Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0504 ��'�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � •.°�' -- TUESDAY - MAY 4, 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 Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell (arrived at 6:04 p.m.) �,,,, Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Ryan Stendell, Parks & Recreation Planning Tech Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for consideration of the April 20, 2004 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the April 20, 2004 minutes with a correction to the members present and members absent. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained, Commissioner Campbell absent). �.v MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION � None. 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. � (Commissioner Campbell arrived at this time.) � � A. Case No. PP 04-10 - TIM DiTOMASO, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 7,475 square foot food court and a 3,300 square foot drive-thru restaurant located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive approximately 250 feet east of Cook Street (APN 653-690- 017 and 018). Chairperson Jonathan asked if this item was formally scheduled and if he needed to open the public hearing. Commissioner Finerty noted that it was actually scheduled and the recommendation was to continue the item by minute motion. Mr. Drell said that technically they had to open the public hearing and then continue it. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this matter. There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. :, j ! r � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4 2004 � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion continuing Case No. PP 04-10 to May 18, 2004. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 04-04 - JAMES CHESTER, Applicant Request for approval of a conditiona� use permit to remodel and add 720 square feet to the existing 1 ,260 square foot fire-damaged Manhattan Bagel restaurant at 73-845 Highway 111 . Mr. Urbina outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval of CUP 04-04 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the draft resolution. Regarding the existing patio, Commissioner Campbell asked if it would remain the same and wouldn't be enclosed. Mr. Urbina said that was '`+ correct, it will remain the same and won't be converted to enclosed building area. Commissioner Campbell asked about the purpose of the rolled door. Mr. Urbina said that the applicant mentioned that currently access to the rear patio area is through wrought iron gates and often times when the business is closed, people will throw trash through the wrought iron into his patio, causing additional maintenance. So he thought by having a solid roll up metal door, that would prevent people from throwing trash into the patio area and that it will provide more security. Commissioner Campbell asked if that door would go down at 10:00 p.m. and then go up at 6:00 a.m., so that area would be open during business hours all the time. Mr. Urbina said that was correct, the door would be open during business hours and would not be seen. Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that the applicant was adding 93 seats. Mr. Urbina said there will be 12 tables and a counter that wilf seat 53 customers. Commissioner Tschopp said that if he read the report correctly, it seats 8 right now, so they are adding 53 on the counter and then the tables counting off on the plans and off the report comes up to 58. So extracting out the 8 existing ones, they were actually adding 93 seats to the restaurant. Mr. Urbina thought the �. � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � ; � applicant could clarify that and requested that he step forward to the � podium. While the applicant was approaching, Chairperson Jonathan noted that the 53 didn't refer just to the counter, it referred to the counter and the tables. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. MR. JAMES CHESTER, 45-871 Club Drive in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He explained that he and his wife owned Manhattan Bagel for the past four years. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Chester to please just answer that one question for right now. He would open up the public hearing in a second and would give him the opportunity for a full discussion at that time. Mr. Chester explained that the restaurant as it was set up had seating in the courtyard for whatever the diagram showed, and seating in the front of the restaurant, which is all outdoor open air seating. Then it had eight seats inside. So what they were adding � were the additional seats inside which would net them 48 � additional seats inside. Commissioner Tschopp reconfirmed that 48 would be the net. Mr. Chester said yes, a 48 net gain. Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Chester and said the commission would invite him back. Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Urbina for a clear, comprehensive report. He appreciated it. All the numbers he needed were right there. Regarding the color of the awnings, he was a little bit confused. The sample the commission had seemed to deviate from the purple material sample board. He asked if that was just because of the color dilution. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. The color elevations the commission received had a brighter purple than the color of the awning, although the applicant mentioned after hearing some of the architectural review commission comments that the background of the sign, or the letters � which were reddish, should be coordinated with the color of the awning. � r.rr� 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4 2004 r.. There is a possibility that the applicant might change the color of the awning to a rust color, but the purple indicated on the elevations is brighter than the actual lavender color of the awning. Mr. Drell said the sample is more accurate than the elevations. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the sample was the approved color at this point unless the appficant requests a change. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Regarding the location of the signage, Chairperson Jonathan thought Condition No. 7 was an interesting condition of approval. "It is suggested that front elevation signage be placed on the new awning instead of having a separate proposed wall sign." He didn't remember seeing that before. Staff doesn't usually "suggest". They teil people what they're supposed to do. He asked what they were saying there and where the signage would be. Mr. Drell explained that the architectural commission didn't approve any signage. The location of the signage was shown. Absent seeing a sign, they felt it was more appropriate. They suggested that when he comes back with signage, especially with an awning that big that is blank, it looks a little odd, and given the style of the building and the type of business, traditionally the business would have a sign on �r.. its awning. So in this situation they thought that was more appropriate. Chairperson Jonathan said he understood what ARC was saying, but in terms of a Department of Community Development condition, he asked if staff was just comfortable suggesting. Mr. Drell said he was correct and the condition should not say suggest. He would delete the condition entirely. That is an issue to the architectural commission and they will evaluate signage when it is brought to them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the staff report would be modified to delete Condition #7. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan said he didn't recall a second story on this property, so he drove around the building and saw something sticking out, but asked if there really is a second story there and how many square feet there is up there and if it is going to be modified. In the new rendering it looks like a major second story. Mr. Drell said that when they draw plans and elevations, they are seeing it as if they are in the air. Chairperson Jonathan said he understood that, but if they looked at the picture that is there, they have kind of a false facade at the front and then in the rear where Francisco drew in a second story, it looked like a pretty small space whereas in the rendering they have, but it goes across the entire building. His question was if they are creating additional space � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 on the second story. Mr. Drell said no, it was just an illusion of what happened when doing a flat elevation. They aren't seeing the setback. He asked Mr. Urbina how large the second story would be. Mr. Urbina said 1 ,122 square feet and that floor area would stay the same. Mr. Drell asked how large the footprint was of the entire building. Mr. Urbina said it is 50 feet wide by approximately 83 feet. Mr. Drell said that would be 4,000 square feet. So the second story was really only a quarter and covered only the middle quarter. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff was suggesting that there is 1 ,100 square feet of office on the second story right now. Mr. Drell said yes. But as ihey look up at it, the line of sight since it is set back so far from the front and the back, as they look up at it they couldn't see much of it, but when doing a flat elevation, they are seeing it as if they can see the entire height of both stories. Chairperson Jonathan said he understood that, but he was telling him that when looking at what's there, the office doesn't go across the entire building. What is at the front is just a roof facade. He said he would address that with the applicant, but it looked more like a 10 x 10 room up there, 200 square feet rather than 1 ,100. Mr. Urbina agreed that the applicant could clarify that since he provided the information on the 1 ,122 square feet; � however, given the 50 foot width of the lot, it seemed like it could be a � smaller floor plan office. In the staff report, Chairperson Jonathan pointed out on page two that Mr. Urbina said it is very difficult to find vacant parking spaces on the west half of the parking lot. He thought that had to do with the restaurant and so forth. And yet, they are going from a potential of four customers to 53, a gain of 48 or 49. He asked if that concerned him in terms of the additional demands on parking, expanding the potential customers on site from 4 to 53. Mr. Urbina stated that staff was going by the formula that is in the Off Street Parking section of the Zoning Ordinance and it was just based on square footage, it wasn't based on seats. Chairperson Jonathan understood that and appreciated that. In a real life sense, knowing how busy that parking lot is as indicated in his staff report, the potential of having 48 or 49 more patrons on site at the same time, he asked if that caused staff concern about the potential additional parking demand. Mr. Urbina said no, not if they used the entire 434-space parking lot which all businesses from San Luis Rey to Portola, all of their customers have the right to use that entire parking lot. Staff's survey of the westerly half was done so they had an idea in the immediate area within 200 feet of the restaurant how many spaces are 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNiNG COMMISSION MAY 4 2004 v. available. It appears that from March through late April there appeared to be more vacant spaces available in the west half. That might be because the winter season is coming to an end. Mr. Drell said that the premise of staff's recommendation is that a majority of the increased business will be existing employees and customers who are already on EI Paseo and already parked in the lot, which is their premise for all restaurants. That is supported by the list of letters and correspondence they had received. Their main concern was for the people next door who are potentially impacted by the increased vehicle parking demand and how they felt about it. He received a phone call from an attorney with an office in the area and the feeling from him and others is they would rather have this facility availabte to them within walking distance than worry about . someone coming in and occupying space during lunch. In other cases they had gotten objections at hearings from people next door saying a business will take their space and their customers won't be able to park and they will go out of business. In this case all the people next to them pretty much said it is already a crowded lot, it wouldn't get much more crowded and the difference is they didn't have to drive any �,.,, more to go to lunch if they didn't want to go to Elephant Bar. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the access to the flower shop after the reconfiguration. Mr. Urbina thought it would only be through the rear, but the applicant could clarify that issue. Chairperson Jonathan noted that according to the drawing he was looking at, the only access point he could see was from within the restaurant. Mr. Urbina thought that was correct, but the applicant could clarify that. Chairperson Jonathan asked about Four Paws and a Tail, the animal place a couple of doors down. He noted that they have an outdoor pet storage area kennel and boarding and he had fielded a few calls from adjacent business owners that have had to put up with noise and odors. His question, and they could come back to it under miscellaneous, but he asked if that was a legal use and if they went through a permitting process or if they needed to for that particular use. Because that outdoor area is new. Mr. Drell believed they did, but obviously the use of the outdoor patio, he wasn't sure what they were using it for now. Commissioner Finerty said they do grooming and bathing and thought they held the dogs outside and then took them in for grooming. Chairperson Jonathan said it is an enclosed area. Commissioner Finerty clarified that it is an enclosed area like a porch, but it has been there for a very long time because she hears them 'i�.r 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 z .� � barking when she goes to a nearby business. Chairperson Jonathan said they could come back to that under miscellaneous. He said there was a concern about the compatibility of that particular use with restaurants and other types of uses. He asked if there were any other questions for staff. There weren't. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JAMES CHESTER, 45-871 Club Drive in Indian Wells, informed the commission that he and his wife opened Manhattan Bagel approximately four years ago. At that time the restrictions, because of the size of the facility, were eight seats inside and they had an open courtyard which seats about 18. Then they have some tables in front. Their product is very popular. People drive a great distance to buy fresh baked bagels everyday and breads and an adjunct to that is bagels, cream cheese and coffee in the morning and deli style lunches. The difficulty they have , expe�ienced in operating this business as it has succeeded is they � have had more and more complaints from their regular customers who are for the most part business people in the area and they come for lunch and it's 100 degrees outside and there are only eight seats inside. Most of those people are pedestrians and they walk from any of 40 or 50 businesses. Obviously, if they added 40 seats to their restaurants, there would be people that would come in for lunch and take a parking space or two, they were pretty certain of that. But they have experienced in their four years there that parking is always scarce between 1 1 :30 a.m. and 1 :30 p.m. It didn`t matter if they were there or not there. When they converge on that restaurant there at noon to eat there, all the parking simply disappears. Their neighbors realize that and have for all the years they have been in business, but when they approached the neighbors with the idea of expanding, they were without exception in favor of that. The idea of having to grab and go was a turn off a lot of time. It means they were going back to their office and being badgered by the phones or by people coming in and they don't really get to have a lunch. So seating for them in the restaurant is a real issue. $ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � It also became an issue in the morning. There are a million parking spots in the morning and they are the only business even open. But there was no place to sit so people were eating in their cars on the way to work, standing up inside the restaurant because the air is on to have breakfast and sometimes in the way of other customers. So from a practical stand point for all the people they do service, it made sense to look at expanding the restaurant. Unfortunately, they had a fire, but then decided to make some lemonade out of that and it was an opportune time for them to explore expanding the restaurant. The florist lease has about a year left to go. He knew he was in there for a five-year lease. They approached him about leaving early and he had difficulty finding any additional space, so they compromised with him and left him in the back end of his space and took the front of the restaurant. He was in complete agreement with that and thought he was very happy with that for a couple of reasons. His rent goes down and he doesn't have to look at moving. The prospect of moving a commercial business in �. Palm Desert right now is kind of grim. There isn't a lot of space and there certainly wasn't space at the same price he's paying. Secondly, the florist business has changed a lot. The walk in traffic for his business has diminished. Everything is done on the internet or FTD and he's competing with grocery stores and he is becoming more and more a wedding, funeral, event type florist then for someone coming in to pick up a bouquet. So his business has changed and gave him an opportunity to reassess what he is doing. So all those things considered, he jumped at the chance to give 720 feet and keep 1 ,100 feet. The fire started in the kitchen area while they were baking, but it went up. Almost all the damage to the building was done on the second floor. It was totally demolished for all intents and purposes. They left two small walls. The building was built in the late 1940's and had been added onto three times. Originally the building was 50 feet wide by 20 feet deep and it had an apartment on the second floor. Then it was added onto in both the front and the back. Now the building is 80 feet deep, but the second floor remained 20 feet by 50, roughly 1 ,000 feet, and then there was a little add-on in one area that was off the living room. It was � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 t ; converted to offices over the years. It hasn't been used as an '� apartment for some time. When they rebuild, they are building the identical footprint that was there. They are rearranging some interior walls to make it more efficient, but the actual footprint of the building is identical to what was there. The restaurant facility will remain identical to what it was except the 720 feet would be added as seating, not as additional restaurant equipment or that sort of thing. In the future they may consider doing more baking on site, but at this point in time they didn't see a future where they had to add more seating. He said it should be adequate for the type and size of restaurant that it is. What it would do for them mostly is allow them to stay open in the evenings and again, the parking lot will virtually be theirs and the Elephant Bar's after 6:00 p.m. There is a big demand for deli, especially when they are at 57, S8 and S9 for a meal versus most other places at S 15 to S20 for a meal. So they see it as a win-win for the community and their customers and they know that the parking is a tough deal at lunch, but it has always been a tough � deal at lunch. � Commissioner Lopez asked who occupied the office upstairs. Mr. Chester said they do. It's their office, a break room and storage room and it made the building more serviceable now. One of the reasons they had a fire, and it wasn't the cause of the fire, but it was an old building which had been added onto so they had flues and chases through existing spaces and when one of the flues failed in their oven ihat vented heat from the building, the surrounding wood over time was dried out from the heat and when the flue failed it combusted. He said they were obviously redesigning that. Commissioner Lopez asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Chester said they would be from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. They weren't sure about 10:00 p.m., but at least until 9:00 p.m. 3 Commissioner Lopez asked if they were open seven days a week. i .� 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 1ur Mr. Chester said yes, every day except Thanksgiving and Christmas. Commissioner Campbell asked about the plans which showed an opening to the florist. Mr. Chester explained that the florist currently has a door off the front of the building. They each have a door and it's identical. Since their hours are substantially longer than his, he would have a front entrance into the florist shop from the restaurant and he will lock that door when he closes at 5:00 p.m. And he's always had a rear entrance and that is where almost all his traffic occurs. He has two delivery trucks and more parking back there. So he has customers wandering in the back door more than in the front door. He said it wasn't a high foot traffic business. He thought the florist had more foot traffic since the Manhattan Bagel opened from when people realize it's a holiday when they're in getting a bagel. +�,► Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that customers would walk through his restaurant to get to the florist if they use the front door. Mr. Chester said yes, and hopefully they would have a cup of coffee, too. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was within code to not have front access. Mr. Drell thought there had to be two ways in and out, but there is a second door. Mr. Chester said he just drew the footprint and they could see it on the pictures that were put up of the existing building. That wasn't going to change. The architectural review committee recommended that they put an awning over that door for the florist. There was currently a tile roof over it. Chairperson Jonathan asked if having a front door for the flower shop, not to the street, but into another business, is within code. Mr. Drell said it was perfectly fine. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the second story for the most part did not exist physically right now. �r.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � � . . � Mr. Chester confirmed that it was almost all gone. Chairperson Jonathan said he couldn't see it when he visited the site. Mr. Chester said they received permission to demofish it about two weeks ago. Chairperson Jonathan indicated it would be restored to what it was and asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. There were none. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and ihe public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell moved for approval. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Commissioner Lopez indicated that the motion would need to incorporate the deletion of Condition No. 7. Commissioner Campbell said ihat was correct. Commissioner Lopez thought the project looked great and wished them luck. Commissioner Tschopp said he had concerns about the parking and the parking lot and with code calling for eight spaces and didn't think they had them, but he had to say that the 29 neighbors and their comments, as well as the walking traffic swayed his vote in favor. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Commissioner Tschopp saw going from eight seats to 53 as a problem or if he was kind of okay with it. Commissioner Tschopp said for the 48 net seats, it is a very popular restaurant and he would highly recommend it himself, but thought a lot of people would walk there from the adjoining businesses and he could see where having indoor seating would be conducive for the businesses around there that would prefer not to walk back with the food and thought that would work. Yes, it would generate some cars as the applicant stated, and additional traffic. But he thought per code eight additional spaces and the comments by the neighbors would override any � � � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4 2004 � concerns he had about impacting other businesses and being inconvenient to customers. Commissioner Finerty indicated that offering an opportunity to get out of the heat should be really popular. Chairperson Jonathan said he had the same concerns as Commissioner Tschopp and it was kind of a horrible situation that they are exacerbating and adding to it potentially, but if it works out the way staff and the applicant envision, then potentially it will be walk in traffic that sits in those additional 40 some seats rather than 20 more cars in the parking lot. That was really his only remaining concern, but he was persuaded. He asked if there was any further discussion. There wasn't. He called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. ur It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2267, approving Case No. CUP 04-04, subject to conditions as amended deleting Condition No. 7. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 04-09 - ENERGY BAR, lLC, Applicant Request for a approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 1,600 square foot fitness center/massage establishment in an existing industrial office building at 75-175 Merle Drive, Suite 150 (APN 634-260-032). Mr. StendeU outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. COURTNEY COOK, 48-754 Desert Flower Drive, addressed the � commission. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � � Chairperson Jonathan asked if Ms. Cook had reviewed the conditions of approval and if she had issue with any of them. Ms. Cook said she had no issues. Mr. Drell asked if she was going to have a shower in the facility. Ms. Cook said they just made some changes and there would be no shower, only a handicap bathroom. Commissioner Tschopp asked what a gyrotonic tower was. Ms. Cook said that it is a piece of equipment that actually looks almost like a medieval torture rack and it is actually fabulous. It is all about lengthening and expanding through the joints through circular movement and spiraling. It is the newest form of exercise out there and she thought it was right up there with pilates. There were no other questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else ' � wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. � MR. CHRIS VAN VLIET, 74-701 Old Prospector Trail in Palm Desert, stated that he is the co-owner of the building. He said they welcome Courtney and her endeavor. They support it and thought it would really enhance their building. They have been choosey about their clients and this space had in fact been vacant for almost three years and they wanted to find the right kind of client that would be a low volume, low impact to the area. There was plenty of parking and they have access both from the street through a breezeway and the parking lot and they wholeheartedly endorsed her location there. He said if there were any questions about the building itself, he would be more than happy to answer them. There were no additional comments or question and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner , Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- i 0. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 rr. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2268, approving CUP 04-09, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case Nos. C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-04 - DAN ALLRED/AMERICAN REALTY TRUST AND DESERT WELLS 237, LLC/PALM DESERT 124 INC., Applicants (Continued from April 20, 2004) Request for approval of a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five dwelling units per acrel to PCD (planned community development), a development agreement, a master plan ot development, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. Property is generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, 37-500 Cook Street. +r..r Mr. Drell explained that the master plan, development agreement and change of Zone are implementing the recently approved general plan. What the master plan does is provide a catalog of design solutions to implement the goals and objectives of the general plan. Inherent in the land use designations of the general plan are the different standards which more efficiently use residential lots. To achieve the housing goals that the general plan envisioned required higher densities and smaller lots and to achieve that they needed new standards. This master plan attempted to provide a catalog of design solutions to implement those greater efficiencies, efficiency in terms of using land, architecture and aesthetics. There are standards described which are different than the current standards. The current standards did not provide for the type of smaller lot development which this plan and the general plan envision. Each one of the projects that would come in would be discretionary approvals before the city, especially in high density which is the way the Council approved the high density overlay in this area. Anything over ten units per acre is discretionary in its entirety and basically would be justified by its design merit. In terms of the standards, this provides the future developers of the super pads being created in the various planning areas some guidance to some solutions which might be considered. They � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 will have to justify themselves in terms of achieving the goals which we all want to implement out there. He said Mr. Zelinka, who prepared the plan, would be doing a short power point overview and then they could focus on some of the development standards that might seem exceptional. As a point of order, Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the commission was being asked to approve or to recommend to Council approval of a change of zone, not the tentative parcel map which had already been acted on, and the development agreement. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan said his question was, for the development plan they studied for this meeting, he asked how it related to those items. Mr. Drell said that in the plan is the plan and the various areas delineating the plan were very similar to the parcels delineated in the parcel map. This provides in essence a zoning ordinance. This plan is an exhibit of the development agreement. Chairperson Jonathan said that is what he wanted to know. This document is formally part of the development agreement. Mr. Drell said that was correct. l MR. AL ZELINKA, a Principal of a division of RBF Consulting called � Urban Design Studio, 14-725 Alton Parkway in Irvine, CA 92618, said he would spend five or six minutes providing a brief presentation and then open it up for questions. The three points he wanted to share were just an overview of the vision, the intent of the development plan and then to reiterate what Phil just conveyed and then focus on a few items they had heard and their issues to the commission and at least that can be the point and departure for dialogue. The vision statement that was crafted for the university park at the outset of this effort is one that largely remains intact in their plan today. The essence of the vision statement is that Palm Desert has been known for a long time for its generous low density environment in this scenic environment with a lot of golf course and open space amenities. One thing that is emerging is another claim to fame that Palm Desert is also becoming known for having a university facility and the office, and R&D, and commercial that goes along with that. As part of that the vision embodies a community that allows people, whether they are ` students or faculty or workers in the area, to live, work, shop and 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 r.. recreate all in a very compact area of the city. Kind of on a macro level it was not unlike Manhattan Bagel and people walking to Manhattan Bagel, but it is at a macro level at a different location. So the City is actually being very responsible and progressive in this thought as embodied in the General Plan. The intent of the development plan first and foremost is to implement the general plan that was adopted. It is to seize future, but yet unknown, opportunities that will be coming forward to the city. It is to provide the City decision makers with a regulatory plan. A plan that gives them the tools to make the decisions they need to make for projects that will be coming forward. But it not only provides them with the regulatory mechanism, it provides them with design guidance. That is the catalog of ideas and tools and suggestions that Phil was talking about. The one thing that it tries to do and he thought it did it pretty well, is it maintains the substance of the existing zoning ordinance that will help their cause to create the place they want to create, but r..r it also adds to that some alternative opportunities. He thought what Phil was saying that could not be underscored is that this part of the development agreement allows the commission and city staff and City Council to have a tool for making discretionary decisions. So applicants will come before them with projects and they have the means in this development plan to fully dictate whether they like what they see or not and it has incentives in it. Like Phil mentioned, high density is not a given. High density is fully discretionary. Certain things have to be met for it to even become discretionary. So it is incentive based and discretionary and provides them with more tools than ihey have right now under the existing zoning ordinance. The contents of the plan were there. There are two parts. There is an introduction and development criteria. The introduction basically conveyed the vision statement, the guiding principles, the land use and the circulation framework. Then the development criteria basically outlines the guidelines and standards for residential, commercial, office, mixed use, open space and landscaping. Some of the things they understand are of issue and concern to the community were on display. The first was the r�.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 height of single family. The height of the single family remains at 24 feet and two stories, as is in the zoning ordinance. Multi-family is at 26 feet and two stories. The tool came in next - if a project comes before the commission and says they want to be three stories and 36 feet in height, the commission will have full review as a city entity and full discretionary power to make the findings as to whether or not that three story, 36-foot building fit with the context of where it is being proposed. That fit can be dictated by whether the project is adding common open space, whether there are challenging slope conditions as this site has that makes sense for the building to kind of step up and accommodate some of that slope differential through that additional height. Whether some incredible architectural gem of a design is coming before them that seems, based on their judgement, to warrant more stories and greater height. The fourth point of finding could be that there is some sort of extraordinary recreational amenities provided because there is more common open space. But again, it is discretionary. tt's not � if the project applicants meet these things, they have to approve � it. It's fully discretionary. Regarding the project approval process, he stated that if the tentative parcel map is approved, every project that comes forward to implement and build upon that tentative parcel map is fully within city staff and the commission's hands to determine what they want it to be. They review it, critique it and put forward their recommendations to what it should be. The project applicant wifl interpret the plan to their best ability to present to them a concept. The commission could then respond. It was fully in their range to do so. There was one thing in speaking with city staff that they would like to add to further add to their discretionary abilities in this plan and that was exceptions language. There are unanticipated issues out there given primarily the slopes of the site. Basically what it said is the development plan before the commission provides a minimum level of criteria from which the commission can use to , make their decisions. It tries to provide that catalog that Phil was talking about to address a multitude of different situations. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4. 2004 � Inevitably, as even occurs now with the zoning ordinance, situations will arise that are unanticipated. So they are collectively wanting to provide the City with the ability to have flexibility in addressing those in creative ways so that they aren't forced to put a square peg into a round hole when a round peg would fit better. It just provided them with one more level of discretionary review. With that as an overview, what they were asking of the commission tonight was to consider the change of zone and the development agreement for approval with the conditions that had already been presented by the city and the addition of the exceptions language that will be more finely crafted with staff to provide them with increased discretionary ability when reviewing projects. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Lopez noted that within the commission packets there was a water efficient landscape catalog, Chapter 24.04. He asked if this was �... part of this document. Mr. Drell said no, there was a question at the last meeting about a reference to AB 325 which really was the basis from which the City adopted its own water efficient landscape ordinance. He said that the document, instead of referring to the assembly bill, should refer to compliance with Palm Desert's water efficient landscape ordinance. It just showed what our landscape ordinance is. Commissioner Finerty noted that ours is much stricter. Mr. Drell concurred. He explained that our situation is far more severe here than it is statewide. Commissioner Lopez noted that the booklet was Development Plan Amendment No. 2 in front of them. He asked if it was supposed to say No. 3 or 4. Commissioner Finerty indicated that the last one he said was No. 3. Mr. Drell said they had changed course. In the development agreement in front of them, instead of having these layer cakes on the old Wonder Palms agreement, they are basically creating a discrete development agreement for the university park area. So this new agreement will supersede for this property the Wonder Palms agreement since this is now really a being unto itself. They are going to add other developments north of Gerald Ford and east of Cook Street and it didn't make sense to have all these unrelated things going on with multiple rr. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 arnendments. So they were going to create a discreet new development agreement simply incorporating this master plan. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he wasn't at the last meeting, but he did have the opportunity to listen to the tape of the meeting which qualified him to then participate. He said he had some questions, but a lot of them were about minor things. But his bigger question for the whole thing is what areas in here are outside of code. For instance, in some cases they are talking about setbacks for rear yards with zero foot setbacks. In some areas a different alternative would not have a sidewalk. His question was what is outside of code in this plan that they should be aware of. Mr. Drell said that to a certain degree, our PR zones, we have been doing this in a very informal way almost since the city started. Our planned residential zone by which all our country clubs have been developed, the PR zone has an exceptions section in it that says the standards are as approved. That is why in country clubs they have zero side yards and front yards and back yards all over the place. It is just that we've never had a document that articulated the standards relative to single family. ' � � Right now our only single family zone requires 8,000 square foot lots, it requires a combination of 14-foot side yards, 5 feet and 9 feet, it requires 15-foot rear yards. Basically they didn't change much from 15. What they changed mainly was the side yards. One of the things they talked about with this plan is the fact that once they get smaller lots, the goal is to preserve as much rear yard as they can because that is really the most useful space. So they have talked about allowing front yards to be shorter, especially in regards to the living architecture, the building architecture of the house. So where there was no functional requirement for a large front yard, they are biasing the standards to preserve larger rear yards. There was a lot of discussion about placement of garages, which again became an important issue with small lots since garages are always a fixed size. Therefore, as the lots get smaller they begin to dominate architecture and therefore they require more clever ways to site the garages both in terms of how they relate to the living quarters and the setback to architecturally diminish it. One of the criticisms of a lot of the older country clubs where they had condos with narrow lots and when they put on a garage they look like an alley. So the plan tries to provide guidance in terms of both decreasing front yards for living area ' and maintaining driveways in front of garages. Most of it is trying to 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4 2004 �.. adjust our 8,000 square foot standards down to conceivably 4,000 and 5,000 square foot lots while preserving as many of the functional qualities of the lot, meaning separation between the buildings both in space in terms of architecture. In the project the commission approved off of Fairhaven, they employed some of those standards and they ended up with rear yards that are bigger than 8,000 square feet. In essence it was showing people how to use small lots. Commissioner Finerty noted that off of Fairhaven the rear yards of the lots were not big enough for pools. Mr. Drell said they were. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that they were very small. Mr. Drell informed commission that before that case got to Council the applicant discovered that the property was 50 or 100 feet larger and they ended up spreading that 100 feet throughout the project and ended up with minimum 20-feet deep back yards. They were 20-25 feet. He said they routinely get 8,000 square foot lot single family tracts that have 1 5-foot back yards because of less than creative site planning. Other examples of where in certain rear yards, if they have situations +�.. where they have detached rear garages as opposed to having kind of non-functional little five-foot side yards sandwiched between buildings, in some certain situations it was better to have zero yards. As far as how to effectively use the space they have to create the most utility for the ultimate homeowner, he said it would be evaluated on a project by project basis to insure that the benefit of the strategy is being achieved, not just arbitrarily. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Commissioner Campbell stated for the record that she also listened to the tape regarding this application so she was able to speak regarding it. Mr. Drell said the biggest issue is the three stories for the residential. Right now two story is the height limit for residential development, although on paper it is 24 feet, the project we approved for ourselves on Santa Rosa, we made the decision both in terms of interior space and architecturally that it made sense to go to 27 feet. Some members of the General Plan Advisory Committee took a tour of some wonderful three- � story product on slopes that were wonderful town houses in Brea. They 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PIANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 , � took advanta e of the slo e b walkin u to the second floor and then � 9 P Y 9 P they had garages that were semi-basements in the back. But from the front because of the slope the buildings substantially resembled two stories. He said their goal in this plan is to maximize open space and the only way to meet the housing needs and maximize open space is to use land more efficiently and this sort of design might be one of the solutions. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the plan looked like the applicant was encouraging pedestrian traffic throughout the development, but he noticed in looking at the plan that there are no sidewalks that would run on B Street, E Street and on the south side of A Street onto the main roads. He asked if that was on purpose. MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Consulting at 74-410 Highway 1 1 1 in Palm Desert, noted that Figure 3 had all the cross sections and he thought they had sidewalks on every street, both sides of the road. � Mr. Drell said that the only one that doesn't is the local residential street. � He thought that was a good question. Mr. Ross said that one of the alternatives has a sidewalk and one doesn't. They were trying to have some flexibility for the end developer. If they want a private gate guarded development, the trend now is to go with no sidewalks. So they were trying to leave it flexible for the future developers to which is appropriate, with or without sidewalks. But the overall plan is trying to promote pedestrian connectivity between planning areas so they are not gated or walled in unilaterally by themselves or access to other plan areas and commercial to promote pedestrian type activities. Commissioner Tschopp asked if on the main arterial streets a person could ride their bike from Gerald Ford over to Cook Street. Mr. Ross said yes, they are proposing striping for bike paths as well as sidewalks and bike paths/electrical vehicles. So they were trying to have for all the roads in the circulation plan sidewalks on both sides and bike path striping. � � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 `.. Chairperson Jonathan asked if E Street was not designated as having a bike lane and Comrnissioner Tschopp asked about riding a bike to Cook Street. Mr. Drell said E Street is a very short little section and the reason there isn't a bike path is because there would be driveways going into projects on both sides of it. Meaning cars wilf be turning right and so where they have cars turning right, bike paths disappear. Commissioner Lopez asked if it would be a shared sidewalk. Mr. Drell said yes, or for that short period of time it will be shared with travel lanes. But they could be on the sidewalk if they wanted to cross at the light, but there was a lot of things going on in that little section so it didn't make sense to have a bike path in that section with cars making a right turn from Cook Street and a right turn into the project. Chairperson Jonathan asked if students living in this area and wanting to bike over to the college would be able to use E Street as access. Mr. Drell said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said that the worst case would be they would have to go out onto the road or onto the sidewalk. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Ultimately, they are planning a pedestrian bridge across Cook Street. The plan approved by the Council for the Evans project �•► included a landing spot for that bridge. Commissioner Lopez said that was one of his questions, if the future held a pedestrian bridge over this because Cook Street was obviously going to be a very busy street. Mr. Drell said it was not only going to be busy, but it would be eight or nine lanes wide, wider than most freeways. Commissioner Lopez said that on page ii4, residential district, medium density Planning Area 2, 4, 5, 8, 6, 1 1 and 14, when he looked at the map there is an area 1 and he wondered if that was left off or if he wasn't relating to the right land use exhibit. Mr. Ross said that was a typo. This plan was originally done with the original general plan designations. One was the mixed use proposed which was denied or voted down by Council, so it is a typo and should be added on. Commissioner Lopez asked if this is the document that they are proposing to send to City Council. Mr. Drell said yes, with the suggested amendments. Commissioner Lopez asked how tight it needed to be. He asked if this was the actual document, Amendment No. 2. Mr. Drell said � that it is the latest draft and with the additions that Mr. Zelinka was 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 A � � suggesting relative to the exceptions and the omission in the land use planning areas. Commissioner Lopez asked if staff was comfortable with everything being tight and up to date. Mr. Drell thought so, although on page ii8 there was the "sitting" of buildings and there were a few typos, but for what it is designed to accomplish, they could always improve on things but he thought it did the job. If there were specific substantive issues they felt needed to be addressed, now was the time to do it. Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff envisioned traffic lights going in at B Street and Gerald Ford, A Street and Frank Sinatra, and D Street and Gerald Ford. Mr. Dretl said that at D Street there was already a signal. That lined up with Technology. There will be a signal at A Street and Portola. The Traffic Engineer wasn't present, but he thought there might also be a signal at B Street. Mr. Ross said he could go through them really quick. He had met with Mark several times and they were actually in the process of forming an assessment district for all the back bone improvements which he thought would go to Council for the May 13 or 14 � meeting for approval of that assessment district for all the back � bone circulation elements, the roadways and the parks, the utilities, the street widenings of Cook Street, Gerald Ford, all the circulation elements shown there were proposed to be built by an assessment district up front. So it wasn't piecemeal by planning area as it gets developed. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it would cover all the circulation elements like traffic lights, street widening, sidewalks, all those things and parks. Mr. Ross said that is what they are proposing. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it would all be in one assessment district. Mr. Ross said yes, one assessment district. Maybe multiple bond issuances, but one district. Chairperson Jonathan asked if this was Mello Roos. Mr. Ross said he didn't know if that had been decided. It is going ;� to be an assessment district with a 1914 Act or a CFD. The � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 ` appropriate mechanism was still being discussed. But it would put in up front sewer, water, landscaping, sidewalks, traffic signals and the parks. He thought that was a good amenity to put in up front so that people when they move in from day one will have the ability to enjoy the parks and all the roadways. Regarding the signals, Phil was correct. D Street and Gerald Ford will be a signal modifiGation, B Street and Gerald Ford will be a signal modification for a signal that was a condition to the parcel map to the north. It was also envisioned that there will be signals at A Street at Portola and Frank Sinatra, new signalized intersections. And what they wanted to do at A Street at E, D and B is have stop control and try to slow traffic down through the main boulevard. They are looking at round abouts as a way to do that, urban round abouts. Right now with Mark Greenwood they are talking about stop controlled intersections. They would also modify the traffic signal at E Street and Cook to add the fourth leg across Berger Drive. �•• Mr. Drell said that in addition to the stop controls, ihe intersections at 6 and A, D and A will all have expanded intersections with right turns and left turns. Mr. Ross said that was correct. He and Mark just met on the location of right-turn pockets and there are several being added also at Frank Sinatra. They met with RDA about the Portola Avenue intersection and them granting the right-of-way to do that since it is RDA property. They are agreeable to doing that in principle. Mark asked for right-turn pockets at A and B. Everything off the main arterials into a stop control they have expanded intersections. Left turn, right turn and through. When he said they. are looking at urban round abouts they are analyzing what makes more sense from an overall intersection and pavement. Instead of having an expanded intersection, it might be more appropriate for some other type of control. They are evaluating that and had not decided what is the best. Commissioner Tschopp asked if he had concerns or if he was anticipating putting in mitigating measures for individuals who would look to cut f�om +�..r 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � , � Cook Street over to Gerald Ford by taking E Street, A Street and cutting � off of either p or B. Mr. Ross said one of the original circulation plans was to take A Street and loop it down to Gerald Ford and not having an intersection. So they think by creating the intersection, creating a stop sign or other means of traffic calming, they will slow traffic down and hopefully discourage people from making that cut off there. The way to do that is hopefully make it longer to go that way than it does to go to the major arterials. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that on existing streets like Fairway people will take those even with more stop signs rather than take Fred Waring or Highway 1 1 1 , so he encouraged them to discourage that kind of travel through the development. Mr. Ross said what they are doing on A Street for the cross section is it's a raised median and they envision raised landscape to give the appearance of more confinement of the travel area and hopefully slow people down. But he was right, traffic goes where there is the least resistance like water. They hoped to discourage that but couldn't stop it if Gerald Ford was to be grid locked. Mr. Drell thought the problem with Fairway was there are houses fronting on Fairway. They have front yards and people backing out of driveways. To a certain degree, the one opportunity is A Street. It doesn't necessarily get people through any quicker. Hopefully their goal is to keep Gerald Ford free flowing and Frank Sinatra and Portola free flowing. But as they enter them, there are examples of traffic calming devices proposed in the plan, but there would be a clear message entering this area that it is a residential area. Commissioner Campbell said she was looking at the traffic calming devices and asked if they are planning to use some of them on these streets. Mr. Ross said yes, they are looking at various ways. He wasn't a proponent of any one of them. They were shown as examples of what could be done and they are working with Mark Greenwood � to try and figure out what would be the best method for this � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4. 2004 � particular application and try to implement that to try and cut down on cut through traffic. They don't want that either. They want it to be 25 mph. Mr. Drell said the most effective way to discourage through traffic is to have very narrow streets. Unfortunately, the Fire Marshal didn't let them have very narrow streets. He requires that all the streets be designed so that he can drive 50 miles an hour on it in his big snorkel truck. That is a constraint struggle with safety people who want to get anywhere at 50 mph. A Street to a certain degree is a collector. It is a semi-major thoroughfare so it can handle significant traffic without impacting adjacent residences because of the way the adjacent projects wi(I be designed, hopefully. One of the challenges of reviewing projects is seeing how projects relate to the streets that might be carrying more traffic. One of the things that would be happening on the south side of A Street because of the grade break is there will be a 10 to 15-foot landscaped embankment probably extending 20 or 30 feet to the south. To a certain degree residences will be insulated from whatever traffic occurs on A Street. ir. Mr. Zelinka said that one of the objectives that is inherent in this plan is should through traffic occur, the cut through traffic, and even if it wasn't cut through traffic, just traffic in general that would flow on A Street or on any of the interior streets would flow calmly. Because they do want this to be a pedestrian oriented environment. The design speed of the streets and the traffic calming measures that are introduced in the design of the streets are imperative from the standpoint of making sure that the environment is pedestrian friendly and safe. He thought it was without question that a lot of people are going to want to walk in this neighborhood because of the amenities that are there and the infrastructure that is going to support their walk. So traffic and the impacts of traffic should be raised as a high level of concern throughout every project they approve to make sure that pedestrian priority is maintained at a high level. Chairperson Jonathan asked for more information about the pedestrian system indicated on the circulation plan. � 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � � Mr. Ross said that there has not been a specific design of the � planning areas, so what they were looking at is through either a means of Iocal streets with sidewalks or pedestrian paths that there be a way to get between planning areas to the park envisioned at the corner of A and B. So the thought was they wanted to have some kind of pedestrian system to discourage someone from putting up a block wall on their planning area property boundary which is part of the parcel map and sell parcels to developers. There should be a way to circulate pedestrians internally without having to go out to Gerald Ford and around. They were making that flexible, either by a local street or a dedicated path. A dedicated path might be a possibility because of the slope. Traditionally they wanted to have property lines at the top of slope. That is hard to make local roads and have access into the projects and still coincide. That was why he thought a dedicated path might be a better means of promoting pedestrian circulation and having the slopes work hand in hand. It is unknown today, but it will be a fall out of the specific site design as it progresses with the end developer. � Chairperson Jonathan indicated that just because they see a pedestrian � system indicated on the map didn't mean that it's a planned pedestrian walkway. They are just saying conceptually that it would be nice to have something that would accommodate pedestrians in that area. Mr. Ross said what they were saying is ihat there will be some form of pedestrian system, either a sidewalk next to a local road or a dedicated path, but a way for people to walk or bike between these planning areas shown on the land use plan to the place they want to go which are the parks, the amenities, and to the commercial. So there will be something there, they just didn't want to dictate that it had to be a dedicated path. It could be a street. Mr. Drell noted that the concept was that the circulation system need not only include vehicle streets. Pedestrian paths could exist apart from the normal street system. Chairperson Jonathan said it caught his attention because the new La Quinta park, Adams Park, is surrounded by residential areas and they in fact have pedestrian walkways throughout ; the residential areas that collect into the park and they are used a lot. He � 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 `.. thought it was an effective and wonderful way for children and others to be able to access the park without being on a street. He said he would be delighted if they ended up with anything like that in this area. He thought it was very effective. Mr. Ross agreed. He said he lives over in that neighborhood and it is great to be able to walk between those little corridors that are wide enough so there isn't crime and people hanging out there, but it's great circulation to not walk clear around the streets in order to get to the parks that are landscaped and nice. Chairperson Jonathan noted that they are designed right into the developments. He thought that some of the homeowners would see that as a plus and a really desirable amenity. In some cases they could walk right out of their backyard to that path and take a walk or access the park. That was a really nice feature. Mr. Ross said that is envisioned, they just didn't want to dictate thai it had to be in a specific location. They just wanted to ir.. encourage that type of connection between the different projects. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He said UC Santa Barbara has a great system for biking as evidenced by thousands and thousands of bicycles that are there and very few automobi(es. But they also wouldn't want to walk on it because the bicycles move rapidly. But it is a thoroughfare for bicycles and is wonderful. He thought philosophically it is a great idea to incorporate something adaptable for the residential, as well as students having to get to one point and expanding that idea throughout the entire university park would be great. Chairperson Jonathan said he has also seen designs in San Diego and recently in Venice and Santa Monica where there are areas limited to bikes and areas limited to pedestrians. He noted that what was before the commission was this total 296 acres. He asked if he recollected what proportion of the entire north sphere area this represented. Mr. Drell said that the entire area north of Frank Sinatra is about 2,000 acres. Chairperson Jonathan noted that this would then be about 15%. Mr. Drel! concurred. �r. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � � Commissioner Tschopp noted that on Section 2, page 23, it talks about r"� parking and the statement is that, "parking shall be provided in accordance with the zoning ordinance, except as follows" and it listed six exceptions. In his mind he was trying to see what the big difference was and if they are approving this and knowing developers, he understood they were trying to give flexibility to the project, but understanding that developers will usually push everything to the ends, if they approved this tonight, he asked if they were in essence allowing this parking to go in to the high density development standards. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Tschopp asked about our current code and why we would think we would have less required spaces. He said he was only using parking as an example because it flows throughout other areas of the whole booklet. Mr. Drell said that as it relates to setbacks, he already explained. There are examples in the document of how those setbacks are applied. In terms of parking, there are studio units. Studio units aren't even allowed in the city right now other than for seniors. So we don't have a standard for studio units in our existing ordinance. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out number five, "three or more bedroom � units, two covered spaces and a half uncovered." If he read that right, � that is three or four bedrooms. Mr. Drell said it is actually greater than the current standard. Commissioner Tschopp asked what the current standard was for four bedroom apartments. Mr. Drell said that right now we have one standard fits all. There are two per unit regardless how big it is. Two spaces regardless if it is three bedrooms, four bedrooms, or one bedroom. We used to have a one and a half spaces per one bedroom unit. They changed it to two and then provided exceptions for most of the major apartment projects. They are really built closer to one and a half with a kind of a fudge condition that says if they need more, they can build more, but they've never needed more. One Quail is about one and a half and San Tropez f now Sevilla Villas). But then again, on larger units it requires more than our current standard. For our two-bedroom units, it is actually slightly more. It requires a two per unit plus an additional for every ten. In some respects these standards for the larger units are more and for the smaller units they are less. On the lot coverage of 45%, Commissioner Tschopp asked for the current coverage requirement. Mr. Drell indicated that our current coverage allows from 35% to 50%. Commissioner Tschopp asked if other categories followed the same suit. Mr. Drell said they are very � ..� 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING_C_OMMISSION MAY 4 2004 i.. similar. The biggest divergence is the specific articulation of standards for reduced setbacks in certain situations which they've allowed in the past and approved in the past on specific projects, but never had a document which described them and then talked about what they should be used for and what their benefits are. Regarding the issue of the setbacks, Commissioner Tschopp asked if a project was proposed with these reduced setbacks, the commission would have discretion on that given the design, etc., and so forth. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that they have all of that now. Mr. Drell said they have all of that now, but this provides perspective developers with a guide or catalog of design solutions which help developers achieve the goals of the general plan. Instead of having to bring along every developer from kindergarten, they can say "here is a whole group of design solutions that we believe achieves quality, efficient product for you to try to incorporate into your projects." Commissioner Finerty pointed out that what this master plan of development really does is lessen the quality. It lowers the standards from what we have in the rest of the city. Mr. Drell disagreed 1 ,000%. �.► Commissioner Finerty said they take the medium density from the 5,000 square foot lots or 4,500 square foot lots and now he is saying the minimum can be 3,000. They are allowing three story apartment units and pretty soon that 35 feet will be 36 feet to 40 feet and they would have all these architectural issues as to why they have to hide the architectural equipment on the roof and what they are doing is taking the normal two-story apartments and allowing three stories. This just opened up Pandora's box to lower the standards. They still have the means without this document just like they did over on Fairhaven to approve much smaller lots when they had a high quality architectural project. It is no different with the Fairhaven project and our standards right now. There was no reason why the standards for the rest of the city should be any different in the north sphere. If there is a project that comes through that they want to make an exception on for high density, they already have the tools to do that. They didn't even need this. Going back to questions for the applicant, Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other questions. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that Mr. Zelinka referred to exceptions language and Chairperson Jonathan asked for and received confirmation that the commission did not receive that information in their packets. He asked for the intent of it. ` 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 ; Mr. Zelinka said that the intent of the exceptions language is to provide the City with the ability to work with project applicants to accommodate unique situations that are not adequately addressed in the development plan or in any of the existing ordinances, so it just provides the City and the project applicant with the tools or flexibility to offer new, unique design solutions for problems that are not foreseen in the development plan. For instance, unique slope situations. How do they deal with a two story or three story building in a unique slope situation? It just provides in the event an issue arises, it provides the project applicant with the ability to offer one approach to dealing with that issue. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that would be incorporated into the development agreement. Mr. Zelinka answered yes. Mr. D�ell said it would be in the document before them, which is an exhibit of the agreement. Chairperson Jonathan said if there were no other questions for the � applicant, he would ask if anyone else was present who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matter. There was no one and Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp asked staff if the plan before them for the University Park fairly closely followed what this commission approved as part of the general plan. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the use of the higher densities by the applicant, if that pretty much followed the plan of the Council in their idea of the overlay for this area. Mr. Drell said yes. To answer the question most accurately, he said that since the Council did not approve the plan that the commission approved, it switched the high density to the overlay. This plan incorporates the overlay as approved by the Council. Chairperson Jonathan asked if this implemented the new bigger, better general plan that has been approved; however, for the first time did it set , certain standards and get into the details. Mr. Drell said yes, it gets into the detail. An example for the overlay, it contains the seven criteria by 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4. 2004 � which high density projects will be judged. Chairperson Jonathan said he was going beyond the high density. Mr. Drell said yes, this is an ordinance and goes far beyond and what they had to evaluate based on their discussions and what they tried to accomplish in the general plan. Are these standards they are suggesting reasonab(e? Are they appropriate? If they aren't, that's what they needed to talk about. There was no reason to have flexibility with a standard they didn't like in the first place. But he believed they are thoughtfully conceived and have proven over time and to a certain degree the development standards that have made for successful higher density product have been around for hundreds of years a�d really exist in this country and cities all over the place and it is going back and reincorporating those standards that used to guide development back into this project. In terms of discussion, Chairperson Jonathan said he had a number of concerns and he would throw them out there. He wasn't sure how he wanted to deal with them. For example, in the low density development standards, they have the possibility of having a zero side yard setback which he guessed meant that garages in this particular case could share � a common wall. He wasn't sure he was comfortable with that in a low density development standard. They have in the high density as a standard 35 feet and three stories. Again, he wasn't real comfortable with that. He used those two as an example because in both of those cases he couldn't say unequivocaliy that there is never a situation that he would vote in favor of zero feet between garages or 35 feet and three stories, particularly there might be a situation where something is sloping and it might be from the road that it looks like one story and from the back it's three stories. They have that in hilly areas in other cities. So he didn't want to say no, but he was wondering about some of these standards and that's why he was asking about the exceptions language. Maybe rather than having it as a development standard, ihey could have language that says this would be an exception and under appropriate circumstances it would be granted. His concern was the same that Commissioner Tschopp expressed where developers want to understand the rules and once tF�ey set the rules they would generally abide by them. If they need an exception, they will come in and say they need an exception. But when they give them a document like this, they aren't going to say this is the minimum and in many cases � they won't say that they would voluntarily not go to three stories but will 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 4 � � go to two stories or if they are only required to put in one parking space, they decide to put in two. In many cases they won't. They'll say these are the rules and they'll come before the commission and say they've met the standards, here they are, they met them and they'll have an expectation of approval. So some of these things he had no problem with some of the standards, and some of them he did and he didn't want to mislead a developer into thinking that just because it is here as a standard that the commission will automatically say yes, it's a standard and they've met the standard so the commission is going to approve it. He didn't mind having an exception and wanted to keep an open mind to some of these things because they are dealing with a new animal. They are dealing with high density that we don't have. They are going to be dealing with apartments and condos that we don't have, but he didn't want to create a false sense of expectation. Mr. Drell said that as an example, the rear yard setback for the garages with the zero setback (and side yard) and the circumstances that will be acceptable will be a relatively unique one. One thing that could be done is creating two categories of standards, one being those that they would � consider under very special circumstances and almost illustrate in the � document what sort of site plans where a zero rear would be appropriate. If that is what they wanted to do, they could go th�ough all these standards and say which ones they aren't comfortable with and separate them. He referred to them as tools in a tool box; some tools are used only once in a while and to differentiate between those types. On the zero rear setbacks, they are talking about a detached rear garage which inherently infers a unique design. In that case, he envisioned a zero rear setback if they had houses set up where all four garages would be together with zero to zero to zero to zero and no one would be looking at it, so they could identify those and then expand on it to describe which sorts of situations those might be acceptable and the benefits of those. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that his first home, his starter home, was at the old Lewis Homes development called the Vineyards off Martini Court off of Rutledge and it had a zero side yard garage with the garages sharing a wall and it was wonderful. Mr. Drell said it saved ten feet. Chairperson Jonathan agreed that it saved ten feet, there were no privacy � issues because there wasn't a living space adjacent to another, so in a ; � 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 r.. circumstance like that he was very open to it. But again, he didn't want to see something compressed with 1 ,000 homes all squished together because they have this expectation. Mr. Drell said that they never had to approve bad design. Chairperson Jonathan understood that, but explained it is a matter of creating false expectations and developers think they are following tf�e rules and there is a lot of acrimony because they are looking at a document in black and white and think they have met the standard and what right did they have to say no when they have met the standard that the city has set. He really liked Mr. Drell's idea of saying here is the kind of basic minimum standards and under certain unique circumstances there's a possibility that these standards would apply. That would at least kind of set them on notice that it isn't a gimmee. If they are going to have a reduced setback, whether it's 35 feet, whether it's a parking issue, whatever the commission feels is sensitive, if they are going to have that there will be a second threshold/second bar to rise to. Mr. Drell agreed. He saw this as a tool box or catalog and they can identify those tools that are universally endorsed and those that are going to be looked at very carefully and would have to be justified. ir..� Commissioner Finerty agreed with Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioner Tschopp that this is more of an exception than the rule, but the way this document reads, they've just lowered all of their standards and developers are going to expect them to abide by it and she didn't think that was the intent of the Council in implementing the General Plan. The intent was that there are seven different criteria that if they have that, it may be considered, but it wasn't giving cart blanc that everything they see with a medium density and a high density overlay is going to be subject to the type of standards as being proposed before them tonight in this development agreement. Mr. Drell said this document identified that everything in the high density is discretionary, even the existence of high density itself. Commissioner Finerty understood that, but there was no reason why they needed this when they already have standards and if there is a project that comes before the commission, they have people coming before them all the time with projects and ask for exceptions to the setbacks, so why should one part of the city operate under different rules than the rest of the city. Mr. Drell said he would have argued that the rest of the city would have been better off operating under standards like this. They would have had better � residential projects all along. Commissioner Finerty felt the city has 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � ► � turned out quite well with the standards we have and there is no "� question that what is being proposed is not as high of a quality as the standards that we currently have. Chairperson Jonathan thought it could be. He wanted to focus on the positive because he thought it was a wonderful document and said hats off to Mr. Zelinka who created it. He thought it was wonderful and a very good working document. He actually thought that as well as the city has done, it is this kind of detailed approach which would have served the city well in the past, but the past is the past and now they are into the present and the future. So he had no p�oblem with this kind of document and he thought it is particularly relevant because it addresses some of the development concepts for this area that they have not dealt with before. The mixed use approach, the pedestrian friendly integrating uses, commercial and office and restaurant uses close to residential so as to minimize traffic and improve the environment. All those kinds of things are really issues that until we went through the general plan process, we had not addressed it in this detail in the city, so it served a valid purpose. In his mind, and he thought it was matter of fine tuning. This is an excellent start in his mind and he endorsed the vast majority of it. There are a few standards he felt were ' maybe not ones he was ready to put forth as acceptable standards that � he would want to have a second hoop for developers to go through. So in his mind it is an excellent start and is a matter of fine tuning and maybe creating a second level for some of them. Mr. Drell suggested continuing this and either at the next meeting or in the next two weeks commissioners could communicate with him those specific standards they feel should be in that second category and they can try to get that document amended for the next meeting. Chairperson Jonathan said that was a strong possibility of the direction they could go in, but he hasn't heard from some of the other commissioners and wanted to see where they're at. Commissioner Campbell agreed with continuing it because they can't approve this document as it is. She didn't agree on a lot of the things in it either and she thought if they could change it and if it needed to be approved tonight, she wouldn't vote for approval. So if they wanted to continue it and make some changes that they all feel comfortable with and have it come back, that would be acceptable. , t 3 � 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 �.. Mr. Drell didn't know if they wanted to spend the time right then to go page by page, but if the commission could communicate with him over the next two weeks and then at least when they come back they could have some solutions. Chairperson Jonathan said what they would identify are those specific standards they feel shouid be kind of a second tier subject to unique circumstance type standards. Mr. Drell concurred, but said they could be discussed at greater length what would be the circumstances. What are the positive goals that could be achieved if these standards were employed and if they tried to employ those standards but didn't achieve the results, then they would not be filling the requirement. Commissioner Tschopp said he understood why he would want to do it that way, but he didn't think they were qualified to do that. They aren't creative architects or of the genre of the urban planner that is taking place now looking down the road and planning new spaces differently than what has been done in the past and perhaps, hopeful(y, correcting some of the mistakes made in the past. As a couple of commissioners stated, there are some things thai if applied properly, he would have no e.. problem with and he would almost encourage them because he thought they needed to look at more creative design in their neighborhoods and he would like to see architects take an innovative look at doing things better than we have in the past. The commission isn't qualified to do that. What he thought they were saying is they have a code and they are open to changes or differences in the code if the development warrants it. He thought the challenge of this document is to say here's our codes, we are willing to look at this and if they do it properly, here's what they could perhaps get to: a zero backyard setback and things of that nature. But he didn't think they could come back and say they want five feet or ten feet. Mr. Drell asked what are the things they feel a little uncomfortable with. Commissioner Tschopp said as he just mentioned, it's been from setbacks and things of that nature and they aren't qualified to say what it should be. Mr. Drell was saying that those areas they are talking about being iwo tiered, those areas would have to be expanded to better justify them to either convince them and make them comfortable, or to put them into a second tier that says under the right circumstances, these are the tools in the tool box, items in the catalog that if used right can make the project better. Using them doesn't guarantee approval because they had �r.. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4. 2004 to make the case that the objectives that this document says they are designed to achieve are being achieved. But they are only being achieved if they used them right. It's like any other tool. Commissioner Tschopp said that went back to what he originally asked before the start. What are our current codes and what of these are different from it? He said in some ways he was saying that here are our codes now and we'd be willing to give everything here if it's appropriate for that development. Commissioner Finerty said that at the last meeting she requested a staff report on this document so that would be outlined just like they had now with a break down of the exceptions for low density, medium and high density regarding setbacks, parking, circulation and all those things. That way they could see clearly where they are and where unique circumstances would take them. Her answer to that was that Mr. Drell agreed with everything in the document and they didn't get a staff report. But she thought it would be helpful to have section by section as far as low density, medium and high density what the current requirements are and how this is different and what the circumstances would be to allow these differences. ' Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were suggesting that instead of the � commission identifying standards in this document that they are not entirely comfortable with, that they have staff in essence do a two column presentation of the standards, one column being what is being proposed and one column that shows what is currently specified in our current zoning standards. Commissioner Finerty agreed they would be able to clearly see the difference and then pick and choose. But she thought all of them were uncomfortable right now with the three-story portion. If they were to build apartments today, what is the current code? Do they allow three stories? Commissioner Lopez concurred that this document is great. It is a working document. But the only thing he was uncomfortable with is if they wanted to move to action tonight, he was not uncomfortable as to the accuracy of the document or the completeness of the document and then obviously the areas they are concerned about as it pertains to what is different in ihis document and what is currently the direction before them on the general plan or what the other standards are. That's where , he thought they needed to tighten it up. He thought the idea for the � university park which definitely and obviously had been an area of major 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 i.. concern, not only for the City Council but for the residents, what's going to be there and what the plan is for ihat particular area. He thought this was great, they just needed to spend additional time on it, tighten it up and take a look at the specific areas that are different than we currently have, the standards that we currently have, and understand those and come up with a document that is finished and say here's our best shot at what they think should be the road map or at least philosophically what they should have for the university park and feel good about presenting this as a recommendation. Commissioner Tschopp said it wasn't so much a position of wanting to pick and choose as it is to say they are open and they are flexible, but they needed to be convinced that three story buildings, zero setbacks are right for this area. So he didn't know if they needed to convince him as much as have something in the document that states it is truly still at the discretion of the City to approve that. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he wanted to see a side by side comparison. They have low density development standards, medium +r•� density development standards and high density development standards all there in this document proposed. He asked if they wanted to see a side by side comparison for each of those to the existing code. He was trying to understand where they wanted to go from here. Commissioners Campbell and Finerty said they would like to have that done. Chairperson Jonathan said it clear they were going to continue this and asked what they wanted staff to give them. Commissioner Tschopp said that for him he thought that would be fine, a good start. But then he would like to see some direction for them, for the City, for the developer that will be looking at this and trying to get some road map for himself when they think ihey might apply other standards to the higher density or three story single family. Maybe they couldn't a�ticulate it that well, but he thought they owed it to the poor guy looking at it saying maybe there is a possibility for this and when could he use it. Chairperson Jonathan said that once they agree on the potential development standards, after they look at them side by side and say that code says 14-foot side yard, here is the standard that says zero-foot side yard and then they would want to take that and have something in the document that tells the developer the types of circumstances they � envision when that exception to the standard might be approved. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � Commissioner Tschopp said yes, to the best of their ability, which is very � difficult to tell them because they are looking to developers to be creative and convincing so it wasn't going to be something tight, it was going to be a broad document. Chairperson Jonathan said more conceptual. Commissioner Tschopp said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said it would at least put them on notice that it would require convincing the decision makers that circumstances or the benefits resulting from those exceptions fit. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Drell if that approach made sense to him. Mr. Drell said that was fine. Chairperson Jonathan stated that what he heard the commission say is a continuance of the matter, that they ask staff in each of the development standards indicated for low density, medium density and high density, that the commission be provided with a chart, a two column chart that shows next to the proposed development standards what the code currently provides so they can compare easily and that they then discuss those differences and arrive at some consensus once they are comfortable and under general direction conceptual language about what kind of circumstances or what kind of benefits or situations would have to exist to justify those deviations. � Commissioner Finerty asked if they would want to add on page 2 of the Table of Contents the Commercial O.P. District, the Mixed Use and the Open Space District so they could see what they currently have in those as well. Commissioner Campbell said they should see the whole picture and get it all. She thought staff would probably need more than two weeks to prepare that. Mr. Drell said it shouldn't be that difficult, it was just a matter of providing the columns. Chairperson Jonathan suggested continuing it to the 18th and then again if staff needed more time. Mr. Drell concurred. Since no one besides the applicant was present in the audience, if staff didn't get it done, then the applicant just wouldn't show up. Chairperson Jonathan reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing Case Nos. C/Z 03-13 and DA 04-04 to May 18, 2004 by minute motion. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 r.. Commissioner Tschopp said he too thought this document was a great start and he thought the writer was on the right track. Chairperson Jonathan said he wanted to clarify that not only is this a good, professional document, but it captures the essence of where the city wants to go with the university park concept. He knew they had a lot of fine tuning to do and Counci! might change whatever the Commission did here, but just the very essence, the concept of having an integrated, environmentally friendly, people friendly type of neighborhood community he thought had been captured very effectively and commended them for that. He thought it was very helpful to them. He asked for any further discussion. He noted that staff had their marching orders and called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES �r.. A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE None. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE None. XI. COMMENTS Regarding the Four Paws and a Tail issue, Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff knew about it. He thought that pen in the rear was new. Mr. Drell said their use of that had come up in the past relative to code enforcement and the owner had been admonished relative to confining her activities to inside the building. Chairperson Jonathan said those dogs �.. are outside. He said he would get hold of those people and tell them to 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 2004 � ► � address it with staff because it is a code enforcement issue. Mr. Drell recalled this coming up before and thought they made it clear to the owner that she had to conduct her business inside her building. Commissioner Campbell informed the commission that those dogs bark a lot during the day and then people go ahead and pick up their dogs after grooming and they go to the bathroom all over the place and no one picks it up out there where the flowers are. Commissioner Finerty also noted that they sold a lot of puppies there. Chairperson Jonathan said that outdoor area constantly has dogs in it. He said he was at Pepe the Tailor's inside and he could hear them and the odor was a problem. Commissioner Carnpbell stated that on some Saturdays they take part of the parking lot and give lessons, too. She asked if they were allowed to do that. Mr. Drell said that staff would look into that and try to find out how that got in there. If nothing else, noise and odor are public nuisance issues. Chairperson Jonathan said that when it was brought to his attention, he thought it could be the lack of a conditional use permit because it is a permanent outdoor area housing animals. Mr. Drell was sure if it was approved that all activities had to be conducted inside the building. The basic rule i� this town is they had to have special approval to engage in any business outside. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other comments. Commissioner Tschopp said he listened to the tape of the last meeting and wanted to compliment the person who takes the minutes doing a great job because they could have read the minutes, not listened to the tape, and pretty much gotten the essence of the meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by te m tion. ion carried 5-0. ,: , ` PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTES�: ' ; ; SABBY JO A HAN, Chairperson Palm Desert PI nning Commission � /tm � ..� 42