Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0221 �—�—� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '"� � TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 21, 2006 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER ' ' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. 111. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell (arrived at 6:03 p.m.) Van Tanner � Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the February 7, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the February 7, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained, Commissioner Campbell was absent). ..� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21. 2006 � (Commissioner Campbell arrived.) V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent February 9, 2006 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. tw.r A. Case No. PP 04-13 Arr�endment#1 - LOWES HIW, INC., Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the approved precise plan to allow limited outdoor display of inerchandise at the home improvement center at 35-850 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. He noted that a letter from Regency Homes and a letter from Mary Clarke of Versailles, the development across the street, were distributed to the Commission. He also indicated that he received a phone call from Mr. Matt Mealey from Versailles who was opposed to Lowe's in general. Following up on the letters the Commission received, Commissioner Finerty asked for Mr. Smith's opinion on their complaints about the lighting, signage and Lowe's reluctance to even address these issues with the neighbors. Mr. Smith said the property has been zoned commercial since annexation in 1988. It was always intended to be commercial. Mr. Drell also pointed out that that issue wasn't on the agenda. He thought it was exacerbated by the fact that Regency Homes itself has no landscaping whatsoever along their side, so there was a lot of opportunity to address it there. The limiting factor 2 ..r� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2006 � on the Lowe's side was the overhead power lines which couidn't be undergrounded and Edison limits the size of trees that can be planted under power lines. The landscaping that Lowe's put in was as required by Edison, although it still fundamentally met Palm Desert's landscape standards. He said the lighting of the parking lot meets our standards. It is a big commercial building. It's what it always was going to be. It's a regional commercial use. The opportunity to fix it is in the median and landscaping on Regency's own property, which didn't have a stick of landscaping. Lowe's was constrained by Edison. Mr. Smith also pointed out that there would be a double row of trees in the landscape planter on the Lowe's side that would be installed when the power lines were moved. They included Acacia, Acacia Aneura and the tree version of the Mexican Bird of Paradise. Edison didn't allow any trees exceeding 15 feet in height, so whatever went in wouldn't block the building. He noted that this is a major intersection of two major arterials in the city. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Drell indicated that if Versailles would do their landscaping on their side, the west side of Monterey, they could put the height of whatever tree they wanted to camouflage Lowe's. Mr. Drell said that was correct and pointed out that the closer a barrier is to the � observer, the more effectively it would screen. Also, they could work with them on the placement of trees in the median, so there was room on the west side of the Versailles wall, room on the east side of the Versailles wall, and room in the median. His understanding was that they would be in the process of planting the landscaping for that median. He didn't know what Rancho Mirage was requiring or approved for Versailles itself. Commissioner Campbell noted that Versailles had been there almost a year with no landscaping. Mr. Drell said he didn't know the circumstances or why their landscaping had been delayed. Commissioner Finerty asked if this was something that Planning Commission should respond to when they received a letter regarding these issues or if staff would respond to the issues. Mr. Drell said that they could put it on the next agenda as a Miscellaneous item and staff could research why it hadn't been done. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was as simple as Mr. Drell calling the Rancho Mirage Planning Director. Mr. Drell said he could do that and report back at the next meeting. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Condition No. 15 was placed on the project by City Council or if it was part of the original application approved by Planning Commission. Mr. Smith said it was both. At the time the application � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 .r�r went through Planning Commission there was no request for outdoor merchandising. By the time it got to City Council, there was discussion with respect to sales throughout the year in the parking lot. The City Council approved three, one of which was Christmas trees and a couple of other occurrences that would happen in the area of the indoor lumber yard at the north end of the site. Beyond that,the overall condition prevented it. Mr. Drell said it was geared toward what amounted to storage, which is what was occurring at Home Depot. So they were very clear with Lowe's that they didn't want something that started looking like storage. They could display outdoor items that belong outdoors and was appropriate in an outdoor environment, but they didn't want fo lose control and end up with the storage issue liked at Home Depot. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff thought six storage units were necessary. Mr. Drell said staff specified that they could have one example of each style. He believed that was their intent. In terms of display, staff saw no reason for them to display more than one of anything. They didn't want to see 20 wheel barrows. In reality, they couldn't buy that shed, they buy a kit. So there was no reason to display more than one of a particular style. That was the purpose of it. Commissioner Campbell noted that was also on the north side of Lowe's, so it wasn't really visible from any residents. Mr. Drell concurred. He said the goal for each area was to landscape it or put it � in a setting as seen in someone's yard or patio. Regarding Condition No. 3 and putting up wing walls, Commissioner Tschopp asked if that took care of the Architectural Review Commission's concerns. Mr. Smith believed it would; their concern was with spreading out beyond the scope of what they intended with this approval and coming up with wing walls to contain or limit the area and the height. Chairperson Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JACK MANDELL, the Senior Site Development Manager for Lowe's Home Improvement, came forward. He said they are based in Carlsbad, California. He said they were okay with the conditions placed on them with the exception of the issue regarding the screening of the block and building materials under the lumber canopy. He said there was probably going to be a functionality issue with them trying to create a wall outside the front of the building; however, their architect Chuck Landen was present and they would 4 ..r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � like to propose maybe an alternative solution to that and work with staff on the details. They've had this come up before and had been successful in being able to mitigate the issue with some additional treatment which Mr. Landen would describe. MR. CHUCK LANDEN, Nadel Architects in San Diego, stated that they were proposing in the arch areas in front of the lumber canopy providing additional screening, like a mesh screen and growing vines up it. That would add some additional landscaping to the building and would screen off what was happening behind it. That way any merchandise under that canopy would receive additional screening. It had been very effective in other locations. Mr. Mandell said that would go from ground to ground all the way to the ceiling, which would effectively provide a complete screen across there. (The area was pointed out on the plan.) Mr. Mandell said they would basically see nothing behind there and would ask if they did that, if they could add pallets, which was an integral part of their business. He indicated that Lee Ann Matheson, the Store Manager, was present and could explain that in further detail. He said they had a real concern about not being able to use that area more functionally � for the palleted goods that would come in. There would be occasions they would have them there until they were picked up by the purchaser. If it was a visual nuisance or visual problem, they felt that the proposed screening mechanism would eliminate that problem and that's what they would like to work with staff on. He noted that it looked like there were people present and he would like to reserve the right for rebuttal comments. Commissioner Tschopp asked how important it was to have all of this material and goods stored in front of the building as opposed to inside of the building. Mr. Mandell said it wasn't really storage; what they were asking for was to display new merchandise. Just some of the larger ticket items during the year like barbeques and that type of thing. With the storage shed issue on the north side of the building, they might or might not do that. He didn't think it was that critical. The really important issues were the live plant material and it sounded like staff thought it was more of an amenity with more landscaping out front. The display of � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � materials out in front of the store was a real integral part of the facility, so they would like the ability to do that. Commissioner Tschopp said that one of their competitors down the road stores materials out in front and displays it as well, and he thought it looked unattractive. He asked if Mr. Mandell could give them some assurance that Lowe's would not degenerate to that level. MS. LEE ANN MATHESON, the Store Manager, came forward. She said they were obviously well aware of what their competitor looked like down the street and that was not what Lowe's is about. That wasn't even close to what they were proposing. They wouldn't be using the area for storage, it was display purposes only. Around the lumber canopy area was a quick load facility for their contractors or commercial businesses. They were looking for pallets and weren't looking for one or finro bricks or blocks or one or two bags of cement. So they were proposing strictly under their lumber canopy to make sure their merchandising was no more than three pallets high and if they have the screening in front from Monterey, they couldn't visually see it. But their contractors drive through that lumber yard so that they can quickly load up and be on the way to their job sites. So that is ,r�; what they were proposing today. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that Ms. Matheson said it would be no more than three pallets high. Ms. Matheson repeated no more than three pallets high. At Lowe's, they wanted to make sure they have security stacks so they would not go more than that and wanted to make sure they do things safely and would certainly not exceed the columns on the exteriors. On the front of the actual lumber canopy, they were talking about the archways and they would not exceed that by any means. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification as to the opposition to the condition. Ms. Matheson explained that they would like four to five different items at three pallets high because they have different sizes of block that they sell to their commercial or contractor businesses. If they were limited to just four pallets, that wouldn't take care of their contractor needs because when they come in, they don't come in for 6 �+ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21. 2006 � a few, they want several pallets at one time. So it was a quick load facility. That is what that drive-through lumber yard was made for. Commissioner Finerty noted that the Lowe's in La Quinta has a drive-in facility and they pick up everything inside. Ms. Matheson said that was a conversion of an old Eagle's. It was not how they design their buildings today, so they don't actually have any drive-through lumber yards. They design it on the exterior of the building for quick load for their contractors only. They would not have lumber out there. She knew that some people were talking about timbers and that kind of thing. That wasn't what it was designed for; it was mostly designed for concrete block and bagged bits. So they wouldn't find rebar and that kind of thing outside the building. Mr. Drell said that was predicated on a solution which in essence makes it an interior drive-through based on the effectiveness of the screening. Commissioner Finerty commented that they knew how things grow and stay put. Mr. Drell said the goal would also be how effective the metal screening mesh was by itself. Commissioner Finerty asked if they would have approved a mesh screen as part of the building; no. Mr. Drell said they could have and � the subject came up before. Mr. Landen said they could design something very similar to what they have done with their garden fence with ornamental iron with a mesh panel, and in the interim until the vines grow up, they could put some of the shade cloth/wind screen material commonly used on the fence in the garden center. It would cut down the visibility beyond until the plants took over and did their job. He has seen bougainvillaea trained on things like that and it could be very colorful and very effective screening material. That was just one example. Chairperson Lopez asked if he was willing to work with staff and come up with a solution for this particular area. Mr. Landen said yes, staff has been very helpful in offering ideas and solutions. Chairperson Lopez said he would be asking people to address the Commission who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. As a matter of housekeeping, he said there were several �. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21. 2006 �r letters and Request To Speak Cards wishing to discuss concerns regarding items other than what was on the application for the Planning Commission's consideration. He said they welcomed their comments, but would ask them to be brief, and then they would give Lowe's the opportunity to respond to those particular comments. He asked that those speaking give their name and address for the record. MS. MARY CLARKE, 17 Orleans Road in Rancho Mirage within the community of Versailles. She said she was not hostile to Lowe's in general and loved the old Eagles. They were compatible in their communities. She thought this building was astonishing. She said she prepared a packet for their review on the impacts to their community from the new Lowe's store directly across from them on Monterey. The intent was to show them the damage done to their residential community by the unscreened building, and more particularly, the enormous sign on this new store. They were asking them to delay a decision on outdoor storage for this store until such time as Lowe's mitigates some of the damage done by this project. They did not believe that Lowe's intended to damage their community. On the contrary, they simply did not think of anything but their own best interests in the design and placement of the project. However, when � one does significant damage to others however inadvertent the damage, the right and honorable thing to do is mitigate the damage to the extent possible. At this time Lowe's has disregarded this obligation. She said there is almost 1,300 feet of frontage on Monterey severely impacted by this project and a total of 11 homes face on this frontage. In addition, the sign is felt more than 2,000 feet, nearly a half a mile back, into their project down the main street, Paris Avenue. This is devastating to all of them, 270 plus home owners at this time. And when the project is lighted, it was totally overwhelming. It was lighted tonight. She said they had attempted to get Lowe's cooperation and a solution to this problem, but at this time they were not motivated to do the right thing. She believed tabling the decision on the outdoor storage might provide enough motivation to bring them to the table. They were all willing to participate in a solution to this. The homeowners and the developer of Versailles were merely asking that Lowe's do their share. Specifically, the developer of Versailles was willing to install the 8 .� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21. 2006 � irrigation system and provide the labor and equipment to install significant trees on the west side of Monterey. In a few moments the issue of why that was not done at this point would be addressed by a member of Regency. The homeowners would incur the obligation to irrigate and maintain these trees for the future, far more trees then they would have had to install without that sign. They were asking Lowe's to step forward with either the trees or the funding for the trees to screen this project from their community. The trees needed to be a significant size and number to be effective. Again, as a community, she said they have no leverage to influence Lowe's to do the right thing, but if Lowe's demonstrated their good will and spirit of cooperation on this issue, "the City of Palm Desert may then consider granting them the favor of outdoor storage in the confidence that they are responsible members of the larger community." This was a problem she thought should be easily solved within the next finro or three weeks by parties of good will. Until then, she asked them to delay a decision. Ms. Clarke said she included some pictures that were taken, one from � approximately 300 feet, one from about 800 feet, and one with a little cheating from Photoshop that had some trees in there. As she understood it, Regency had been delayed in putting in the landscaping because Lowe's has not moved some of the utilities across the street yet. She said that would be addressed in a few minutes. Yes, they do have an obligation on their side to landscape, too, but the scope of this building was much greater than anyone had anticipated. She thanked the Commission for considering this. When they were at a hearing in Rancho Mirage one night one of Palm Desert's staff came and begged them not to put big box on a strip of Monterey that would inflict harm on Shadow Ridge. She said fair is fair. If they didn't want to harm Shadow Ridge, she really doubted they wanted to harm them. This was a soluble problem. It did not need to be a painful issue. She thanked them. She said they didn't have enough time with Photoshop to do a super job, they only got on it this week. MR. DAVE CLARKE, 17 Orleans Road in Versailles/Rancho Mirage, addressed the Commission. He showed a picture of what someone would see driving down Paris Avenue in Versailles, which he said is in an easterly direction facing the Lowe's project. He showed another � g MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � picture from farther back. He said anyone going down that street could see the Lowe's sign and it was very objectionable. They couldn't miss that sign. Unfortunately, they couldn't get there from Paris Avenue. He showed an artist rendition if trees were placed along Monterey on the Versailles side, which would be the west side of Monterey, and they would totally obscure the Lowe's sign, which would certainly mitigate that large sign, yet at the same time anyone driving down Monterey looking for Lowe's would have no difficulty seeing it, but the folks in Versailles wouldn't be overburdened by that sign. He thanked them. MR. ROBERT WILKENSON, Regency Homes, 2 Chateau Court in Rancho Mirage, addressed the Commission. He said he appreciated being able to speak before the Planning Commission and address some of the questions brought up. Regency Homes began the Versailles project in 1999 in the form of acquisitions and planning. He said Versailles is located at the corner of Monterey and Gerald Ford Avenue. Prior to Versailles, Regency developed and built Victoria Falls in Rancho Mirage and Regency Estates and Regency Palms in Palm Desert and Regency has been a local developer in the desert for over 20 years. � He stated that he spoke personally with the Lowe's project manager and was directed to the person in charge of site development. W hen he called that person to talk about the visual impact the store was having on Versailles, the signs, the lights and the yet to be allowed outdoor display of inerchandise, he got to the point and asked the Lowe's representative to provide or pay for some trees to lessen the impact of their building sign, the display of inerchandise, and its effect on Versailles. He received a lecture about the delays that the City had caused Lowe's because of their conditions and the additional expenses that put Lowe's over budget. He was told that the City made Lowe's add another lane to Gerald Ford which cost them more money, that Lowe's was also behind schedule because of Edison and one time he was told that Edison's plans were wrong and that they would need to be redrawn because of conflicts with existing underground utilities and, therefore, Edison's start date needed to be postponed. The next time he was told that the plans were okay and Edison would take care of any conflicts with other utilities. 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2006 � Apparently notices were sent out by the City when Lowe's went through the City's landscape approval process and he was told that was their chance for input on landscaping and those kinds of plans. The problem with that excuse was that Versailles residents were not moved in yet. His response to Lowe's was to again ask if Lowe's was willing to plant any trees to screen or pay for any trees to screen the building and the sign from the view of Versailles and the yet to be approved outdoor display of inerchandise. That's when the Lowe's representative hung up on him with no answer to the question. Mr. Wilkenson said that Regency's engineering department, since they started this project in 1999, has been working on their plans and their development plans with the City of Rancho Mirage since and their landscaping plans were approved in 2004 for Monterey. For over a year they have been talking to Lowe's and Edison about the overhead lines on the east side of Monterey and he understood that was a condition of Lowe's approval to get those overhead lines moved. He said Versailles was also conditioned to put in a turn lane and widen the west side of Monterey as a condition of approval from � Rancho Mirage. The guideposts that provide the tension for the lateral stability on the overhead lines are on the Versailles side of Monterey, so they were directly in the center of the deceleration lane they were supposed to put in; as a condition they have to build out that deceleration lane. So they were right in the way and they couldn't put in the deceleration lane, they couldn't put in the curbs and landscaping due to that Edison overhead line being moved. So they had been waiting for this to be done. It wasn't due to negligence. They would love to be finished with that; no one wanted things hanging out on their project waiting to be done. He understood the complications with dealing and coordinating with everyone, but they had been working on this for a period of time. It was not by neglect that there was no landscaping there. Mr. Wilkenson said they couldn't complete their conditions until that line is moved and the guidelines are relocated that hold up the power line. It was conditioned, Lowe's and the landscaping, with height restrictions by Edison. He heard it said that it was 15 feet, but he thought it was 12. The plants on the Monterey side could only be 12 feet high, but he heard staff say 15. He asked if that was correct. � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � Mr. Drell said they had a meeting with Edison and they must have wrangled an extra three feet out of them. Mr. Wilkenson said that was good and made a bit of a difference. The plants on the landscaping plans on the Lowe's side were categorized as bushes and weren't even really identified as trees in that variety. And because of the height, he was going to have to defer to his landscape engineer with that information and wouldn't argue with them about it.That variety didn't grow particularly tall. The visual issue was compounded by the fact that Versailles's elevations of their homes were three feet higher than the elevation on the other side of the street where Lowe's is at, which further reduced the effectiveness of the landscaping on the east sidefLowe's side of the road. Mr. Wilkenson said he had also seen a copy of the median island plans for Monterey in hopes there was some space there that could mitigate and trees could be adjusted. The nose of the island at the north end of Monterey before it touches Gerald Ford was 240 feet long. It was a cobblestone nose. So for 240 feet back from the intersection of Gerald Ford and Monterey, there was no opportunity to put in any vegetation. Which took them back to the nearest point, �; the next 125 feet comes back to where the center of the Lowe's entrance off of Monterey. There were three Acacia trees spaced about 80 feet apart. Typically they have about a 20-foot canopy. That was not enough to screen that picture. That was reality. What they saw in the previous pictures were photo simulations. The situation provided an opportunity for everyone. Because of the delays, Regency has been unable to start landscaping the Versailles side of Monterey. Regency was asking Lowe's to pay for and provide some trees on the west side of Monterey for its landscaping in order to help screen the view of the Lowe's sign. He also said they haven't lit up their parking lot lights yet, or he hadn't seen them. When they looked at the picture, they could see some dots that were between the W and E blocking those letters, that was how elevated their parking lot lights were. They had to be at least 18 to 20 feet in the air, which was way higher than necessary in terms of traffic and parking in the evenings there. But that had probably come and gone. 12 �.rri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21. 2006 .... Mr. Wilkenson said they would like to modify their irrigation system, plant some trees, Lowe's could provide some trees, and the Versailles Community Association would maintain those trees. But they could be planted and balanced on the west side of Monterey, the Versailles side of Monterey, to mitigate the size of this building. He said the picture was taken approximately 250 to 300 feet back from the edge of Monterey, which would be on the other side of the wall. When they drive all the way out, it is right on top of them. He said they really needed to go out and look at it if they haven't. They were asking for some trees to help screen the view. It was not going to hurt Lowe's marketing. Regency was all about marketing, too. They sell houses. So it wasn't going to hurt their marketing to have trees on the west side of the road. The traffic, both north and south bound on Monterey, was going to be looking through the Lowe's landscaping on the other side which was low because of the power lines and worked out great for Lowe's in terms of visibility. The trees would only provide some mitigation for the Versailles community. They weren't asking for a bunch. MR. JOHN GALLEGOS, 7 Lyon Road in Rancho Mirage in the � Versailles complex, addressed the Commission. He said he was born and raised in the desert and was proud to be from this area. He said the picture was basically the view from his front yard. He could see the garden center lights inside his house. He said that the Lowe's light followed him throughout the complex, into his backyard and into the house. The question came up as to their expectation. He understood progress and understood commercial areas, but their expectation was to be a considerate neighbor. That was his expectation. And in this sense it seemed that Lowe's said this is where they were going to plant themselves and if they had a problem with it, that was their problem. He didn't think that was right. He was in opposition to the outdoor setup they want. When he walks out to his car, he looks into the parking lot and didn't want to see jacuzzis up against the wall or all kinds of materials strewn throughout the parking lot. He said the parking lot was not set back as far as some of the other Lowe's locations in the desert, which was disappointing to him. So he did have a problem with basically turning the parking lot into a swap meet. Basically, what they were asking was for the Planning Department to assist them in having everyone work together. It's there. It wasn't going to move. It was huge enough that all the items �* 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2006 � poles yet, as if he was dragging his feet. He said it was a very difficult process because they had issues with the easement and he was sure Mr. Drell could back him up with that. They had a horrible time trying to get all of the ground work laid before they could get Southern California Edison to move out there and get the poles relocated. Finally, after about a year, they got the order out and he contacted the Edison person and was told there was a 45-day PUC requirement. So they were opening their store with those poles still not moved. They had to work with staff to have a temporary access plan. And then he got a call from Regency Homes on how he was holding up their little corner because he was incompetent. That was the only contact he had from Regency Homes. Mr. Mandell noted that there were some neighbors here and it sounded like their concerns were if Lowe's would be willing to work with them. He said it was nothing like that, just accusations at how Lowe's doesn't care about the community. He personally took that as an insult and he was insulted by Mr. Wilkenson, who wouldn't even give his last name when he talked to him on the phone. He wouldn't even tell him what he wanted until he was trying to ask how much money Lowe's might have to buy some trees. In his mind he felt what � was going on here is these people should have gone to the hearing and if they thought there was going to be an issue to the people they sold the homes to, they should have proposed more than minimum landscaping along there just to mitigate this and was what they should be doing. Not coming back now and asking Lowe's to buy trees and put in front of their development. He said Lowe's is putting in plenty of landscaping in their parking lot and he was amazed that it was being spun as something that Lowe's caused to happen. This in his mind was not an issue for Lowe's to take care of, it was an issue for the developer and seller of these condominiums for the people he sold them to, to be responsible enough to soften the impact of what they were going to see with the commercial development across the street and provide a landscaped buffer. Again, he had no idea they even wanted Lowe's to buy them trees until he was told tonight. All Mr. Wilkenson was doing was being rude to him and accusatory and not trying to find out if there was some way they could work together. Mr. Mandell said that a letter from Regency Homes would have been nice saying they have a problem. A phone call saying they have a problem and what could they do about it together. All he got was this 15 .rrr� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2006 � and it was three weeks ago. What he would like to do is get the Commission back on track to what they were trying to do tonight and that was get approval to do additional outdoor display, a minimal amount compared to what they do at most of their stores, and he respectFully asked approval of their amendment. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Mandell when the City Council approved the project and implemented Condition No. 15, if at that time he was in agreement with the conditions of approval. Mr. Mandell said yes. He believed there was confusion on Lowe's part. They thought all they were not being allowed to do was outside storage and they were okay with that. They didn't plan to store material outside the building. They did not conclude from it that they would not be allowed to display any merchandise in front of the store. When that was discovered by the store manager a few months ago, that's when they approached staff about coming back and getting an amendment. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for Commission � comments. Commissioner Tschopp asked staff to address the parking lot light height and asked if it was within code. He also asked for clarification on the Edison situation with the poles on Monterey. Mr. Drell wasn't sure how high the parking lot lights were; commercial lots were typically 20 to 30 feet. They either have more or less of them and have better lighting when they are higher. Mr. Smith thought they were 24 feet. Mr. Drell said that was below what their maximum could have been. The issue with Edison, Edison was impacted by the same increase in construction activity. Their crews are being hit with the requirement to either underground or move poles all over the place and it was getting them to schedule them in terms of their job that took a long time. Obviously it was to Lowe's advantage to get it done sooner rather than later, it was just that Edison was way behind. As it turned out, they would have to have poles in the street for a while so the street work can be finished. The timing on either side was conceivably unavoidable, but it didn't really change the issue. Landscaping would get put in by Regency and assuming their landscape plan anticipated the fact that they are on a major arterial across from a commercial project, hopefully their landscaping took into account that they would want to buffer their project from Monterey, which was a very busy street. � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � Commissioner Tschopp confirmed that the height of the trees on the east side of Monterey was limited by Edison. Mr. Drell concurred; staff was told they could go up to 15 feet. Trees are Acacia Smallii, which is a tree, not a shrub and it grows to about 12-15 feet. The other is a tree variety of Caesalpinia which also grows 12-15 feet. That was as good as they could do. They eliminated all the palms and they eliminated Stenophylla. They scratched for all the landscaping they could get on that side. He thought the Regency people were correct. The opportunity is on the west side where there is plenty of room and no power poles. The choice was to put a residential project backing onto a major arterial, two of the largest arterial streets in the Coachella Valley, and in doing that one would have anticipated that the need to buffer that from both the street and the commercial project which was regional commercial designated dating back to 1988. Their solution was correct. Their issue is whose obligation was it to create that mitigation. Commissioner Tanner said he had a question for Mr. Mandell. When Mr. Wilkenson came up he said that the trees have an 80-foot separation between each of the trees. Mr. Drell clarified that was the separation between the trees and the median. The trees on their property, they probably have one every 20 or 30 feet. By definition, they require a tree every third � parking space. So that was 27 or 30 feet. They were correct that the ground is sloping away, so the effective way to screen the building is to get those trees as close to Regency as possible. There they have all the room, they have no power poles and thaYs the effective place to put the screening. Mr. Mandell said that one thing he forgot to mention in his discussion with Mr. Wilkenson is that Mr. Wilkenson told him that they intentionally added more landscaping on the north side of their property because they knew there was going to be commercial to the north. Mr. Mandell asked if he knew there was going to be commercial on the other side of the street and he said no, he didn't know that. Mr. Mandell noted that this property has been zoned commercial since 1988. Why they wouldn't continue the landscaping down the east side he didn't know. He didn't think that was Lowe's responsibility. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Aside from the lighting and the landscaping issue with regard to the housing project and sticking to the issue before them, Commissioner Finerty 17 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 ... appreciated the fact that Lowe's called to their attention the difference between display and storage. She could see where there was miscommunication and it was much better that they brought it here instead of just putting it out there. She appreciated that. She agreed with staff that the plant material was an asset and she would have no problem with that. Additionally, she wouldn't have any problem with the swing set, tent, grill display and that sort of thing. Where she had a problem was with the storage units and the pallet materials. She liked the Eagle's idea which she raised earlier. She was sorry that Lowe's didn't incorporate that design element because she thought it was a really nice way to solve the problem. With regard to the storage units, she commented that perhaps the store needed to be built larger to accommodate the display of storage units and when they look at what is being asked, they have something on the north, something on the south and something in front of the garden center. There basically was merchandise all around the store for display purposes. She understood because at the Lowe's in La Quinta, seeing the flowers in the front makes her inclined to buy it. It was a great tactic. So she would really like to see the first two items allowed and her preference was to not allow the storage units and pallets. Commissioner Campbell said that this evening they had before them a � request to allow merchandise to be displayed, so whatever Versailles had to say with regard to the plantings, the sign, the lighting, she thought that was a problem they should have seen years ago when those homes were being built. There were complaints about Home Depot regarding their trees when driving north on Monterey. Home Depot has been there many years, yet their trees never seem to grow any. So she was just disregarding that completely. As far as the outdoor display, comparing it to something like Home Depot, she had no problems with any of the flowers, there would be screening in front of the lumber section. Home Depot was different in other states and she could understand having the construction workers driving in early in the morning picking up their stuff and leaving. It all depended on what material was on the pallet as far as the height was concerned. As far as the storage units and their location, they were on the north side of the building where there was mostly parking and they would have Sam's and those uses on that side of the street and no residential, so she didn't see a problem with having the storage sheds. She was in favor of approving the project as requested with the amendment. Commissioner Tschopp said the issue truly was the outdoor display and not the lighting or landscaping. It wasn't storage of materials in front of or on the �••• 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � sides of the building, so he was overall in agreement with staff's proposal. He had no problem with Lowe's idea to screen the one area with trellises and vines as long as it was well screened and the plant materials were maintained and looked attractive. He said it might actually be an addition and believed that it could be done very well. He was very sympathetic to the homeowners across the street, but the developer of that project was very well known, respected, and has been in the desert a long time and built a lot of these type of developments and certainly knew that there was commercial going in across the street and certainly should have and should be willing to screen some of that with more planting material on his property. It would be very surprising if he missed the commercial going in and very surprising if he wasn't willing to do something for his buyers to help screen the commercial he knew was going in across the street. While that wasn't the issue, that was his two cents. He believed that as proposed by staff and modified by Lowe's that the proposal would work well. Commissioner Tanner said he, too, was sensitive to Versailles and their concerns. He was also in favor of the proposal in front of them with the conditions that had been implemented. However, he would also encourage Versailles, Regency Homes and Lowe's to get together. They would be neighbors and they needed to be good neighbors. If there was some way to � share in some of the expense to shelter and screen them, he would encourage Lowe's to do it. He said he would also like to see the screening be something that would not be blown down by the wind corridor they were in and that it be something of a very substantial nature so that they didn't have a constant eyesore driving down Monterey. With that, he too was in favor of the proposal, but would like to see some cooperation. Chairperson Lopez said they would probably want to take a look at Condition No. 3 as it pertains to either some additions or revisions to this condition. Mr. Smith suggested additional verbiage to the effect that, "Alternatively, the applicant may design a trellis/vine system on the west side of the porte cochere in the indoor lumber area to create an effective screening system." Commission concurred. Chairperson Lopez thanked the neighbors from Rancho Mirage for taking the time to come out and speak with them. He appreciated their concerns and would only ask that Lowe's and Regency get together to work out the issues discussed this evening. As far as the application before the Planning Commission, he did not want to see the area remain outdoor storage during the evening. He was sure all the plants would be brought inside and there 19 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 .... would be some type of responsibility for the outdoor areas and how they look. Lowe's in La Quinta was a very nice facility and he thought Lowe's could be proud to say that this facility is head and shoulders above their nearby competitor. So with the revision of Condition No. 3, he would also be in favor. He asked for a motion. Commissioner Campbell moved for approval with the revision to Condition No. 3. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2378, approving Case No. PP 04-13 Amendment #1, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). B. Case No. TT 34391 -TRANS WEST HOUSING, INC., Applicant � Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 9.69 acres into 32 single-family lots (8,749 square feet minimum size) located on the east and west sides of Shepherd Lane 2,400 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report and recommended approval by adoption of the draft resolution, subject to the conditions. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. KRIS SCHULZE, with NAI Consultants representing Trans West Development, came forward. He thanked staff for their prompt attention and said they had been very helpful on this project. He said they accepted the conditions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. �•• 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21. 2006 � Commissioner Finerty stated that she was always pleased to move for approval of a low density project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Chairperson Lopez also commented that it was a very nice looking project and called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2379, approving Case No. TT 34391, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. GPA 06-01, C/Z 06-01 and TT 31676 - CORNISHE OF BIGHORN, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to allow the subdivision of 11.87 acres into 7 lots and construction of four single family homes adjacent to the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf Club"west of � Indian Cove and south of Dead Indian Creek, and a request by the City of Palm Desert for a general plan amendment from Low Density Residential (Study Zone) to Hillside Reserve and zone change for a portion of the property from Planned Residential 5 units per acre (PR-5) to Hillside Planned Residential. Mr. Joy explained that this property is located between the Canyons at Bighorn and the Bighorn Institute approximately a quarter mile west of Highway 74. He said the property is surrounded by a buffer that was placed on the project as a condition of approval for the Canyons project.�T'he buffer was placed for the purpose of the captive sheep at the Bighorn Institute. Initially, the project consisted of 57 units and that was scaled down to 38 units because it didn't meet the zoning in place on the property. Through the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) process it was scaled down to a four-unit project. The EIR was required due to the probable impacts on the bighorn sheep captive at the Institute. He explained that the project as shown has access primarily from Indian Cove through an access easement that was provided as part of the Canyons 21 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � at Bighorn project and it consisted of four lots approximately an acre in size. He thought there was probably half an acre of usable area, very comparable to what was built at the Canyons project adjacent to this property. The area to be graded was similar to other projects proposed on the property. Mr. Joy said they referred to it as a five-acre plateau. It sits on a plateau. He pointed out Dead Indian Creek to the north of the site and said there was a small canyon to the side. He pointed out a large outcropping that would be preserved, as well as Dead Indian Creek. That was part of their proposal. Mr. Joy indicated that the Environmental Impact Report studied a range of alternatives including the project itself, an eight-unit project, a finro-unit project and a no project alternative. Unfortunately, the only project that could be constructed per the EIR was the two-unit project that would encompass an area of approximately one acre. He pointed out the location on the display map. He said they didn't have a project being applied for right now that fit that description. In addition to that, the applicant supplied information regarding a possible inverse condemnation relative to the City's recently adopted Takings Ordinance. If no use was allowed on the property, then it was a Takings and the City would have to buy the property. � Included with the application was a request for a general plan amendment and change of zone. Mr. Joy noted that during the General Plan Update process, this property was labeled as a study zone because it wasn't analyzed as to whether or not it should be zoned hillside or not. As part of the application, along the way they had a hillside slope analysis prepared showing that it is hillside property and, therefore, the City was initiating a general plan amendment and zone change to the hillside designation. He said they didn't have a two-unit plan that would fit the EIR recommendation as something that could be approved. Along with the City Attorney's time to take to review the information on the Takings Ordinance and also the time to respond to all the comments that were submitted on the EIR, staff was requesting a continuance of this hearing to the next meeting. He informed the Commission that the consultants who prepared the EIR were in the audience to answer any questions regarding the EIR and asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked for staff's opinion on the general plan amendment and zone change. Mr. Joy said this was something they were trying to get done during the General Plan Update itself. They were mostly waiting for this information to come forward as to whether the site was �•�• 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � hillside topography/characteristics. That's why they were initiating the general plan amendment and change to hillside zoning. Commissioner Finerty asked what else needed to be done before that could be approved. Mr. Joy said it would be the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council and then City Council approval. Commissioner Finerty asked if a resolution was needed for that. Mr. Joy confirmed a resolution was needed. Commissioner Finerty noted that they didn't have a resolution before them tonight. Mr. Joy said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty reiterated that they were hearing it concurrently. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked if there was a reason why they couldn't proceed with the hillside reserve designation now. Mr. Drell explained that in terms of phasing their recommendation, the Planning Commission could direct staff to prepare the resolution for that portion independently of the rest of the project if they chose to do so. Commissioner Tschopp said he had questions, but would withhold them at this time. Chairperson Lopez reiterated that it was staff's recommendation that this item be continued to the meeting of March 7. Mr. Drell concurred. ,� Chairperson Lopez o en the public hearing and asked the applicant to , address the Commission. MR. PATRICK PERRY, an attorney with Allen Matkins, stated that he was present on behalf of Cornishe of Bighorn, the owner of the property. He identified his address as 515 S. Figueroa Street in Los Angeles. He said he would like to give the Commission a brief history as to how they got to where they were this evening. As Mr. Joy indicated, Mr. Perry said the property was originally included within a 400-yard buffer zone that was created in connection with the approval of the Canyons. At that time it was the Altamira Country Club and now the Canyons of Bighorn in 1991. This property was never owned by the Canyons or its predecessors, but was included in the buffer zone. There was always an understanding between the City, and there was a Settlement Agreement in connection with the court case that was brought that the property would be permitted to, not necessarily be developed, but that an application for development would be considered by the City, and the 23 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 �.�. Bighorn Institute, as well made that commitment within that Settlement Agreement. About two years ago the proposal was brought forward, as Mr. Joy indicated, for a 57-unit condominium subdivision on the property. The property is zoned predominantly PR- 5, which is five units per acre. A portion is zoned Hillside Planned Residential right along the eastern edge, but under the calculations done at the time, based on the area of the lot which is approximately 12 acres, it was determined that 57 units was the maximum that could be permitted on the property under the existing zoning. They went through the General Plan Update process, also alluded to, and there was a proposal to redesignate this property to hillside reserve. He appeared at numerous Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings and requested they not do that at that time to allow the permitted density to be determined through the tract map process rather than through the General Plan Update process. The City Council ultimately maintained the designation, which is low density residential, but placed a special study area designation on it as well. His understanding at the time was to allow this process to go forward and the density to be determined in connection with the � tentative map rather then at that time with the General Plan Update. Mr. Perry stated that at that time they withdrew the application for the 57 units and substituted an application for 38 units, which would be a condominium project. It consisted of five residential lots which would be developed with seven separate multi-family structures. Five of those structures woutd contain six multi-family units each. Two of the structures would contain four multi-family units for a total of 38. The project as proposed had two means of access. The primary means was actually from a recorded easement that was granted back in 1956 which provides access to the property from the north. The secondary means of access would be from Indian Cove on the east through the paper street that was created as part of the final subdivision map for the Canyons project. They undertook a number of discussions with the representatives of the Canyons at Bighorn and they were not particularly favorable toward their use of that northern easement because it goes through their golf course. So they investigated as a result of those discussions the possibility of reducing the size of the project so that it would not require finro means of access for emergency ingress and egress. They �.► 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21. 2006 � came up with an eight-lot subdivision proposal which was very similar to the 38-unit subdivision except that instead of having multi-family structures on the lots they were proposing to have single family structures on the lots. There would be a total of eight of those and the only means of access would be from the east, the road system, as well as the pad heights and the grading and so forth would be very similar because it was effectively using the same grading, roads and so forth that they had used for the 38-unit subdivision except they were eliminating the northerly access. Mr. Perry said he met with the Fire Marshal last summer to review this and make sure this would be acceptable to the Fire Department. The Fire Marshal indicated that he would approve this with a single means of access as long as the units were all fully sprinklered, that adequate hydrants and fire flow were provided, that the access road would be at least 25-feet in width and no longer than 1,300 feet in length. The 38-unit project was the project studied in the Draft EIR that was circulated. They proposed this as an alternative to be studied in the EIR so that in the event that this was the project they actually wanted to present, they wouldn't have to go through additional environmental review. They would already have had the environmental review on the ,� project. There was also the third alternative mentioned by Mr. Joy which was a two-lot subdivision which would be located in the extreme northeast corner of the property. Through the EIR process, it was determined that this project would have less impacts environmentally than the 38- unit subdivision, but it would still have some environmental impacts, the residual environmental impacts that could not be mitigated to below a level of insignificance. There were four categories of impacts identified in the EIR. They were noise, air quality, traffic and impacts on biological resources. The traffic impact was an impact on the streets within the Canyons at Bighorn project, it wasn't on public rights-of-way, but because of the volume, at least for the 38-unit project, the volume of traffic would create disturbances-increased volumes of traffic on the private street system. The determination there was that if five or less single family homes were proposed, that the traffic impact on those private streets would be eliminated. 25 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21. 2006 � He said the air quality impact had to do with activities during construction, primarily grading, dust that would be generated during the grading process, as well as truck trips and heavy equipment diesel exhaust, and so forth. The noise impact was actually an impact on the captive breeding population at the adjacent Bighorn Institute to the south. That the noise impacts during construction, as well as during actual operation of the project, would be above ambient noise levels by certain thresholds and, therefore, would result in a significant impact on the sheep. The impacts on the biological resources had to do with the fact that it would be developed within the buffer area created back in 1991 with the original Canyons project. In reaction to what they perceived to be those impacts, they determined to reduce the number of units still further from eight units to four, which was the project before them. The idea was to eliminate the traffic impact entirely because they have less than five single family residential units proposed. The grading impacts on this particular scheme would be significantly less then they would be for the eight-lot or the 38-unit subdivision. They didn't know for sure because the analysis hadn't been done and didn't have the actual � calculations, but would assume they would be significantly reduced or eliminated due to the reduced amount of grading that would be involved during the construction process. Mr. Perry said that many of the features that were incorporated into this scheme are features that were recommended with respect to the two-lot alternative, which is found not to have any environmental impacts at all within any of the categories identified. The location of the road was placed so that it would not be visible. It would be screened and not be visible from sensitive areas within the Bighorn Institute. The design would be natural materials--passive design. Landscaping would be native, drought tolerant. All of the mitigation measures that were recommended in the EIR for the project would be implemented and they had no objections to any of those mitigation measures. Therefore, they felt this project met the goals of what the EIR process was designed to achieve, which was to substantially reduce, if not completely eliminate, the environmental impacts identified. He said it has been a process of accommodations, both to the Canyons in order to alleviate their concerns with respect to access and use of the northerly easement. It had also been a process of accommodation to alleviate concerns or at least impacts that would �+ 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21. 2006 � be created on the captive breeding population within the Bighorn Institute and they made a significant effort to do that and reduced the project significantly in the process. Mr. Perry said they've had extensive discussions with representatives of the Canyons at Bighorn. At this point they've not voiced any objections to their proposal. They've not made a commitment and come out in support yet. Those discussions were ongoing, but at this point they've certainly raised no objections. He said they were in the process of ineeting and discussing the project with the Bighorn Institute. They had not had a meeting yet. They've had a lot of back and forth trying to schedule it and believed that it was finally scheduled for the end of the week. They would like to go forward to understand any of their additional concerns and so forth and see if there was any way those could be further accommodated. In one brief conversation he had with the attorney for the Institute over a year ago, he indicated that it would be their preference that they develop entirely outside the buffer zone. Unfortunately, that was simply not possible with this particular property. He pointed out on the map the only portion outside the � buffer zone. He said that left a portion of the property between 9,000 and 10,000 square feet, approximately a quarter of an acre in size, which was entirely within the Dead Indian Creek watershed. So it really was not feasible to develop that outside the buffer area. As Mr. Joy mentioned, they have raised some issues with respect to regulatory takings. If they were precluded from being able to do any development anywhere other than outside the buffer area, that would make it economically unfeasible to develop the property completely, which was the legal definition of a regulatory taking. They also felt that the two-lot alternative that was proposed provides an insufficient amount of the property that is developable because a considerable portion of that area is within Dead Indian Creek and would not be able to be developed. There would also be issues potentially with the Army Corps of Engineers to get permits, to dredge and fill within the stream bed, liability issues with respect to building within a flood plain, etc. So that is where they were. They were trying to accommodate the neighbors and still come up with what they felt was a reasonable level of development under the circumstances. He urged them to approve this proposal at the same time with respect to the general plan 27 �.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � amendment and the zone change proposed. He didn't have an objection to seeing this property down zoned; however, they would not like to see it down zoned in such a way that it would preclude the development of four lots as proposed. Under the hillside zoning, he believed one unit was allowed per five acres and that would reduce the number of units to two. He reiterated that they would like to go forward with four as shown and he was available to answer any questions. There were no questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project, noting that this item would be continued to March 7, 2006. MS. AIMEE BYARD, a biologist at the Bighorn Institute, 73-382 Catalina Way, said she wanted to briefly let the Commission know that they submitted comments during the public comment period and hoped they got a chance to read them. They were still very concerned with the proposed project because it would invade the buffer established and would have unavoidable significant impacts on the captive herd, which is directly related or helping with the recovery � efforts for endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. There was no one else wishing to address the Commission on this matter. Chairperson Lopez left the public hearing open and asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell moved to continue the case per staff to March 7, 2006. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was not opposed to continuing the application; however, she requested that staff prepare a resolution of approval for the hillside reserve designation. Regretfully, they weren't provided with a resolution for approval tonight and staff chose to put this through concurrently. She wanted the motion for the continuation to include directing staff to prepare the resolution of approval for the general plan amendment to Hillside Reserve and changing the zone to Hiflside Planned Residential. Mr. Drell explained that by doing that it basically prejudged their decision on the rest of the project because the Hillside Reserve required a minimum five-acre lot size. And while the Hillside zoning has some exceptions language in it,they could not approve residential densities greater than the maximum identified in the General Plan. So basically the approval of the general plan amendment would basically preclude any approval of a project greater than two units. The idea was to make sure that whatever the �• 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � Commission's recommendation was on the project, that it be consistent with the recommendation on the general plan amendment and zoning. That's why they were together. Staff recommended the designation in the General Plan during the update and were still recommending that designation. But to give the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council the prerogative to approve a project they support, it required them to do it in coordination with the general plan designation. Commissioner Campbell stated that her motion still stood to continue the case to March 7. Commissioner Tschopp asked if March 7 was adequate time. Mr. Drell said there were some other issues regarding the scheduling of these cases as there was another associated case going to Council in consideration of the Multi Species Plan and at the request of a councilman, he wanted these handled concurrently and in a relatively expedited process in terms of time. He said it could get continued again, but hoped by the next meeting they would have more information relative to assessment of the impacts of the various other alternatives suggested. He believed they could move the ball down the field and hopefully achieve the goal. He believed they would be in a position to make a specific recommendation and provide all the required resolutions so that an action could be taken on the 7th. Commissioner Finerty asked when he said all resolutions if that meant there ,,,� would be a resolution for approval and denial of the HPR. Mr. Drell said they would provide a full catalog so they wouldn't have to come back for more resolutions. Commissioner Finerty thanked him. Commissioner Campbell amended her motion to include preparation of all resolutions. Commissioner Tschopp requested that in their packets for the March 7 meeting that staff include staff's understanding of the Settlement Agreement that Mr. Perry referenced. Mr. Drell said he could tell them right now. To clarify, he said this property was not included in the buffer. He was sure Mr. Perry miss spoke when he said that. Since this property was not part of the application, impacts of any development of this property was not subject to the EIR and very expressly, explicitly, they did not include any specific requirements or burdens on this property as a result of the Canyons at Bighorn project. That was all deferred until there was an actual application for the property and that was what they were doing now. There was no buffer on the property. He believed the history was in the staff report, but for the first Canyons project resulting from the first EIR, there were those that believed no buffer was necessary, people who believed a mile buffer was necessary, and 400 yards for the Canyons project was the determined compromise in terms of area of nondevelopment. They couldn't even play 29 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � golf on it. The golf course had to be outside the buffer. There were lawsuits from both the County and the Institute. The settlement of the lawsuit included an addendum to the EIR which eliminated the buffer entirely and a sum of $2.8 million was supposed to be paid from at that time Altamira to the Institute to move the pen. So instead of the project creating a buffer, the buffer was created by physically moving the pens to 400 yards away from the project. When the Canyons came back with their real project, to implement that agreement the information that was received from California Fish and Game, who are the custodians of the sheep, said that the current pen was the ideal place to breed sheep and therefore to move it there was to risk they would have an inferior environment to breed sheep and have potential ramifications on the whole effort. So basically the conclusion was that the Department of Fish and Game would not grant the Institute the authority to move the pens. So in essence they couldn't perform on the Agreement, on the stipulation and the Canyons at Bighorn in essence swallowed that and said okay, we'll restore the buffer. That's how the buffer came back. Again, the stipulation itself removed the buffer. In terms of reading the comments, the court stipulation actually removed the buffer, but as events transpired, the buffer came back and that appeared to be the simplest way to solve the problem and allow the Canyons to move forward. � Commissioner Tschopp noted that Mr. Perry referenced an Agreement that he thought Cornishe agreed to. He asked if Cornishe was not in Agreement to that Settlement Agreement. Mr. Drell said that Cornishe had no role. There was a condition in the first Altamira approval. He took that back. When the buffer was removed as part of the first addendum, there was a condition that the Canyons would make, in essence, an effort to incorporate this property into their development. With the buffer removed, the site was not in conflict with any environmental issues. Any condition that says make a good faith effort to acquire was not all that enforceable, but when the buffer was restored as part of the approval of what ultimately became the Canyons, that condition went away because there was some question as to the level of development that this property might be subject to because of the evidence provided in the previous action. Again, up until this point there had been no specific action or agreement involving this property with the City or he believed with Canyons at Bighorn. Everything thaYs happened subsequent with Mr. Perry's discussion with Canyons principally involved the access issue. The Agreement he was talking about relative to the access had to do with switching the easement which was currently taking across the golf course and switching it to the east. �• 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � Chairperson Lopez stated that with the continuance the public hearing would remain open. Mr. Perry stated that he wished to provide some clarification with regard to the Settlement Agreement. It was his understanding that there were two separate sets of Settlement Agreements. One was the one Mr. Drell just discussed, which was to settle a lawsuit befinreen the County and the Bighorn Institute on one side and the City and the Canyons predecessor on the other side. That had to do with the relocation of the pens and so forth. There was a separate Settlement Agreement which he had a copy of and he would provide to the Commission prior to March 7 which was between the owners of this property at that time (at least two of them were continuing owners), as well as the Bighorn Institute and the City. Mr. Drell asked if it was ever executed. Mr. Perry said it was executed. It was executed by all the parties. Mr. Drell said he would like to see it. Mr. Perry said he would show it to him, he had a copy with him. � Chairperson Lopez stated that there was a motion on the floor for continuance and called for the vote. He noted that the public hearing would remain open. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, continuing Case Nos. GPA 06-01, C/Z 06-01 and TT 31676 to March 7, 2006 with direction to staff to provide draft resolutions for adoption at the next meeting. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - No meeting B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - No meeting 31 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21 2006 � C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - No meeting XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. r""�`°'�,_� ------_`�-� _ � PHILIP DREL Secreta�r,��,,,,,�..__ ATTEST: , ��_,..._ !�+ \. � ,� /r �"" JAME ;. : LbPEZ, Ch ir son Palm .Desert Planning C� ission l., /tm � � 32