Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0607 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - JUNE 7, 2005 +� 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tschopp called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Dave Tschopp, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan %1W Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Ryan Stendell, Planning Tech Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the May 17, 2005 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the May 17, 2005 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized the pertinent May 26, 2005 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 a VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .r► None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No.TPM 33646-SCOTELLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,Applicant (Continued from May 17, 2005) Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 4.27-acre parcel into seven parcels located at 39-800 Portola Avenue. Mr. Drell indicated that Commission had the staff report and the plans were on display. He said this map was simply subdividing an existing approved project. There were no changes to the project. This would just allow them to sell individual buildings. He said there were mutual access easements recorded between all the parcels so the parking lot still works and recommended approval. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. There was no response. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 It was moved b Commissioner Fine y rty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2333, approving Case No. TPM 33646, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 05-06 - NORTH SPHERE ASSOCIATES, LLC/KEN STENDELL, Applicants Request for a precise plan of design to allow the construction of two (2) industrial warehouse buildings totaling 19,360 square feet. The property is located at 73-750 Spyder Circle. Commissioner Jonathan advised that he would be abstaining from the discussion and voting on this matter and left the room. Mr. Drell explained that the request was for two industrial buildings. The project would meet all standards of the General Plan and zoning designations. The architect received approval by Architectural Review and staff recommended approval. Regarding the west elevation, Commissioner Finerty asked if it was up against another project. Mr. Drell said it was against another zero lot line building. He confirmed that was why it was design was so blank. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. KEN STENDELL, representing the owner of the property, at 48- 200 Birdie Way in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He explained that he is the contractor hired to process this project. He thanked staff for their help in processing this project and he hoped it received approval. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell noted the Planning Commission received a memorandum from Diane Hollinger, the City's Landscape Specialist, regarding some of the landscaping. Ms. Hollinger thought the landscaping was inadequate with the way the rocks were placed and with some of the planting. She asked if Mr. Stendell agreed to the changes recommended. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 t Mr. Stendell said yes. He already submitted a revised plan and they were actively working on it, at which time they would have the corrected landscape plan submitted concurrent with the grading plan as City staff indicated. There were no other questions and Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-0- 1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2334, approving Case No. PP 05-06, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). Commissioner Jonathan rejoined the meeting. .r C. Case No. VAR 05-02 - ABBASS AND JUDITH KAMOUIE, Applicants Request for approval of a variance to allow a freestanding 13' x 29' patio cover 12 feet in height setback 3 feet 2 inches from the property line. Mr. Ryan Stendell reviewed the main issues of the staff report and recommended denial. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. JUDITH AND ABBASS KAMOUIE, 74-431 De Anza, addressed the Commission. Mrs. Kamouie didn't now if any of them had parents that have Alzheimer's, but said Abbass's mother has it and it was getting extremely bad. They had to keep her inside with them and make sure VMJ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 all the doors were locked, because if she got out, she would run away and they didn't want that to happen to her. The only enjoyment she gets is going out to this structure and is able to enjoy the shaded area because she is an older lady and they didn't want her out in the sun. This way she was able to enjoy that. They also had grandchildren who were able to play with their toys in the shade because the sun can be very bad for children. She said she comes from the south and is a housewife and didn't understand why this was a problem. To her, they weren't doing anything to hurt anyone. She noticed that it said they were harming other people's property and their property values were going down because they had to look at this structure. They were the ones that remodeled their house and brought everyone's property values up. Why would they want to bring the neighbors' property values down now? Why would they want to bring their own property value down? That was something she couldn't understand. If they were doing anything that was like putting in a bar or putting in a casino, that was something she could understand. This she couldn't understand at all. The structure that Mr. Stendell was saying was on the side in the back, that has been there for almost ten years. When they remodeled their house, the inspectors came and no one at that time even bothered telling them they couldn't do that, so they just naturally assumed that it was okay to do because it wasn't a dwelling. They understood that a dwelling would need a permit. A patio structure no one lived in and it was just enjoyed. She was also assuming that no one would want to see a dog locked up 24/7 so she couldn't understand why anyone would want to see this poor old lady locked up 24/7, even with them because they could get out, but they couldn't let her out unless they went with her because she couldn't get out of the house. She said she had pictures if anyone wanted to see them of what the property looked like before they remodeled and what it looked like now. Mr. Kamouie noted that all of the remodeling was done with City permits. They've been living in the house over 15 years. He personally went to all the neighbors with a petition and every one of the surrounding neighbors around their house signed that they had no 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 problem with the structure. He asked the Commission to tell them what they had to do. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Stendell if it was possible for the applicants to erect a patio cover that meets city code. Mr. Stendell said yes. They already have an existing attached patio cover off their house and if they wanted to have the rear yard patio cover conform, it could only be ten feet in height at maximum setback ten feet from property line. If they want to move that patio structure to that appropriate location, he would be happy to grant approval. However, the side yard structure was not allowable under the ordinance. It would have to be moved so far off of the property line to become the rear yard before staff could start looking at approval for that one. He said there's room back there. The lot size is close to 18,000 square feet, so there was a lot of room back there to move these into the appropriate locations and start looking at approval on that one. Commissioner Finerty asked if the applicants were willing to move the structures into the appropriate locations. Mr. Kamouie explained that the problem was that they also had a guest house and the place they put the patio up, there was already concrete underneath and everything on the flooring was already done. Then if they tried to move the patio somewhere else, all the landscaping and the view of the green they have would be demolished and it would just look like they were in Los Angeles or New York with all the concrete and everything around. There was absolutely no more room to move the patio toward the house. If they moved ten feet, there was no space left to even walk. It was not anything desirable to have, for the kids to play and the grandma to sit down and enjoy the kids playing. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that the issue Mrs. Kamouie raised is that there is no area without this patio for the kids to play or Mr. Kamouie's mother to sit out and enjoy the scenery, but if they were to move this patio structure, which is not in compliance, to the area Mr. Stendell suggested, then they would be in compliance and the kids and his mother would be happy. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 two Mrs. Kamouie said they would then destroy the view because all the fruit trees would have to be moved or gone because the other place is cement and they couldn't put cement there. Commissioner Finerty noted they also had to take into consideration that the structure right now isn't in compliance, so if they were desiring to have an appropriate patio structure like anyone in Palm Desert, they would have to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Kamouie said that was why they were at the meeting; to see what they could do to leave the patio the way it was standing. Commissioner Finerty didn't think they could. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that it was mentioned that there was an inspection. They built the patio cover and there was an inspection done. He asked if that was correct or if he misunderstood. Mrs. Kamouie said he misunderstood. When they remodeled their home, at that time one of the structures that was on the side, they were also doing it and no one ever said to them that they couldn't do it and they assumed it was okay. Mr. Kamouie said that when one of the Code Enforcement officers came to the house, Mr. Kamouie welcomed him and showed him the property and the patios. He asked about the patio and Mr. Kamouie said it was built when they had the house remodeled and it was standing there. The Code Officer said they didn't catch it, but this other one they had to work on. Mr. Kamouie said he stopped and then they never came back to them for a long time, so he came to the City of Palm Desert himself to see the status and what he should do and if he should stop. They checked everything and they had absolutely no record of the complaints. Then when Code asked him what he was doing there, he said he came in to comply with what they had to do because it wasn't finished completely and he was told there weren't any complaints and then later on some issue of the light came up and they came back. But it wasn't his intention to do something to bother his neighbor or take the Commission's time coming to this point. If he knew from the beginning that he didn't have to do that, he wouldn't have done it. Now it's there. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 Commissioner Finerty said she appreciated that, but now this has all come to light and he was aware and so she would urge him to still be able to enjoy it, but move the project into compliance. Commissioner Jonathan said before the applicant was directed to do that there would be other testimony and discussion because Commissioner Finerty didn't speak for the entire Commission and they hadn't made that decision yet. They were there to get input from him. He asked if Mr. Kamouie understood that the ordinance allows these kinds of structures, but subject to certain restrictions. And that was an attempt to meet the needs of the homeowners, as well as their neighbors. So they had to draw some guidelines. No one was telling them they couldn't have shade structures, they were just saying it wasn't in compliance with the standards that have been set. The question before the Commission tonight was if there were circumstances that warranted an exception. So they were getting their input and he thanked them for that and then they would see if anyone else wanted to give them input, then they would have discussion. Mrs. Kamouie thanked him. Mr. Kamouie said he came in to fix the problem. He came to the City of Palm Desert and they said if he wanted to do this, he needed to bring in a blueprint, a plan, put it on a disk, put in on a digital picture, and he handed it to the engineering department to see where everything was built out. Whatever the instructions said. Mrs. Kamouie said they were also going to put in a ceiling fan and a mister because of Abbass's mother and their grandchildren, who were small, but they stopped everything when Mr. Kilpatrick came in from Code Enforcement. They hadn't done anything else since then. She thanked the Commission. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell indicated that this wasn't in compliance and if they allowed such things, then everyone in the city could do the same thing. She would deny the variance. Commissioner Finerty concurred. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 Commissioner Lopez said this was part of their job that is probably the most difficult because they understand that there was obviously no intent, but there are certain guidelines and ordinances that they really need to enforce throughout the community and they try to be as flexible as they can and come up with ideas as to how they can correct or at least mitigate the situation. He thought that was still their intent. They just needed to work with staff on how they could make this work and bring it into compliance in the future. But he would have to concur with his fellow commissioners and deny the request. Commissioner Jonathan said he couldn't bring himself to agree to an outright denial. He thought the applicants were well meaning and well intentioned and were caught in a situation that wasn't in compliance with the ordinance. But the structure was already there and he felt a little heartless telling them to just tear it down, particularly since they seemed to have the support of their neighbors by and large. However, the structure isn't in compliance and they do have rules for purposes of being followed. His suggestion, and he certainly appeared to be in the minority, would be to continue the matter and give the applicant an opportunity to work with staff and come up with an alternative. For example, he didn't think there was room for the side yard structure. He thought that would have to be eliminated. But there might be a way to modify the rear structure, maybe to lower the height or some other solutions he wasn't aware of, and if there wasn't, he would be in agreement with his fellow commissioners and vote for denial, but he just hated to do this to a well meaning and well-intentioned individual. Chairperson Tschopp stated that the road to heaven is paved with good intentions, but the code itself is very specific. It says that variances and adjustments from the terms of the code shall be granted only due to special circumstances and it spells out exactly what those special circumstances are. None of them were met in this case. The second thing was they had a letter from a neighbor who wanted to remain anonymous that said the lights are overpowering and the height is an obstruction to them. It has and is a detriment to the neighbors and that is the reason he thought the code was there. Additionally, looking at one of the pictures he was presented with, there was room in the backyard for a structure of this nature to be placed that would comply with code, so he thought there were some very viable alternatives. So he, too, was opposed to granting the variance. He asked for a motion. r.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 Action: ad It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2335, denying Case No. VAR 05-02. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). D. Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120 - ROBERT MAYER CORP., Applicant Recommendation to the City Council of approval of a series of applications (change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact) to facilitate development of a mixed use residential (33 single family lots) and commercial (30,550 square feet) neighborhood commercial center on 8.63 acres at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive, 73-100 Country Club Drive. Mr. Smith distributed a materials sample board and then reviewed the main points of the staff report. He also informed Commission that a letter was received right before the meeting from the Palm Desert Merano Homeowners Association representing 126 homeowners and read the concerns listed (copy of letter attached hereto as Exhibit A). Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council and asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked for the commercial building, identified as Lot 34, what was at the rear of that building. It looked like there was something protruding from the rear of the building and asked if those were loading docks, because he didn't see a road to the back. He was asking if there would be loading activity between the building and the residential structures. Mr. Drell said there was no access behind that building. Mr. Smith indicated there was a four to five-foot sidewalk across the back of the building. Commissioner Jonathan said he just wanted to confirm that because it looked like there was something sticking out there. Mr. Drell confirmed that it would either be empty or 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 landscaped space. He said there are doors, so there would have to be a sidewalk, but there was no vehicle access. On the residential portion, Commissioner Jonathan asked if either entrance would be gated. Mr. Smith said it was his understanding both access points were gated. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any stacking issues on the Country Club entrance. Mr. Smith said no, it was sufficiently deep, but beyond the turn into the commercial. Mr. Drell said the gate wouldn't be at Country Club, it would be beyond the commercial side. Commissioner Jonathan said his concern was when there was one, two or three cars waiting to get in, do they prevent someone that using that as an access into the commercial portion? Did staff feel there was enough depth there to accommodate that situation? Mr. Smith said yes, it was right-in and right-out at that point so most of the traffic would utilize the first opportunity. Commissioner Lopez said in looking at the conditions of approval, he was concerned about the back of the building they were just talking about. He asked if that was conditioned to make sure that the landscaping wouldn't all of a sudden disappear for a much wider access back there. Mr. Smith said it wasn't so conditioned, however, an amendment such as that would be an amendment to the precise plan and would come back through the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell asked if there was a standard condition for the landscaping maintenance agreement. Mr. Smith said yes, Condition No. 7. Commissioner Lopez asked if that was sufficient. Mr. Drell said yes, and there was now a very diligent staff following up on them. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant was aware of the single-story requirement for Lot 33. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Lopez asked for confirmation that there was no plan or layout for that lot yet. Mr. Smith confirmed there was no plan. On that same subject, Chairperson Tschopp said that the way it read in his report it is one unit. He asked if they were talking about one unit being limited to single story. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the other units that would be two-story backing up to Merano were not part of the conditions. Mr. Smith explained that there are no other units immediately adjacent to Merano. There is a street around that side of the property. That is the exception. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 Chairperson Tschopp asked about the left turn distance from Monterey to the intersection. He assumed it was deemed not a problem. Mr. Smith indicated that Public Works Department worked at length with the applicant's engineer to come up with this access configuration. Commissioner Campbell noted that the Architectural Review Committee approved the buildings, the strip mall and the others the way it was presented. Mr. Smith indicated that was not the way it started out. He confirmed this was a lot better than it started out. It went through several iterations. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. LARRY BROSE with the Mayer Corporation, 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 in Newport Beach, California, addressed the Commission. He thanked staff. He said they had a late, last minute crunch getting everything in so they could be at the meeting tonight and staff did an outstanding job performing to get this on agenda, which was very important to them. As a clarification to Commissioner Jonathan's question on the Country Club entry, he indicated it is an exit only for the residential. Cars would not be going westbound on Country Club to turn right to be stacking there to conflict with the traffic movements in and out of the commercial. There was also a manned pedestrian gate for that linkage to allow their future residents an easy access over into the commercial so they can walk instead of getting into their cars. They concurred with staff's recommendations with a few clarifications. Specifically, in Community Development Condition No. 13 where there is a prohibition of a "food store" in excess of 15,000 square feet, they would see in the minutes from the Council action when giving this a mixed use general plan designation, there was a limitation of a supermarket. If they go to the ordinance for PC-2, supermarket is specifically spelled out as an allowed use, so his suggestion was a clarification from "food store" to "supermarket" so that there was no question from either side. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was drawing a distinction from a food store and grocery store. Mr. Brose said he read food store unless it changed. Commissioner Jonathan said maybe he just didn't understand his comment. Mr. Brose said the point was that in the Council's action it was specifically limiting a supermarket, which in the code a supermarket is an allowed use in this zoning designation. Mr. Drell said it is allowed, but to use this designation and be consistent with the general plan they had to create a condition that would delete that as a permitted use. Mr. Brose said he was still agreeing to the limitation of no supermarket, it was just the semantics. Is it called a supermarket or a food store to be consistent with the code. w.. Mr. Drell said the important number is the 15,000 square feet. He didn't believe there was any absolute definition of what a supermarket is. It has changed over the years. The important distinction is the size. At some point in time, when does a food store become a supermarket? Practically, on this site given the three acres they physically couldn't put in a supermarket anyway. But just to be clear, 15,000 square feet would allow certain specialty food stores like Trader Joe's and at what point does that become a full service grocery store? Staff thought 15,000 square feet was a reasonable defining point when a specialty food store becomes a grocery store. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the applicant was not objecting to the condition, he was just seeking clarification. Mr. Brose said that was right. Regarding Community Development Condition No. 9, there was a question on the single story component. In a perfect world they would love to keep a two- story unit there for lots of good reasons. It would be an orphan unit and they would rather not have to design a single-story component. With the suggestion being to keep the condition r.► 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 unless they were able to get approval in some written format from the immediately impacted neighbors in the Merano tract which would allow for the two-story unit. So the onus would be on them to go to their neighbors to see if they would approve, allow, or not object to the two-story component. If that was not the case, because the point was made that they have not taken a single- story component through architectural review, if they were unable to get the neighbors' approval or the neighbors' buy off, they would like to take the single-story floor plan just to the Community Development Director instead of having to go back through ARC. So the single-story component would be substituted with two- stories if the neighbors allowed it. If not, take the single-story floor plan back to the Community Development Director. Public Works Condition No. 16, he read the condition as somewhat limiting. He understood in practice that it doesn't occur that way, but how he read it was that unless and until all of the rights-of-way are dedicated, and that would be through the recordation of the map, the most common practice was that they would not be able to pull any permits for the project, including a grading permit. As the Commission knew, the process typically is that the map takes a little bit longer than a rough grading permit. Assuming Palm Desert allows the pulling of the grading permit and the causing of the rough grading of their site, he wanted to propose that the language be revised to prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or some other milestone down the road, instead of the map recordation for when they could pull their permits. For Public Works Condition No. 24, he didn't understand what it meant to have a maintenance agreement for 25% of the cost. They were to design and construct the signal at Via Scena at Country Club and enter into a maintenance agreement for 25% of the cost. He asked if that really meant 25% of the cost of the maintenance or 25% of the signal. He wasn't sure. Mr. Joy replied it was 25% of the cost of the maintenance of the signal. Public Works Condition No. 25 where they were conditioned to construct the center median on Monterey to the northerly 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 ..�. extension of Tract 27882, he assumed that meant the Merano subdivision. Mr. Joy said that was correct. Mr. Brose said they were okay with that; however, he understood from a meeting he had with the engineer of record at the Merano subdivision and Joe Gaugush, that in fact the existing assessment district that they also participate in had as a line item the improvements of that median and he understood from that meeting that that was the next improvement that the assessment district was going to fund. He didn't know if there was a shortfall or if they were looking for them to substitute in for the assessment district, he would rather not do that seeing as the dollars were already there and they were already paying for that now in the assessment for their property. Mr. Joy said they might have to look into it a little further. It was the first he had heard about the assessment district itself. He knew there was talk �.. about having that access onto Monterey Avenue closed so that the Merano residents would not be able to turn southbound onto Monterey Avenue, but would allow a left turn from southbound Monterey into his project. It would need to be researched. Mr. Brose said they could take a look at that. The assessment district also had as a line item the cost for the installation of the signal at Country Club and Via Scena. That was sometime in the 90's and he knew the dollars allocated back then probably wouldn't cover the costs today. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an existing assessment district. Mr. Brose said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was funded. Mr. Brose said yes. r.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 Commissioner Jonathan said it was Mr. Brose's understanding that it included the median on Monterey. Mr. Brose said yes. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that what Mr. Brose was suggesting is that Condition No. 25 be modified to indicate that the developer would construct and pay to the extent that it is not covered by the assessment district. Mr. Brose said that was correct. Mr. Joy said that would leave the language vague enough so that they could research that the assessment district actually is for that purpose. Commissioner Lopez said there was also an understanding that the assessment district also covers the signal. Mr. Brose said that was correct; however, he believed the district was 1994, 1995 or 1996, the mid 90's, and some of the dollars were spent doing a slurry on Monterey that wasn't in the assessment district, so the dollars have shifted around and time hasn't been their friend with costs. To be honest with them, he didn't know how many dollars remained, but he did know that the two line items for the median and the signal were in the assessment district. Mr. Drell said that in the discussions he has had, the presumption was that these conditions would apply to expenses above and beyond what is left in the assessment district. The engineer was aware of the district and there's money there, they were just acknowledging that there would be more money required to finish these two items. These monies are available to get them part way. Mr. Brose concluded and said he was present to answer any questions. There were no further questions of the applicant and Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposed project. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 "o MR. HANK GORDON, 33 Churchill Lane in Rancho Mirage, said that his company would be developing the commercial portion of the application. He wanted to make two points clear to them. When the staff member from the Planning Department said there would be a drive-thru, this was not particularly a drive-thru. These were prescription pickup windows. People couldn't drive through and order things from the drug store except prescriptions. Regarding the questions that Commissioner Lopez raised about the rear doors, he stated that all of the loading is done through the front doors. The accesses are through the front doors. The purpose of the rear doors was for fire exiting required by city code. When a unit is 1 ,500 feet or larger, two exits are required. That was the only purpose of the rear doors. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. MICHAEL CARLE, 209 Strada Fortuna in Palm Desert, low addressed the Commission. He stated that his property is adjacent to the proposed development by the Mayer Corporation. He didn't know if the Planning Commission was aware of it, or who was on the Planning Commission at the time, but he had been on the sales task force for Diamond West Homes that developed Merano. At the time the Mayer Corporation owned that property; it was called Avondale and they sold it off to Diamond West Homes and he came on board. He also bought a house there. At the time they were selling Merano properties to homeowners, it was stated to the homeowners that the property was zoned R-7. Mayer Corporation at one time tried to go back in with the Lucky's/Albertson's store that is now vacant across the street from Plaza de Monterey. That was turned down by the City Council. He said he wanted to go through a couple of things that are concerns for the homeowners of Merano. He said he is the president of the homeowner's association. The present plan the Mayer Corporation came up with on the commercial side of the development, even the mixed use zoning they were here for 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 tonight, they couldn't see why there would be a need for more commercial buildings on the corner of Monterey and Country Club. There was a white elephant across the street right now that is vacant which was the old Albertson's store and there is plenty of space there. Some of the tenants have already gone out of business there as well since the anchor store moved over to Rancho Mirage. There was plenty of commercial space that would be built down the street. They would have the Sam's, the Wal-Mart, Lowe's. Merano would like to see Mayer Corporation develop this for what it was intended to be developed, R-7, seven units per acre residential, and allow the whole parcel to be developed residential. They wanted to stuff 33 houses on a portion of this lot and then squeeze in this commercial site. What if the Walgreens didn't go in there? Then they have retail on both of those other buildings which they already discussed tonight. The one at the northeast corner on that property, you can't space it on there. The gentleman explaining the plan said that building did not fit on there. Then there is another strip mall adjacent behind these new houses going in there and he didn't see where they could validate having more commercial building on that parcel when it looked to him that they were just trying to stuff on this project more commercial buildings. Is there a need for it? When the main objection to the homeowners, the 126 homeowners that live in Merano, is that it is zoned R-7, they would like to see it stay R-7 built with residential and have the whole lot built residentially. That's what the master plan originally called for. Mayer Corporation elected not to develop that residentially. They're the ones that made the decision not to develop that into residential properties when they went through with Merano. Basically from the standpoint of the Merano homeowners, he said they were opposed to seeing anything other than residential going onto that parcel. There is plenty of commercial space vacant right across the street that they have been looking at vacant for about two years; since Albertson's moved over to Rancho Mirage. They have that and all sorts of retail space over there that is vacant. Now they were going to allow a zoning change to go in and allow i 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 v them to build more commercial retail space? He didn't see where the justification was on that. Yes, the residential property plan looked good. That was fine. It looked good to Merano homeowners. They've tried to work with them and this was the best thing they've come up with so far. He said this was the third go around with the Mayer Corporation and they had been present at the meetings when they've tried to develop this land and every time, in some way, it has some commercial with it. He asked why they couldn't have all residential? That was basically what the homeowners from Merano were going to say. As far as the homeowners allowing them to go in and build a one- story structure within a two-story development and every other house in there is two-stories, that didn't make any sense. That didn't make sense to them at all. They asked the Mayer Corporation when they presented to the Board of Homeowners from Merano, who has been maintaining Via Scena? They have. The Merano homeowners. They've been paying to maintain that street, maintain the water retention basin, maintain the landscape and now all of a sudden they would get the new development and who would help them maintain that? Where was their water runoff going to go? Is it going into their water retention basin they've maintained over all these years? They asked the Mayer Corporation that. They asked Transwest Housing, who proposed to build them, if they would pick up some of the cost of the maintenance of the retention basin. To him, that didn't make sense for them to have paid all these years to maintain that retention basin. City water runs in there. That was fine. It runs off of Country Club Drive. All the water that would come off of that project would go into their retention basin. Who would maintain that if something went wrong? Where down the line does the Merano homeowners have to pick that up if something were to go wrong with that retention basin if it gets clogged up? The City isn't going to come out and do it. It wasn't the City's responsibility. It would fall back onto Merano homeowners. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 j To allow them to build a one-story structure in a two-story development didn't make sense. And then they have more commercial going in. What about the traffic? What about the noise? What about the security issues that would face not only the new homeowners here, but the existing Merano homeowners? What about them that have already been there? There's security, traffic, noise, rodents. Who knew what would go in that retail section? There could be food joints going in there. They don't want to be backed up against something that will be a China Jo's or a Chinese restaurant or something in that strip mall. And it very likely could be because once they get it built, it's there and they could lease it to whoever they wanted to and it would be a food source of some sort in there. They would have security issues. What about the lighting on the commercial property 24/7? And that's a 24-hour Walgreens. What about the lighting issue to the Merano homeowners and the new residents if they go in there? And the traffic flow pattern on Monterey. What would happen to their back gate that goes onto Monterey? If that went through and they allowed that median to go in there, would that cut off their access to go south on Monterey Avenue? It probably would, so they would only be able to go right out of their back gate. They only have one entrance, Via Scena. They have to come down to Monterey and Country Club to go through that light to go south onto Monterey. He didn't see where this plan had really been well thought out as far as the existing Merano homeowners, the new homeowners when they did go in, and how that affects everyone else. Mr. Carle asked about the flow from the stop light and the assessment district that the Mayer Corporation is talking about. There was an assessment district. The money was set aside back in the 1990's. Yes, the money was set aside. Are they going to put a light up there? Are they going to put a light at the end of Via Scena to allow Merano homeowners to go east on Country Club Drive? And there's also a light down at Suncrest that allows those people to get into Suncrest. There's the distance between those two lights and then they would stop again at Monterey Avenue , and Country Club. He didn't see where that all fell into the mix. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 Basically, the issue before them as homeowners of Merano was the commercial. One, lights burning 24/7. His property would be right up against this commercial piece. If he was one of the other homeowners, yes, he wouldn't be too opposed. Yes, it's blocking off all their views, but at least they've got residential behind their property. There are three homeowners, himself, Shirley, and Jill Lovingfloss that will be buffered up right against this commercial and they will deal with them. What about security? Anyone could hop over that block wall into any one of their backyards. There's a security issue there. What's in place to make sure that doesn't happen? There are delivery trucks and trash bins that will be there. He certainly didn't want to be woken up at 7:00 a.m. with trash trucks emptying out their garbage with their trash receptacle and where it is placed. To him it didn't make a lot of sense to allow it to go mixed use when it was zoned R-7. He just wanted to bring that up to the Planning Commission and appreciated their time. The secretary of the Merano Homeowners Association submitted a letter to the Planning Commission and he thought they would be given a copy. It was given to the clerk. He asked them to please read it through and see some of the other concerns the Merano homeowners have because he didn't address them all this evening. He thanked them. (A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Chairperson Tschopp asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the application. There was no one. Chairperson Tschopp asked if he had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Brose addressed the Commission. He said they've had many go arounds, as Mr. Carle had referred to, on the application here. The application that was originally submitted, and the Commission might remember him standing up before them pleading during the General Plan process for commercial designation on the corner of the property, which they did recommend to City Council and it was denied. They were before them today with a mixed use. They have gone through many iterations and gone through many architectural review committees on the project. They believed it was a sound project. They believed they've met many peoples' concerns on the property. r 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 a There were a couple of issues that were brought up. Lighting. They don't intend to and wouldn't have lighting 24/7 on the commercial center. Any lighting they had would be conditioned through the design review of having down lit low level lighting. He thought Palm Desert was one of the dark sky cities. With regard to the retention basin, the property currently drains into the Merano retention basin, as does the Desert Greens golf course to the north of Merano. So there was a relatively large tributary area. They met with the Merano Board of Directors a few months ago. They did discuss the issue of maintenance and shared maintenance for the retention basin for the landscaped areas that they presently maintain in the street, in the parkways, and they were certainly willing to work with them to help improve what might be a deficient basin, as well as the long-term maintenance of the basin and the landscaping on the common street they would share. He asked for any questions. (There were none.) Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said they have been through a lot with this corner and she would say that they had it half right now. Half right meaning the residential. Throughout the General Plan process and all the other renditions that have come before them she has always been against commercial and she hadn't changed her mind. She was still against commercial. She agreed with most of Mr. Carie's points of view and it was kind of the same story, different application. There was no need for additional commercial with the empty building across the street and commercial backed up to all these residents just didn't blend toward the kind of development she would like to see in Palm Desert. If any kind of a mixed use were to be allowed, she would prefer office professional, perhaps as a buffer backed up to Monterey and Country Club. Ideally, though, she concurred that it should all be residential. For that reason, she was opposed. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that the Council on March 15, 2004 voted unanimously (Councilperson Ferguson was absent) to designate the site as a mixed use commercial/residential area. Staff in the past, as indicated in the staff report, had recommended 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 approval of commercial use on that corner no less than three times. That's one of the busiest intersections in the Coachella Valley. His personal opinion was that any element of residential was inappropriate for that corner, but because of concerns of the residents the applicant has through time, time and time again, made accommodations and he believed has reached a point that is consistent and in agreement with the General Plan as supported by the Council and by staff. In accordance with that land, he didn't think they could ever hope for anything better. It is a beautiful project, the commercial element is very attractive and relatively low scale, the residential element is very attractive. It is medium density and in many respects is preferable to high density, so he thought that was a reasonable compromise and accommodation. Based on the zoning, based on the General Plan, based on staff's support, based on Council's support for this use at that location, and based on the design that the applicant has implemented, he was strongly in favor of the project before them. Commissioner Lopez thought that both commissioners were correct in that they have gone through many phases with this particular location %NW and he tended to concur with Commissioner Jonathan that this is one of the busiest intersections we have in our community right now and he could not imagine having his backyard or a backyard backing up to that particular intersection on a day in and day out basis. The mixed use option on this particular application was one that seemed to fit well with the plan. There was a buffer between that corner and the remaining residential areas in that particular area. He was concerned about Lot 33 and the single story use. He believed that condition should remain. He didn't think there was a lot of room for flexibility on that condition only because they might get the okay from the current owner and then the next owner could be mortified by what's there and he thought it would hurt the resale value. Overall, he thought the mixed use plan was as good as anything they had seen so far and he was in favor of the recommendation. Commissioner Campbell agreed that they have discussed this corner many many times. This is the best that has been proposed. The thing that she objected to was the building to the north. It probably didn't work out on paper if that building wasn't there. She objected to granting a variance and noted that they didn't approve a variance for a previous %up 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 ,i w agenda item because of the closeness to the residential neighbor. Also, Lot 33, the one story home, as far as she was concerned, she would rather have not just one, one-story home there, because if there is a two- story home right next to it, if they are upstairs they can look into these other people's yards. So some of those homes, three or four of those homes, she felt should be one story homes so that it would be farther away from the residential area at Merano. She knew they couldn't say what this commercial could have, but again, she agreed with Mr. Carle with regard to food. They had a problem with Sagewood when they complained about the odor from a restaurant near them and this would apply to the same project. So she was really yes and no with regard to this. Again, she could see that they have a lot of commercial that is vacant across the street, but yet it is a very busy corner. She didn't know if they could have any say on what should go in there and what shouldn't go in there. She said she really was opposed to it and would rather have all residential. Chairperson Tschopp said it is mixed use residential zoning at this time and it is consistent with the General Plan. Truthfully, if they looked at that corner, in his opinion it was not residential friendly and he truly thought the whole corner should probably be more commercial. But given the limitations of the zoning placed on it by the Council back in 2004, he thought this was a great attempt to try to work into the mixed use zoning, the buffer of homes next to some commercial buildings that he thought were as well placed as they could be given the limitations on the land, the access and so forth. So overall, he was in favor of it. He wasn't crazy about the circulation, but he would trust at this time the engineer and the staff in looking at the circulation through there and so forth. Overall, he thought it was a good attempt given the limitations placed on this land and he was in favor. He did not have a problem with two-story homes because they typically didn't impact a view as bad as the landscaping. And trees seemed to most times impact landscaping more than a second story home did, so he wouldn't have a problem with the developer being able to discuss with the adjoining three neighbors, and if they had a consensus to build a two-story, they ought to go forward. The next owners would be able to see what they would get and probably would have it easier than the current owners. So given that, he was in favor of the project. He asked for a motion. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 Now Action: Commissioner Jonathan said he would make a motion for approval to include modification to the Department of Community Development Condition 9 to enable the applicant to obtain design approval through Community Development rather than going back through the full process through ARC; Public Works Condition No. 16 to enable the applicant to obtain a grading permit at an earlier trigger point to the satisfaction of the Planning Department; and Public Works Condition No. 25 to clarify that the applicant is responsible only for those costs not covered by the funds that exist in the assessment district. Mr. Drell asked if he wanted to add a condition relative to their participation and maintenance of the retention basin. Commissioner Jonathan said yes. Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. Chairperson Tschopp called for the vote. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2336, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 04-06, PP 04-32 and TT 33120, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Finerty voted no). Mr. Drell noted that this was a recommendation to the City Council and there would be a hearing scheduled before City Council. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Status Report on Valet Parking and Outdoor Music at Augusta Restaurant. Mr. Drell said there was further correspondence between Public Works and the operator of the valet about the permit. As a result of that, the valet withdrew from the restaurant, so for the last few weeks there hadn't been valet services. The owner of the restaurant believed it was now complete chaos and people were choosing now to park on the street rather than to brave the chaos of the parking lot. He informed the owner that what she needed to do was make application for a revised permit. If that revised permit taw 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 was denied, then she would have an appealable action to the Council and then the whole issue of the valet ordinance would get thrown up to the Council. For better or worse, that's the process. She applies for permission, gets denied, and then goes on. He noted that the last action the Commission took was not an action, it was just direction to enforce the permit. She tried to appeal that, but he explained she couldn't appeal that since no one had taken an action against it. She had to ask for a modification. He said there was mis communication on the music. Apparently the band has been using an acoustical blanket around its back. She never told him that it was installed, so they would try to get Code out there this weekend to do some measurements and see how effective it's been. That was the status. If it turned out that it is still in excess, then staff would be coming back to the Commission with that report and request initiation of the amendment of the CUP process, which would be a hearing dealing with the specific condition for outdoor music. Action: None. Ind B. Case No. TT 30438 Amendment#2 - Destination Development Follow-up review of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2327 Condition No. 2 on the design of the Stone Eagle maintenance facility. Commissioner Jonathan informed Commission that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter and left the room. Mr. Drell said the matter was really informational. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, receiving and filing the staff report by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). Commissioner Jonathan returned to the meeting. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 C. Case No. PP 03-10 - Gill Desert Properties Follow-up review of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2229 Condition No. 21 of the Gill office project at the northeast comer of Cook Street and Hovley Lane. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to receive and file the staff report by minute motion. Mr. Ricciardi asked to address the Commission. Chairperson Tschopp invited him to the podium. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI said he wanted to go over the history. He informed Commission that what they had here was a building which came out approximately 16 feet on each end. They cut the building down 16 feet on each end. They now have an outside deck that the offices can use. The applicant, his client, would not like to lose that in the building, so what he was really asking is if there was a chance the Commission would reconsider. Was there a chance? So they were coming asking for mercy, not justice. Commissioner Finerty asked if this would have to be publicly noticed. Mr. Smith explained that if the Commission was going to consider going at less then what the condition specifies, then they would need to have a noticed public hearing so that the interested parties could be noticed. Mr. Ricciardi said that was fine. If the Commission said they would be glad to reconsider, they would go that route. If they said no, they wouldn't go that route and would go with the Commission's approval tonight. Chairperson Tschopp said that was irregular and explained that the Commission's opinions are formed in part on the basis of what the audience has to say. They weren't able to help him tonight. Mr. Ricciardi said he understood that, but as he recalled, it wasn't based on anyone in the audience originally. It was based more on the Commission. It was based on aesthetics. He showed the plans of how the building would look if it was approved tonight. He also showed 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 how they had it designed originally. He said there really wasn't much difference. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Ricciardi to point out the cut back area. Mr. Ricciardi did so. Commissioner Campbell said she liked the revised version better. Commissioner Finerty agreed. She also noted that in the staff report under background it said at the public hearing neighbors expressed concern with respect to a two-story building proposed at the center of the property. Accordingly, Planning Commission imposed two conditions to limit the impact of it. She asked how they could go back on that? Mr. Drell said they would have to reopen the public hearing. Chairperson Tschopp said that Mr. Ricciardi could work with staff and get it on an agenda and have a public hearing. Commissioner Campbell noted that otherwise, he already had a motion and a second. Mr. Ricciardi said he would go ahead with the Commission approving , MJ it and would think about it later. He thanked them. Chairperson Tschopp noted that there was a motion and a second and called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. D. Request for Initiation of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Clarify Time Extensions for Conditional Use Permits, Variances and Adjustments for Phased Projects Mr. Smith explained that staff was requesting that Commission direct staff to initiate a change to allow the clean up of the language with respect to time extensions on conditional use permits, variances and adjustments. The concern is with respect to phased projects. Currently the code is vague or silent and they would like to come up with something to cover it. As well, while they were doing a little bit of research on this it was noted that two and a half lines were left out. The Planning Commission recommended the one version and somehow two and a half lines were left out of the version that went to the Council. So staff wanted to add that back in. So staff was asking that Commission direct staff to initiate the amendment. Mr. Drell said they 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 tow haven't exactly figured out time. The next item on the agenda was a case in point, which really prompted this. They might want to talk about it now, too. Commissioner Jonathan asked that they be kept separate. Mr. Drell said that was fine. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion, directed staff to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment to clarify time extensions for conditional use permits, variances and adjustments for phased projects. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. CUP 99-7 -TEMPLE SINAI, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension for the unbuilt portion of the CUP 99-7 approval. Mr. Drell noted that they have the request. It was his understanding that it Iwo was a financial issue. They would build it tomorrow if they had the money. They are starting a capital campaign this fall. If a big donor comes along and gives them money, they would hopefully build it. They were asking for another year. They would like more, but staff took the most conservative interpretation of the current code. Yes, they did need extensions and at a certain point in time their initial vesting based on their completion of phase one eventually evaporates. The question he wanted to ask about their previous action is what their thoughts were on the question they left open in the background discussion. How much did someone have to do? If they finished three quarters of it, is that enough to vest them for the last quarter forever? If they finish less of it, is there a period where they want to see it back? He asked if the Commission had any guidance or suggestions. At what point and what degree of completion should the extension be required? Commissioner Campbell felt like this was a different category. She would grant an extension for this one. It is different when a developer builds phase one and then he runs out of money to build phase two. But this being a church, to her she put it in a different category. Mr. Drell said it wasn't %or 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 whether or not they should grant extensions. The question was at what point in time they should be required to ask for them. Commissioner Jonathan said that was why he wanted to separate the discussions, because item D addressed what he was talking about, which is kind of a conceptual discussion of phased construction. But Item E is a specific request, which may or may not be necessary, but it is on the agenda. Mr. Drell said that was correct. To be safe, since Ms. Solowitz felt that current staff would not necessarily be here forever, Ms. Solowitz wanted to make sure she had something. Commissioner Jonathan said that was fine. He agreed with Commissioner Campbell and didn't have a problem with that. They could come back to the conceptual discussion and his response to that was he wasn't sure. That's why he voted in favor of D, because he would like to ask staff to study the matter and come back with some alternatives, some discussion and/or if they were ready for an amendment. But it was a thorny one, as Mr. Drell knew, so that was why they were discussing it. But he wanted to initiate with staffs professional analysis of the issue and come back to the Commission with something. Chairperson Tschopp said that he would disagree with both Commissioner Jonathan and Commissioner Campbell. Their job wasn't to look at who is building a project, it's how it's going to fit into the city down the road and how it will change. Whether it's a church, temple, or football stadium. It needed to come under the same guise. if they run out of money, that's their problem. Raise it or get it from the bank, but it wasn't a problem the City should be dealing with. They should be looking at how it fits into the neighborhood. Commissioner Jonathan said it is subjective, though. They had the Living Desert before them at the last meeting and he was the sole vote against the extension. But Commission, appropriately/understandably said yes, let's extend. So it is a judgmental issue. When do they say yes? For the Living Desert, it's probably for the same reason. They don't have the money in the bank and want more time. So that's why extensions come before them. Mr. Drell said that when they come before the Commission they can always say yes or no. For any reasons the Commission can grant extensions or deny them. Up until this point when a project starts and they build half, staff has been giving people longer than a year of ceased motion. So the question is at what point after they have ceased construction of a phased project do they have to ask for extensions. 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 Commissioner Jonathan said with even not phased projects, because they have instances when a developer starts with the grading or some substantial improvement and stops. So he thought what the issue would come down to from staff is what the period of non-construction activity that then triggers the requirement for an extension or denial of the extension. That is the crux of the issue. And it does relate to Temple Sinai, but they don't have that amendment ordinance before them at this point. As a compromise, Commissioner Lopez said that perhaps they would want to go ahead and extend this request for a certain amount of time, a year, and then at that point in time they would have a more definitive guideline. Mr. Drell agreed. And then hopefully they would have more information on their prognosis. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion, approving a one-year time extension of Case No. CUP 99-7. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the meeting was informational only. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was canceled. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty noted that the last meeting update was at the last meeting. XI. COMMENTS None. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2005 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairperso Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 32 Haim Desert Merano Homeowners Association President: Michael Carle Secretary: Irwin Sandler 245 Strada Nova Palm Desert, CA 92280 Tel: 760-861-2328 Fax: 760-779-5372 Itoo"gt Pbnrq Goon n eW ,NO,c;/z og-o t xy 7i-3i.}o Monday, June 06, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: This letter represents the voice of one hundred&twenty six home owners in the residential development of Merano, which is located directly adjacent to the 8.63 acres on the comer of Monterey Ave and Country Club Drive proposed for a zoning change, as requested by the Mayer Corporation. This is not the first time that a request for a zoning change has been put before you. Originally the request was for the entire parcel of land. That request was denied. The Merano residential development is the result of the original zoning initiative within the Palm Desert Master Plan. The Mayer Corporation voluntarily chose to leave the remaining 8.63 residential acres undeveloped. However, a few years ago another request for zoning change came to you asking for the remaining 8.63 acres to be zoned commercial for the then proposed Lucky/Albertson project. That request was also denied. Now the Mayer Corporation is requesting a modification of the zoning for partial commercial and partial residential development The homeowners of Merano object to any zoning change from that clearly established in the Palm Desert Master Plan. r.. The new Albertson's in Rancho Mirage has left the Plaza de Monterey anchor store empty for at least two years. What is to become of the vast space in the middle of a struggling shopping mall? What could be the compelling reason for a zoning change? Within two miles south on Monterey there are already fully developed commercial centers and, to the north, on Monterey and Dinah Shore, construction is under way for a Super Wal-Mart, Sams Club, Lowes and others. The proposal before you indicates a Walgreens as the anchor. What's to become of the Walgreens across from the Westfield Shopping Mall? Surely there is already enough commercial development for the comer of Country Club and Monterey. The Palm Desert Master Plan dearly indicates the comer lot adjacent to the entrance to Merano was to be residential. What is the overriding reason for making a change? We have attached a history of the proposals to date and points of opposition for any development other than that of the agreed zoning of residential. Sincerely, r� Merano Board of Directors June 7, 2005 History { • The parcel of land which is the subject of this hearing was part of a single .. parcel which includes what is now the residential community of Merano. • Prior to the development of Marano, the City of Palm Desert refused a zoning change request that would have permitted a REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER on the entire site. • The City upheld its own Master Plan and retained the R-7 zoning for the entire site. • The owner then chose to develop Merano, a conforming use of the land, on approximately%of the site and requested a zoning change to commercial for the remaining %of the parcel that is the subject of tonight's hearing. • Again, the City of Palm Desert upheld its own Master Plan and permitted the development of Merano as a conforming residential community but refused to change the zoning for the 8.63 acre portion that is the subject of this hearing and retained the R-7 zoning for the entire parcel. • The owner has made numerous attempts at putting a commercial development/shopping center on this land including a request for a zoning change to commercial that was the subject of a hearing before this commission and City Council during the summer of 1998. • Again, the City upheld its own Master Plan and denied the request for a change of zoning from R-7 to commercial. • Since then, the Robert Mayer Corp has made additional presentations to the Board and residents of Merano seeking support for a zoning change request. Each and every request has resulted not only in a lack of support by the owners of homes in Merano but in an overwhelming outpouring of opposition to the request. • The land is stilt zoned R-7. • The construction of the proposed 2-story homes immediately backing up to the proposed commercial buildings and a commercial parking lot is an ill-conceived plan. • The PLAZA de MONTEREY is a retail neighborhood shopping center and is located directly across Country Club Drive—on the south east comer of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. This commercial center is and has been largely vacant for an extremely longtime—in some cases in ••• excess of 1 %years. With the amount of pre-existing vacant commercial space already at this intersection, there is absolutely no justification or compelling reason to support the requested change of zoning from the City of Palm Desert's Master Plan to allow the blight of an unneeded, unwarranted, and unwanted additional strip mall at this intersection. • The owners of homes within Merano, like the other residents of Palm Desert, look forward to the day when the vacant land on the northeast comer of Monterey Club and Country Club is properly developed. However, this mixed use project is not the proper development plan for this strictly residential R-7 property. On behalf of the 126 homeowner's of Merano, we ask that the Planning Commission continue to uphold the zoning of the Palm Desert Master Plan and deny the request for a change of zoning for this mixed use project. taw two Via Scena Traffic congestion Cost of maintenance due to deterioration from higher usage Cost of landscaping It Vehicular noise Vehicular lights Gate security Traffic Signals Paridna Lot Lighting for lot Lighting for security devices (strobes etc) Noise of cars/homs Noise of people and shopping carts Delivery trucks Truck reverse warning signals Specific Retail Concems Location dose to Merano wall Security Noise of compressors, air conditioning systems, and ventilation systems Vermin Shopping carts Excessive delivery traffic and noise of bucks Location of loading docks and inherent noise problems (truck.reversing horns) 2417 Operation Litter Cooking smells Other woes of business which might be included Service stations Restaurants Fast food Take-out food operations Arcade game type businesses Others types of nuisance businesses Plans for Nearby Properties Ownership of other Monterey Ave/Country Club Drive intersection properties Plans for the vacant lot in Rancho Mirage Direct effects on Merano homes Blockage of views Excessive noise Security concems both at gates and walls Increase costs of maintenance of roads 24/7 operation infringes on enjoyment of home/property during leisure hours Aesthetic concems Diminishing property values Who does Proposed center benefit? In the view of the board of directors and homeowners of Merano, the only beneficiary is the Mayer Corporation