Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0907 ��•�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 7, 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 Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson w.r Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez (arrived at 6:02 p.m.) Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for consideration of the August 3 and August 17, 2004 meeting minutes. rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 x Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the August 3 and August 17, 2004 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent August 26, 2004 City Council actions. (Commissioner Lopez arrived.) VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Vll. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-09 - MARIO AND REFIKA JERKIC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two lots at the southeast corner of Boardwalk and St. Charles Place, 74-141 and 74-121 St. Charles Place. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 A. Case No. PP 04-10 - TIM DiTOMASO, Applicant (Continued from May 4, May 18, June 1 , July 6, July 20 and August 3, 2004) 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). Mr. Drell explained that the applicant wanted to find some prospective tenants to see what kind of project they want to see, hence the request to continue it indefinitely and staff would advertise the project when new information was received. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing with the intent to continue the matter. He asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this matter. There was no one. He indicated the public hearing would be continued and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion, continuing Case No. PP 04-10 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. GPA 04-02, C/Z 04-04 and HDP/PP 04-21- HAGADONE FAMILY TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment from open space public reserve to hillside reserve (one dwelling unit per five acres), a change of zone to prezone the northeast corner of Section 5 T5S R6E from Riverside County's N-A (Natural Assets, one dwelling unit per 20 acres) to HPR, D (Hillside Planned Residential, one dwelling unit per acre with a drainage, flood plains and watercourse overlay zone) to facilitate annexation to the city, a hillside 'r"' 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 development plan/precise plan to allow the construction of a 32,016 square foot single-family home, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as it relates to the project thereto. Chairperson Jonathan noted that staff's recommendation was for a continuance and asked for a staff report. Mr. Drell explained that there was a mix up with the legal noticing and staff was recommending a continuance so that it could be corrected. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission regarding this matter. There was no one. Continuing the open public hearing, Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion, continuing this matter to September 21 , 2004. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP 04-18 - INTERTILE, NATURAL STONE SURFACES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of an 1 1 ,600 square foot warehouse/storage building, a 2,100 square foot sales office and an outdoor display garden located at 74-824 42nd Avenue. Mr. Bagato outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Campbell asked about the office building height. Mr. Bagato said the front at the lowest portion would be ten feet and then it raised up to 15 before getting to the translucent panels. Commissioner Campbell noted that from there it went up to the storage/warehouse. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. It stepped up and the warehouse building 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 was around 20 feet and then raised up to the maximum of 30 feet at the very point. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a couple of clarifications in the staff report. Under Item B, the report indicated that the storage building was 100 feet long by 160 feet wide, which would be 16,000 square feet. But as he read the plans, that was really 116 feet wide, which would bring it to the 11 ,1 16 square foot size. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. He confirmed that the warehouse would be 1 1 ,1 16 square feet. Regarding the parking on the plans, Chairperson Jonathan counted 19 parking spaces, which was great, but he asked if staff wasn't counting the small one. Mr. Bagato said he also questioned that. There were two in front of the landscaping. One was actually a handicapped space and there was extra room. On page 3 just before the conclusion, Chairperson Jonathan noted that the showroom building was designed as typical office space. He asked for clarification that it wasn't actually a showroom, it was a sales office. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that they didn't have a showroom, they have an office. They could show things in the office, but that was what he was referring to, an office. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Lopez asked about the condition of approval regarding the warehouse usage for future office space. Mr. Bagato explained that it was covered under Community Development Condition No. 9. There were no further questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ERIC KLINER, the Principal Architect for XAR Architecture Company in Palm Springs, located at 2171 India Street, Suite Q in San Diego, CA 92101 . Beyond what Mr. Bagato presented, he said they didn't have any other comments unless he could answer any questions or discuss the building further. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 There were no questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked the commission for comments. Action: Commissioner Tschopp said he concurred with staff's findings and moved for approval. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for any discussion. He commented that he found the design and the architecture refreshing and thought it would be attractive. Everything else worked and he was looking forward to seeing the project. He called for the vote. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2289, approving PP 04-18, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. CUP 04-06 - CINGULAR WIRELESS, Applicant Request for approval to construct a 73-foot high monopalm wireless telecommunications tower with related equipment building at Santa Rosa Country Club, 38-105 Portola Avenue. Mr. Urbina outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval of Case No. CUP 04-06, subject to the findings and conditions in the draft resolution. Commissioner Tschopp asked for and received confirmation that the Santa Rosa Country Club Board of Directors approved of the proposed project. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the staff report and drawings indicated a two-foot in diameter microwave dish on the outside of the trunk. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan didn't recall having previous antenna requests asking for a microwave dish on the outside. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 He asked if there was a change in technology and why they would have a microwave dish on the outside of the trunk. Mr. Urbina indicated that the applicant's representative was present and he would be able to answer that question. Mr. Drell noted that there had been two or three like that. Basically, the microwave dish connects the wireless antenna with the land line system and the alternative was a cable. The applicant could explain the benefits of a cabling system as opposed to a microwave system. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell remembered comparisons being made to the St. Margaret's monopalm which doesn't have a microwave dish. He asked if he remembered what differentiated that or if they handled it in some other technological manner. Mr. Drell said it was a distance issue relative to cabling to whatever their connection is, which was a technical question for the applicant. Chairperson Jonathan asked when ARC looked at the proposal if they had r the benefit of seeing the microwave dish. He didn't see that specifically addressed in their minutes. He wanted to insure that wasn't a change that happened later and that it was included in the plans that ARC reviewed. Mr. Urbina said that was correct, it was included in the plans that ARC had seen. There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. STEVE STACKHOUSE, with Veloci Tel Inc., located at 18071 Fitch Avenue, Suite 200 in Irvine, CA 92614, addressed the commission. He stated that he was representing Cingular Wireless. He felt that Mr. Urbina did an excellent job in making his presentation before the commission. He wouldn't duplicate issues. He informed commission that Cingular Wireless identified this area as being an area where there is insufficient coverage and lack of adequate service for their Cingular Wireless subscribers. That was the reason for making a request for a facility in this general location. They did search out the area and attempted to locate the `. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 best location. They discussed with City staff two or three other prospective locations and it was indicated to them that this would be the best one in as much as Verizon Wireless had already been approved in this area. They hadn't built it yet, but had been approved, and the City would like to see it be adjacent to that facility. Since the time they submitted their request to the City for further consideration, Verizon had built their facility as depicted by the pictures. So they were looking to simply locate a Cingular facility adjacent to the Verizon one. They worked very closely with Mr. Brett Grinland who was in the audience, and with the Board of the Santa Rosa Country Club. Cingular had the Board's full approval to move forward with this request and they also made every effort to make every change requested by the City staff previous to this meeting as well. 4 They went through at least two design changes to accommodate the antennas inside the monopalm tree, which was indicated as being a preference of the architectural review committee and it had been before them twice and at the last meeting received their recommendation of approval. Regarding the microwave dish, he said that often times wireless communication companies will provide a microwave dish so as to have a back call connection when a site itself may not have the ability of having a hard line or land line connection. Those microwave dishes might be used for this site, although not in this specific instance for this site, or for other adjacent sites to provide for the Telco connection when land line connections are unavailable. That's why they were asking for the microwave dish in this instance. Apart from that, they have the four live palm trees adjacent to their monopalm that the City is requesting and they were in complete agreement with all the staff's conditions of approval. He made reference to Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act as it 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 1r pertains to this request in their ongoing consideration of this matter. He concluded and asked for any questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that not having the microwave dish would not impact the functionality of this antenna for cell phone usage. It would be just a back up in the event that the land line connections fail. Mr. Stackhouse said either fail or were not available at a future site they might be contemplating putting in so as to provide that connection via a back call system. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was alternative technology for the microwave connection. At a minimum, could that dish be hidden within the fronds? Mr. Stackhouse answered that it couldn't be hidden within the fronds, but it was specced to be painted to be the same image as the tree trunk itself. And there were no other technologies available for transmitting a Telco connection other than hard wire or land line connections. It was either that or microwave. He noted that the microwave was only nominally two-feet in diameter. That was a little larger than what might be found in most people's home satellite dishes. It is the same diameter as the tree trunk itself and with it being painted the same color and shading as the tree trunk, in many views they wouldn't see the microwave dish because the tree trunk itself would completely mask the view of the microwave dish itself. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other questions. There were none and he thanked Mr. Stackhouse. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. `n 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 s Action: Commissioner Tschopp moved for approval and Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Under discussion Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would be opposed to the motion only because he would want to explore the possibility and feasibility of eliminating that dish or in some way shielding it from obvious view. He thought they had worked hard and successfully to create true stealth in regard to these cell antennas and to basically hang a dish on a tree was to him going backwards in that effort. So he would want to pause and explore the possibility of either other technology or some kind of shielding mechanism so that it didn't look like there was a dish hanging up on the top of this tree. For the record that was why he was opposed to the motion. He called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2290, approving CUP 04-06, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no). E. Case No. ZOA 04-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a zoning ordinance amendment, Chapter 25.25, to limit buildings in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue from Fred Waring Drive to De Anza Way to single story, maximum 18 feet in height and maximum 100 feet in length. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that this wasn't a specific application, which would be coming up in Item F following this matter. Right now they were only going to discuss the change of zone being recommended by staff. He asked for the staff report. Mr. Smith clarified that this was a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text, not a zone change, which was contained within Item F. Mr. Smith informed commission that during the General Plan review, the Council discussed at length the appropriate land uses along the west side s 10 „„rj MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 w. of Portola south of Fred Waring Drive. Ultimately the Council dual designated the area residential, median density/office professional and directed staff to return with appropriate amendments to the O.P. standards to provide buildings that would be residential in scale. Staff was back with that now and they looked into various restrictions which could be considered. They looked at building height, one story, two stories, setbacks, and overall building mass considerations. Ultimately, staff came up with the proposal which was before the commission to limit any O.P. development that might occur to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet and a maximum length of 100 feet. The intent was to have office buildings which are residential in character. Given the low building height of homes in this specific area on the west side of Portola, staff felt that two-story buildings would be out of character with that community. For purposes of CEQA, they were looking at a Class 5 Categorical �.r Exemption and no further review was necessary. The staff's recommendation was that Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the City Council. He pointed out that if that was the Commission's direction, that would preclude an affirmative response with respect to Item F on their agenda. He asked for any questions. On that very point, Chairperson Jonathan said it might be a legal question, but from a timing standpoint, if they have a pending application prior to an adopted zoning ordinance amendment, he asked if that precluded them, if they followed the new revised amended zoning ordinance if that should occur, or if there was a grandfathering procedure. Mr. Smith said no, the next application includes the proposed change of zone to office professional. If the Commission took this action now, then the policy of the Commission would be such that they could not recommend the zone change because the project doesn't conform to these standards. Mr. Drell stated there is no grandfathering. They could actually change, and they have actually denied projects that were consistent with the existing zoning and after the fact changed the zone before they showed up in court. The City always has the ability to '� 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 change their regulation to correct any of that disconnection in that both the change of zone is a discretionary act in the next case. That was why they did this in this order. The only question in terms of the process tonight was if they wanted to be looking at the project simultaneously with their discussion so they could be seeing an example of a proposal in this area at the same time they are looking at the regulation to determine if the regulation is appropriate. So they could actually look at it both ways and simultaneously if they wanted. The question was whether in terms of expediency in terms of the testimony they might want to since most of the people who were going to get up and talk about one would get up and talk about the other as well. But it was up to the Commission if they wanted to talk about them at the same time. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was comfortable with the way the agenda was so that they generically address the zoning ordinance amendment without looking at a specific application. He asked the other commissioners for their opinions. Commission agreed. Commissioner Finerty stated that she believed that they should chart the course before looking at an application. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the consensus, so they would stay with that approach. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were other questions for staff. Regarding the one story which Mr. Smith said they wanted to keep residential, Commissioner Campbell noted that there are homes that are two-stories there and asked for the height of those homes on Portola, on the corner of Santa Rosa and Portola. Mr. Drell said those were town houses and are 24 feet with pitched roofs. They weren't fronting on the street and they are set back with walls and landscaping. Those were some of the things they looked at. The character of even a two-story home tends to differ from a two-story office building and they kind of went back and forth. Then there were issues of architectural style and at what point two-story townhouses, which might be compatible, differ from a two-story office which typically have a different architectural character. He said it was a good question. Commissioner Campbell noted that the home on the corner of Catalina and Portola is a two-story home. Mr. Drell said it is set back considerably 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 further and had probably been there 50 years. Commissioner Campbell reiterated that those homes are 25 feet. Mr. Drell said 24 feet, although he wasn't sure how big the older house was. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. The language of the amendment addressed the 100-foot maximum length. He asked why that particular number. Mr. Drell said that in terms of building mass, most homes are less than that, but a duplex might be 100 feet if they had attached units. In terms of overall building mass, some of the criticisms of some of our buildings on Fred Waring have been that they are too long, so that was the kind of the source of that. Why not 80 or 120? Staff just came up with a number. In essence, this is where maybe looking at real examples is helpful to decide what is just right or too long. Commissioner Lopez asked if a typical building was 100 feet what would be the width. Mr. Drell thought 40 or 50 feet. Commissioner Lopez indicated that they would be looking at a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot `. building. Mr. Drell concurred. Given the projections on the increased traffic on Portola, Commissioner Tschopp asked if there had been any thought for if they had quite a few 4,000 or 5,000 square foot buildings built here in this section, about the ingress and egress of these vehicles into the various parking lots. He asked if it would be fairly similar to what happens on Monterey or no worse. Mr. Drell thought it would be better than Monterey since Monterey takes a lot more traffic now and would take more traffic. It would be no worse than Monterey since Portola would have less traffic, so it would be similar to what they were seeing with those little projects. It was the same thing when they tried to consolidate as many of the accesses as possible and limit those driveways, but this was kind of a "darned if you do and darned if you don't." Public Works wants to limit access onto Portola. The residents want to limit access onto the side streets. From a pure safety point of view, probably the side streets are the better access point, but again, the people who live on those streets don't want to be competing with that commercial traffic in their neighborhood. r.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 In this discussion they weren't talking about access, but when they look at projects that is something they have to weigh. The more they can distribute that traffic to multiples, which goes to the concentration issue which has some advantages, but the more you concentrate traffic, the more you impact a single point. So the more they can distribute traffic to a lot of driveways, then there is a lesser impact at each point. It's a balancing act. Commissioner Tschopp asked if a two-story building could be built with an 18-foot height limit. Mr. Drell said 18 feet allowed one story with a mezzanine. The Commission actually saw a building like that recently. Depending on how deep they want to sink it in the ground, a basement didn't count as a story. Theoretically it could. Once half the wall is sunk, it's a basement and isn't considered a story. Commissioner Tschopp said that if he heard right, it sounded like staff was having a little bit of discussion as to whether it should be one story or just limited to 18 feet given that perhaps a well-drawn designed building by an architect might accommodate two stories rather than just limiting it to one story. Mr. Drell said that was accurate. Chairperson Jonathan asked when the sunken first floor was not considered a story. Mr. Drell said that when at least 51 % of the wall is below existing grade. Chairperson Jonathan said that for example it was typical to see two-story office buildings at 24 or 25 feet, so if a building was sunk six feet, then they are over 50% and it didn't count and was conceivable. Chairperson Jonathan noted that staff was trying to limit mass and the appearance to be as consistent as possible with residential. He asked if staff considered just dealing with the numbers as opposed to trying to define whether it should be one story and two stories, and 100 feet. For example, generally what might be offensive in terms of height is the line of sight. So if a building was set back from Portola and so far from the residences, that 24 feet might not be offensive to anyone. He asked if staff looked at standards rather than limiting to one story. Mr. Drell said that the geometry that is there didn't really allow that. The project before the commission in the next item is unusually large. For most of the land 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 that this ordinance would apply to, the lots are relatively narrow and to a certain degree might be moot in that they won't meet the current O.P. standards for a two-story building in terms of setbacks. Only a limited number of lots are deep enough to even meet our current standards, so staff's dilemma was they don't have the room to push it back because then they are impacting the residents more and if they push it forward, they are crowding the street with a bigger building. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that what he was asking was if someone came up with a creative design that was desirable by the residents and staff and so forth, what the procedure would be for an exception to the zoning ordinance amendment. Mr. Drell said that currently in this particular zone there isn't one. He recalled that about a year or two ago the Planning Commission recommended an exceptions section that talked about architectural quality and things like that and the Council denied that specific ordinance, but approved a project which theoretically required it for its approval. So the Council has decided that if they like something they can approve it, but in theory, while they have many zones that have this process, the O.P. zone isn't one of them. There were no other questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION on this matter. He informed the audience that their comments should be limited to the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, not to any specific application which was coming up on the agenda. MR. PAUL BOWIE, 71 -774 Chuckawalla Way in Palm Desert, 92260, addressed the commission. He stated that he came tonight to speak on another issue; however, this matter was appropriate and it brought a question to his mind on the general profile of the residential neighborhood as it stands today as a single story and whether or not they are starting to have an encroachment of something else into the area, say 18 feet, and they can't make a setback apparently from the street to harbor the appearance of a taller building. So as he gathered his thoughts about this issue on the agenda, he could only say that he thought it was inappropriate `r' 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 3 SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 for the commission to take any action on this matter tonight and to possibly table it or defer it to another time and ask for a more complete study about the character profile of the general neighborhood in regard to these issues. MS. RAMONA FLETCHER, 73-969 Olive Court, which backs up to Portola, addressed the commission. Speaking to the code, she felt it didn't really go far enough if they were going to get this specific. One of the things that happened to them in another city, not here, was being subjected to a public access parking lot and the problems that this addresses, the people who have property abutting that, and the access they have to all sorts of things that aren't in the rules, but nonetheless require police action, etc. Because when they have office professional and residential, which this property is now stated as residential as listed here, what happens is they have a real problem with the office professional people, not while they are there, but when they leave every night and on weekends and the public access that has been created that is free to the public to do as they will when they will and this created a lot of problems. If they were going to be this specific, she would like to see that part addressed also. MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue, addressed the commission. She said that was located just west of the proposed project coming up next. She needed a clarification. It said to limit building in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue from Fred Waring Drive to De Anza Way to single story, etc. All of that property is presently zoned R-1 and she didn't understand why it was saying the O.P. zone on Portola when it does not exist between Fred Waring and De Anza. Mr. Drell explained that the General Plan designates this area as potentially O.P. and this had to do with somewhat of an anomaly in the Council policy created in that normally we would be rezoning properties consistent with the General Plan. They didn't want to do that before they created and responded also to the General Plan direction of amending the zoning ordinance. Since the Council kind of directed them that they 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 1r shouldn't rezone properties consistent with the General Plan until they have specific projects, it does create somewhat of a timing anomaly. But for better or worse, that was the direction by Council on how to proceed with these things. So obviously the next project there is a proposed rezoning. So they are saying that if office buildings are built in this area, these are the standards. It kind of relied on the General Plan as the authority to do that. Chairperson Jonathan paraphrased it that the General Plan was recently amended. That amendment provides for areas where the zoning will change; however, those changes would not occur until a specific application comes before the city. And approval of the residents of the area. Ms. Martin asked if that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan said there was always opportunity for lots of public ;` testimony. Ms. Martin stated that a group of them and most of them here had been involved with the zoning change since 1999 and they keep going back to it. They had been very fortunate, all the way through City Council have not approved any zoning change in this area. Chairperson Jonathan explained that there wasn't a zoning change yet. The General Plan allowed and provided for a change of zone along Portola and what they were doing tonight was discussing the possibility of amending the office professional zoning just for that area of Portola should that occur. Ms. Martin asked if this should be reworded in some way so that it was understood by the residents who are fighting this. It's stating "building in the O.P. zone on Portola Avenue from Fred Waring to De Anza" and if she were reading this and not living in the area, she would think this was already an O.P. zone. tow 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 Mr. Drell said she was correct and if this proceeds, staff would reword the request description. Ms. Martin thanked him. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the purpose of the public hearing so when they get to the Planning Commission discussion, if it is the Planning Commission's desire to modify the wording, they would certainly do so. MS. MING LOWE, stated that she lives in Pinyon, but her address is 73-985 Catalina Way, which is the southwest corner on Portola and Catalina. She didn't know they were going to bring this up this way and word it this way, but there were a couple of things she noticed when they were talking about whatever they were talking about and that was they said 100 feet per lot per building. She asked if that was per lot or combined lots, that 100 feet. Mr. Drell said it didn't matter. A building couldn't be built over a property line. Ms. Lowe said that could turn into a massive thing. Chairperson Jonathan said it was 100 feet per building. Ms. Lowe said 100 feet per lot, per building. The other thing about two stories is that she felt it would double the traffic. No one mentioned traffic, but two stories is a taller building, but it also doubles the ins and outs. The third thing is that Mr. Drell mentioned that in order to lighten the traffic, the ins and outs would be spread out possibly onto a residential street. The project coming up, the parking lot would be on Catalina and the ins and outs would be on Catalina, which is a residential street. So that was just a concern she had when they were talking about the building, but they weren't talking about the parking lot. And two stories would double the amount of cars parked, double the amount of cars coming in and out on a residential street were they 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 to field traffic off of Portola. She also thought that 18 feet was not copacetic with the neighborhood as it currently exists. MS. JUSTINA JEFFERS, 44-251 Portola, stated that her driveway is on Portola and there is a lot of traffic. She would like them to consider the amount of additional traffic office professional would bring to the area. They have at least six schools in the area, so in the morning she thought they had more traffic than Monterey. In the evenings if they looked at traffic at five o'clock, they have a lot of traffic. She asked them to consider the options. Chairperson Jonathan thanked her and clarified for the audience that what was before the commission was not a proposal for a change of zone in terms of the matter they were currently discussing. It just addressed a modification to the office professional zone in that area should there be a change of zone. �.. Ms. Jeffers stated that it didn't appear that way in the wording. It says O.P. zone. She asked if they were going to fix that. Chairperson Jonathan said they were going to discuss the matter and might clarify that. He again stated that whether it showed that way on the paper or not, they were not here to discuss a change of zone. They were there to discuss a modification to the zone should a change of zone occur. Ms. Jeffers said that the amount of traffic since the road had been approved is doubled. It's just doubled. The road was really wonderful, it was beautiful and she really liked it, but there's no way she would put her arm straight out while on the sidewalk without it being taken off. It's the speed that is going through there. The increased traffic just regularly, right now, without a change of zoning has been increased dramatically. Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't arguing and wasn't disagreeing, he just wanted to make it clear that the end result of this matter would not be a change of zone. �•• 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 Ms. Jeffers asked what would be the result. She asked what they were talking about then. Chairperson Jonathan said he would state it one last time and then they would move on. They are discussing the possibility of a modification to the office professional zone in that area should a change of zone occur at some later time. A change of zone was not a matter before them. Ms. Jeffers said that by agreeing to this part, it precludes the next part, so that was her question. Chairperson Jonathan said they would address that when they got to that matter. Commissioner Tschopp commented that in reality the General Plan did state that given the proposal for the expansion of Portola and so forth for various reasons including buffering the residential areas on the sides of the street, that perhaps this could be an area of O.P. zoning in the future. So they are dealing with this tonight. The reality of the situation is that at some point in time they will see perhaps more commercial building requests coming in for this area. He thought that was kind of what the citizens were asking. Some of it might be semantics, but it isn't zoned O.P. now, but yes, people will be coming in to put in commercial buildings here and that is the reality of it. Perhaps the City needed to give a little more explanation of why in the General Plan they felt this might be a good way to pursue that. Mr. Drell asked if he should give that a shot right now. Chairperson Jonathan said no, he would like to move on instead of belaboring it. MS. ANN WALKER, 74-539 Monte Verde in Palm Desert, said they also owned the house at 44-326 Catalina which was right behind the project coming up. She said she was in favor of what is on the table right now because she realized it wasn't a zoning change and was glad it wasn't a zoning change, but if the in future it could be changed to O.P., she would like it to be single story. She was in favor of what was going on right now. She knew it wasn't a zoning change, but was realistic enough to know that 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 r.. Portola is pretty darn busy and she wouldn't build her house there, so she would like to speak in favor of what is on the table. MR. CHRISTOPHER McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 204, stated that he was the applicant and owner on the next project and he felt compelled to come up and respond to what is going on here now. He could get into all the detail later on this, but he disagreed with this unilateral assumption that 100-foot by 18-foot defined residential character or that anything that would fit into that box would automatically be residential in character. He felt that was a generic process of all the cities that he does work in all over the Coachella Valley. He does 60% residential work and 40% commercial. As an architect, rules like this are hard edged and lack creativity and vision. That is what this project needed, vision. That was what he hoped to present later on for another project here tonight; however, he saw this as kind of a nail in the coffin type thing trying to shut his project down without even `► getting a hearing. He said he met with the five City Council members individually and hoped this was a minority view point that was being perpetrated on this project. He thanked the commission. MS. MEREDITH FORD addressed the commission and stated that she and her husband purchased 44-447 Portola Avenue which is currently a blighted residential property which they plan to build office professional on per the General Plan. The commission would be seeing them down the road and so would the neighbors. She stated that they have a single story plan and they have everything they have been suggested to bring about the building, the size, the architecture, the ingress and egress to make it comfortable for not only the neighbors, but to blend in with the homes that are there. She agreed, and they had no problem with the single family. She thanked the commission. MS. VON DISHMAN, 73-990 Olive Court in Palm Desert, asked how much property they were talking about that would be `� 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 amended and how far that amendment would go. She asked if it would go all the way down to Santa Rosa or if it was just that one little parcel there at Catalina and Portola. Chairperson Jonathan stated that the proposal from staff that was before the commission would affect Portola between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way. Ms. Dishman said that it didn't have anything to do with the Catalina area at this particular moment. Chairperson Jonathan explained that Catalina is within that stretch. Mr. Drell said it would affect only those areas potentially designated in the General Plan. Ms. Dishman thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anyone else present who wished to address the commission regarding this particular item. There wasn't. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said that it seems like they have been over this before. They spent several sessions discussing whether there should be office professional on Portola in this particular area. She was opposed to it then and she remained opposed to it now because she believed that the residential integrity of the neighborhood should be preserved. She didn't feel that every spot of dirt needed to be covered with a building. She would be opposed to any O.P. designation and felt that this area would be better served as single story units. She understood that medium density might be appropriate there and she thought that with the parks, the schools and the existing housing that is what they needed to keep it. Chairperson Jonathan said that as he understood it, that wasn't the matter they were there to address or discuss. Commissioner Finerty said it was in a sense because if they are going to set standards of single story and 18 feet if and when it goes to O.P., she was just saying that 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 r.r she is opposed to O.P. in the first place and, therefore, did not believe discussing what kind of standards was appropriate. She believed the area should remain residential. Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't persuaded, but understood what she was saying. Commissioner Lopez stated that the item before them tonight, the zoning ordinance amendment as it was before them, had merit. He thought it had merit from the standpoint that should some day a project come before them that is office professional that makes sense for that particular area, in lieu of a single family home that would have a difficult time getting out of their driveway on Portola at that particular junction, not farther down Portola and even farther down Portola it was difficult. But in this particular situation it had merit. He would rather see in the future a well-designed residential in character, whether 100 feet or 65 feet or whatever the case might be, and he thought that putting a length on it limited it somewhat, but he did think a height restriction was required. The residents that back up to this property did not have before r.r them a 25-foot building that impacts their property. It has been shown in the past that office buildings blockading major thoroughfares, and Portola was going to be that in the future whether they liked it or not, it was going to be a busy street, and these buildings do block the traffic noise from the residential areas on the other side of the building. It has shown to be successful and are items that have been approved and built in areas along Fred Waring Drive that prove that. But in this particular case as it pertains to the area between Fred Waring Drive and De Anza Way, it shows merit that there needs to be a height restriction. Whether it would ever be used, they didn't know, although there was a feeling that it might be used very soon. But in the case of this particular amendment, he thought it showed merit and they needed to work with the language of it so that is understandable by the residents and maybe a little more clearly for the commission as well. Commissioner Campbell stated that the office professional buildings that exist on Portola between De Anza and Alessandro are one-story and she thought they really looked very nice along Portola. They do quite a bit of business. She knew that the dentist had taken in another dentist, so she knew he was quite busy there. As far as the parking was concerned, the r.. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 egress is on Portola, but the ingress is on Alessandro. She was sure that just having the maximum height of 18 feet or beyond, maybe up to 20 along Portola, would make a nice project. But again, as she brought up earlier, there are two-story homes along there and she questioned making this 18 feet and yet these other homes were up to 24 or 25 feet. They have also approved buildings in other areas, office professional buildings, that buffer on residential homes and they do not allow them to have windows on that side. So it was really difficult to say they could have one story when there was something there a lot higher. It would be good to have office professional like Commissioner Lopez stated. It was a good buffer for the residential and she didn't think that Portola was going to be widened anymore. Mr. Drell said that in the long range it may be widened another six or eight feet, so it might be widened. Commissioner Campbell said that maybe they wouldn't have enough room to have office professional right there. Mr. Drell said they would. Commissioner Campbell said that they would be narrowing it more. Mr. Drell said that the office professional development on Monterey on the east side south of Fred Waring, those lots are only 65 or 70 feet wide because their # depth used to face those residential streets. They have successfully w� developed far more narrower sites as office professional. It does more severely impact residential development, especially the existing homes there since if it ever happens, they would lose a big chunk of their front yards. Commissioner Campbell asked about the building that was just completed on Monterey. She asked if that was the one he was speaking of, the medical building by John Vuksic across from the community gardens. Mr. Drell clarified that it was on San Pablo. That building was about 140 feet deep. Commissioner Campbell asked about the length. Mr. Drell said that building would not have met this standard if it was going to be built on Portola. It meets the current O.P. standards in terms of height, setbacks and mass. Part of the Council's motivation in giving this direction was not simply our normal concern for the impacts of the residents behind because these residents would be impacted no more or less than any of the residents who have been impacted by all the development on Fred Waring and Monterey. But it was as much on the physical appearance when driving on Portola from Fred Waring to 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 Highway 111 . They are still driving through what is essentially a residential area, so it was both motivated by concern from behind and concern for the motorist, the image as one drives through the area, which is a little different then how they've thought of things in the past. Commissioner Campbell reiterated that they were looking toward widening Portola. Mr. Drell said Public Works has discussed it in terms of the ultimate right-of-way as specified in the General Plan. There is a desire to put bike paths on the street which don't exist now. Right now, as discussed, it is quite intimidating walking up and down since people are driving 40 mph 18 inches away from the sidewalk. So there is a desire to move the sidewalk away from the curb and to create a buffer in the form of a bike path to allow bicyclists to go up and down the street and to separate the automobile traffic from the sidewalk. And there was a desire to put in a landscaped median to further enhance the visual quality of the street. Any future office that would apply to develop on Portola would be required to dedicate whatever perspective real estate r.. we might need. Commissioner Campbell said it would be a smaller building and they would require less parking because it would be less land. Commissioner Tschopp said that issue before them is the proposed amendment that wants to limit commercial building height and length if it is constructed on Portola. He agreed strongly that whatever type of commercial building if they go ahead on Portola would be limited in height and size because there was an ambience in this area that needs to be preserved. He wasn't convinced that the wording in the amendment is the right way in that he hated to see them limit or hinder architectural design creativity with arbitrary 18-foot limits in height and 100-foot buildings because sometimes architects could do a better job given a little creativity. He also wasn't all that convinced that they need more office space along Portola. He heard the arguments of the proximity of the various schools, the various amenities in the neighborhood, the park going in, the bike paths coming into the street and he wasn't sure what bicyclists would think if they knew they were a buffer between traffic and the sidewalk. But to him it was almost too bad they didn't have the time to really look at this area a little more in depth and see '� 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 what truly they would want to do on a long-range plan to see how it develops out. But given that the issue is limiting commercial building height and size, he would be in favor of limiting it for that purpose. Chairperson Jonathan noted that what they were being asked to do tonight is recommend to the Council approval of this amendment. Right now the new General Plan allows office professional along Portola if there is a change of zone, because right now Portola is zoned residential. What they could do in theory if there was office professional allowed on Portola right now and someone came in for a change of zone, they could go 25 feet, two stories and so forth. So what this amendment was seeking to do is soften that and say no, they are going to set less intrusive standards and lower the building height, mass and size. If there was going to be office, it was going to be softer office is what this amendment was doing. What he was hearing the commission say is that there is still some doubt or lack of understanding as to whether, even though the General Plan has been amended to allow office professional in this part of Portola, whether in fact the Council has intent of following through with an actual change of zone in that area. So if they have that doubt, since what they were being asked to do was make a recommendation to Council, their response to Council could be, Council, would you clarify for us if in fact there is a long-term intent to allow the development of office professional along Portola. Mr. Drell thought they had to take them by their word that they acted with the General Plan to do that. Chairperson Jonathan thought that was a matter of his opinion. They were in the discussion stage and he was just suggesting that as a possibility. They didn't have to recommend either yes or no to this amendment. They could seek clarification if in fact in their mind they aren't sure that is the direction they want to proceed. And if it was a simple response from them yes, we modified the General Plan, we voted on it, we the City Council are intending to allow office professional, but we aren't sure we want the same standards in this area as in the rest of the city. If they tell the commission that, it clarifies it. He said they should keep in mind that this is commission discussion. That is an option they might want to pursue. He asked for commission comments. ' 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 Commissioner Tschopp noted that the comment was raised by Commissioner Finerty of having residential here. He asked if they have looked at an alternative multi-family going in along this street and what the impact on traffic and the amenities and so forth would be. The General Plan stated O.P., but it also said residential, medium density. Is that the direction they want to be taking? But given the information the commission had here, he didn't know how they could come up with a decision on that tonight. To some extent, Chairperson Jonathan didn't really want to revisit all those issues because he thought they did address them. When they made their recommendation to Council about this area, they addressed it and looked at it in depth and said there was a possibility for appropriate office professional development along this part of Portola. That was his personal opinion. Commissioner Finerty noted that some of the commission thought that, others didn't. Chairperson Jonathan said he was talking about the majority vote and they knew in any good organization, once they took a majority vote, they all stand behind it and move forward. He didn't want to go backwards and revisit issues they already have, he was just suggesting the possibility that if in fact they aren't certain of Council's direction, then they can ask for clarification. But as they sit here today, his understanding was that Council has approved the General Plan amendment which includes the possibility, not an actual change of zone yet, but the possibility of office professional on Portola. What they are being asked to do is go a step further and say if there is going to be office professional in that area of Portola, then they want to provide further limits on essentially the mass, the height of the buildings and the look of the buildings. He didn't know what direction they want to go in. If the commission was comfortable about what Council wants from them, then they can address this proposed amendment. If they weren't, and that was why he brought it up because he was sensing a certain level of uncertainty, and if the commission wanted to ask the Council for clarification, that could be the commission's response to this. Mr. Drell stated that the direction to amend the code was also in the General Plan. That was a specific program that the Council inserted into '� 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 i the Urban Design Element. So he thought their direction on amending the code was also fairly clear. That is a program approved unanimously, he believed, on a vote of the Council to amend the code in this situation. So they have spoken rather specifically on that issue. The discussion here wasn't whether it should be amended, but how it should be amended. Chairperson Jonathan said that if that is the commission's wish, then they can respond by some modification of the wording that clarifies that in the event that a change of zone occurs along this part of Portola, then it is the commission's recommendation that certain restrictions be added into this zoning in that area having to do with height limitations or mass. He asked if they wanted to go in that direction and put in a qualifier. Commissioner Campbell asked why they should limit it to one story and a maximum height of 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said he was going to get to that part of the discussion, but asked if they wanted to at least go in that direction in saying that in the event that a change of zone should occur on Portola, then they recommend the following. Commissioner Tschopp said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said they should then go in that direction. Having said that, Chairperson Jonathan noted that Commissioner Campbell wasn't entirely comfortable with the wording proposed by staff. Commissioner Campbell didn't think it should state that it would be limited to one story with a maximum height of 18 feet unless a project came before them and as she said earlier, it could go up to 20 feet to make it aesthetically feasible. Commissioner Finerty asked if there are 20- foot single story houses in that area. Mr. Drell said no, there are some 24-foot two-story houses; 20-foot single family homes typically might be in very unusual circumstances (very rare) at the peak. Typically they are a pitched roof. Commissioner Finerty asked for the height of the homes in that area. Mr. Drell thought the single family homes averaged 13 or 14 feet. Commissioner Finerty said they were smaller than 18 feet because of their age. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Finerty noted that 18 is even stretching it to stay within the current character of the neighborhood. Mr. Drell said that 18 feet is the City's current height limit 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 on single story. Commissioner Finerty said she understood that, but this was a special circumstance where they were trying to match the residential character of the neighborhood and if in fact they were trying to do that, then it seemed to her that they needed to stay in the 13-14 foot range because that is in fact what the height of the houses are. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that the newer houses that have been built are typically higher than that in the area. And they have had 24-foot high. Commissioner Finerty noted that in that area, the houses that would actually be behind any proposed development are 13-14 feet in height. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that one of them right behind further down in the area they are talking about has a two- story house right behind it. He thought that was the point Commissioner Campbell was making. Commissioner Finerty said that if they were to look at the residential neighborhood as a whole, of all the homes that back up to any proposed project, she asked what the average height would be in Mr. Drell's opinion. Mr. Drell assumed it would be 14 or 15 feet. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the existing residential structures in that area vary from 13-14 to 24. Commissioner Campbell noted they had flat roofs that they used to have years ago. Continuing with the discussion on whether they were going to recommend an amendment to the zoning ordinance in that area, Chairperson Jonathan asked if they wanted to be as specific with height, length and so forth. Commissioner Finerty said yes. She said that if Council's direction is to keep it as residential as possible, then they needed to try to match the average height of what is there now and Mr. Drell said that was 14-15 feet. She was sure there were exceptions of 24 feet, but if they were going to look at 90%, she knew it was much lower than the suggested 18 feet. Therefore, she believed it should be limited and was only fair to the residents that are there to preserve their neighborhood and she thought the 18 feet was too high and that it should be limited to 15 feet. Commissioner Tschopp asked if someone wanted to build a duplex or something of that nature, he asked if they would just be limited to the �.. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 height. Mr. Drell said their residential multi-family zones were automatically limited to 18 feet if they are adjacent to a single story zone. So those properties have single story behind them and would be limited to the 18 feet as a residence as well. Commissioner Tschopp said that if someone came in that lives in the neighborhood and wanted to remodel their home, tear it down, they would be able to build an 18-foot high unit. Mr. Drell said they have a special review process for homes between 15 and 18 feet at the architectural commission. And one of the things they do is look at the adjacent homes. They look at the overall architectural quality and what they often do is require hipped roofs down at the property lines so in essence at the property lines the houses might only be 12 or 13 feet. They might have peaks that are 18, but they try to architecturally soften the houses at the edges where they interact with a lower home. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would be appropriate to incorporate something of that nature into this. Mr. Drell said they could do that. In i essence, as a matter of right they could only have 15 feet, but based on w� architectural quality they could go to 18 feet or any other number the commission preferred. Rather than their recommendation to Council getting so specific, Chairperson Jonathan said it seemed to him they were trying to replicate within the office professional zoning for this area something that looks as close to residential as possible. He suggested that they just say that. Instead of getting into an actual height limit, mass and length, why not say that the desired objective for this area is to create office professional buildings that look as residential as possible and meet the residential zoning ordinance. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was suggesting that it be allowed to go up to 24 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said it would be for single family residences. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was suggesting a limit to 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said it could. Commissioner Finerty noted that he was saying not to do specific numbers, but if he said they were limiting it to residential and they were talking about single story, then they really are talking 18 feet. If they s 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 were talking two-stories, then it is 24 feet. She asked where he was thinking this ought to go. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that he was suggesting that in the amendment to the ordinance that they reference single family residential standards, whatever those might be. He understood that those standards had specifics. He wasn't trying to dodge those specifics, but he was saying in this amended ordinance, rather than go do the list of those specifics that they just indicate they should be the standards that apply here. Just have a reference to those standards. That was his suggestion. Commissioner Finerty asked him to repeat that. She was asking if he was suggesting that it be residential, one story, or residential in nature. Chairperson Jonathan said both. He was suggesting that in amending the ordinance for office professional in this area that the style, the appearance, etc., should attain as residential a feel as possible and that the standards that exist for single family residential apply equally to the office professional amended zone here. So if an architect is going to �.. design office professional, then when he needs to look at height limitations he will go to the single family residential. If he wants to see setbacks, he'll go to single family residential. His intent is to end up with an office building that is as least intrusive and looks as residential as possible, but functions as an office building. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was his intent to limit to one story. Chairperson Jonathan thought single family residential by its very nature would be limited to one story. Commissioner Finerty said that what he was saying was the current standard of 18 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said that if that is what applies in single family residential, that would be the height limit. Mr. Drell said that as a matter of right they are entitled to 15 feet; they can get to 18 feet based on the architectural review commission's review of their design. Chairperson Jonathan said that was fine. Mr. Drell said the rules that would apply to a single family home in this area would apply to an office. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. Build an office but make it subject to the residential standards. Commissioner Finerty reiterated that those residential standards are any where from 15 to 18 feet. Mr. Drell said anything between 15 and 18 '� 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 feet is discretionary based on design. In an office, somewhat in response to Mr. McFadden's comment that if you do this you get approved, no. Every project gets design review beyond whether or not they meet the strict physical standards. There, is still a subjective review that everything is subject to that would still go into the conclusion whether it is residential scale or not. Someone could build a 10-foot high building that wasn't residentially appropriate, so this was just a physical starting point for the discussion in terms of what is appropriate. He didn't have any problem with that approach saying they have a standard that is residential scale and it is contained in the R-1 chapter and they would just apply it. Chairperson Jonathan noted that 15 feet would be permitted, but over 15 would have to show that it is justified, but in no event could it exceed 18 feet. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Commissioner Lopez thought that if they were going to attempt to provide some flexibility within this amended ordinance, this was probably the best way to do it. It gave architects the ability to be creative, it gave some guidelines they believe to be less intrusive, and it made sense. The language they recommended to Council would be important. Mr. Drell said the R-1 zone requires a 20-foot setback. In the O.P. they allow the O.P. buildings to get closer to the commercial street to increase the potential for setbacks in the rear. And if more widening occurs, they are dealing potentially with tighter situations. He thought the R-2 standards, and the General Plan designates the alternative land use as medium density residential which really was the R-2 zone, it would still be limited to a single story since it is adjacent to single story behind. But it allowed a 15-foot front setback and allowed those buildings to be pushed a little further to the front. Commissioner Finerty suggested the approach they took on Fred Waring where the setback needed to be equal to the height. Mr. Drell said 1 :1 as measured from the curb. Commissioner Finerty asked why that couldn't apply to this location. Mr. Drell said it would. Commissioner Finerty thought that would take care of the 20-foot setback because they 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 wouldn't allow anything to be 20 feet high. Mr. Drell said that in the R-1 they would be setback 20 feet even if they were 12 feet high, so their intent was to allow them to be pushed forward a little bit. For example, in R-1 the rear setback is only 15 feet and in the O.P. the rear setback is 20 feet. So in essence what they did with the O.P. is increase the rear setback by five feet and decreased the setback from 20 to 15 in the front to push those buildings away from the R-1 . He believed the R-2 standards are 15 feet in the front and 20 feet in the rear. Commissioner Finerty noted that what they are really saying to the residents that back up to this is they could be backed up to a parking lot. Mr. Drell said 20 feet didn't really provide dimension to a parking lot, but those people were going to make that choice anyway. They have a lot of O.P. properties with parking lots in the back and there really hadn't been any problems. It's an issue of balancing. They do tend to push the building farther away and they haven't had the enforcement or police problem all along Fred Waring or Monterey. They did have a problem in some of the cul-de-sacs and they dealt with problems just like they do with any `.. problem in the city, they send in the police and the problem disappears. He suggested that they use the standards for the R-2 which would still limit it in this situation to one story, 18 feet, but adjust for the setbacks. Commissioner Finerty asked if the R-2 height started out at 15 feet. Mr. Drell said he didn't think it was 15. Commissioner Lopez asked if medium density covered both R-1 and R-2. Mr. Drell said R-1 was all low density. Chairperson Jonathan suggested that the proposed amendment stand as staff had it, but provided that with regard to height, the presumed allowed limit was 15 feet similar to the R-1 procedure that 18 might be allowed if it made a proper showing. Commissioner Finerty said they could leave the setback issue out of it because it got pretty complicated. Chairperson Jonathan agreed. Mr. Drell said they could stick with the current O.P. standards. Chairperson Jonathan said they would only modify it based on height. He liked the flexibility of moving a building around depending on what was best for the neighborhood, such as putting it closer to Portola and where to put the parking lot. He asked if that worked. Commissioner Finerty said it worked for her. `" 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 and Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were ready for a motion. Commissioner Finerty said they would amend staff's language to limit it to one story in the residential character of the neighborhood to start at 15 feet, but not to exceed 18 feet. That would be totally discretionary. Mr. Drell said that everything above 15 feet would go to the architectural commission. Commissioner Finerty stated that nothing would be above 18 feet. Mr. Drell said that offices go through the whole architectural review process. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed that the presumed limit was 15 feet and anything in excess of 15 required a special showing and in no event would it exceed 18 feet. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked about the length. She asked if they were going to leave the language 100 feet. Chairperson Jonathan didn't think they should specify the length because someone could create a 100-foot long structure that looked horrible, but someone else could create a 120- foot structure that looks like two structures and looks good. Commissioner Finerty said they again had to go back to the residential character. They didn't see houses that were 140 feet in length. She i asked what the average length of a house was. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was 30 feet or 40. Mr. Drell thought they were probably 50 or 60 feet. Chairperson Jonathan said if the commission wanted to leave it in there that was fine. Commissioner Finerty thought 100 might be too much if their goal is to preserve the residential character of that particular neighborhood. If they are 50 or 60, she would be more comfortable with 75 feet in length. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they wanted to leave the specific reference out and just say that in terms of length, depth and mass the structure shall be as consistent with the residential flavor of the neighborhood as possible. He asked if that was too open. Commissioner Finerty thought that was too open. Even if they said 75 feet, they knew how things went. Commissioner Campbell made note to the one house earlier on the agenda that was going to be built at 32,000 square feet. That would be over 100 feet. Commissioner Finerty said she would be more comfortable with 75 feet because that was still in excess for the neighborhood, but would allow for a little larger size office building if they have to go that route. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 it Commissioner Tschopp noted that at the same time they could chop these building up so small that they would actually create more problems with traffic in the number of employees going to very small businesses and so forth. He thought they needed to be careful that way. If they give the architects a little bit of latitude and creativity and word it such that they are looking at creativity to justify the length and so forth, that would get the word out. He would rather do that then restrict it so much that one, it becomes economically infeasible for them to do anything that even made sense. Chairperson Jonathan summed up that Commissioner Tschopp would be in favor of no specific reference to the length, and have general language that in terms of the mass of the structure, it should be as consistent with the residential flavor of the neighborhood as possible. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. Commissioner Lopez concurred that they should leave some flexibility and let the process handle each of the specific applications they receive and if they make sense, as they do every meeting, if there is too much mass, tam if it is inappropriate for the location they are looking at, they were all going to be sensitive to what happens in this location and they would address that through the process. But as far as putting specifics, because if they are going to put in height, length and width, this place would never change. They needed to have some flexibility and so did the developer to proceed with these locations and let the system take care of what goes there and what they approve and disagree with. Commissioner Campbell agreed with that because the commission had to approve it anyway. It would come before them. In terms of process, Chairperson Jonathan said they got into the discussion in the middle of the motion, so Commissioner Finerty was hearing a consensus and didn't know if she wanted to incorporate that into her motion or not, but he would let her finish making it. Commissioner Finerty asked if they could do two separate motions. Chairperson Jonathan said she was free to propose any motions she wished. Commissioner Finerty didn't think they were being totally consistent here because they were saying that with the height they feel strongly apparently about the 15 feet up to 18 feet. Commissioner Lopez said he wasn't saying that. He was staying that he wanted to stay with `�"' 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 the residential character of the neighborhood. If those areas are defined as 15-18 feet, that is what they are looking at. But he wasn't saying they should restrict the height. He wanted to go with the current guidelines in the residential flavor, and whether it was R-1 or R-2 was irrelevant, what is medium density designation. And in this particular case they were looking at the office professional amendment that would follow those guidelines. Then they would designate what those guidelines would be. Put the medium density at R-1 or R-2, then go that direction. He wasn't saying he wanted to put a limit on the height and a limit on the width and the length, let's follow the guidelines of residential character and then let the process take care of that. Commissioner Finerty said she would try her motion without any changes before they go much further. Chairperson Jonathan said anyone was free to make a motion and asked her to repeat it. Action: i Commissioner Finerty stated that her motion was that it was going to be l residential in character with the minimum starting height of 15 feet, which could go up to 18 feet with discretionary approval based on the architecture. Chairperson Jonathan noted there was no reference to length or mass, etc. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a second. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for discussion. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification. They discussed setbacks and asked if that would be covered adequately in this particular motion. Mr. Drell said that this is an amendment to the zone, so the O.P. setback standards would continue to apply. Chairperson Jonathan thought that the only change to the existing O.P. standards is language that indicates that the design shall be residential in nature and that the height is to be 15 feet, or with proper showing up to 18 feet. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the motion and the second. Commissioner Tschopp noted that this is only in the event that buildings are approved that are commercial in nature for this area. Chairperson 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 `o Jonathan concurred. Also, the amendment is to apply only to Portola Avenue between Fred Waring and De Anza as indicated if and when the property is rezoned. Commission and staff concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that was the precursor to the amendment, that in the event of a rezoning of this area of Portola. Everyone concurred. There was no further discussion and Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Drell confirmed that they needed to adopt a resolution recommending to City Council what they just did. Commissioner Finerty said she didn't know if the resolution they had in their packet was specific enough. Mr. Drell said they would adjust the wording accordingly. Commissioner Finerty said she would like the residential character part in there because that is what they were directed to do. Mr. Drell indicated it said restricting the size and character of buildings in the O.P. zone. He said it would be included. Commissioner Finerty said he had the gist. He concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2291 , approving the findings and recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 04-01 as amended. Motion carried 5-0. For the audience, Chairperson Jonathan summarized the action of the commission. Currently Portola is zoned residential in that area. The General Plan allows with a change of zone in that area office professional. Office professional has a variety of standards such as a height up to 25 feet and so forth. What they did tonight was recommend to the City Council a modification to the office professional standards for this area so that instead of a 25-foot height, only 15 feet is allowed, or up to 18 feet with proper showing. They also recommended to Council that in amending the office professional zone for this area that the design of any buildings would be residential in character. Commissioner Finerty complimented Chairperson Jonathan on his summary. Chairperson Jonathan noted that it was a recommendation to Council, so everyone was welcome to attend that meeting as well. r•• 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION s SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 ark F. Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20 - PORTOLA PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from single family residential (R-1) to office professional (O.P.) and a precise plan of design to allow construction of a 14,115 square foot two-story office building on property located at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Catalina Way known as 44-277 Portola Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that the request was twofold. The applicant was seeking approval of a change of zone from R-1 to O.P. for three lots located at the northwest corner of Portola and Catalina. The second part of the request was for the approval of the two-story office professional building in the location shown on the site plan on display. Generally the building had been located adjacent to the intersection with parking along the west side of the property taking its main access from Catalina. There is a proposed egress from the parking lot at the mid point of the lot onto Portola. That would be a right-turn only egress onto Portola. As indicated in the previous discussion and in the staff report, the General Plan provides for O.P. or medium density residential in this area. The applicant prepared his request based on the current O.P. standards. The proposal complies with all those standards. The proposal did not comply with the recommended code amendment the Commission just acted upon. So the chart on page 3 where staff analyzed the comparison between the current O.P. and the proposed O.P. was a little off in that they took out the building length criteria. But the building before the Commission, the architecture of the building is two-stories. Initially it was at 25 feet maximum. In an effort to obtain approval from architectural review commission, the applicant submitted an amended plan which showed the building at a maximum of 22 feet. Even at that, architectural review could not support the request. They didn't feel it was residential in character. But staff did analyze both forms of the request. As heard during the discussion on the code amendment, there was neighborhood input in that the applicant did hold a meeting with the i 38 ,�, MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 neighbors back in June. Basically they heard the concerns previously. It was traffic related and it was building mass related. Planning Commission also received letters of opposition which were included with their packets. Generally, the precise plan before the Commission is not consistent with the ordinance amendment which the Commission just recommended. Consequently, they couldn't act on the proposal. In the staff report staff indicated that at best the proposal is premature until the Council were to say they think two-story and 25 feet is acceptable here or at worst it doesn't comply with the proposed amendment which the Commission recommended. Given the direction of the City Council during the General Plan discussions, staff had no choice but to recommend denial of the precise plan. Without an acceptable precise plan, staff wasn't prepared to recommend approval of the change of zone. Staff was recommending that Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04- `,�, 20 be denied. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the staff report indicates that the applicant filed a timely appeal to the ARC action, which was an action of denial and asked for the status of that appeal. Mr. Smith explained that it was pending. Staff would refer this action along with the appeal to the ARC action to the Council for a consolidated consideration. Chairperson Jonathan wasn't suggesting that it was desirable, but technically there are two applications before the commission and one is a change of zone. He asked if it was technically possible to approve a change of zone without approving the precise plan. Again, not that they would be well advised to do so, but he wanted to know if that was an option. Mr. Smith said it would be consistent with the General Plan. Chairperson Jonathan said that if that were to happen, it would fall into the newly amended standards as recommended. Mr. Smith said yes, if it was adopted by Council. There were no further questions. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked for commission comments. He explained that the `�" 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 procedure was to let the applicant address the commission, then give others an opportunity to address the commission, and then the applicant would be given the final opportunity to readdress the commission. MR. CHRISTOPHER McFADDEN, the architect and owner of this property, addressed the commission. He thought that Commissioner Tschopp brought up a really good point during the last agenda item's discussion and that was the economic viability of all of this. He said this was really sad, that last motion. He thought he was being denied land use that others have been entitled to in the O.P. use in the event that does get approved. This building that they designed was a labor of a lot of work. He has been in this desert since 1963, coming down here with his parents, grew up down here. He ended up apprenticing/mentoring down here under architects and worked on some real visionary projects in his early days down here. Mission Hills Country Club, which was a multiple family project. It had single story, dual- story/two story integrated throughout. A beautiful project. He could remember working on Desert Island, a six-story multifamily project condominium. He could remember as a young man standing up on the sixth floor of the spancrete slabs looking out across the freeway and envisioning that some day this desert would be developed clear out to the Chocolate Mountains. It wasn't like that back in the early 70's, but look at it now. They were steadily gaining that way. There had been a lot of vision used in this community. Palm Desert has been at the forefront of that and he has always been proud to be in Palm Desert. He was licensed at the age of 27 in 1987 and opened up his office in Palm Desert in 1989. He has invested in this community. He taught out at C.O.D. and paid back into his industry and had many young mentors and apprentices himself. Recently he got the opportunity to work on the Intrawest project, which was a two-story multifamily residential project of nice character, some of it based on the spline program that they did at 40 woo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 Iry Mission Hills. It was a very successful formula. They brought that to this project. This wasn't the first project he looked at. He has been wanting to do this now for years, open his own office building and have his own office inside there. This was it. They looked at four or five other projects and due to economic viability, that was a fact of life, they couldn't get them to pencil out. It just didn't work. He was looking at a 10- to 12-year performa on this project and now it is 12 to 15 depending on additional conditions, including sinking the building for another $100,000 to $150,000 in expense to comply and get this thing a little more residential in feel. He stated that he has done numerous commercial office buildings next to multifamily projects, which is what they had here. This was not a past formula that hasn't proven successful. He could remember doing this over on Larrea Street. This building architecture complies with a significant portion of buildings `„ immediately around it, the newer buildings. Currently the economic lifeline on these things is declining in this area. He agreed with 95% of the staff report on this. He thought they all read it and he didn't need to reiterate all of those issues, except for its conclusion. He wanted to start with a "Phil Drellian" quotation that it is a "synergistically strong community." They've heard that before. If they pull back and look at Portola here and start with Valley Christian Assembly on the corner, that was neither commercial nor residential. Churches fit into neighborhoods either way they go. Valley Christian acquired property and that corner would change over the next ten years. They've acquired houses along there, inboard projects along there and that was likely to change. The project that was submitted to the Commission complies with the eight-foot movement on Portola. They accounted for the traffic flows along there. There are some serious problems along Portola right now. � ' 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 As he told them, this is the fifth project they've looked at. He had his real estate agent go out and look at five or six different areas they were looking at in the city of Palm Desert over the years and this was years of development. He started on this project in November of last year. They approached the homeowners on this project. It wasn't on the market; it wasn't for sale. They had a meeting here about the overlay that Council was so gracious to provide for, one that hadn't been mentioned tonight yet and that was the open space. An O.S. designation was also put on this, along with the O.P. Council members and the City have been looking at this a long time. What do they do along this area? This was their vision. They were trying to accommodate a lot of concerns along there. Right now he had a home with an abandoned swimming pool in there. He has abandoned vehicles along this area. The home on that corner now he thought was a great candidate for a controlled burn. The economic viability of all these projects along there now, he was renting a house in there that is only at 75-80% of market value here in the city of Palm Desert. Portola is a dangerous road for a resident. He couldn't imagine putting multifamily here and having families coming out onto this street and in and out on Portola. That would create much more of a problem. As far as he was concerned, take the O.S. and give him back his half a million plus he has invested. in the property here. He would go away and find some place else to develop. But he has a vision, too, as do a number of the leaders. And this building was his vision. This building was sensitive to the neighbors. It provided much more open space than what is currently along that frontage right now. He allowed the property owner immediately to the north of him to come in on this deal and in regards to the zone change, he was including that property in the zone change so he could follow on the coat tails of this project. He was giving him deeded egress over to Catalina along 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 Ilr.r that. They were providing for a little bit flow out to Portola for a safer vehicular movement. He said they used some nice materials on this. He could sink this building three feet down. That worked for him. It is an expense, but he was willing to do it, adjust the site conditions, he could change some roof lines, but there were some elements in this design (referring to the elevations on display) and it was a very slow pitched roof to comply with some of the looks of the projects immediately to the north of this. There was 150 feet from the two-story townhouses and some of those gable elements were designed to have some compatibility. There are two story projects, the town homes up on Santa Rosa that are setback to Portola, so it is part of the same elevation. Across the street at Portola del Sol, there are two story inboard multifamily projects in there, too. This was the widest component along Portola there. Portola del Sol and Portola Village, which is to the north of this project, are `. significantly set back from Portola. He walked this project for a month before getting started on the design. This was the ninth design. This was the one that penciled out for them long term so that he could move in and take 3,000 square feet and have his own office building in there. What happens in there is these restrictions come down and the project is restricted in size and the cost per square foot goes way up. That's how they get a rate of return on these things. What would happen now with this project is if it goes to single story, the use has to become more intense and basically only medical use is the only thing that justifies those kinds of rates in the rentals of these things. As they look up and down Portola and see the direction that it is going, when they did the first meeting and got the overlay on this thing with this as a suggestion, his real estate agent was just pounded by two dozen different owners who were ready so sell their residences, to the north and to the south of Fred Waring along here. People want to get out of there. Commercial properties `W 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 are being proposed to the south of this. Ford Realty has a commercial project. This area is going to change. It might not with him now. The other thing is what they were doing along Fred Waring. People want sound abatement walls and landscaped areas. He couldn't stand in the way of that. He was just one individual. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. McFadden to bring his presentation to a conclusion. Mr. McFadden said he agreed with 95% of the staff report except for the few details with regard to some of the relationships with the two-story components around it and it's conclusion, especially with the limiting of things on the square footage size and story heights. Chairperson Jonathan thanked him. He opened the discussion for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. He noted that he had a few Request to Speak cards and asked if Ramona Fletcher wished to speak. MRS. RAMONA FLETCHER addressed the commission. She noted that the Commission had her letter. She wouldn't go over all that again. What she did want to add was what she previously said about having a residential area here where they have people 24/7. They would eliminate a great many of the problems the multiple of reasons they went through when they sat through all those meetings. She wouldn't go through all of those. Some of the people want to speak on the specifics. But she heard someone say tonight that this is a blighted area. She didn't think this was a blighted area. A few homes that are being let go she felt that the City's policy itself needs to be taken into consideration. They kept them in flux for years about Portola as to whether it would be widened, whether it would be O.P. It seemed to her that they were addressing some commission approximately every 18 months. f i 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 `w This is a residential neighborhood. They have the schools, they have kids that are walking up and down these very narrow sidewalks going to all these schools and from all these schools. Office professional didn't belong in there. She knew Mr. McFadden was a wonderful person. She would love to have him as a neighbor. If he wanted to build a house there, she would be the first one to take him cake. But in the meantime, what she really wanted to say to the commission is please leave them residential. The whole of Portola from Gerald Ford all the way up and around the corner and run into Monterey, for the majority of the places, except for Highway 1 1 1 and a little bit on Country Club, it is residential. All the new homes are residential. They have a few places on major thoroughfares that are commercial. Keep them there. The General Plan that everyone worked on in 2002 was thought out. There was nothing wrong with it. Stick with the plan they had in 2002. Try to keep this whole street compatible to what it is for those miles and let their kids have one street that isn't just parking lots and office professional, markets or whatever. And for them, too. The City needed to make it definite and stop having them come and spend their money, time and all their efforts all the time. It made them afraid to even add a new tree or to paint it because they don't know if they are going to be taken away in the next year. It certainly didn't give them a lot of feeling of security. That was the best thing she could say or the only thing she could really say that it comes down to. She asked them to please think about this and leave this area residential and let them do what they can to keep the historic area. They have office professional buildings all over and there are even zones for that on the 2002 General Plan. She thanked everyone for listening to her. MR. PAUL BOWIE addressed the commission. He noted that the Commission received a letter that he submitted on September 1 �'" 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 and his points were made in the letter and he didn't need to repeat them. Other than to reinforce part of the points by saying that they have made some investment into the property they own there at 44-401 Portola in recent time. They have made certain monetary investments into the property to improve the property to increase its efficiency to make it have great appeal. Those statements were made in his letter. And they did this because they believe in the area and in the residency and the residences there and the people that are in the area. He just wanted to reaffirm the wishes of himself, his wife and the other people that residential is the flavor of that area. He thanked them. MS. KAMMIE TAVARES, 73-925 Catalina Way, said their home is at the corner of Catalina and San Jose, which would be cater corner from the back of this project. She said they have lived here since March and she canvassed the neighborhoods and had been speaking to her neighbors about the project since they are the new i kids on the block. What she found is that it is largely a family neighborhood. Families and lots of kids. The last two years it had really grown to become that. People have bought these older homes and remodeled them. The neighborhood had really become upgraded the last couple of years and part of the problem with this project is they don't have sidewalks in their neighborhood. With an office building, even with just the entrance on Catalina Way and an exit on Portola where they can only turn right, people who are not going in that direction are going to turn around at the closest street possible, which is Catalina, and they'll just do a U on Catalina and probably go down toward San Pablo. They have adults and children walking down those streets because they don't have sidewalks. They have a public park planned on De Anza. There was a newspaper article that came out last week about the park where the residents, adults and children could walk and keep the cars out of the neighborhood. She thought the main concern about families in the neighborhood is traffic from an office complex coming down i 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 their street in a neighborhood where there are lots of kids and no sidewalks. She thanked them. MR. DOUG WALKER, the owner of 44-326 San Jose Avenue, addressed the commission. He said that property is located at the corner of San Jose and Catalina. It was his old home and they were currently using it as a rental, although they were going to have their daughter and her husband living there shortly, so they were really concerned about the integrity of the residential neighborhood. He mirrored what the previous person said. Among their greatest concerns, not just this project, but if office professional or even medium residential went in on Portola would be an increase in traffic along Catalina. As was stated, there are no sidewalks in that area and one thing that hadn't been mentioned tonight, as possible mitigation, and he didn't know if the City had considered the possibility of turning some of that area along Portola into an area similar to what has been done with Fred Waring where there are actually bike paths, a greenbelt, something that would mitigate a number of issues that have been discussed here this evening. He said they resolved his concern about the height of the building in their previous discussion. Since their property would be immediately behind the proposed project, they have concern that people in that structure being able to look down, even without intending to, into their backyard and into the windows of the home. Some has been mitigated, but if it turned out to be a two- story structure, even if it was lowered there would need to be some mitigation in terms of a walkway on any second story that would obstruct the view of being able to look down into the residential areas. He commended Mr. McFadden on the job he had done if in fact there were office professional buildings in the area. From having a chance to meet with him, he thought he had taken a few things into consideration to try and blend in, but their sense was that it would be preferable not to go the route of commercial �"' 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 development because of the traffic and noise problems. And if for some reason in the future this commission deemed it appropriate, along with the Council, to recommend office professional zoning, he hoped whenever that occurred that there would be a concurrent discussion about landscaping, appropriate kinds of walls that have gone up in other places in the city, sidewalks that would allow for mitigation of the traffic and noise, and safety issues. But he hoped they would pass along or think about the idea of possibly doing something along Portola that has worked so well in another part of the city. He thanked them. MRS. ANN WALKER addressed the commission. She said she and her husband shared a lot of the same feelings about this. They have owned the house behind that property for 30 years. They have been in Palm Desert since 1975. It has been single family the whole time. There was a time when the neighborhood was kind of a slum, but it was really turning around and turning into a neat neighborhood. ' Her three concerns with this project were one, privacy. The Commission pretty much helped them with that by making it single story because as Doug said, their daughter was moving in there October 1 and she didn't want everybody looking down into their living room and two of their bedrooms, so privacy was her number one concern. Even though they didn't go to Mr. McFadden's June meeting because of her husband's dad dying, they did talk to him later at his office and he was willing to work with them as far as making the wall higher. He had a six-foot wall and they wanted at least seven. So he was willing to talk to them. But making it single story helped her a lot. Noise and traffic were the other concerns. They lived on Fairway Drive for about 14 years until they had to move, and keeping the zoning R-1 as Fairway Drive is did not solve the traffic and noise problems. She wouldn't want to live on Portola and moved off of Fairway. But privacy, traffic and noise and the way that is set up, most of the traffic would go in right across their back yard in and t 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 out of Catalina. If they could cut it down to one story instead of two they would cut the traffic in half. She thanked the commission for their recommendation on the last item. MS. JEAN MARTIN, 44-276 San Jose Avenue, addressed the commission. Her property is just to the west of this project facing the parking lot. Her backyard would be up against the parking lot. Having 58 parking spaces back there, she just couldn't imagine emissions from automobiles going in and out of there. She again had to address the traffic on Catalina Street. It is strictly residential, no sidewalks. They have children and school buses. The elderly coming from the senior center take their morning walks and two care facilities. Those people even get out in the morning and do their walk up and down Catalina Street. They had two youngsters hit by automobiles in the last year in i... broad daylight. So they could see that there is a problem there. She has lived in Palm Desert since 1952 since before most of them were born and had been in that house since 1960. She thanked them for their time. MS. MING LOWE, 73-985 Catalina Way, addressed the commission. She bought that property in 1967. She said she went around in the heat and photographed some of the houses that would be abutting the proposed project. She didn't see any weeds and everyone seemed to be taking pretty good care of their homes. It is a neighborhood and there is a school on either end of Portola. There were cross walk people helping children across streets and that is just a really terrible way of looking at it. If they could, they would see that all the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood are probably about 13 to 15 feet. They are very low. Her biggest concern was that her driveway and her neighbor's driveway are 36 feet, as she said in her letter that she hoped the commission had, from the proposed entrance to the McFadden parking lot with the proposed 59 cars with the projected in and %NW 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 out of 30 + cars an hour. So that was a real concern to her. She planned on keeping her house as a residence. She didn't have commercial plans for it. Mr. Kennedy, whose property connected with hers to the next street, he would be two lots back from Portola and he would never benefit from office building changes on Portola and he has a beautiful house with a pool and gardener and she thought they could clearly see from the pictures that his front yard, and her property, was 36 feet from the proposed driveway. There is a senior center down at the end. One time she saw a little Alzheimer lady who thought she was taking the bus to work in Pasadena standing out there, so there is an assisted living complex down the street and she thought it was a good idea to keep it quiet. But her big concern was this parking lot on a residential street of Catalina with entrances and exits going on all day. The height of 18 feet would be excessive to her thinking. She photographed the corners and 18 feet would really change the look of the neighborhood. She thanked them. MR. JIM WALKER, 44-445 San Jose Avenue, said he appreciated Mr. McFadden meeting with the neighbors and dealing with the situation and their concerns. The one concern he had was basically the traffic in and out on Catalina or any development that goes along on Portola. The traffic should be one of the main concerns they look at. He thought Mr. McFadden said originally he thought it was an architectural firm, his own, and he thought it was a really good operation and a nice building and his staff in there. But he thought Mr. McFadden had the intention of dividing it up to possibly eight different units for bringing in eight different subleases in there. And if he wasn't mistaken, Mr. McFadden was talking about 35 cars an hour going in and out of the building there. That was quite a bit of traffic, especially on Catalina itself. If there was an access point out on Portola, possibly, and alleviating the residential on Catalina. Like everyone said, there are no sidewalks and there is a lot of walking traffic on that road. He 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 tow thought that if they could look at some way of keeping it off of Catalina that would maybe help the situation. He thanked them. MR. ANTHONY PITEL, 44-399 Lingle Lane, stated that he had two lots on the end of Lingle Lane. It was one cul-de-sac in from San Jose. He has kids and he actually grew up on that street. He bought the property from his parents. He has two little kids who go up and down the street to school and he thought it would be terrible to have an office building on Portola and people coming off onto Catalina. It would be bad. He had never spoken to a city council before. But he saw that building and it would just be huge. He walked down that street when he was a little boy to go to school. Any way they could put it, it was the wrong place for it to be. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. McFadden would like to readdress the commission. it Mr. McFadden said in response to some of the concerns expressed by the neighbors, he understood their concerns and had met with them and he was willing to do what was reasonable and fair to accommodate whatever he could. As they were aware, they were primarily concerned about the area along Portola. To bring in the inboard neighborhood and all of these things, that is not where the decline is as they were aware. This is a good buffer. There is a good symbionic relationship between an office building and an interior buffer, and a buffer to that interior residential area. It worked both noise wise and occupancy wise. Regarding the parking situation, he was asked for an average rate per hour. But after he thought about it, Valley Christian Assembly, basically an office, is used where people arrive in the morning as the residential people leave. They pretty much stay there throughout the day with a little bit of in and out during the course of the day with office visits and lunch time, and then they leave at night and the parking lot, and as residents come home they are departing. �"' 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 As far as the view concerns go, he had mitigated them as far as closing off all the back areas. There was no gaze down. There was an interior hallway on the inside so there was no one looking down into the back of those residences. Regarding the concern for the view components, he thought they pretty much took care of that. There was another item with the overall size of this project. It was pushed as far away from them and the scale of this building was somewhat reducible. He didn't believe that it is excessive what would fit there well in that corner. He thought it would be a good relationship. He thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she appreciated everyone coming out tonight. She thought it was important to listen to all that they had to say. It certainly helped to guide them and they heard loud and clear that they all prefer having their neighborhood left residential. She did speak in favor through the General Plan process about doing the open space along Portola as they did along Fred Waring and that has always been her priority. However, sometimes she was a lone vote. She urged them when this matter goes to Council to share those concerns with them as well. She also thanked Mr. McFadden. She thought he had a very attractive building, she just wished he was before them with this project in another location because she did very much like the architecture and thought he did a good job. She also liked the fact that he worked with the residents and she heard that they appreciated that fact as well. That was always a good sign. But as one of the residents spoke, this just wasn't the proper building for this area. With that, she thought that staff provided them with the proper conclusion and that would be to deny the project. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. He thanked everyone for their comments. They were very helpful. He also complimented Mr. McFadden. He thought the building was very attractive, either very visionary or premature, or perhaps both. But he thought it would work in another 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 area. Given the steps they took before, it isn't compatible with the code proposed by Commission and those arguments previous to this and then the arguments here persuaded him to agree with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Campbell said it was a beautiful building and she was in favor of having office professional there closer to the center of town instead of always moving to the freeway north. She thought they needed office professional there when the time comes, but again, it is a beautiful building but in that location, especially with the zoning ordinance amendment just approved this evening, it wasn't really feasible to have a building of that size in that location. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought that the project itself was an attractive building, but it was in the wrong spot, at least from his perspective. He also thanked everyone for staying and taking the time to come out and express their concerns. He hoped Mr. McFadden would find the right location for this nice project. rr Chairperson Jonathan also concurred. He saw before him a lot of nice people and enjoyed hearing from them all and thanked them for being at the meeting. He included Mr. McFadden in that. The good news is that Mr. McFadden heard five commissioners say what a beautiful looking project he had and that spoke volumes. The bad news from Mr. McFadden's perspective is that the consensus was that it was just the wrong location for that particular design. He said that he has grown to believe in the wisdom of low intensity office as a border to some of our major arteries as a transition from busy streets to residential. And it was possible that some day they might have some other office professional type project come before them that was of a smaller scale, less intrusive and a softer transition from a very very busy street to residential. So he urged them to keep their minds open to the possibility of an office building that if properly designed, could serve their desire to keep their neighborhood safe, which he thought was the ultimate goal. There are examples of that type of transition, including on Fred Waring, on Monterey and on Deep Canyon. If they drive on Deep Canyon between Fred Waring and Highway 1 1 1 , they could see some office buildings on the west side where they really have to pause and look to realize that Now 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 they are office buildings because they look like homes. So something like that could serve as an effective transition to kind of shield the residential neighborhood from busy traffic on streets like Portola. That might or might not come down the pike at a later time, but in terms of what was before them, he concurred with his fellow commissioners. He thought that first of all they didn't have a choice but to deny the application due to the revised zoning and the application for the precise plan. But he would also not favor a change of zone to office professional as a stand alone issue. He would rather do that in conjunction with a precise plan should that come before them. So he was in agreement with his fellow commissioners and would entertain a motion for denial. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Will Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2292, denying Case Nos. C/Z 04-02 and PP 04-20. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty said the meeting was informational. 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 11r. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that Project Area 4 was canceled. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Drell spoke with Code Enforcement regarding the house on the corner. Mr. Drell said he went to look at it. Commissioner Campbell asked what was going on there. Mr. Drell didn't think it had ever had a garage. He thought it was a maintenance problem. Commissioner Campbell said there were five cars and some parked on the lawn. Mr. Drell said when he went there cars weren't parked there. Commissioner Campbell thought they were probably working. They might be there after five and on the weekends. Mr. Drell said he would have Code Enforcement check it out because there was definitely a maintenance problem there. �.. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were moving forward on revising or creating some language on the mixed office/warehouse parking. Mr. Drell said that it is on the list. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. -/Z STEPHEN R. SMITH, Secretary ATTE T: i SABBY JON THAN, Chairperson Palm Desert anning Commission /tm r.. 55