff gave any thought to what the difference in the chain link fence would look like. Mr. Urbina said staff thought the recommended heights would mitigate the Avilas' concerns about views from their property. The playground is already impacted by an existing chain link fence along the southerly side of Hidden River Road. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that the existing chain link fence is all the same height. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. +r.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � As indicated in the staff report, Chairperson Jonathan noted that the commission expressed at their last meeting a desire to have staff and the Fire Marshal's office facilitate a meeting with the property owners adjacent to Hidden River Road to discuss traffic issues and possible solutions. He asked if staff followed up on ihat request. Mr. Urbina said that meeting did not occur. Planning staff was informed by the City Engineer that the Public Works Department will be requesting that the City Council allocate 550,000 in the next fiscal year's budget to assist in funding a study of intersections along Washington Street from Avenue of the States to Fred Waring Drive. This would be a study to fund a traffic consultant jointly with the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta to analyze existing traffic issues at those intersections, including the intersection of Hidden River Road. Staff didn't think that having a meeting prior to the traffic consultant's future study would likely resolve any of the issues. Resolving traffic issues relating to the church would likely take capital improvements to the intersection of Washington Street and Hidden River Road, perhaps closing off, placing a median and prevent left-turn lanes from Hidden River Road onto north bound Washington. Those are all subject to availability of funding. ; �.r� The only solution that would not involve capital expenses by the City is a solution mentioned in the January 20 staff report which would be to block off the parking lot at St. John's from Hidden River Road Monday through Fridays and requiring that all traffic entering the St. John's Church site also exit via the same driveway as that driveway is a width of 24 feet and then perhaps re-striping the front parking spaces in the St. John's parking lot to a 90 degree angle. However, as mentioned in the January 20 staff report, the City Engineer did not approve of that recommendation of having traffic enter and exit only via the St. John's driveway because if there was a vehicle trying to exit the St. John's site to turn south onto Washington Street, there could at the same time be a vehicle on Hidden River Road wanting to turn left onto north bound Washington and that would create a potential safety concern. To get back to his point, Chairperson Jonathan clarified that his question was, staff was asked by the Planning Commission to facilitate a meeting. What he heard him say was that staff unilaterally decided not to do that and he didn't remember staff coming back to the commission and saying, gee guys, we know you asked us to�do something, but we're thinking about not doing it and can we get some direction. He didn't rernember ' ari 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 � that happening. All he remembered is staff being asked by the Planning Commission to facilitate the meeting. Mr. Urbina said that was right. Planning staff did communicate the commission's concerns to the Public Works Department and the only meeting that occurred was among staff and with the Fire Marshal's office. The Fire Marshal's office determined that parking should not be allowed on Hidden River Road because it is too narrow. Reading from Mr. Urbina's staff report, Chairperson Jonathan read, "The commission also expressed a desire to have staff and the Fire Marshal's office facilitate a meeting with property owners." He asked if staff did that. Mr. Urbina said no, that meeting did not occur. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Planning Commission made a specific request. He asked why staff ignored that request. Mr. Urbina said that Planning staff did communicate the commission's request to the Public Works Department. Chairperson Jonathan said that wasn't what the Planning Commission requested. He thought that he personally, and the commission, needed a comfort level to know that when they asked staff to do something and it's agreed and there is a consensus of the commission that they want to go in a certain direction, whether staff feels that the commission is right in taking that direction, or wrong, or `�"" there's wisdom in that decision or not, he personally needs the comfort level to know that when the commission makes a request of staff that staff will follow up regardless of whether staff thinks that's a good move or bad move. If they don't have that, then it makes his job, and their job, very very difficult. They spend a lot of time preparing for a matter, as staff does, and they spend time listening to people, then they spend time talking amongst their selves, they formulate a consensus of what they . want to do, and they all needed to respect that process. So they would get to the discussion point, but he was going to suggest they go back to square one. He knew that at least one of the other commissioner's shared the desire to have that issue discussed amongst the effected parties. He was sorry to belabor the point, but he was really disheartened to read the report and find that their request was not followed up on. He was just asking that in the future they adopt a policy of complying with the commission's requests. Commissioner Finerty added that she had mentioned in the minutes of the last meeting about the school going in across on Washington kind of at the intersection at Darby and that the City of La Quinta was working with the School District and they had done quite a few studies as far as `„ traffic. She was little confused why the City Council would be requested 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � � .�r1 to allocate 550,000 for a traffic study when it seemed to her that the City of La Quinta has done traffic studies, both for the school project and also for an apartment project that was proposed back in August of 2002. She knew that a traffic study was done on that location and she knew there was reference to people going south bound on Washington because the apartment project was going to extend out to Darby. So she was wondering if that S50,000 really needed to be spent and if they could look to see what the City of La Quinta has already found out. Mr. Urbina deferred that question to the City Engineer. In talking with Mr. Urbina on this issue, Mr. Greenwood he thought he used the term study a little too loosely. The 550,000 had since been adjusted to 540,000 through the CIP process of balancing the budget, which is still plenty of money to get it done. What that project is, though, is to evaluate all of the uncontrolled intersections on Washington Street from Country Club all the way down to Fred Waring. When Washington Street was widened to six lanes, it was on a pretty fast track schedule to get it done before the tennis stadium opened and the conscious decision was made at that point to go back and solve any traffic : problems later. Later has now occurred and they've started to experience ,.� some problems, not just at this intersection. In fact, Hidden River has never been brought up as a problem intersection. On the other hand, Woodhaven Country Club and East Haven Apartments have been problem locations and they had a 1ot of discussion about the Desert Breezes driveway, Tucson Homes, as well as the alignment of Darby which was handled by the City of La Quinta and Desert Sands for the study of the new school they had proposed. What they have in the CIP right now is this money to study the issue with the City of La Quinta and the County to develop designs or alternative designs they could use to solve the issues we have and that might include blocking off openings all together or controlling certain left turns and not others. It could include traffic signals, although that was a long shot. They would actually develop the staff preferred alternatives there, come up with those designs, do the community outreach because all of these alternatives would impact people's access. If they currently enjoy a left-turn access and they are going to block it off, there are people they need to talk to about it. So getting all the way through that process is what they are proposing in the CIP now. That will probably � take about a year, but they wanted to be careful not to tie this request .�i 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 �.. to that project. This is just one of many intersections that will be studied, designed and planned for. As to the issue of this new school in La Quinta, staff has been in contact with Desert Sands and the City of La Quinta. They reviewed their traffic study and commented on it. They met with the staff of the County, City and Desert Sands. They were down now to trying to figure out who is going to pay for which particular mitigation measures. So all of that he thought was very well coordinated. On the issue of coordinating with the Fire Department, they have had staff level meetings where Planning, Public Works and the Fire Marshal have all been present and discussed this issue of Hidden River. They went through all manner of potential actions and he didn't think they were ever really able to resolve the perfect solution to this situation. He hoped that answered the question. Commissioner Finerty said pretty much. She didn't realize the request for the study was going to go all the way back to Country Club. She was under the impression that it was going to be from this area south toward Fred Waring and she knew that issue had been studied to the point ''�"' where Darby was going to be signalized and there was going to be medians in front of Tucson Homes and Desert Breezes prohibiting left- hand turns. That was the plan she knew and to go back and spend another 550,000 to go back and study it was something that sounded pretty illogical and was something that sounded like a waste of money and time. Mr. Greenwood said he wasn't aware of any current plan to prohibit left-turns out of Desert Breezes or Tucson Homes. That hasn't been resolved. Commissioner Finerty explained that was the plan with the apartment project and then with the school, but she was sure he was more familiar with and up to date on it. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. LISA STINSON, 76-862 Danith Place in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She asked if she was to put up a chain link fence. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed that was the proposal from staff. � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � i � � � Ms. Stinson said if that was what the commission requested, she would do that. That photo was an old photo and they no longer used that gate. They are all the way on the other side. She would say from talking to her staff that zero balls have been going over the wall. They stay on top of it. She was hoping she wouldn't have to do that. It seemed silly for an hour. Now that the time has changed the kids are out there about 20 minutes longer because it is lighter. For the amount of time the children are out there four days a week, it seemed kind of silly, but she would do whatever they asked. Commissioner Finerty noted that the staff report indicates between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. is when the children are taken outside. Ms. Stinson said it was until about 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Finerty asked if between that time they have two people out supervising. J Ms. Stinson said yes, absolutely. She said that picture was old and ,,.� they had completely moved to the other side way over. Less than half of the property is where they are. Chairperson Jonathan asked how many feet that is from the block wall. Commissioner Finerty said the cones were supposed to be 50 feet away. Chairperson Jonathan didn't think they looked like they were at 50 feet. Mr. Drell thought they looked like they were at 20 feet. Commissioner Lopez said he took a ride out there and walked it and it is pretty close to 50 feet from the property line to where the cones are now. The entrance gate is all the way down at the other end at the far end of the property. Ms. Stinson concurred. She didn't know why they didn't do that from the start. It was the smarter thing to do, but they are doing it now. Commissioner Lopez also noted that there were several balls down the street to the east, but there were a couple of big blue kick balls. He asked who owns the property. a Ms. Stinson said it is St. John's Lutheran Church. ; a�i 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 ��.► Regarding the property itself, Commissioner Lopez noted it says it's supposed to be turf. It looked like there was an awful lot of dirt there. Ms. Stinson said it was grass. Commissioner Lopez asked if it was pretty much grass and it was just that the grass was brown. Ms. Stinson said yes. She said it usually is watered better. She noticed that last weekend. Commissioner Lopez asked if the kids played kick ball. Ms. Stinson said they play kick ball, run around and just let off some steam. They are in school all day and then they have an hour or an hour and 20 minutes of tutoring and they just get them out and let them run around. Commissioner Lopez noted that she said there are two adults that �"'" supervise. And there was some documentation that there have actually been students that have climbed over the wall into their back yard. Ms. Stinson said that was a "he said/she said." In talking with her staff, they would never ever ever allow a child to jump the fence. She is a school teacher at Gerald Ford and all the girls that work for her are yard supervisors at Ge�ald Ford or Amelia Erhardt. They would never allow a child to jump a fence ever. Commissioner Lopez said if there is evidence or at least documentation that someone has climbed over a six-foot wall, they are going to climb over a four-foot fence. That's where he thought the supervision needed to come in as far as the application is concerned, which is regarding the play area itself. They needed to make sure that if they allowed them to have this opportunity to utilize the play area, that every consideration is made regarding the safety of the children. Climbing over a six-foot chain link fence and falling is going to hurt somebody. Ms. Stinson said they would never allow a child to do that. � 15 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � � , 1 � Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. DAVID BARRETT, 51-305 Eisenhower Drive in La Quinta, addressed the commission. He said he was there about his father- in-law's property. They have been there 26 years. He said the reason why the grass didn't really stay green is because on the weekend it becomes a parking lot. He didn't know if anyone goes out there on the weekend, but that whole piece of property becomes cars. Both entrances are opened up so they can come in and go out another way. So it would hurt their plans to put up a fence because it would wreck their parking on the weekends. As far as the balls and things like that, put up a fence and the balls didn't fly over was all great and he didn't have a problem with that, but he wanted to shed some light. Just to the right side of the property is the Learning Tree school and also right behind the church and the church parking lot is another school. So there is a lot of kid activity and noises throughout the day. He said it was ; going to come down to them being pretty much being surrounded � by school and parking lot. It is the traffic that has them concerned. Like this evening when he went to his father-in-{aw's property to come to this meeting, as he was turning in off of Washington to go into Hidden River parking lot, there were three cars already there, so he was stuck in the middle of the street. He has oncoming cars coming at him and he couldn't get into his mother and dad's property, so he had to back up in the middle of the street and then wait for them to exit. Or else if he pulls in going to his mom and dad's house, sometimes they have to stop and the cars will slowly have to pass within just inches because he drives a big Chevy with a big rear end since he's a general contractor. It makes it very difficult traffic wise. The thing with the kids is when the parents came to pick them up, there's a speed limit coming down the road and then there's two-way traffic. As it is, on Sunday they can't enter or leave the property during certain times because the church parking lot is full, they also use the parking lot at the Learning Tree, and the whole grass lot becomes a parking lot. There had to be 60-70 E cars and they can't leave the property. ; � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 w Just recently in the last meeting they talked about emergency problems and situations arise with the Fire Department or if any type of vehicle had to get in they would have a problem. That problem did happen a couple of months ago. The Fire Department was called out there and they could not get in because of the traffic and they could not get back there. There are also fender benders on the road and things like that. His mother-in-law's concern is that she has lived in the house for 26 or 27 years. His father-in-law has a picture with him of when the road was not paved. He went to the church and everyone around him and no one wanted to help, so his father-in-law actually put up the money and time to get that road paved and taken care of. Now they can't park on it, they can't drive on it and they couldn't do anything because the church is over growing and pushed them right into just the property they have and that's it. They have a large family and on holidays and for years they have been able to park out front of their mom and dad's house like most other areas. Ten cars aren't going to fit in the driveway. And they `�"" aren't allowed to use their parking lot and have been told to not use their parking lot. So they have to park on their road. Now they are going to say they can't park there, so they are getting crammed into one spot. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the application before them is for the use of that lot as a playground by ihe tutoring and homework club program. So the kinds of traffic issues Mr. Barrett was talking about, he asked if he was speaking of just the result of that. Mr. Barrett said yes, it was also a result of that use because of the parents coming to pick up the children. He believed the homework club was open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. They say it is open only a few hours, but it's open from 7-6. Also, they have Sunday service and Wednesday service. Chairperson Jonathan said he wanted to make sure they were talking about the same thing because the application before the commission was for a homework club that operates Monday through Thursday 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. period. +�.�. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMiSSION APRIL 20, 2004 � 8 � � Mr. Barrett said the traffic picked up considerably because they have 40 to 50 kids. So figure 40 to 50 cars coming within that period of time to pick up their kids. It was like a rampage of traffic so they couldn't enter or exit their property at will. They have to wait until these times subside. If he wants to visit or drive by, at certain times the parents coming through made it very difficult to go up to the house. Chairperson Jonathan asked what Mr. Barrett thought the solution was. Mr. Barrett said that as a general contractor, he knew that a facility had to have a certain amount of parking to accommodate the people going there. The church has a lot of parking in the back area and they should use it. They just removed a big train car/storage shed that was taking up a lot of parking space. He didn't know if it was removed because of the city or not. But they have a lot of parking area and they do have the ability to circle around like they have for the last 24 years, to circle around their � property and exit their 24-foot driveway. All they wanted to � propose is that Monday through Friday they shut the roadway off �„� so they can enter and exit their property. He said they can come back from dinner some nights and they have late night Weight Watchers going on, which they do a lot, and they can't get into their property. They could have six or seven cars strong coming out of that driveway and they couldn't get in. MR. RICHARD LANDIS, 43-325 Texas Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said that he is the President of the Council of St. John's. He wanted to refute what the previous speaker just said. At no time have they ever approached the Council. As a point of order, Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Landis was representing the applicant, because he wanted to hear from everyone else and then the applicant would be given a chance for rebuttal. He just wanted to make sure they heard from everyone else. Mr. Landis said he wasn't rep�esenting anyone. He just wanted to clarify a matter here. Number one, they never approached them � regarding parking. He said they would be more than happy to park ; � 18 MINUT�S PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � and the gentleman that just spoke parks his truck out there on the same Hidden River Road and it has been designated as a fire road. That is illegal to begin with, but he thought he did it to spite them so that they can't get by him. Weight Watchers hasn't been an occupant of their church for almost four years. The bins he was talking about in the back, yes, they had them back there, but that was for their annual rummage sale that they use the proceeds to buy scholarships for their young people. Currently, and no one mentioned this including the staff man, there is a sign up there now at the end of Hidden River Road saying right turn only, so he didn't see the concerns if people obey that sign. He couldn't guarantee they all do because he has seen some make left turns, some property owners and some of their own people, but they were working on them to abide by that sign and only make right hand turns. They have cooperated with Mr. Avila and his son-in- law. When he was on the Council last year they had a problem with traffic. They had a mutual agreement with the Learning Tree next � door just north of them. They only have one exit off of their property and it is a very narrow one, so St. John's allowed the Learning Tree to come through the gate and go down on Hidden River Road. Well, some of these people were speeding and in excessive speeds and when the Avilas told them to slow down, one lady gave them an obscene gesture and swore at her. When this matter was brought to the Council, they wrote letters to the Learning Tree. When they didn't do anything to control their people, they took away their privilege. They are trying to cooperate with them all they can. He thanked the commission. MR. ART AVILA, 77-925 Hidden River Road, addressed the commission. He said he almost wanted to apologize to the city council for all of this mess. It had almost gotten out of hand. It is a situation where if it would have been as simple as the church approaching him with the whole thing, this never would have been brought up. It could have been solved very easy. When Francisco called him and told him about the study they did and everything, ihe 550,000 and everything, he couldn't believe all the man power they send out there and all this money they would allocate, he � wondered why they didn't just do what the council asked to get 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 } � � the property owners together and see what they could come up with. It would have been so simple. He felt badly because it made him sound like a terrible person. He wasn't. The church has been cooperative and they are nice folks. He really appreciated what they have done. He almost felt bad it has gone this far. He was in agreement that if they want to put up the chain link fence, go ahead. His only concern now is the traffic and that was something else that they needed to study. But he thought they could resolve it between the church and himself. He just wished someone would come over some day and say "hey, Mr. Avila, can we discuss this issue" and he'd say "Yeah, let's sit down." He wasn't going to beleaguer the problem any longer. Chairperson Jonathan thanked him for his comments. He asked if the applicant had any other rebuttal comments or anything more to add. Ms. Stinson said no. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissione� Finerty stated that she would be inclined to move forward ; with the application and at the same time continue the request for staff ,,� to get the parties together to meet on the traffic issues. She really didn't see the necessity at this time for a staggered chain link fence. She thought that would look ridiculous and now that they have moved to the opposite end, they are out there a maximum of an hour with two supervisors and it seemed that the errant balls should be kept to a real minimum if not zero. Commissioner Lopez said he was taking a little different perspective on it. He thought the chain link fence was probably a good idea. He thought there were ways of making it look appropriate and it provided a buffer area a little more substantial than the cones. He thought the supervision was vital. As it pertains to the use as a parking lot area, he thought that was something they were all going to have to work out between all of them. When they have an area that is primarily dirt, there are going to be aggravating things that occur. There would be dust created by the cars. He thought that could be worked out along with the traffic issue. But as far as the use of this facility and the request before the commission, he was okay with the use of the area as a playground and he would be inclined to go with a little more substantial protection from the property ; - than cones and should probably be the fence. 3 � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � Chairperson Jonathan said he was in agreement with Commissioner Finerty's suggestion to move forward one way or another with the application before them, but that they also reiterate their request for staff to facilitate a meeting. He wasn't sure the Fire Marshal needed to be there, he would leave that to staff, but someone from Engineering. They looked at some options about the realignment of the parking spaces on the 24-foot drive that the church has to relieve some of the iraffic. He thought there was a solution out there and if they got all the effected parties together, he had faith in our Palm Desert citizens and thought they would work together to achieve a solution. With regard to shielding the Avilas' home from playground activity, he kind of liked the idea of a fence, but he was concerned it might reduce the usefulness of that lot for parking, which would then create other problems. Rather than the small cones, he asked about the stanchions and putting tape between them. Because the cones could be used as soccer goals. Stanchions would at least be a little bit more of a barrier and at the same time removable so that on Sundays the church can more freely use that lot for parking. ft would be as good as a fence, but maybe `� a little better. Commissioner Lopez stated that the more he thought about the parking on Sunday, they have a natural accessibility with those two gates, he would be okay with something that was a little more than just cones. He thought it was a good suggestion. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would be in agreement with that. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there would be a motion that would be two fold. One would be to modify Condition #5 to substitute stanchions with tape between them, etc., rather than a chain link fence. The second part was to reiterate the Planning Commission's request of staff to facilitate a meeting with the effected parties. Mr. Drell asked how high the commission wanted the stanchians to be, four feet minimum? Chairperson Jonathan thought they were about four feet. He asked how high the ones were that are used as median dividers. Mr. Greenwood thought they were 42 inches. Commission agreed with the 42 inches. Commissioner Finerty asked if Chairperson Jonathan's � 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 comment was in the form of a motion. He concurred. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2261 , approving Case No. CUP 03-12, subject to conditions as amended. Commission also directed staff to facilitate a rneeting with the property owners and staff to resolve traffic and parking issues. Motion carried 3-0. C. Case No. CUP 04-08 amending PP 06-83 - DESERT SPRINGS CHURCH, Applicant Request for a approval of an amendment to the original precise plan to allow a two-phase expansion to the existing � church facility. First phase to be a finro-story 6,313 square foot classroom/flex space building, and second phase a second story youth assembly area 4,370 square foot building to be constructed over the existing rear parking lot. Church is located at 43-435 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. One would require the church or the future church use to amend the parking management plan if the existing parking lease with KMIR should be terminated for any reason. Also, staff provided a condition that would allow the City to review the situation prior to issuing building permits for Phase 2. If necessary, the parking management plan could be amended prior to issuance of those permits. There were no questions of staff and Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GUY HOWARD, 46-800 Cameo Palms Drive in La Quinta, 92253, stated that he is the designer for Cherokee Homes working ' with Desert Springs. � � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 ir.r Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Howard reviewed the conditions of approval and if everything looked okay. Mr. Howard said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other comments or issues he wished to bring to the commission's attention. Mr. Howard added that while they opened the parking lot to the east, it would allow the parking lots to work as a one-way. They stipulated that they put signs up requiring the cars to go one-way because on the second exit going south there is no left-hand exit. As it is now, cars have to turn around in the parking lot to back and try to find a spot. With the new east side parking lot, they would be able to circulate all the way around the entire church. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was with the through parking in the front. � Mr. Howard concu�red. With Phase 2, the second story, Chairperson Jonathan asked if they would be completely on top so they wouldn't lose any parking spaces. Mr. Howard said they rearranged the parking and they lost six spaces by rearranging it for the pylons to hold up the second floor. But it was still allowable. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was included in the parking calculations. Mr. Howard said yes. Chairperson Jonathan thought it was a neat solution. Mr. Howard said it was tough. There were no further questions and Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one � and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 Commissioner Lopez moved for approval. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan commented that this is a very thoughtful expansion that he thought meets and defeats the challenges of this type of an expansion, so it was a job well done. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2262, approving CUP 04-08, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. D. Case Nos. DA 97-2 Addendum #3, TPM 31563 and PP 04-05 - HOLT ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for approval of an addendum to ihe Wonder Palms Master Plan to expand permitted uses in Planning Area 1 to � include planned industrial uses, a master plan for Planning � Area 1, a tentative parcel map for a 21 .86-acre commercial/ office/industrial project, a precise plan for five (5) two-story buildings totaling 166,000 square feet on 10.59 ac�es of the site and a height exception for mechanical equipment screening purposes. The site master plan includes 236,450 square feet of commercial/office/ industrial, 14,750 square feet of restaurants (including two drive-thrus), and a three story hotel with up to 104 rooms. This project has been previously assessed for purposes of CEQA. The project is generally at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, more particularly described as APN 653-410- 023 through 025, 653-690-015 through 019. Mr. Winklepleck began by describing the change of zone request. Commissioner Finerty said that they read all the uses that would not be allowed under the industrial use and asked for clarification on what would be allowed. Mr. Winklepleck said he would let the applicant describe it in more detail, but typically they were looking at clean industrial uses including tile sales, cabinet sales, and things like that, but no automotive 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 � repair, no bakeries or other cooking uses. The addendum to the development agreement would include the industrial uses and he would allow the applicant to describe those in more detail. Mr. Winklepleck continued describing the project. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Mr. Holt put up the rendering and he asked if that was the only precise plan before the commission. Mr. Winklepleck said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that it corresponded with Parcels 1-6. Mr. Winklepleck concurred. Regarding the history of the site, Mr. Winklepleck indicated that the site has seen a couple of different approvals. The most recent was the sports complex in 2000 which included a sports complex approximately 200,000 square feet and that included ancillary uses, as well as a hotel, some fast food and office pads for a total of 318,202 square feet. In 1996 a plan was approved for a service station (which was subsequently built and the remainder was not), a food court, vehicle parking lot/RV ''� storage, self storage and some retail shops. So there has been quite a bit of activity on this particular site. As far as access and circulation, he said there is one ingress/egress point off Cook Street which is shared with the gas station. There are three ingress/egress points off of Gerald Ford. The western most and eastern most will be right-turn in and right-turn out. The main central access will be full access for ingress and egress. He said there was a traffic study done with the Wonder Palms Master Plan and staff reviewed the previously approved projects and the related project impacts this project would create and determined that the previous study done by Endo Engineering was sufficient which dealt with the sports arena. Staff determined that the impact of this project was less, therefore, additional studies would not be required. He also described the architecture and colors in detail and had a material sample board on display. He thought an interesting challenge for this site was the location as it sits adjacent to the Cook Street overpass, approximately 32 to 35 feet above the pad level of the proposed buildings. In addition, when traveling north on Cook Street, there was a potential for someone to see quite a bit of � the roof top equipment similar to the University buildings. The challenge 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � � ..r� for the architect was to come up with architecture that fit the site and hid the equipment. He said the proposed maximum building height is 39.8 feet from finished grade. This exceeded the 30-foot maximum allowed for the zone. For comparison purposes, he stated that the previously approved sports complex had a roof height of 46 feet, so they have granted exceptions in the past because of the location and uses. The additional height was to accommodate the louvers in the roof to screen the equipment. If this building was located in another location that didn't have the potential to have all of its rooftop equipment seen, it would actually meet the height requirement. So the additional nine feet was only to screen the rooftop equipment. The project was before ARC on March 9 and they were impressed with the architect's approach to the screening of the rooftop equipment and were also impressed with the architecture of the building. They granted prefiminary approval to the project. The landscaping was being devefoped and would be submitted for approval at a future date. There were some conceptual plans that were submitted, but they are working with city staff to better define the plant materials. � � Regarding code requirements, Section D, the applicant pointed out to him that under Offstreet Parking those numbers should be reversed. There are actually 670 spaces provided by the project and 664 are required by the project. The project is identified as Plan Area 1 in the Wonder Palms Master Plan. The proposed addendum would add industrial uses which will essentially conform to the approved business park general plan designation for the site. The project is parked at the general office/retail standard of four spaces/1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area and will allow, if they need to, full occupancy by offices. In addition, this allows the developer flexibility to mix and match with the industrial uses. For example, if they were to provide 1 ,000 feet of industrial with a standard of 2/1 ,000 and then come in with 1 ,000 square feet of inedical which is parked at 6/1,000, the essential net would still be 4/1 ,000. So it did allow them some flexibility. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the trade off would be for the entire 22- acre site or if they were just talking about these five. Mr. Winklepleck said in this case they were only talking about this precise plan. Chairperson Jonathan said it looked like the design is exclusively suited ; for office. He didn't really see roll up doors or storage yards in the design � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 2004 �... before them. He wasn't seeing industrial use here. Mr. Winklepleck said that would be best answered by the applicant. He thought the height exception allowing the additional nine feet eight inches was warranted because of the extenuating circumstances. He noted that the project was deemed previously assessed for CEQA purposes and recommended approval. Mr. Drell added that the reason why it was previously assessed is that the previous project which approved the ice rink was a far more intensive project than this one, therefore, the analysis which was appropriate for that one also applied ta this one. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TIM HOLT, a Principal of Holt Architects, stated that they are the applicant for their client, Jerry Williams of JW Design and Construction out of San Luis Obispo. He stated that it has been their objective to create a project here that is not only an '� appropriate complement to the future of the educational complex which will comprise the Cal State Campus, but to also create a project that will represent the city well at the main entry point into the city from Interstate 10. The perspective that is available to view this project is rather extraordinary, particularly f�om the north at the interstate point, the access points, the east bound entry drive east to the interstate gives an excellent perspective to the north side of this project. He said the eievations they had studied suggested that the vantage point of the vehicle at the top of the overpass is approximately 34 or 35 feet above these pad elevations which he thought drives the point that he thought Jeff had done an admirable job of explaining the challenge architecturally. He said they do have some unfortunate examples about 500-600 feet up the hill to the campus site where there is a lot of exposed mechanical equipment. This architectural solution was intended to conceal through an architectural treatment the rooftop mechanical equipment which are inherent to a project of this kind. Being a multi-tenant type of facility, there is a need for a series of � mechanical units on top of the roof because they needed to zone 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 a a i � � this building at both levels for any number of sized potential inhabitants or tenants. So those units would be conventionally spread on the roof. Without this element they are talking about, there will be a direct visual access from the top of the bridge for any vehicle that is approaching southbound to look right down onto the roof and thereby view the mechanical equipment. So a screen device was necessary to conceal view of the undesirable rooftop equipment. He said they worked closely with the civil engineer to place the pad elevations of these five structures at va�iable points. It is not a dead level type of site, but there is some variations to pad elevations and that would lend to some architectural variety as well with regard to roof heights and be particularly apparent at the ground level. In addition to that, each of the five buildings complement the others. They hoped they are a good complement to the campus in the future, but the colors are meant to vary. Two of the roof shapes vary to some degree in color and in profile i in terms of the green complementary colors. The other earthtones ,�j also varied around the building so there weren't two exactly the same, but were meant to complement. He hoped they did ihat well. Regarding uses and permissible uses, their intent and desire is to have as many professional office users as they can, but the reality might suggest that some research and development type firms might be highly interested in a location like this adjacent to the interstate. From that standpoint they have allowed in the design the implementation of roll up doors on the north side elevations of Buildings 2 and 3. Those would be the ones that face the railroad tracks directly to the north and users that might be large area users that might have need for two-story space and perhaps loading and unloading capabilities wauld be able to do that as an alternative use. He believed the market place would be the prime determinate in how much of that is necessary; however, they have not requested it to face either Cook Street or Gerald Ford. All of that would be � the conventional office type building design they were looking at. ; .� 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � He thought there was an observation earlier about large open areas for trucks or service vehicles. He said they purposely did not include that function here. They intent for R&D and clean industrial which would not require exterior service or yard areas to accommodate outside storage, servicing of any types of vehicles or particularly large truck movement. Even though the site is not restrictive in its circulation pattern, they do not see undesirable or unsightly storage as being appropriate to that area. If they had their choice and if folks respond to this location like they expect, they are hoping it will end up with the majority being professionai offices and general offices. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked if he knew what type of fast food restaurant would be proposed. Mr. Holt said this particular site in the precise plan they were looking at right now did not include that portion of the site where �•• the fast foods are. Mr. Winklepleck noted that at the first Planning Commission meeting in May staff would be coming back with a food court and approval for the drive-thru so there might be additional information then. Mr. Holt indicated it is part of a separate submittal. Commissioner Lopez applauded Mr. Holt on the way the rooftop equipment was hidden. Regarding the materials, he said they look very nice because the colors are sharp, but when going over the overpass looking down on it he wondered over time how the materials would last with the look of them and the fading with the heat. He asked for additional information on that. Mr. Holt stated that the specified material on the roof areas is a standing seam metal with a 20-year warranted finish, which is about the best they can specify in today's world. He said they have had these roofs on various buildings throughout the desert. He hasn't seen any fading really evident during the first ten years � of life. It seemed to occur somewhere after the 1 1 th or 12th and 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � � .� it was very very gradual. He didn't know what they could do to guarantee this won't occur 20 years down the road because to some extent it will. Commissioner Finerty asked if perhaps the lighter green rooftops would be less likely to fade then the brighter evergreen. Mr. Holt said the same warrantee and data is inherent to both of these colors. It's possible and probably from the practical standpoint, and only time would tell, which one of them would tend to be sun effective. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Holt had the evergreen on roofs and buildings in the desert. Mr. Holt said no. Commissioner Finerty said that would be her only concern on that one having a tendency to fade. � � Mr. Holt said he understood. Chairperson Jonathan stated that there is a pretty good amount of frontage on Cook Street between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. He wasn't sure how many feet that translated into, but that was a pretty long distance and it appeared from the rendering, and he had to compliment him on the architecture, he adored it and thought it was wonderful. It is very interesting and refreshing and he liked it very much. His question was along Cook Street from the aerial type of rendering it appeared, perhaps because the landscaping was not there, as if sitting at the top of the intersection looking towards the mountains about to drive down Cook Street, it looked like there is covered parking all along Cook Street. They didn't have the landscaping there and that is the entrance to the city and what people will be looking at on a first blush coming off the freeway heading down Cook Street south looking to their left, they are potentially looking at very little landscaping and just a bunch of structures very close to the street and curb. He asked if he was reading that right or if there was more setback. He said there is a landscape plan, but it still looked very thin. ' � � 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 1i�. Mr. Holt stated that he was entirely correct in the way it appeared on the rendering. One of the conditions of approval required that the east facing slope be landscaped with this project, so their landscape architect was working with staff on that solution, much the same as the west facing side of Cook Street on the other side was conditioned to be landscaped. Their landscape plan would also include some additional planting aiong that p�operty line area to help to conceal that area. He believed on the other hand that they would look pretty much over the top of about 85% of these covered parking areas. Mr. Drell concurred. He said they would have to be right up at the edge staring down a slope to see those. Hopefully auto drivers will be looking straight ahead and not staring down a slope. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that he was talking about when someone was coming off the freeway heading down Cook Street, for all the frontage along Cook Street he only saw a very thin area for landscaping. Mr. Drell clarified that it was a huge area. All that area is a slope and it '�""' would be landscaped. The off ramp is at the top of the slope, 50 or 100 feet away. Chairperson Jonathan explained that it was the slope from the height of the interchange coming down, so it sloped toward the east. Mr. Drell said it was steep; probably a 3 to 1 slope. Mr. Winklepleck informed commission that the minimum would be about 65 feet at the south end and then it almost doubled. Mr. Drell concurred that it was over 100 feet � coming off the off ramp. On an application that the commission approved on the other side of Cook Street, Chairperson Jonathan noted that their conclusion was to create some trees in that down slope to soften and mitigate the view. Trees that would grow up pretty tall so that it was more like a green park-like area between the road and the financial buildings. He asked if that was part of where the landscaping design was heading. Mr. Drell said it wouldn't be a hedge, it would be desert style landscaping with the trees and distances normally seen, but the trees in that area were probably still 20 or 30 feet apart. Our goal isn't to create a forest there, but typical desert. He said desert landscaping tended to be on the sparse side, but it would be landscaped. � 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 � � � Chairperson Jonathan said if it was desert landscaping and sparse, then they wouldn't have a softening of the view. They would be up pretty high looking down into this project, so on the other side the commission's conclusion was to soften that view by creating some trees that would eventually be pretty tall with leaves so that there is some softening of the direct view into the project. Mr. Drell said there would be in this project. It wouldn't be solid. They didn't plant trees to create a solid barrier. Chairperson Jonathan said it didn't have to be solid and that wasn't what he was saying. Mr. Drell said yes, it would be similar to what they see in perimeters at Desert Willow and other places. The Desert Willow standard is the one staff usually refers to as the density of planting that they expect. So there are clusters of two or three trees together, then some space. Mr. Winklepleck explained the intent of staff's condition was to emulate the previous condition off of Technology Drive on the other side. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. Mr. Winklepleck said that would be the direction and they would be using that as an example. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed there was the same problem on the off ramp as it heads down. Mr. Winklepleck concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or � .�' OPPOSITION of the project. MR. DAVE TURNER with Coachella Valley Engineers, 77-899 Wolf Road Suite 102 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He confirmed he was with the applicant. He explained that along with . the landscaping, there is a little room along the edge of the roadway, but the landscape architect was working on that and it does drop off about 35 feet and they would work with the City in trying to get it landscaped and take care of the concerns. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he understood that the thought was to, if a driver is looking straight down on the project it is kind of hard, so they should break that up with a little bit of landscaping. It didn't have to be a solid wall of green, but it should be in his opinion something other than just the flat typical desert sparse landscaping. So something needed to be vertical to soften the view coming down off the interstate. Mr. Turner concurred. He indicated there was a question/concern on two of the conditions. Under Public Works Condition No. 17, ' ; he believed that condition where it said the drainage easement � +rr� 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 +�.. along the west was actually talking about the east property line where they are relocating a catch basin and putting in a new storm drain. !n those negotiations, it was originally going to be on the !ot line between their project and the project to the east. In the negotiations to get that worked out and relocated, they were going to put that in a 10-foot easement. So they just wanted to see if they could get that easement down from 20 feet to 10 so they can keep their trash enclosure they have proposed there. Mr. Joy agreed that it should say east property line, not west. Going over this project with the City Engineer, he specified a 20-foot drainage easement as the requirement. Chairperson Jonathan said he was hearing there would be stuff on there and it would be more palatable to the applicant to have ten feet. Mr. Turner concurred. He said the pipe wasn't going to be very deep. He thought they would have enough room and if there is a problem, if it needs to be maintained, it would have reciprocal access right down the drive that he thought would work with any r•• maintenance on it. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Joy if he knew of any reason it had to be 20 feet given that a pipe is not going to be that big and that it would presumably be adjacent to the property line. Mr. Joy said it was his understanding that 20 feet would be required for the pipe and any kind of repairs that might need to be done so it wasn't substandard and for the pipe to fit inside. He said a 20-foot minimum is what the City requires of any kind of drainage easement and 10 feet would be substandard. He said where they wanted the drainage easement there were trash enclosures and those kinds of things on top of it and they did not want the trash enclosures on top of the drainage easement. Chairperson Jonathan asked the applicant if they wanted to go up to 10 feet. Mr. Turner concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a 20-foot setback there anyway. Mr. Turner said they actually took the storm drain that was � proposed on the property line and took it all onto their property. It 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 � ..� is going down the drive aisle. In their negotiations, this goes back nine months ago or so, but they agreed to put in a 10-foot easement so they would like to stay with a 10-foot easement. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that staff seemed to be unyielding on that issue. Mr. Joy said they went over this item in great deal and Mark Greenwood specified that is what he wanted. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that the figure wasn't arbitrary, it is what staff needs. Mr. Joy concurred. Mr. Drell said that they could add the language "or as determined by the City Engineer." Mr. Turner said they could work with Mark on that issue and that would satisfy them if they said "20 feet, or as approved by the City Engineer." That would be fine. Mr. Winklepleck said that since the project is going to City Council, they will have time to get work on it. Chairperson Jonathan recommended "20 feet or less as determined by i the City Engineer." Everyone agreed. � Mr. Turner said that on Public Works Department Condition No. 18, this came up where they were wanting an eight-foot easement adjacent to the Cook Street overpass for a future connection for the bike path for the mid valley storm channel. He said they weren't opposed to that condition and thought it would be a very good idea for the future. He said they don't have eight feet along the westerly side. They were going to be regrading that slope for landscaping and also for catching the drainage that would come off the overpass onto the site and they could very easily leave an eight-foot path along the actual right-of-way right up along the easterly edge east of the existing storm drain there and accommodate a future bike path there. They could accommodate it, but rather than an easement on their property, they would like to accommodate it within the right-of-way. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he was talking about along Cook Street. Mr. Turner said yes. � � ..� 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 � Mr. Drell asked if the bike path was identified along the north side of the property. Mr. Turner said they didn't and there was nothing in the conditions on it. Mr. Drell said there needed to be. Mr. Turner said that the 28-acre project to the east that got approved about a year ago, the bike path was going to be within the Mid Valley Storm Channel right-of-way on that project. So when it didn't show up as a condition on the north, he was under the assumption it would continue in the same manner as that project. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Joy if that worked. Mr. Joy explained that the bike path would be on the north side of the channel. In discussions he had concerning whether or not they should require this developer to actually install a bike path or have it installed at a future date relates to the ""r' condition to provide the connection also. But there had been a number of developments along the Mid Valley Channel that have not installed a bike path, so they felt it wasn't fair to make this developer do it. Mr. Drell asked if they were confident CVWD had no problem with having the bike path within their right-of-way. Mr. Joy said they have 20 feet of right-of- way on the other side of the channel. Mr. Drell asked for confirmation that they didn't have a problem with it. Mr. Joy concurred. With regards to the bike path location, it was similar to the drainage easement. Public Works prepared this memo a couple of months ago and he felt uncomfortable discussing these matters at the Planning Commission meeting without the City Engineer. They had two months to discuss this and this is the first time it has come to his attention that the developer had any problem with this requirement. The reason why they didn't want the bike paths along the eastern part of the project where the applicant is requesting it to be located is because it is a considerable distance from Cook Street itself. They want the connection to be at Cook Street. Mr. Turner clarified that they were actually proposing that it stay at Cook Street. All they were trying to do is take it off their property and put it within the Cook Street right-of-way. �.. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 Mr. Dreli asked who controlled that right-of-way. Mr. Turner said it was right-of-way that the city controls. Mr. Drell questioned if it was CalTrans. Mr. Turner said it went back about a year ago, but in their discussions the city controls the right-of-way up to that point and then over the Interstate is CalTrans. Mr. Drell asked if there was room to create a bike path there without creating retaining walls. Mr. Turner said yes, because they were going to be doing some regrading in there because of the slope and the drainage. He said they could put the bike path in there while they were grading. He thought their closest point of slope is about 40 feet and it goes to about 120 feet, so they had plenty of room to fit a future bike ; path. So they agreed it should stay there, they were just requesting it to stay within the Cook Street right-of-way. � Mr. Joy apologized, he thought they wanted to move it to the east. Mr. Turner said no, to the easterly side of the Cook Street right-of- way. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they could simply amend that condition to say that it will be on the Cook Street overpass if feasible? Mr. Drell said it could say "as determined by the City Engineer." Chairperson Jonathan agreed. They wanted to make sure there wasn't a design problem and to confirm who owns it. Mr. Joy didn't think it mattered whose right-of-way it was on as long as it is installed. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION on this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissione� Finerty said she liked the architecture and wou{d move for approval with the amendments to Public Works Condition Nos. 17 and ' 18. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought it was a great looking project and one they would all be very proud of. He seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan also concurred. He reiterated his interest in the landscaping all around. This is a focal point in terms of an entry to the city and he had confidence that ultimately the landscaping will compliment the beautiful and interesting architectural design that has already been made part of this project. He was in agreement 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 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2263, recommending to City Council approval of DA 97-2 Addendum #2 (previously identified as #3), TPM 31563 and PP 04-05, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-0. �r.. Chairperson Jonathan informed the audience that it had been suggested that the commission deal with Item F next, which should be a straight forward and short item and Item E might take a little more time. He asked if staff perceived that Item F would be a short item. Mr. Drell said yes. It was purely implementing a previously approved project. Chairperson Jonathan said they would skip to Item F and dispense with it first. Commission concurred. F. Case No. TPM 31515 - RICK EVANS, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parce! map subdividing a 23.7-acre parcel into 14 parcels and 2 lots for development of an approved precise plan (PP 03-1 1 ) at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37- 001 Cook Street. Mr. Drell explained that this parcel map would implement a previously approved project by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He suggested that the public hearing be opened to take testimony. r.. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 _ ; Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else present wished to address the commission regarding this matter. (The applicant was in the audience, but indicated no.) Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2264, approving TPM 31515, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. E. Case Nos. C/Z 03-13, TPM 31730 and DA 97-2 Addendum #4, � Applicant � Request for approval of a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five dwelling units per acre) to PCD (planned community development), an addendum to the Wonder Palms Development Plan to expand Planning Area No. 5 and the uses therein, a master plan of development for the new Planning Area No. 5, and a tentative parcel map dividing 296 +/- acres into 15 parcels. Property is generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, 37-500 Cook Street. Mr. Drell informed commission that there was a little bit of a mix up on the addendums and amendments. Technically, this is Addendum #3. When dealing with the Wonder Palms Development Agreement, there was an amendment to the agreement. When Mr. Evans had his project that was Addendum #1 . Public Hearing Item #D should be #2. This should be Addendum #3. Secondly, when the commission looked at Addendum #2 there was an addendum document with recitals and the interesting guts of it was the specific discussion of the uses and those , things. Staff has not yet prepared one for Addendum #3, but what the � commission had was the guts of it, which is the development standards. � 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 i�r.. They didn't have the broiler plate. So he didn't know if they could get by the fact that they didn't have the broiler plate, they would be preparing the broiler plate before it went to council, but the guts were the development standards. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff was going to do a report on it. Mr. Drell said they were going to give a brief overview and then they were going to ask what level they wanted. They could go through it page by page in a summary form like the general plan, they could answer questions, there was the fact that there are only three commissioners present and whether they were prepared and had time to digest it. Staff was going to leave it up to the commission to decide how to proceed. Commissioner Finerty said she was looking forward to reading staff's comments on some issues. For example, medium density lots at 3,500 square feet versus 5,000. Under high density three story units versus two story. They were also talking about landscaping in compliance with State Assembly Bill 325, Mr. Drell said that was state law. Commissioner Finerty said it would be nice to have a copy of it. The low density '� development standards quoting "a minimum lot of 7,200." Throughout the city we have a low density of 9,000 square feet. Mr. Drell said 8,000. Commissioner Finerty said and 9,000. Mr. Drell said and 10, 1 1 and 12,000. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She said that also under low density it looked like all primary structures are at 24 feet and two stories. They have talked about providing one story around the borders so that it wasn't all two stories. Mr. Drell said they were going to go over all the specifics. Commissioner Finerty said she would also like to know what staff thinks about round abouts. Mr. Drell said that staff was in support of all the fundamental policies proposed in the master plan. They would be looking at individua� projects and seeing how those standards might apply to each individual project. They have not yet. Commissioner Finerty said she would like to see staff take a look at that. Mr. Drell said that staff was in support of all of it. As a general development guideline for the projects when they will be looking at the specifics, how the guidelines are applied to a specific guideline they would see when they see those projects. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff wrote the development standards. Mr. Drell said staff did not write it but critiqued it twice. This is the third draft. Commissioner Finerty asked if it should say #3. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan thought it was the � addendum that changed and this was the amendment. Mr. Drell said it 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 � # � t ../ should not say Amendment #2, it should just say development plan. He said this would be attached to that other document which would give all the whereases and identify all the terms. As a point of clarification, Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was staff's position that the development plan before the commission is consistent with the approved General Plan. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked if they approved three stories in the General Plan. Mr. Drell said they didn't speak to that. They did approve ten units per acre, which presumes 3,500 square foot lots. The General Plan did not speak to any of those things. That is what zoning details do. The purpose of this document is to propose and for them to discuss the methodology and design guidelines which will be implementing the goals of the General Plan, which is to produce "X" number of units. Most of the document is philosophical in terms of the goals it is trying to achieve. Inherent in the General Plan approval was a more intensive use of residential land than we have now. That is inherent in the General Plan approval. This is kind of almost the beginnings of a new zoning ordinance of what standards they should use to achieve those. Both what standards and design principles. Ultimately when they review plans, they don't just look at the numbers, they look at the design and whether it achieves our goals of what a good neighborhood is: Obviously to achieve medium density, which is a product that quite frankly our current ordinance prohibits, so the result of the General Plan is no, this is something we have to create a standard for. That is what the medium density does. Sure it is different than what we have because it prohibits it to a great extent. The way the Council dealt with high density, anything over ten acres is subject to the overlay and is purely design driven and discretionary on the Council relative to the criteria listed in both the General Plan and in this document (referring to the applicant's development standards), they are the same criteria. So what the applicant is going to argue for is that he can show a plan that achieves the goals of design and everything else in the General Plan and that is generally philosophically described in this document, and they can do it in a three-story product. They have the ability to approve it. If they feel it is inconsistent, they can deny it. They also didn't used to allow three story hotels and now they accept them as a matter of �outine. Things change. Again, it really went back to if the commission wanted them to go through it chapter by chapter or if they ' wanted to have more time to go through it chapter by chapter and then � � 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISStON APRIL 20, 2004 �.. ask questions, it was up to them. Or they could wait until they have five people so that eve�yone could ask questions. Commissioner Finerty said she would rather wait until they have five people. Commissioner Lopez said they would also have more of a chance to review it. Commissioner Finerty said it was a lot to read over the weekend. Mr. Drell agreed it was a lot to read over a weekend. He said staff got the last draft on Friday. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that they have an application before them. He asked staff to explain the interrelation between the application and the development plan. Mr. Drell asked if he meant the application for the parcel map. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the application is for a change of zone, etc. Mr. Drell said that the change of zone is a parallel action to the development plan in that on the zoning map all of the Wonder Palms properties are zoned PCD. That is the way it shows up on the zoning map. The change of zone is to add this area previously not part of the Wonder Palms which is now zoned PR-5 to the PCD designation so that it shows up on the map as the same zoning as the rest of the Wonder Palms property. `"�' Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were parts of the application the commission could act on tonight and then leave the development plan to when all of the members were present or if they were all interrelated. Mr. Drell said the parcel map is defined by land use areas and circu(ation. So if they weren't approving the land use areas, it was hard to approve the parcel map. They are closely related. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it would be better to keep everything together. Mr. Drell said the land use map is consistent with the general plan map as approved, but really the addendum to the development agreement, general plan maps are general and the development agreement addendum and this document technically refined that to a far great degree. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that they noticed a public hearing, so they are compelled to go through the process and give everyone there an opportunity to address the commission before they have discussion. He asked if there was anything further in the staff report at this point. Mr. Drell said if their decision is that they want the discussion to occur with all five members, it might not be all that useful for them to start doing it now. If ihe other commissioners agreed, Chairperson Jonathan said he would like to open the public hearing and let the applicant tell the �, commission how they feel about it, then let the commission talk about 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 * s � � � it and if they want to hear a fuller staff report they couid move forward and come back to that. Mr. Drell asked for and received confirmation that everyone would be present. As far as staff knew everyone would be there. Commissioner Lopez noted that they would have to read the booklet and review all the minutes. Mr. Drell said that so far he had just talked about technical items. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to step forward. He asked the applicant to consider the discussion that had taken place and advise the commission if they have a preference or any thoughts about the direction the commission is contemplating. MR. DAN ALLRED, a Vice President with American Realty Trust, 1800 Valley View Lane in Dallas, Texas, addressed the commission. He said he wanted to review the sad story on this property. About four years ago, at the request of the city staff, this property was originally mapped for a golf course and about 700 single family homes and the north area along Gerald Ford is � part of the Wonder Palms Development Plan and there is a little ' over 50 acres that was commercial and multi-family. At the � request of the City they voluntarily let the map expire, even though they had a grading permit ready to go, and allowed the property to go through the general plan process. They were told that would take 12 to 18 months. That was three and a half years ago. In November of 2002, the City approached them and asked to buy about 170 acres at the corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra and they negotiated a transaction with them and closed in November or December of 2002. The old map on that had all the golf course and residential areas. When the City came in and bought that 171 acres they had a spaghetti bowl on lot lines on this property. So for the last year and a half they have been dealing with lenders who don't really have a parcel that is tied to their loans and they get a little tedious after that time, particularly when the general plan process kept getting extended three months, six months, 12 months. It has been a year and a half since that time and they were told the general plan would be adopted soon after that paint. Suffice it to say, now the general plan has been approved. There are two parts ' of this. One is they just need to get a parcel map that reflects the 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 :` general plan that cleans up all the property line problems they have had with the sale with the city. It wasn't caused by the City, it's just that when they drew that line across there and created their parcel, it cut everything up in pieces. So they have a parcel map and then a development plan. He requested that the commission consider tonight at least granting the parcel map. The parcel map is tied precisely to what the general plan is, they worked with city staff, the commission and the council over the last several years to get to this plan. The engineering, the road layouts, everything takes into consideration, the topo, and this is not just some lines drawn on a map. It has been very well engineered and the engineer was present if the commission wanted to ask him any questions. They really needed to get this parcel map approved. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Allred for clarification. When he talked about a parcel map, he asked if there was some difference in perspective. He asked if he was originally seeking 17 separate parcels and staff is '� recommending that some of them be compressed. Mr. Allred said yes, their request is for 17 parcels. He thought staff had three, four or five less than that. He couldn't remember. They wanted to combine some areas. That is a little difficult because when they break up a parcel into 50 or 60 acres that has two or three different uses in it, it was hard to wait around until they could find two or three different lenders, different develope�s and use. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that Mr. Allred was requesting 17 parcels as they originally drew them. Mr. Allred said that was correct. To remind everyone here, he said every one of these parcels would have to go back through a process just like Mr. Evans, the previous action the commission took. That is a property he is acquiring from American Realty Trust and he has been working on that for over a year. So really all the commission was doing was giving them the parcels that they can go back to the lenders and get them calmed down. ti.► 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 a Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Allred was suggesting that the commission approve the 17 parcel map. Mr. Allred said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he was okay with deferring the discussion on the development plan until they have a full body here and more importantly, until they have a greater opportunity to review the development plan which would be the first meeting in May. Mr. Allred said yes. The development plan is sort of a guideline that takes in the general plan process and the way the general plan was adapted to this property. He knew that people didn't like three story product here, so they were more than happy to consider that at the next meeting. He noted that there is about a 100-foot elevation change in this property from the south down to the north. So three story units to reach the densities that was approved in the general plan is almost, he wouldn't say a , necessity, but to get over 17 or 18 units per acre densities, it was + hard to do that without three story product. $ tirrr► Chairperson Jonathan explained that he was trying to get a handle on process so that they may not need to tonight get into those details. He asked for an indication from the commission if they were in favor of that process. Commissioners Finerty and Lopez said yes. Mr. Allred said tonight they would be satisfied to just act on the parcel map and if they want to postpone the discussion on the development plan or have a work session they were more ihan happy to do that. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that he sensed they were moving in that direction. Mr. Drell stated that relative to the parcel map and the 17 lots relative to the 12 lots, this was something that staff did not feel all that strongly about, but he would explain how their thinking went. Relative to the general plan, on this plan the parcels are created consistent with the land use plan that the Planning Commission actually approved with the general plan. He noted that the land use plan the commission approved actually had high density differentiated from medium density. What he ' kind of explained at the last meeting, what the Council did was they kind � � 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 r.. of inerged the high density and the medium densities into one and in essence eliminated the distinctions that the plan the commission adopted had shown between the two. The parcels shown on the proposed plan were based upon really the land use plan that made it through the Planning Commission that did differentiate between high density properties along Gerald Ford with the medium density one layer in and then the low density up against the golf course. If this commission is still comfortable with those parcels as in essence development units, because the problem is that once a parcel is created it can be sold. Therefore, they've pretty much said that is going to be a development unit more than likely because that parcel is now going to be owned by someone who is going to have a particular idea and he will come in with a precise plan and that will follow the shape of that parcel. Chairperson Jonathan said he was comfortable with that because he is still going to come in and go through the precise plan process. He asked if he was missing something. Mr. Drell said staff's only reservation was ` when we had a land use plan that delineated those as two different land uses, then they had no problem with those being two separate parcels. They don't have that any more. Those are really only one land use. Chairperson Jonathan said what he was asking was it there is one land use, whether it is one parcel or 100 parcels, he didn't see a difference. Whether one applicant or 100 they would have to come before the commission. Mr. Drell agreed they would come before the comrnission, it was just to a certain degree it was prejudging the shape of that precise plan. They were going to get a precise plan for whatever use goes on parcel 2. If they are comfortable with that, that was fine. If they were satisfied with those shapes and ultimately precise plan designs, then that was fine and they could approve this map. Mr. Allred asked if he could comment on that. Two of the four smallest parcels would be parks, so they were just park space, they weren't going to be used for anything else. Mr. Drell said he would like to make one more comment. The park spaces were fine. The two parcels they probably have more af a problem with are the ones at the corners of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra, which is � going to be a mixed use area and that prejudged the design of a mixed 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � �i use project by saying it is going to have a square piece cut out of it. So he was opposed to prejudging that mixed use plan at this point in time because that might be the way to design a mixed use project, but it might not. If they approve it now and that corner gets sold to someone else, that pretty much defines what a mixed use project is going to look like. It is going to have a separate thing in that corner. He thought that was inappropriate since they don't have a plan for a mixed use project. Here mixed use is more of a comprehensive plan. The same would apply up in the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola where the Council expressly said they don't want that as a separate project at this time. They wanted it residential. As a five-acre parcel at that corner, it is kind of a "screwy" design for a residential project, so until they get a specific use, at one time there was thought of it being a church use, if they create a church parcel and they have a design for a church, but those would be the two that are kind of somewhat at odds with the general plan as approved. Comrnissioner Finerty noted that the staff report says they are dividing it into 15 parcels. This map says 16 parcels and the big map said 17 parcels. Mr. Drell deferred to Mr. Smith who wrote the report. Mr. Smith said they were engaged in trying to track a moving target. The map � before the commission is 17. They did have that in their review of the parcel map when they said they wanted the items consolidated, but yes, it is 17. Commissioner Finerty noted that the staff report should then say 17, which coordinates with the map, but not the development plan. Mr. Drell said that was correct. So their choices would be to go to 15 which would just eliminate the two corner parcels and then do all the other divisions, or 12 which basically just left the spaces that are defined by the roadways and the parks. He said it was described in the report how they would get down to 12. Mr. Smith said it was on page five. Mr. Allred said he could explain the confusion right there. The three parcels that were shown there was a perfect example. They are talking about areas that are 6, 8, 10 and up to 25 acres. They just approved the map that has three parcels into 14 parcels a minute ago. That is what is going to happen when this goes through a precise plan. Mr. Drell noted that they first approved the precise plan, then approved a parcel map that implemented the precise plan. Our experience is that the more properties get divided unnecessarily and then worse those 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 e. properties are sold to different individuals, the harder it becomes and it prejudges a future master plan. If they are confident that the parcels being created are logical based on anticipated future land uses, then they could go ahead and approve those. He would agree that all the parcels with the exception of the two at the corners are consistent with the land use plan that he supported and that the Planning Commission supported. Referring back to page five, Commissioner Finerty said she could see where parcels 1, 2 and 3 go together, but she needed some clarification how 4, 5 and 7 go together. Mr. Smith said they are located in the area east of the north-south street to the right of #2 on the plan that is being shown on the overhead and that is consolidating that area back into one, except for the park area. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that the park area is #7. Mr. Smith corrected thai the staff report should say 4, 5 and 6. He said they weren't trying to consolidate the park site. Chairperson Jonathan suggested with going with the process first. He asked if the applicant had anything further at this point. � Mr. Allred said that in conversations with the City Council they were directed to put parcel 17 on this map. Mr. Drell asked what parcel 17 was. Mr. Allred said it is an office site. Mr. Drell said it wasn't to go there. It was actually on the other side. Mr. Allred said he was instructed by four of the five Council members that they wanted the office on the corner. Mr. Drell said as part of a mixed use master plan. He was confident there will be offices on the corner, he just was not sure that property line is ultimately the appropriate configuration of an office project as it relates to what other aspects of that mixed use will contain. In fact, he was pretty confident it would not make sense with these two hard lines in a square like that. He thought a good design for a mixed use project will not be in that configuration, it might be roughly similar to that, but it wouldn't be that. Unfortunately, once those lines are drawn and once � those properties are sold, a good example is the applicant sold the 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 property to the Redevelopment Agency on that triangular piece. That was done without any thought about design. That applicant is now in heated discussion and argument with the Redevelopment Agency because he would like that line, and logically it should wander a little bit in terms of its boundary with a future golf course. It shouldn't necessarily be a hard edge. Now in order to accomplish that wandering he has to get a different property owner to agree. In the general plan they are specifically saying there will be offices generally on the corner and generally on Cook Street, whether it would be a square and if the design would be confined to a square he didn't know and didn't think they could define that now. It prejudges the ultimate design of a master plan to do it now. Mr. Allred said they sold the property to the Redevelopment Agency because they came to them and said they want land across the street from Desert Willow and they just drew a line. The only thing they've talked about doing is maybe when the property is developed is waving that line to create just a little bit more interest. , Mr. Drell was agreeing that's a good idea. The problem is now that there � are two property owners, he's participated in meetings with the Redevelopment Agency and they said they didn't want to do it. He agreed it would be a good idea to be able to wander that line. But once they have two property owners, they have to get two people to agree. Mr. Allred said they have just been trying to cooperate with the City. They've been trying to cooperate with the City for three and a half years. The Redevelopment Agency wanted to buy that property, they drew the line, he sold it to them and he would write a check and buy it back today. Mr. Drell said he was agreeing, but that was just an example of when lines are drawn on the ground and in a legal document and the property changes hands, suddenly what he believes and what Mr. Allred believes is a probably a good idea suddenly becomes more difficult because now they have to convince the guy they sold the property to that it is a good idea. He wasn't disputing it, it is just one thing that happens when lines are drawn, parcels are created and they are sold. Suddenly their freedom to make future decisions become constrained. 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 +r.. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the applicant is wanting 17 parcels because of the reaiities of financing, the marketplace, and lenders wanting to know what their security is and that kind of stuff. They weren't coming in with a specific design of what uses they want. They just wanted this for legal and/or financial reasons. Mr, Allred said yes, and just for realistic reasons. The spine road is there to create a terrace. There is going to be a huge elevation change and that spine road is located in that curve because that's where most of the topo drops off. The other lines that are sort of parallel to it, they see one continuous line from Portola to the right, that is another topo break and why that line is there. It's all tied to engineering design. If they make it one parcel or three parcels, they would have to engineer and design those areas separately because there is about a five to ten foot terrace that will have to be created along that parcel line. Chairperson Jonathan commented that they were logical lines. ` Mr. Allred said yes. Chairperson Jonathan noted that at the same time they heard from Mr. Drell that just because there's a square on the corner, it didn't mean there would be office there or something there. He asked if Mr. All�ed was prepared and understood that they would go through a precise plan process. Mr. Allred said he is guilty of coming to the commission for lot line adjustments previously because no one could foresee 100% of the future. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was any other comments from the applicant. MR. MIKE MARIX, 128 Vista Monte in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he is a co-applicant. The majority of the property they are looking at is owned by them. He concurred with what had been said. They incidently would be the ones doing the office building on the corner and were keeping it, so for what it ` was worth, they have gone fairly far on some preparatory 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 architectural drawings. He thought the fact that seemed to keep getting lost here is the commission would have multiple shots at the property proposals that are before them through architectural review, through landscape review, planning commission, and city council. So it was not as though they were approving something today without the ability to go back and say "now, wait a minute, so and so came in here a month ago and he's going to do something on this parcel and have you considered that? Therefore, we want you to do thus and such" to accommodate the kind of interaction between properties, and he wasn't trying to put words in Mr. Drell's mouth that he thought that he anticipates, and rightfully so. They have parks, three or four, maybe five, and then clearly these properties would relate and need to as they come before the commission with a site plan that says what they would like to do. So the request to parcelize did not commit them to anything other than the parcels. In terms of how they would like to see the land used, they got that opportunity any number of times in the near future. He said they are just all kind of standing I at the door ready to go. It wasn't like this was going to be a j passive activity. It is quite the opposite, including the City as one ��+ of the users for apartments. He asked for any questions. There were no questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. RICK EVANS, 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite H-2 in Palm Desert, said he was present to address the commission on the subject of the parcel map and all of the discussions, both on the properties they are purchasing from American Realty Trust and to get the commission's consideration to Mr. Allred's request for 17 parcels and Mr. Marix's request for 17 parcels. They are in the same situation that Mr. Allred described. Until they have an approved lot line adjustment and parcels, they won't be able to secure their financing or be able to move forward on the precise plan that they got approved. He recalled that as they went through the process of the GPA and all the things they went through and to the extent that they took their project and the extent that the commission looked very very favorably on his project. The lines drawn on the plan known as the spine road right now and � Technology and several roads that are within the whole map have � � 50 MlNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 � been very thoroughly thought through by all. Those streets are fixed. If anyone would like to change them, it would probably be a very impractical conversation because of the topo of the site. Everybody tried very hard to get the topo set. In his particular case, and they could see it happening right now, there is a huge grading program going on at Cook and Gerald Ford in order to accommodate their site and a number of other issues. So he would like to ask that they would consider favorably the request of Mr. Allred and Mr. Marix for two reasons. One is, repeating what Mr. Marix said, is they would have a chance to look at the precise plan for each of these parcels as the information becomes clearer. The GPA is very clear on what it is allowing and they need to expedite moving forward so they can get their financing in place on all these projects and do it quickly so that everyone can move forward with their projects and the right program. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission � comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move for approval to subdivide the map into 17 parcels and carry everything else over until the picture became clear and they had a full commission. Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. Speaking to the motion, Chairperson Jonathan concurred and was comfortable that they are not approving any specific use. That would happen through the normal process. He also thought it was appropriate to accommodate the property owners' needs with regard to their legal and financial reality. He thought that was appropriate. Finally, he was grateful the applicant understood the commission's situation and was willing to be patient yet again to wait for five members to be present, as well as give them additional time to review the development plan. As a point of clarification, Commissioner Lopez asked if they were continuing the other two items or if they were going to renotice them. Mr. Drell said they would continue the other items. They have a little problem in that the resolution provided are all tied up into one. � Commissioner Finerty asked if they needed to direct staff to prepare a 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING_COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 resolution. Mr. Drell said that all the conditions of approval only relate to the parcel map, so that is segregated. He asked the City Attorney if they could approve the resolution only as it pertains to the parcel map and then staff could bring it back as a miscellaneous item at the next meeting. He thought it was pretty simple to extract it. Or they could just leave it up to the Chairman when he signs it to confirm that it only refers to the parcel map so the commission doesn't have to see it again. Chairperson Jonathan said if counsel was comfortable with that, then he was comfortable with that. Mr. Hargreaves said that as long as everyone on the commission is clear on what they are approving then they could go ahead and make the appropriate modifications to the resolution and have the Chairman just confirm the modifications. Commissioner Finerty said that sounded good. For clarification, Chairperson Jonathan said that the only thing the commission was approving was the parcel map with 17 parcels. Commissioners Finerty and Lopez concurred. Chairperson Jonathan noted that everything else was being continued to the first meeting in May, May 4. Mr. Drell stated that they also wanted to reopen the public hearing for the continued items. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the approval would also include the Negative Declaration of Environmental ! Impact. Commission concurred. Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2265, approving Case No. TPM 31730, subject to conditions, and continuing Case Nos. C/Z 03-13 and DA 97-2 Addendum #3 (previously identified as #4) to May 4, 2004. Motion carried 3-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request for Street Vacation of Frankonia Court. Request for a determination that the vacation of Frankonia Court is in conformity with the City's General Plan. � � .r� 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 2004 �. Mr. Drell explained that this involved the previous project the commission just approved on the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook. The original skating rink project for some unknown reason designated a public street through the center of it. This was vacating it since in the new plan it is a private parking aisle. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, determining by minute motion that the vacation of Frankonia Court is in conformity with the City's General Plan. Motion carried 3-0. B. Case Nos. PP 90-12 and PP 96-9 - STEPHEN ANDERSON, Applicant Request for amendment to Precise Plan Nos. 90-12 and 96-9 for two industrial buildings relative to the termination of previous approvals expanding office use in a 10,000 square foot building at 75-100 Mediterranean and its reconversion to industrial warehouse '` space, and the deletion of Condition Nos. 10 and 12 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1770 requiring assignment of 12 off- street parking spaces at 75-071 St. Charles Place as mitigation for the expanded office use. Mr. Drell said that basically they had an exceptional use going into a mixed office/industrial building. Commission approved that expanded use with the condition that the second property that the owner of the first property owned, that he put a deed restriction for 12 offsite parking spaces to serve this property and there were also restrictions relative to the use of the second building. That intensive use has basically gone away and the applicant was asking for both properties to be restored to their original use parameters which in the case of the Mediterranean building is 60% office and 40% industrial. In the case of the St. Charles building, all industrial, but at the normal industrial intensity with no offsite restrictions. He thought it was all a good thing for that neighborhood, not that the failure of a business was good, but in terms of the commission's concern for parking problems, the parking concerns that originated all of these conditions had disappeared and now they could delete these extraordinary conditions. �.. 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20. 2004 j 9 � Chairperson Jonathan asked if they deleted these extraordinary conditions and the sale didn't occur and there wasn't a conversion of all the little offices in there and so forth and they went back to having the old problem, what their ability is to go back to these conditions. Mr. Drell explained that a condition of approval is that the offices have to be eliminated within 30 days of this approval. The second thing is that if and when there is ever a new user that comes in, they will want to see the elimination of what they still feel is the extraordinary tenant intensity of the remaining office space. Staff felt it wasn't appropriate at this time because they don't really know and didn't want them destroying things. That work should be done consistent with the new tenant, but they would be looking for a more conventional office tenant improvement when that new tenant comes into the office space as well. Chairperson Jonathan commented that that is their safety valve. Mr. Drell said these are now the conditions on the project which they can enforce just like any other condition. More importantly, they could prevent the reoccupancy of the rest of the building if those conditions aren't complied with. + h ir r n Jon h n a � C a pe so at a s w the interested parties in the audience and asked if they would like to address the commission. They said no. Chairperson Jonathan asked for comments or action from the commission. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2266, deleting certain provisions and Condition Nos. 2 and 3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1737 of PP 90-12, and Condition Nos. 10 and 12 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1770 of PP 96-9, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. � � e i � 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2004 i.. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLlC PLACES None. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty said the meeting was informational. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty said the meeting was informational. XI. COMMENTS None. i�r XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. .----_ , �-�+ . J ^� � ~��/- � PHIL DRELL, cretary ATTEST:J ,r , � SABBY J THAN, Chairperson Palm Desert anning Commission /tm �..► 55