Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1220 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - DECEMBER 20, 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 Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Dave Tschopp, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Sonia Campbell Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the December 6, 2005 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the December 6, 2005 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent December 8, 2005 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 05-09 - EMERALD BROOK LLC and SGH PARTNERS LP, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines between parcels 5 and 6 of Parcel Map 30342 located at 75- 900 Gerald Ford. B. Case Nos. PP 00-11, VAR 00-06 AND PM 29888 - RICK MARTIN, SPRINGBOARD FINANCIAL, Applicant Request for approval of a fourth one-year time extension for a precise plan, variance and parcel map for a 64,521 square foot two-story professional office complex located on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 330 feet west of Fairhaven Drive at 72-600 Fred Waring Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Campbell was absent). 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 DECEMBER 20, 2005 A. Case No. PP/HPD 05-27 - KRISTI HANSON, Applicant (Continued from December 6, 2005) Request for approval of a recommendation to City Council to approve a precise plan of design to allow a 10,856 square foot single family home within the Hillside Planned Residential zone at 630 Pinnacle Crest within the Canyons at Bighorn. Chairperson Tschopp noted that the applicant was requesting a continuance. The public hearing was open and he asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matter. There was no one. Chairperson Tschopp left the public hearing open and asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion continue Case No. PP/HPD 05-27 to January 17, 2006. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Campbell was absent). B. Case No. PP 99-20 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for determination of compliance with certain conditions of approval imposed on the office development at 73-950 Alessandro Drive. Mr. Smith indicated that the matter before the Planning Commission was a determination of the compliance of certain conditions of approval on the project which was initially approved by the Planning Commission in February of 2000. The building was approved by the City Council, constructed and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued in February, 2002. In the Commission's packets, staff distributed correspondence which was received from the Kings, the neighbors to the west, and from Dr. Rosenblum. Additionally, there was a letter received on December 19 from Mr. Phi Winner which was distributed to Commission. `" 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report in detail. He indicated that staffs recommendation was: 1)with respect to the screening system on the second floor landing, that it needed to be modified to provide an effective opaque barrier; 2)that the Planning Commission determine that the wall on the north property line reasonably fulfilled the original intent of the condition, provided that the owner agreed in writing to allow the existing landscape material to fill in and if there are open areas, additional tree/shrub material would be installed to the satisfaction of the City's Landscape Manager; and 3) with respect to concern B relative to lights being on at night, concern C relative to the signs in the parking lot, concern E relative to the use by the business known as The Brazilian, and concern F relative to the use as a medical office; that the Planning Commission determine that these matters have been satisfactorily addressed and/or have been determined not to be violations. It was further recommended that Dr. Rosenblum be given until January 21, 2006 to address items A and B above. Failure to complete the specified modifications would result in the building permit-Certificate of Occupancy being declared null and void pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.73.015. In talking with Mr. Miller this afternoon, Mr. Smith indicated that Mr. Miller felt the window for completing the mesh system was fairly short given how difficult it was to get people for work these days, so they would be asking for an extended period of time. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Finerty noted that when Planning first became of aware of these issues there was an effort made to get the owner of the building to comply. It appeared that not until a letter went from the City's Attorney basically threatening them with some action did staff get any results. In the letters sent to Jeffrey Miller, the Operations Manager, both on April 15, 2005 and again on June 13, 2005, sent by Mr. Drell, he referenced the same issues about the privacy and the eight-foot wall. He was saying that since this is a privacy matter, this wall where adjacent to the Winner rear yard needed to be six-feet high and talked about the wall ranging from 5'1"to 57, above the parking lot. He basically made that same statement in the June 13 letter. Now in staffs report Commission was hearing that staff feels that provision has been complied with. She was wondering how staff arrived at that decision. Mr. Smith explained that when staff was looking at this in April 4 aw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 and May, the Doctor's gardener had gone a little heavy on the trimming. It wasn't filled in like it is now. Consequently, staff felt the landscaping was addressing what the extra six, eight or ten inches of wall would result in and that's why staff was suggesting a letter. Part of the letter would say that the gardener would be using his clippers a little less forcefully. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that the original condition of the eight-foot wall was an eight-foot wall. It wasn't for a six-foot wall and two feet of plant material. Mr. Smith said that was until December of 2000 when the property owner wrote to the City and said she preferred a six-foot wall. Commissioner Finerty asked for help in understanding the legality for staff to override a condition originally imposed by Planning Commission and ultimately imposed City Council for an eight-foot wall, because it was a privacy issue then and was a privacy issue now. She was having a hard time understanding why the wishes of one individual changed the will of the Planning Commission and the City Council with regard to the eight-foot wall. Mr. Drell said it was a mistake. In order to correct that, at this meeting in essence the Planning Commission had to amend that condition. If the Planning Commission chose not to amend that condition, then the wall would not be in compliance. If this was a mistake and really should have been an eight-foot wall, Commissioner Finerty asked if the City shared in any financial obligation to put this issue back into compliance and have an eight-foot wall there. Mr. Drell indicated that was an issue for the City Attorney, but the request for the proposed action from staffs point of view would be to amend that condition based upon the existing conditions and the mitigating factors of the specific request by the property owner who had originally requested the eight-foot wall. The mistake was in not coming back to the Planning Commission at that time and changing it. That is what they were trying to do now and the decision would be whether there should be an eight-foot wall. If it is an eight-foot wall, then they had to specify from where. From the outside or from the inside, making it a nine or ten foot wall on the outside, or given those circumstances, the specific request by the interested party who generated the eight-foot wall, and the specific request had to do with the owner selling to someone else and that person didn't want an eight-foot wall. Everyone has their own feelings on walls and what is desirable and balancing the oppressiveness of an eight-foot wall. So based on the circumstances of staff trying to comply with the neighbor's wishes and the landscaping that is there, he asked if it .. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 .r fulfilled the privacy intent. If it does, staff recommended that the conditions be amended to reflect that. That would do belatedly what should have been done in 2000. Commissioner Finerty noted that in the letters, Mr. Drell felt that they needed to comply and put in the eight-foot wall and now he was saying because that wasn't done, maybe now with the plant material it is okay. Mr. Drell replied yes, he changed his mind. Commissioner Finerty asked for and received confirmation that he was comfortable with that and that the privacy issue was going to be solved with plant material. Mr. Drell further explained that the trees in the intervening six months have filled out significantly in the way trees tend to do. They go slowly in the first couple of years they are planted and then they take off. This was obviously not the way they like to do business, but given the circumstances, this appeared to be the best solution in staffs opinion. Commissioner Finerty asked if the Commission went along with this and along came an overzealous gardener, and the plant material they were r relying on to solve the privacy issue went away, what would happen then? Mr. Drell said they would become in violation of the condition. Commissioner Finerty asked who would be in violation of the condition. Mr. Drell said it would be the person who hired the overzealous gardener, so he assumed it would be Dr. Rosenblum, or the owner of the property. Commissioner Lopez noted that the Commission received a couple of letters at the meeting to review, one from Mr. Winner, and asked if staff had a chance to discuss the issues with him. Mr. Smith said no. Commissioner Lopez was asking if there would be an opportunity during this open forum to review them. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Lopez said he would hold his questions until later. Chairperson Tschopp indicated that the staff report said that the wall as measured from the Winners' side, the wall in the rear yard, ranged from 6'3" to 6'5". He asked if that was a staff measurement and if staff was certain of that height. Mr. Smith said he wasn't in the Winner yard when he measured. He was in the office building parking lot reaching over the wall with a tape and the wall was sufficiently high that he could not look over to see where 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 the tape was going. So it might have been hitting on a brick, on a hill, or in a valley, but that was his best estimate of the height on the wall on that side. Commissioner Finerty asked about Mr. Smith's height. He replied that he's 5'11". There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. DR. CRAIG ROSENBLUM, 73-950 Alessandro Drive, addressed the Commission. He stated that the property was purchased in 1999 at which time it was pretty much a haven for the homeless. It was full of big palo verde trees and people with shopping carts lived underneath them. They proceeded to build a beautiful office building that they were extremely proud of and he thought it was one of the nicest buildings in Palm Desert. He said that the neighborhood did get involved during the planning tow process because they wanted to make sure it wasn't going to be another "AM PM" and all the problems that went along with that. So they were very active in the planning process. For example, when it came to the wall, he himself had no say in that matter. He wasn't even part of those discussions. It was strictly between the Planning Commission and the neighbor. Whether or not the resolution needed to be changed, he was never made aware of that in any way, shape or form. And this was the first time he was finding out about that. When he bought the property, there were no walls on the property except for some dilapidated wood that was part of Mrs. Zakarian's property. He came in and block walled the entire property and not only with just slump stone, but with split face blocks and did the best that he could to make it aesthetically beautiful. Thankfully, they just celebrated their fourth year anniversary and the neighborhood has dramatically improved. They have served as a tremendous buffer zone from everything that goes on on the opposite side of the street to the residential area. When they first moved into the building, they had a tremendous amount of vandalism from skateboarders that did unsurmountable damage. He was thankful that Palm Desert opened the skateboard park and said that really helped them. However, they •.• 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 continued to have problems on the street with graffiti, with drug trafficking, although he thought it has dramatically decreased and the amount of transactions he sees on his way to and from work have dramatically decreased, although they continue to have one neighborhood meth addict who just walks around in circles. In terms of vandalism, Dr. Rosenblum said they've had bricks thrown into the surgery center windows, into the surgery center lobby room; they had a brick thrown into the elevator and on and on. There has been major vandalism on that street. But over the years it has dramatically improved and he thought what was going on on that street was very positive. He said he was agreeable to everything Steve Smith said, but it couldn't be completed before January 21 considering Christmas and New Year's coming up. Even though the upstairs screen was approved, he had no issue with putting in inserts and blocking it even more. ..r In terms of landscaping and letting it grow, he had no issue with that either, but he wanted them to know they did cut the trees and got major grief from their neighbor. Ninety days later the trees filled in dramatically. He came to work one morning and there were people with electric saws cutting their trees and throwing them into their parking lot. Needless to say, the Sheriffs were called and they were asked to take care of it. Mr. Miller was in the parking lot with the Sheriffs. Dr. Rosenblum then proceeded to go into the operating room. He said his two operating rooms face the parking lot, so he's aware of everything. He started putting a patient to sleep and was rendering them unconscious and he was then forced to wake the patient up because of the raucous in the parking lot. In essence, what occurred was a confrontation between Mr. Winner and the Sheriff. Mr. Winner was being extremely argumentative and very threatening with the Sheriff, and there were reports for everything, and he was threatening the Sheriff that he was going to be sued for false arrest. The Sheriff got very upset and it turned out the people who were cutting down their trees were illegal aliens. The Border Patrol was 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 called and at least one person was arrested. It was just outrageous. He was threatened personally, too, that he was going to be sued for false arrest and the like, and they were not going to arrest him. But they had made every effort and the truth of the matter was that the Aurora Medical Center is an extremely quiet building, unlike numerous buildings in Palm Desert. Dr. Rosenblum said the building consists of 12,000 square feet and he occupies over 6,000 square feet. He is a solo practitioner with no associates and he only has four full-time employees. They have an upstairs which consists of three offices that are in corridors far removed from everything. On one side is a surgeon who is usually in surgery and only has office hours 1.5 days a week. Then there was an office with two dentists. Neither dentist live in the Coachella Valley and they each work in the office two days a week. None of them work on the same day. The other suite is a pediatrician who does hospital rounds in the morning and in the afternoon. The majority of the time, if they look in their parking lot, which is very large, the occupancy of the parking lot ranges 30% to 45%. Maybe 10% of the time the parking lot is at 65% occupancy. The majority of the building is his practice and he is only one human being and can only do so much. It is a quiet building and he said they are not a source of noise or a nuisance to this community. He felt they were a tremendous asset and they do everything they can to take pride in their building and to keep it up. They do have gardeners two days a week because they do take care of their property as if it was their home. They would be instructed accordingly, but there is a certain time when the trees would have to be rounded; otherwise, when the wind comes they will snap at the trunk. But every effort had been made to be amicable and he personally didn't know the Kings or Winners. The only times he has ever met Mr. Winner was with the incident in the parking lot. He didn't even know who these people were. He's busy working. They wanted the lights off, they turned the lights off. They wanted parking signs, they put in parking signs. They wanted stenciled parking spaces, they ... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 .r stenciled the parking spaces. There isn't anything they haven't done. He said there was nothing more he could humanly do and when this building was built, it was built exactly per the blueprints. Exactly. There were no deviations. He asked for any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or who believed the property was in compliance with code. MR. JEFF MILLER, the Operations Manager for the Aurora Medical Building at 73-950 Alessandro, addressed the Commission. He said there was one issue that still had some discrepancy and that was the wall. The one thing he wanted to address that wasn't fully addressed when Mr. Smith was speaking was the process that they went through when they put up that wall. What was done was after he met with all the neighbors regarding all the conditions, the one about the wall was Mrs. Zakarian originally requested an eight-foot wall. Then she found out the eight-foot wall would be as high as her roof line and she would lose her total visibility outside of her backyard. What was addressed through the minutes he supplied in his letter were the recommendations from Mr. Drell, seconded by Mr. King, on the 40th page of the minutes, that what they do is build the wall up to six feet, have the neighbors there and if the neighbors approve that wall at six feet, then they would have to sign off and provide Mr. Drell with a signed off letter for that back wall. That was the process they did to get the neighbors involved. He said that Mr. Winner was now the third owner of that house. It went from Mrs. Zakarian to the Powells, it was returned back to Mrs. Zakarian, and Mr. Winner is the third owner of that home. So there were quite a few families who have moved into that home. The side of the wall does exceed the six-foot level on Mr. Winner's side of the wall, above and beyond what Mrs. Zakarian had asked for. He just wanted to clarify the whole process and thanked the Commission. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. He noted that he had a Request To Speak card from Mr. Winner and asked for the correct pronunciation of his last name. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 low MR. PHIL WINNER, the owner of 44-818 San Jacinto, came forward. He said the situation from his point of view was quite different from what had been described so far. In order to not waste too much time about personal animosities that have developed for some reason or other, he would give them his very brief rundown on this. When the breezeway was built, they apparently put benches on the breezeway and it was being used as a waiting room. What wasn't shown on the picture is that the breezeway has a direct view to his pool. His daughters were sitting at the pool and people started making sexual innuendos to his daughter. He called the gentleman who just spoke and asked if there was something that could be done about this. He didn't want his daughters to be out there being sexually derided and have sexual comments made to them. They are 15 and 16 years old and he wanted to be able to use his pool. The response was that everything had been okayed by the City; therefore, "if you don't like it, it is a problem you have to take to the City". So he called VAW and asked to have a meeting with Dr. Rosenblum. The Doctor's secretary set up a meeting, he went over there and the Doctor walked by him on two occasions and then she said he couldn't meet with him. The third occasion he called back and started describing what was not in compliance in addition to the fact that people were standing up there making sexual comments to his daughters and he received a letter back saying that if he didn't like it, take it to the City. At that point, and only at that point, did he address it to the City. If they build a six-foot wall between two properties and back fill one of those properties to six feet high, do they have a six-foot wall? That is exactly the situation which occurred. If they took a look at the notes as they were presented in 2000, he said it spoke about the properties built on an incline. The trees were originally to be put into 36" pots because of this incline. It was all in the City Council notes. After that time they did the backfill. They said they invited the neighbors to comment on that. They have one note from Mrs. Zakarian. He said he was unable to contact her, but what was interesting was this note, according to Mr. Smith, was provided to him by them and if �•• 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 .r Commission would note, the signature was quite different from any signature she has ever used. (He showed the Commission a copy.) Mr. Winner stated that what was not shown in the picture is that the view was taken from the side and what they have between the trees is a seven-foot spread. Even if that space were to be filled in by bougainvillea, the original intent was to provide privacy to the neighbors. How is bougainvillea going to stop delivery trucks from making noise? Moreover, they state that the wall is as low as 5'1". That wall in some areas is as low as four feet. He said he has been working on this quietly, gently, for the last year and some odd months. He has 18 visits to Mr. Drell. Each time he said things "like why did you buy the property if you didn't like the situation"? He didn't know they had a waiting room installed in the area that was supposedly a breezeway when he bought the property. Even if he had known, the conditions as set forth in 2000 are still the conditions. They have to respect the conditions. They could not say r.r an eight-foot wall becomes a six-foot wall becomes a four-foot wall by putting up bougainvillea to satisfy his need for privacy. He apologized if he seemed a little emotional. He said they had gone as far as sending a policeman over to his property because a gardener, while he was at the offices of Mr. Richard Osbome, CPA, trimmed the trees as they came over to his property and they went four inches over onto their side. So they sent a policeman over to his property, who dragged him over to the their property, he did not ask to go over there, the policeman told him to go over there, and the three of them together insulted him for cutting the trees four inches over on their side of the property. He never accused them of false arrest. He thought the Commission could probably understand the situation. He asked if they could imagine going to court because one of the five trees was cut four inches on their side of the property. This was intimidation, pure and simple. Chairperson Tschopp noted that there was obviously some bad blood between neighbors and he knew that Mr. Winner had a couple more issues he wanted to discussion. 12 ..r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 Mr. Winner agreed and explained that he only diverted because they diverted. Otherwise, he would be sticking straight to the issues. The first issue was the overhang. They agreed to build and, according to the conditions, there would be no ability for people to look over. As far as he understood, everyone was in accord with that one. As far as the wall, the wall has gone from an eight-foot wall to a six-foot wall simply based upon a letter which they provided to the Planning Commission that he also gave them. He was asking them to look at it and make their own opinion based upon what they see in front of them. Regarding the lights, while they were sitting there insulting him, they said they would turn off the interior lights, but he would pay for it because they would leave on all the exterior lights all night long. Well, they don't leave the exterior lights on all night long. They turn them off at 1:00 and turn them on at 4:00. If the real concern was vandalism, why turn them off from 1:00 until 4:00? When the City checked this out, why didn't they make a note of this as they drove by, unless they tow drove by at 2:00 a.m. when the lights were out. This was an absurd situation. They were supposed to be shielded. If they looked at Condition No. 15, it said those lights are to be shielded. They shine directly into his property. The only thing he has ever seen looking like this before is a petroleum plant where they put on all the lights at night. It looked like a Christmas tree, except he gets it 365 days a year. He asked if there was a reason they couldn't turn them off at 8:00 or 9:00. He didn't remember what the other conditions were. Chairperson Tschopp noted that in his letter he talked about the six-foot wall, the open balcony, the lights off at 12:00 and on again at 4:00, so he thought he covered the main issues. Mr. Winner agreed and said he appreciated their time. MR. ROBERT KING, 44-841 San Jacinto, said that he and his family live across the street from this office building. It seemed that the main issue now was the wall height. He stated that it was agreed upon to drop the wall height down from eight feet down to six feet. They agreed upon that. But the issue was where they measure that wall. *am 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 wo He had many conversations with Mrs. Zakarian regarding that and what she wanted was privacy. She didn't want anyone to be able to walk down the wall and look into her property. So the six-foot wall was sufficient if it wasn't backfilled from the office side. It got backfilled one foot to two feet. That wall became useless as a privacy barrier. People could just walk by there and poke their head over. Even if they had bougainvillea or natal plums, people can still work their way in there if they wanted to look over the wall. It was a simple deal. The issue is where they measure the wall height and it made all the sense in the world to measure it from the inside. Where the wall meets the inside grade. And if there is a planter situation right at that point, that's where it should be measured. That's where it should be six feet high and if it created six or seven feet on the other side, he didn't see that as a problem. The idea is privacy. That's what was initially agreed upon by everyone. And that's what they wanted. To have those conditions met and enforced and verified. The light issue as well. .r Right now if they were to go across the street from his house they would notice the wall-mounted lights were about five 16" by 16" non- shielded high intensity lights. He didn't know what type of bulb, but it was a bright light, not a yellowish light. They shine over the wall directly into the yards. Especially into Mr. Winner's. He could not see how anyone would want to barbeque or have guests, it was very invasive. He noted that one of the conditions states that this would not be allowed. That is being allowed right now and was another big issue that they were concerned about. He was certain it could be worked out one way or another. He thanked them. Chairperson Tschopp asked if Dr. Rosenblum would like to readdress the Commission. Dr. Rosenblum came forward to talk about the light fixtures. He said all of them were chosen with the City Planning Commission as part of the blueprints. There were even light studies that showed exactly the way the light would spread. Once again, security was a major issue 14 ••�+ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 NOW there and the lights did not go off at 1:00 in the morning, they go off at 10:00 at night. They didn't come on at 4:00 in the morning, they come on at about 5:30. At night they need to worry about loitering in the parking lot and in the morning they need to worry about the drugs and other things that go on in the street. He said again that these lights were part of the Planning Commission and part of the blueprints and the studies were done. Whatever accusations were made regarding the letter with Mrs. Zakarian, he personally never met Mrs. Zakarian. That letter had never been in his possession. He personally did not give that letter to the City and he had no knowledge of how the letter got to the City, but there was an implication implied of forgery and that he was part of it and under oath, he swore that not only did he never meet Mrs. Zakarian, but other than meetings at the City, but that letter was never in his possession and never in the possession of anyone that he was related to in a business manner. The letter was requested by Phil Drell and was supplied to the City. He wanted to make it clear that it was never in his possession or any of his ... associates' possession. Other than that, nobody that he was related to intimately delivered it to the City. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Finerty asked what light Mr. Smith could shed on whether or not the parking lot was backfilled as alluded to by Mr. King. Mr. Smith said there was a grade difference between the two properties that wasn't evident until after the grading plan was approved and the grading took place on the site. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Smith has been in the business for a long time and when he went out to do his staff report, he probably would have picked up if there was a grade difference and would have put in certain mitigation measures to address that. But at the time when he went out, he didn't notice any grade difference. It was only after, and perhaps only after the lot was backfilled, that there became an issue. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Smith explained that the extent of the grade difference was not evident to him when he was looking at the property when it was filled with shopping carts and various trees. Commissioner Finerty asked if it had been evident, if Mr. Smith felt certain that he would have noticed that and put in '� 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 ..r mitigation measures to deal with the issue. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Smith thought that's what they were doing with an eight-foot wall. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Smith went out to look at these five 16 x 16 high-intensity lights that Mr. King was speaking about and if he determined if they were in compliance with the City regulations. Mr. Smith said he has driven around the building since receiving Mr. King's letter last week. He said there are at least five, there's one of the west side of the building, several on the north side and two on the Alessandro side. He differed from Dr. Rosenblum in that he went back through the working drawings on file in the Building Department. The lights do not show on the building elevations. They were noted on the electrical line drawing. He also differed in respect to the lighting level shown on the photometric study. That was based on the parking lot lighting which was separate. He knew for a fact that it did not include the lighting from those lights. He also clarified that he had not seen those lights on at night and if they would like, Mr. Stendell had done two evening visits there and he could describe the level of lighting he observed. ■.r Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Stendell to describe the lights. Mr. Stendell indicated that he drove by two times. The first time he took a camera and the light wouldn't register. He came up with a black picture on his screen. Last week he saw the wall lights in question and to him they looked more like dim parking lot lighting. They looked like they were cut off and not shining over, but if they needed to be looked at more precisely, staff could. His impression was that it wasn't spilling over into the neighborhood. It was lighting the parking lot. Mr. Drell asked if they were shielded or if he could actually see the light element. Mr. Stendell said he didn't see the light during the day, but they appeared to be heading downward. They didn't appear to be shooting out into the neighbors' yards. Mr. Drell asked if they had a physical shield preventing horizontal light. Mr. Stendell said it appeared like they did. On the same lights, Chairperson Tschopp asked if they were in compliance with code and if there was an easy way to have that ascertained. Mr. Smith stated that if they are fully shielded, they could be in compliance with code. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 Regarding the wall, Chairperson Tschopp noted that the wall was built. Mrs. Zakarian gave the permission letter in December of 2000. The wall was completed in February of 2002. She sold the property in January of 2003. He asked if there was ever any correspondence from Mrs. Zakarian during that period after the wall was built. Mr. Smith said there was no correspondence and he did not recall any telephone or over the counter conversations. Chairperson Tschopp said that it appeared that she was happy with the wall after it was built. Mr. Smith said that was his conclusion. Commissioner Finerty said that after hearing everything, she thought Mr. King's point of if the idea was privacy, it should be measured from the Doctor's lot. That to her made the most sense and was pretty much confirmed in the two letters that Mr. Drell sent to Mr. Miller on April 15 and June 13 of 2005. She believed that Planning Commission and City Council both said an eight-foot wall and there was an error made. It should have come back through the process and it didn't. She thought an eight-foot wall was in everyone's best interest. Right now the testimony of Mr. King said that �.. the Doctor's lot was backfilled one to two feet. In questioning Mr. Smith, he said he didn't notice a grade difference, but now all of a sudden they do have a grade difference. The wall height is 5'1" to 57" and that was certainly short enough for someone to look over. The big issue to her were the daughters. They are at a very difficult time of life and she thought their privacy was something that had to be protected. If this meant that the City shared some responsibility because this wall footing would not hold an eight-foot wall, if the City has some responsibility here, so be it. But she thought ultimately an eight-foot wall was the answer. With regard to the bright lights, she didn't know, but thought it would require further study by staff to determine if they are shielded, not shielded, if they are shielded all the way, and perhaps going into Mr. Winner's yard and looking to see how the light went into his backyard. She also understood Dr. Rosenblum's concern with the vandalism and loitering as well. Security was a major issue and they all knew going into this that it was an issue for that area. Additionally, Mr. Smith said the lights didn't show on the building elevations and that the photometric study was different and didn't include these particular lights. That particular aspect needed to be looked into. ••• 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 With regard to the open balcony, Commissioner Finerty said there was agreement. The only thing was that Dr. Rosenblum said it couldn't be done by January 21, but he was willing to do that and she hoped that could move forward in an expeditious manner. She said she could not go along with staffs recommendation that the conditions have been adhered to. She thought that the original conditions set forth by Planning Commission Resolution and City Council Resolution needed to be adhered to. Commissioner Jonathan said it was an interesting situation. He was grateful for the process.They have conditions of approval. Members of the public feel an existing situation is not in compliance with conditions of approval and they have exercised their right to work with their city government to address those concerns, so he was grateful to see the process working and grateful for everyone's time here tonight. Obviously, they weren't going to make everyone happy. He appreciated staffs report, but there was a part he disagreed with when Mr. Drell said that staff made a mistake in not coming to the Planning Commission with regard to the wall situation. With all due respect, he didn't think staff made a mistake. He thought staff exercised its judgement and did so appropriately and properly. They have a rich history of situations where an applicant says they'd like to do something, the neighbors say they like it and staff, as well as Planning Commission and City Council say, if everyone is happy, let's do that. He thought that's what intelligent professionals do. They exercise judgement where everyone is happy; they don't create a problem where there isn't one. They now have different parties who disagree with that conclusion with regard to the wall. He didn't see the problem as big as perhaps some of the other Commissioners. They were essentially eight inches short on the six-foot agreement on the building side. Staff took measurements and indicated that on the building side the wall at it's lowest point is 5'4". He thought there was an eight-inch problem and that it could be accommodated pretty easily. He suggested that staff work with the applicant and give them a choice of either creating a louvered situation to increase another eight inches of shielding or to truly fill in all the landscaping. They had a picture and he also thought most of the Commissioners went to the site. He went two times and reviewed it and thought that proper landscaping could shield it, but if the applicant preferred to put in some kind of louvering system like they've seen on other 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 tow walls, that was fine, too. He thought the problem could be corrected by adding another eight inches of screening. He didn't think that was an insurmountable situation. Regarding the lights, shield them. They need to be shielded. Staff reviewed the lights both during the day and at night. It seemed to him that it was possibly already in compliance, but in an abundance of caution, put some shields on those lights. For the breezeway, it was already agreed that it would become opaque and he said it sorely needed that because there was a view from the breezeway into the adjacent residential yards and that was inappropriate and unacceptable. Fortunately, he thought making the existing mesh opaque would take care of that and there seemed to be agreement on that issue. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that they vote in favor of the staff recommendation; however, to allow the applicant until March 31 because he knew it was very difficult to order parts and get labor these days, so he would low suggest allowing until March 31, 2006 to come into compliance. He said he would be prepared at the appropriate time to put that in the form of a motion. Commissioner Lopez thanked those in attendance. He noted this was an item where they couldn't make everyone happy. He tended to agree with Commissioner Jonathan from a couple of perspectives, but he also had a couple of concerns. With respect to the screening of the second floor, it sounded like they've all come to an agreement on this. There needed to be a screen and an absence of any type of ability to climb higher up onto that area to look over in that area, so benching would need to be somewhere else and eliminate that problem. The second item was the wall. The staff report asked if the wall reasonably fulfilled the original intent of the condition. The original owner and the developer came to an agreement that a six-foot wall was sufficient from her perspective in that an eight-foot wall would actually go above her roof line. He thought at that point when the two parties agreed, that was a reasonable solution to the situation. He also went over there a couple of times and looked around in the parking lot area and people could, for all intents and purposes and he's 5'11", look over into the backyard. That is a concern. So �.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 .ri he thought there should be some willingness to alleviate that particular aspect of it, whether it be some light materials on the wall itself, but there is that opportunity to go up to that wall and look into that backyard. And there was an ability to look from the second story into that backyard, but that would be alleviated. He thought the landscaping intent there was still improving and could still be improved. The bougainvillea is currently trimmed at a height barely above that wall and it could still grow and be slightly higher and additional bougainvillea added to that area. The trees would continue to grow and at some point those trees would have to be trimmed to be safe and they would also be thinned, but they would continue to grow. Those trunks and shading area would be above that wall area, but they could be controlled. So he thought reasonably fulfilling the original intent was there. It is a tremendous expense to tear that wall down and put up an eight-foot wall and he wasn't even sure that was the right thing to do in that situation. With that perspective, he thought the staff report was reasonable and the rest of the conditions as they pertained to Items B, C, E, and F. He was very concerned about the lights. If there were no lights on the drawings the Commission saw, and the lighting as he understood it was parking lot lighting, when he walked in the parking lot, most of the lights around trees were fallen, they were damaged and not being used. It was up lighting for the trees. He wasn't sure why those lights were laying on the ground, but those would help the situation in terms of security in that area or there should be some alternative mode of lighting that parking lot at a much lower level than perhaps the potential for the wall lights. He didn't see the lights on, so he couldn't make a determination. He had to rely on staffs report and staff continuing to look at that particular area, but common sense told him when he looked at those lights that when they were turned up, they were probably pretty bright. And there was no significant shield on them. They were built to shine down, but there was no significant shield and that needed to be addressed. Other than that, the rest of the items on there were adequate and he agreed that there needed to be an extension of the time frame. Commissioner Lopez thought March was fine. He said he agreed with the motion and would second it. 20 .r� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 Chairperson Tschopp asked if Commissioner Jonathan made a motion. Commissioner Jonathan said he would now. Chairperson Tschopp noted that there were three issues. Everyone was in agreement that the mesh system on the second floor needed to be modified to provide a more opaque barrier. He didn't have a problem giving the extension to March 31, 2006, but in the meantime to afford some privacy to Mr. Winner he could perhaps do a temporary deal there to stop the viewing into the backyard very easily with canvas or some other thing that would be approved by the code to do that immediately until he got a permanent replacement. As far as the lighting, he felt that needed to be shielded and brought into compliance with code and hoped the Doctor, noticing the neighbors around him, would perhaps take into consideration keeping the lighting down. That could be done in consultation with the Palm Desert Police Department for the building safety issue in that neighborhood for everyone involved. Lastly on the wall, five years ago the owner of the house sent a letter stating that she approved the six-foot wall height and wanted to keep it six feet. The closeness of that wall to the house convinced him why she might want six feet instead of eight feet because an eight-foot wall would be higher than the house and would completely block out any kind of sunlight. Five years have gone by and in that time she did not complain, she agreed to it, and she worked with staff to come to some type of resolution with that. At the same time, standing at the wall and looking over and so forth, he could see Mr. Winner's concern, but believed it could be addressed adequately with some better vegetation. There were some open spots there and with bougainvillea planted would create a hedge and afford a little bit more privacy without the added expense and demolition of the current wall. The other problem with a heavier footing with an eight-foot wall is that the trees may not grow adequately there in that small space provided, so they might be creating another problem. All in all he believed staff addressed the issues and the wall filled the original intent. He asked for any further comments. There were none and he called for the vote. r.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 �■d Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Campbell was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez,adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2368,determining that certain conditions of approval have been satisfactorily met, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Campbell was absent). C. Case No. TPM 33943 - SUNLITE DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 2.5-acre parcel into five parcels. The property is located at the northwest corner of Sunrose Lane and Crosby lane within Ironwood Country Club (APN 655-300-015). .rr Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report. He also indicated that letters of concern were received citing that the lots were artificially heightened to gain views. To the best of staffs knowledge, in reviewing the tentative parcel map, that was not completely accurate. They generally conform to the existing slope of the lot and were just trying to create flat level graded building pads. By looking at the tentative parcel map, they were doing that. He confirmed that all the findings for the tentative parcel map could be met and recommended approval. He was available for questions and noted that a representative of the applicant was also present. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was a letter from Mr. Black asking about the widening of Crosby Lane to match the rest. He asked if that was included. Mr. Stendell said yes, they would be adding the extra 16 feet to match the existing Crosby Lane all the way to Sunrose, which would complete the road. Chairperson Tschopp noted that under the Public Works general conditions it said that landscaping maintenance of any common areas shall be provided 22 •� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 s by the homeowners association. He asked if he was referring to an association they were not in, or one they would form. He asked if that condition needed to be modified. Mr. Stendell said the owner let them know that he was attempting to be a part of Ironwood Association No. 9. The applicant was attempting to join one, or if there was one formed for the five lots, that's what he thought the condition was alluding to. Mr. Drell stated that the project includes some private drives which would require maintenance anyway. Right now Ironwood has about 14 different associations. He thought the issue of whether they join one of the existing associations was going to be a negotiation between them and the associations and was something the City shouldn't be part of. Regardless of whether they join one or not, they have common areas within the tract and they would have to have a maintenance responsibility and, therefore, would have to have some kind of internal association responsible for the maintenance of all the common area and common area landscaping. Chairperson Tschopp asked if that was in the conditions of approval. Mr. %WW Drell said yes. He noted that a previous practice allowed for people to join assessment districts, which became a problem. Now internal common areas and landscaping were being required to be maintained through homeowners associations. Hopefully if it could be worked out, they could join an existing one and that could be an equitable, efficient solution as well. There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MS. LUCY FEIRO, Feiro Engineering at 41-905 Boardwalk Suite R in Palm Desert, came forward. She explained that she is the project coordinator and that they read the conditions and didn't have a problem with any of them. She indicated that Mr. Dewie was in negotiations with Association No. 9 in Ironwood and she was present to answer any questions. She also indicated that their engineer was also present. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was some indication in some of the letters that the pad heights were artificially inflated. He thought she must have knowledge of the history of the graded pads. Now 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 Ms. Feiro said they designed it just as they designed the project to the west. Unfortunately, there was a grade difference there, but they just stayed with the natural pads. It was just balanced. Chairperson Tschopp noted he had two Request to Speak cards but couldn't tell if they were in favor or opposition. He invited anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR to address the Commission. There was no response. He invited anyone wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to speak. MR. PAUL BLUME, 73-165 Crosby Lane, addressed the Commission. He said it was nice to see the map since he hadn't had the opportunity before. He said he wasn't in objection to or in favor of the project; however, they had ten homeowners on Crosby Lane that are their own association and they pay money to the Master Maintenance of Ironwood for the maintenance of Crosby Lane. That was for the cleaning of the street and slurry, etc., to maintain the street. He understood tonight that they were applying for Association 9, which would be Sunrose properties running from Irontree down. There were .. also some concerns about a main drain that runs to the north end of the property that was in existence and protects the properties on Irontree and takes any water away. He was not aware of how high these buildings would be, but understood that they were within the limits of the program. So they were in agreement with that, but would like the association membership so they wouldn't have to burden the cost and expenses of maintaining the property of the ingress and egress of their private driveways. He understood that the driveways would be maintained by themselves as they do for themselves at Crosby Lane and Sunrose. He just asked them to take that into consideration in their thought processes. MR. MIKE HANKS, 73-185 Irontree Drive in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He said he has been asked to speak on behalf of Association 9, which interfaces with this property on three sides. The other side wasn't part of their association. They had concerns with two houses that would be below this property where there is approximately 15 feet grade between these lots and the property to be developed. He didn't think that was a natural grade. It may have 24 ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 w been, they weren't there at the time, so they didn't know that. But if these houses were allowed to be built into a two-story house, this would be a massive thing behind a house sitting on a 15-foot lot and as they could see looking at the lot there on the Irontree side, they were getting pretty close to the side of the mountain. In addition, the other speaker mentioned a flood control drain that runs between that property and Association 9. They wanted to make sure that was maintained, not filled in or something that like, to take care of the water that could be a problem. But they were primarily concerned with height, access and the fact that they pay for the streets that they would be using coming in and out for maintenance. There was a comment that they plan on joining Association 9, but nothing had been settled about that at all. He thanked them. MR. ROBERT LENOW,the owner of 73-120 Crosby Lane, addressed the Commission. He said they were asking for no more than all their neighbors have and what his own home has. They have nice large lots over 20,000 square feet. The height limit was pointed out by staff. The limit is 18 feet and they were asking for no more than what has been going on in the neighborhood right there. They have a meeting set up with Paul of Sunlite Construction in early January with the people of Association 9 and they wanted to cooperate with all of their neighbors and do all they possibly could. He happened to live on the street himself, but they were asking for no more. He thought the plan the engineers had done was adequate and met all the standards. MR. GERN NEGLER, the President of Ironwood Master Maintenance Association, said they were concerned about the number of associations. They have 16 currently and said trying to manage this operation was very difficult. They were attempting to combine associations. He thought the problem after listening to the discussion tonight, there were some things taking place that they weren't aware of. They weren't aware that there had been any conversations between the developer with Association 9. What they would rather do is have the developer have a conversation with their organization through Desert Resort Management, Mrs. Kelly Robinson. He thought low 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 wr it was more of an internal problem, but wanted to make sure everyone here was aware of what they were attempting to do. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan wanted to make sure everyone understood that they have been advised by City Counsel that Planning Commission does not have jurisdiction as far as the homeowner association. That was understandably an issue of concern, but fell outside their jurisdiction and they couldn't address it. With regard to the home designs and the height limitations and so forth, as indicated in the staff report, ultimately when this property is developed, the homes will be subject to the same development restrictions governing the surrounding area. That was a quote from the staff report, so hopefully the surrounding areas would be to their satisfaction, which means the homes here would be developed to their satisfaction. He was in favor of approval. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Commissioner Lopez also concurred. Chairperson Tschopp also concurred and noted that any kind of water drainage problem would be addressed in the engineering studies and should not be a problem. He called for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Campbell was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2369, approving TPM 33943, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Campbell was absent). 26 ..� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 D. Case No. CUP 05-11 - JAY McEACHERN, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a massage establishment in a 350 square foot retail/commercial suite located at 73-925 Highway 111, Suite G. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to conditions as specified in the draft resolution. Given the nature of the use, Commissioner Jonathan asked if he could assume that the space would be built out to be ADA compliant, that the 34- inch access and bathroom would be sufficient for the wheelchair turnaround. Mr. Stendell said yes and believed the applicant already had that discussion with the Building and Safety Department. He said it would be subject to all of those requirements. Commissioner Lopez noted that the conditions of approval allowed for a `. maximum of two employees and the staff report said it was a one man show. He asked if that was to allow for flexibility. Mr. Stendell said he could amend that to one. He was always under the assumption there would be one. He may have been allowing some flexibility, but thought it was the applicant's intent to always be a one man show. He said if they wished, they could make it one employee. Commissioner Lopez said he didn't have a problem with two as long as the information regarding parking allowed for two employees. Mr. Stendell confirmed that even with two employees there would be adequate parking based on his observations. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JAY McEachern, 252 Loma Roja in Colton, addressed the Commission. He corrected the spelling of his last name for the record. He said he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked if he was comfortable with all the conditions. •• 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 rrr Mr. McEachem said there would be one possible employee should he get to the point where he was that busy. At this point, as described, there would probably be a maximum of four to five clients per day. Should the day come when he was more successful, an employee might be required. Chairperson Tschopp asked if there was any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. (Commissioner Campbell was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2370, approving Case No. CUP 05-11, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Campbell was absent). E. Case No. PP/CUP 05-24 - ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of a new 2,594 square foot rental car facility with a satellite sales office and a conditional use permit to allow the outdoor display of two vehicles on property located at 73-086 Highway 111. Mr. Bagato distributed a color sample board, reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TODD KOVALCIK, 14594 7th Street in Victorville, California, said he was present to answer any questions. 28 �' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 On the overall layout of the property, Commissioner Lopez asked if the wrought iron fence would go all the way around the property or if he could show them exactly where it would go. Mr. Kovalcik did so. Commissioner Lopez said that meant everything west was not enclosed by a wrought iron fence. Mr. Kovalcik said that was correct. Mr. Drell noted that the long awaited project to redo the alley, the landscape, put in block walls and add parking, was proceeding. Hopefully it would be done next summer so that whole area would be cleaned up and the residential area would get a nice screen. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MR. MICHAEL CASTELLI, of Castelli's Restaurant at 73-098 Highway 111, came forward. He was concerned about the demolition. He asked when they were supposed to demolish. He asked about when they would start, when they end and was concerned about the impacts of the construction on his business. He was also concerned about it interrupting his business. They open at 5:00 p.m. and he has people there. He acknowledged that they have fence around it, but was concerned. Mr. Drell said that was a question the applicant should address. Chairperson Tschopp indicated that the applicant could address that after Mr. Castelli was done with his comments. Mr. Castelli was also concerned about lighting. He informed Commission that there was a lot of vandalism back there. They were working on the back alley and he thought that was good. Those were his only concerns. +..► 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 .rr Chairperson Tschopp noted that his concern had to do with daytime construction and indicated that would be determined by code. Mr. Drell thought the construction hours were 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. Mr. Diercks said it depended on the time of year. In the summer they were allowed to start at 6:00 a.m. and in the winter they start at 7:00 a.m. He didn't think they went past 5:00 p.m. Mr. Drell said that the good thing about this time of year is it gets dark earlier. He said they were going to be neighbors and hoped they would get along and work together. Chairperson Tschopp asked the applicant to readdress the Commission. He asked Mr. McEachern when they planned to get started. Mr. McEachern said if they could, they would start tomorrow. All working documents were ready for submittal pending Planning Commission's approval. As soon as they could was the answer. They were moving full steam ahead. With regard to demolition and noise of construction, they would comply with everything that would be required by the City and whatever regulations were required. Mr. Drell indicated there was probably asbestos in the building, which usually delayed the full demolition by a couple of weeks. But he wouldn't expect construction to go past 5:00 p.m. in the evening. Mr. McEachern said they would go to whatever time was permitted. He didn't know the times, but would want to go to the times allowed. He did believe that asbestos was found and was taking the appropriate steps. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty thought it was a nice building that was needed in that area. However, she would be opposed to the conditional use permit allowing the two vehicles to be in front, similar to how golf carts are allowed. Mr. Drell said they do allow golf carts. Commissioner Finerty agreed and indicated she voted against that. 30 "�" MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 Commissioner Lopez also remembered the episode with the golf cart. They did have that conversation before and it did go through. His concern was twofold. Being next door to one of the most successful restaurants in our community, as well as being a big supporter of the community, regarding the fencing he asked that the parking lot areas be well maintained because it would be in a high traffic area. He didn't want to see the parking lot become a storage area. He wanted to make sure it was well maintained. Overall, he thought the project itself would be a tremendous improvement over the existing conditions. He said he would be glad when the current building was gone. He thought the proposed building was excellent looking and would add a lot to the area. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He was personally excited because he uses Enterprise cars and hoped they would offer one-way rental to LAX He thought this was a very compatible use for the area and would compliment the busy time of the adjacent restaurant. He thought it was quite compatible and certainly was a much needed enhancement aesthetically to the area as �• well and would really be an improvement. He wholeheartedly endorsed the application. Chairperson Tschopp concurred. He didn't have a problem with the cars framing the entryway there in that they would be right there in front of the business as they enter, so he assumed they were talking very nice cars, well maintained and kept up. He didn't have a problem with that. He asked that there be no storage of the vehicles on the streets at all for more than just a moment before they put them in the back gates. Other than that, he thought it was an improvement to the area. He asked the applicant to work with the neighbor and called for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no, Campbell was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2371, approving "EW 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 Case No. PP/CUP 05-24, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Campbell was absent). F. Case No. CUP 05-07 - SPRINT-NEXTEL, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 72-foot high monopalm wireless telecommunications tower with related equipment building on the west side of Painter's Path at Shurgard Self Storage, 44- 250 Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report. He indicated that Public Works had four conditions to add. A copy of the memorandum dated December 16, 2005 was distributed with those conditions and he asked that they be incorporated into the draft resolution. He recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution as amended. +�I Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MS. BARBARA SAITO, representing Sprint-Nextel at 310 Commerce Drive in Irvine, California, addressed the Commission. She thanked Mr. Urbina and Mr. Drell for helping them bring this forward. They had been working on it for a while. She said she was in agreement with the conditions, but had a couple of things she needed a little clarification on. The first had to do with the height of the facility. It was more of a comment than a change. They normally measure the height to the top of the structure and in 99% of the cases that meant to the top of the pole. Everything that goes above the pole is non-structural such as the fronds. The overall height of the pole is 57 feet, which is also the top of the highest antenna. The fronds are non-structural and range between five and seven feet, so they really have an overall height of approximately 64 feet. They put 70 just to have some flexibility, but it would not be 70 feet tall. Their intent was not to build the structure to 70 feet tall, the top of the structure was at 57 feet. 32 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 )NN.. Ms. Saito said that Mr. Urbina sent her a copy of the conditions from Public Works and she needed a little clarification. The first condition talked about the grading plan to be submitted. Unless the Palm Desert Municipal Code was different from the UVC, they generally didn't have to submit grading plans unless they were moving more than about 50 cubic yards of dirt and they weren't moving anything. The most they would do is "plant" their pole. There wouldn't be any import/export or otherwise movement of dirt other than to dig the hole for the pole. It would be way less than 50 cubic yards. Commissioner Jonathan said he also had a question about that condition since it was an already graded, improved site. Mr. Diercks said it was a catch-all provision that they include. He wasn't positive of the quantities involved, but if there wasn't going to be any grading done, he didn't see any need for a grading plan. Commissioner Jonathan suggested adding the language "if deemed necessary." Mr. Diercks concurred. r..► Ms. Saito thanked them. The second condition talked about putting in equipment pads and she said they weren't proposing any building or equipment pads other than the installation of the pole. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the condition read that they were subject to review. He didn't read it as a requirement for them to submit new ones. Ms. Saito said with that, she was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Regarding the antenna height, Mr. Urbina clarified that the large scale blueprints submitted to staff scaled at 72-feet from ground level to top of the tallest frond. Our ordinance has a maximum height of 75-feet from ground level to top of tallest frond. If in reality once the project is built it ends up being less than 72 feet in height, that's fine, but staff used that number based on the large scale drawings submitted. .. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 U0 Chairperson Tschopp thanked him for the clarification, closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Finerty thought this was her perfect idea of what a wireless communications tower should look like and moved for approval. Commissioner Jonathan completely concurred. He said ideal was the description he would have used as well. He seconded the motion. Chairperson Tschopp concurred and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Campbell was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2372, approving ..� Case No. CUP 05-07, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Campbell was absent). IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty indicated that the meeting was informational for the most part. 34 �' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that Project Area 4 was canceled. XI. COMMENTS A. Commissioner Lopez commended Commissioner Jonathan. He said he has been a stout leader, as well as a confident and mentor to him, especially when he first joined the Commission. He really appreciated his leadership and said he would be missed. He thanked him. Chairperson Tschopp added that his knowledge and input has been very valuable and he also appreciated his help and wished him the best. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She appreciated his service to the city and wished him the best of luck. �. Commissioner Jonathan thanked them. He said he would be around and said it has been a privilege to work with what he thought was the finest staff in the Coachella Valley. He said they are complete professionals, reasonable, and it has been an absolute pleasure to work with this staff and he admired the work they do. He said it had also been his absolute privilege and pleasure to work with some of the finest people he's gotten to know, including all the Commissioners at the meeting and Sonia, as well as the past commissioners over the past 16 years that he has had the pleasure of working with. He thought Palm Desert was very fortunate to have both the staff and the dedicated individuals. He kiddingly said he wasn't worried at all that everyone else turned down the job and Van Tanner said yes. He thought the Commission would continue to be in great hands and the city would be well served. He thanked them for the last 16 years. B. Regarding the next meeting, Mr. Smith indicated that it would be canceled, so the next meeting would be January 17, 2006. .. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2005 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. PHILIP DRE L, Secretary ATTEST: AVID E. TSCHOPP, Chai e o Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm .r 36 ..r