HomeMy WebLinkAbout0307 �1��� MINUTES
�
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY - MARCH 7, 2006
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ,� * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners Tanner and Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair
Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair
Sonia Campbell
Van Tanner
Dave Tschopp
�
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney
Steve Smith, Planning Manager
Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner
Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner
Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Request for consideration of the February 21, 2006 meeting minutes.
A ti n:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, approving the February 21, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried
5-0.
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
„� Mr. Drell summarized pertinent February 23, 2006 City Council actions.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
..r
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.
A. Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04 - ERNEST RAMIREZ,
Applicant
Request for approval of a precise plan of design / conditional
use permit to allow a new Jiffy Lube oil change facility with a
variance allowing service bays to front onto a public street ..,
located at 74-180 Highway 111.
Chairperson Lopez noted that staff was recommending a continuance to
March 21, 2006. He opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished
to address the Commission regarding this matter. There was no one. The
public hearing was left Qpen and he asked for a motion by the Commission.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Finerty, continuing Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04 to March 21,
2006 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Case Nos. GPA 06-01, C/Z 06-01 and TT 31676 - CORNISHE OF
BIGHORN, LLC, Applicant
(Continued from February 21, 2006)
Request for approval of a tentative tract map and certification
of an 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
2 �"
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
...
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. Hargreaves requested that the Commission meet in Closed Session
under Threatened Litigation based on a letter received yesterday from the
applicant's attomey. The letter basically said that if the Planning Commission
followed staff's recommendation, it would result in a Takings under the Fifth
Amendment of the Federal Constitution. He asked that the Planning
Commission add to its agenda Closed Session under Government Code
Section 54956.9. In order to add it, a four-fifths vote of the Planning
Commission was required based on the fact that it was an issue that arose
subsequent to the posting of the agenda, and in his opinion it needed to be
addressed immediately.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
� Campbell, to add Closed Session to the agenda by minute motion. Motion
carried 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
Chairperson Lopez informed the audience that the Commission would go
into Closed Session for approximately 15 minutes. (The Commission left the
room, 6:09 p.m.)
CF�airperson Lopez called the meeting back to order at 6:20 p.m.
REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION
Action: �
Mr. Hargreaves announced for the record that no action was taken in the
Closed Session.
Chairperson Lopez reintroduced Public Hearing Item B.
� 3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
.�w
B. Case Nos. GPA 06-01, C/Z 06-01 and TT 31676 - CORNISHE OF
BlGHORN, LLC, Applicant
(Continued from February 21, 2006)
Request for approval of a tentative tract map and certification
of an Environmenta! Impact Report (EIR} to aflow 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.
Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was o�en and informed the
audience that this item would most fikely be continued. He asked if anyone
wished to speak on this item and invited them to come forward and address
the Commission.
Mr. Hargreaves recommended a staff report on the status prior to hearing �,
public testimony.
Mr. Joy expiained that this item was continued from the previous meeting to
allow the City Attomey more time to review the regulatory takings claim. The
applicant provided some information regarding this. He said more information
was needed and that the continuance was also to allow more time to prepare
a map in conformance with the less than significant impacts project, which
was identified in the EIR and the applicant has replied that in the Takings
Claim that that wouid not be a feasible project and he would not prepare a
map. The third reason was to allow the consultant more time to respond to
the comments on the EIR. He said there were a series of resolutions that
were prepared for the Commission tonight and there were a couple of
unresolved issues, so staff was recommending a continuance for another
month. He asked for any questions.
Mr. Hargreaves wanted to make it clear that one of the primary concerns at
this point is that there isn't a Final EIR. The CEQA process has not been
completed, so it would be inappropriate to consider the application without
that being final. They needed time to final it.
4 �+
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
...
Chairperson Lopez asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. PATRICK PERRY, on behalf of Cornishe of Bighorn, the
applicant for the project, came forward and indicated that he made a
rather lengthy presentation finro weeks ago and he wouldn't repeat it,
but wanted to let the Commission know that he was available for any
questions. He said they have serious concerns about the staff
recommendation and urged the Commission not to adopt the staff
recommendation currently proposed and urged them to go forward
and approve the application as proposed for a four-lot subdivision. He
requested the opportunity to respond if there were any comments in
opposition and thanked the Commission.
Chairperson Lopez invited testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the
matter. There was none.
The public hearing was left open and Commissioner Finerty said she would
move for a continuance. There was discussion as to whether one month was
sufficient time to have Final EIR comments completed. It was decided to
continue the meeting to the second meeting in April on April 18, 2006.
...
Acti
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, continuing this case to April 18, 2006 by minute motion. Motion
carried 5-0.
C. Case Nos. PP 05-28 and TT 33120 - ROBERT MAYER CORP.,
Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, precise plan of design and tentative
tract map for 49 residential lots on 8.63 acres at the northeast
corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive, 73-150
Country Club Drive.
Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. He also
indicated that additional input was received in the form of a letter dated
March 6, 2006 from Guralnick and Gilliland Attorneys at Law representing
Merano, outlining some concerns. A letter was also received from Dan
� 5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
.n
Olivier, an attorney on behalf of the Mayer Corporation responding to the
previous letter.
In response to the Guralnick letter of March 6, staff prepared additional
conditions of approval which added to Community Development Department
Conditions 11 and 12. Condition 11 required rear lot lines on Lots 46, 47, 48
and 49 to be relocated. In response to another letter included with the
Commission's packets, Condition 12 required that certain trees on the
northeast edge of the tract not be Acacia Salcinia and required replacement
trees. Mr. Smith said the applicant was fine with those conditions.
Additionally, today staff received revised conditions from Public Works
Department. One responded to the concern about dust problems. Condition
No. 20 was amended to indicate that it will be rigorously enforced. Conditions
26 and 27 added to the Speciaf Conditions of Public Works required,
similarly to the previous to the Community Development Condition, the
pedestrian easement be addressed on Lots 46-49. Lastly, that construction
traffic shall utilize the Via Scena access and grind/reseal the street prior to
project completion. He said that was probably the one remaining issue of
contention, which they wou{d hear tonight, whether construction access
should go through a signalized intersection at that point or be elsewhere. �
Public Works could explain the rationale for that if necessary. Mr. Smith
concluded and was ready to answer any questions.
There were no questions for staff. Chairperson Lopez o ened the public
hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. LARRY BROSE with the Mayer Corporation located at 660
Newport Center Drive in Newport Beach, California, 92660, came
forward. He thanked staff for processing this case. They have worked
with them and been in discussions with all the last minute changes.
They concurred with the conditions as originally drafted and with the
amendments tonight. They were fine with that. He said that attending
with him were representatives from Trans West Housing that could
answer any specific questions, as weli as their engineer for any
technical questions. He stated that he would like to reserve the right
to come back and speak based upon the conversation and testimony.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposed project.
6 .r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
...
MR. MICHAEL CARLE, President of the Homeowners Association,
209 Strata Fortuna in Palm Desert, California, 92260, came forward.
He said the Merano homeowners were in favor of the Commission
passing Mayer Corporation's proposed housing project. He said the
City received via fax and hand delivery a letter about the concerns
they raised. He said they met with Mayer Corporation at their
managemenYs office and discussed some of those concems with the
Mayer Corporation. The major concems were spelled out in the letter
received from their attorney and they just wanted the Commission to
take those into consideration on their behalf so that it was in the
minutes and the legal record. He said again that they were in
agreement with the project.
Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for Commission
comments or recommendations.
Commissioner Finerty said she was really delighted with the project and
thought it was an appropriate use and happily moved for approval.
Commissioner Campbell concurred. They've had many projects proposed in
,�„� that area before that the Merano residents did not care for, but after looking
at this, she asked if they really wanted this here. But if the Merano residents
want it there, she hoped that the residents from there wouldn't complain
about what goes on across the street in the Rancho Mirage side like
Planning Commission had at the last meeting with Rancho Mirage opposing
Lowes. She was in favor of the project and was glad they found something
that the Merano residents would be happy with.
Commissioner Tanner noted that Mr. Smith mentioned that there would be
an egress on Monterey. He asked if there was an entrance/egress right turn
only. Mr. Smith confirmed it was just an egress. There were problems with
creating enough stacking before the gate at that point, so it would not be an
ingress. Commissioner Tanner said he thought he read that in the report.
Mr. Smith said he was right and that he should have corrected that. It would
be egress only, right-turn exit only.
Commissioner Tanner thanked him and concurred with the other
Commissioners. He thought this would be a nice spot on the comer that has
been an eyesore for too long and encouraged the neighbors to work
together.
� 7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
..r
Commissioner Tschopp stated that he still believed the best use of this
property was commercial. Given that, the project implemented the residential
goals identified in the General Plan and moved this forward. He thought the
proposed project would be a logical transition and was in favor.
Chairperson Lopez also thought it was a great project. He said it was a very
attractive project that would add to the stability at that comer in the future. He
thought it was outstanding. Before going forward, he wanted to make sure
the record showed they have incorporated the revisions to the resolutions as
noted in the Public Works Condition Nos. 20, 26 and 27, and Community
Development Condition Nos. 11 and 12.
Mr. Drell asked if they wanted to discuss or mention at all the remaining
issue of the construction access on Via Scena. The letter from the
Association basically took issue with it. He asked if they wanted to talk about
it any further.
Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that it was a public street. Mr.
Drell concurred. Chairperson Lopez said it is signalized and that there was
a recommendation to the resolutions and conditions of approval that the
street will be repaired prior to completion of the project. Mr. Drell concurred. �
It was noted that there was a motion and second for approval incorporating
the conditions of approval as amended and Chairperson Lopez called for the
vote.
Acti
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2380, approving
Case Nos. PP 05-28 and TT 33120, subject to conditions as amended.
Motion carried 5-0.
D. Case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20,
EUGENE BREZNOCK AND CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants
Request for approval of a general plan amendment adding
Policy 10 and Program 10.A to the Residential Goals, Policies
8 �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
...
and Programs section of the General Plan; a zoning ordinance
amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing development
standards for an EI Paseo Overlay Zone; a change of zone to
add the EI Paseo Overlay Zone to R-3 and Planned
Residential to certain properties; and a precise plan/conditional
use permit to allow the construction of a new 12-unit, 36 keys,
hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report, explaining the proposals. He said they
were looking at both simultaneously to determine if this is the policy that the
City is looking to go in the future and if the proposed project met the goals
and policies. He informed the Commission that the proposed EI Paseo
Overlay Zone and project were both presented to the EI Paseo Merchant
Improvement District and a letter from them was received in support. He
noted that staff received letters from neighbors and some of the concerns
were addressed in the staff report.
Concerns included commercial traffic and speeding on Shadow Mountain.
He talked with Public Works Department staff and they agreed that
commercial traffic has probably increased with deliveries to The Gardens
� and the delivery routes coming from other locations off of Portola. One
suggestion by a neighbor was to post a "No Thru Commercial Traffic" sign;
however, according to Mark Greenwood, federal and state law prohibit cities
from stopping delivery vehicles from using the most direct route. He said it
would basically be unenforceable because they would have to take truck
drivers to court and prove that this isn't the best and most direct route. It also
wouldn't stop trucks from making necessary deliveries on Larrea and
Shadow Mountain themselves. There were some offices located on Larrea
and Prickly Pear and those trucks couldn't be stopped.
Mr. Bagato said the other option was closing the streets in that area.
However, that wasn't a good idea because Shadow Mountain is a collector
street, not a local street, and there is more traffic on a collector street. It also
provided access to EI Paseo for the residents. That wasn't supported by the
Public Works Department. He stated that the speeding issue has been
addressed and the Police Department has been informed. He said there
should be increased enforcement throughout the neighbofiood; they were
notified on February 24.
Another neighbor concern had to do with sidewalks within walking distance
to EI Paseo. Mr. Bagato said that was also something the City wanted to
.... g
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
�
promote. One of the policies in the general plan amendment stated that the
City shall design a uniform, continuous sidewalk plan if this general plan
amendment is approved. The City could adopt a strategic sidewalk plan into
a capita! improvement plan. For the proposed project there would be a
continuous sidewalk to EI Paseo and a new sidewalk would be constructed
with the project.
Mr. Bagato said another issue had to do with roof decks and he indicated
that parapets addressed those privacy concerns. He said that after writing
the staff report 16 letters in opposition were received citing concerns with
traffic, height, and density. He said there was also a letter in favor in addition
to the one received from the EI Paseo Merchants.
In conclusion, staff looked at the need to provide a stronger economic
market for EI Paseo to compete with other commercial centers in the valley
and the new design centers implemented wouid hopefully promote high end
boutique hotels. The hotel overlay zone would provide the standards for hotel
development and encourage redevelopment around EI Paseo. He felt the
proposed project met those goals and objectives. He recommended approval
of the EI Paseo Overlay Zone and the proposed project. He asked for any
questions. r,
Commissioner Tschopp indicated that Mr. Bagato spoke to the EI Paseo
Merchants Association and received a unanimous vote of approval. He
asked if staff held any studies with residents in the area regarding the
overlay or this project in particular. Mr. Bagato said no,just the legal noticing
for this meeting.
Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR.WILLIAM DeLEEUW, President of Villa Property Developers, the
applicant in this matter, came forward. He said the architect was also
present to answer questions about the project architecture. Mr.
DeLeeuw also said he would be happy to address anything that staff
hadn't covered with the economics of the project or the plans for the
project. He thought the staff report addressed many of the issues,
was very complete, and they worked with staff over the best part of
the last year to get the project where it is today. It wasn't the first
rendering or first shot at it. He said they worked very closely with staff
to address many of the issues of the neighbors in the area.
10 �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
...
He thought something that was very important and the reason for the
overlay zone and what this hearing was really about, because this
project could be built without the overlay zone, it just wouldn't be as
good a project. The project, like staff indicated, was approved once
before at 12 units. This was basically a 12-unit condominium project
that could be built under the existing zoning. The height and
everything else could be built. It wouldn't be as good as the one
proposed and he thought the overlay zone addressed some major
issues in the area.
Anybody in the area, and he read the letters from people in the area,
he thought their issues and concerns were very valid, but they didn't
really effect this project. If they walk up and down the street at Larrea,
what they would see is an abandoned building, one warehouse, and
a bunch of vacant lots. No development whatsoever in the area in the
last 15 years. Why? Because it was not economically feasible under
existing zoning and existing regulations. How long would that be? He
didn't know. He didn't know what the neighbors really wanted to
happen. They talked about the status quo and how great it is, but he
thought they haven't looked down that street.
...
They also talked about the disco at Augusta and that was valid, but
he didn't think that affected this project or the overlay zone. If
anything, the overlay zone would help with that. With the traffic, he
didn't see anything in this project that really effected the traffic. He
thought the biggest fear in the letters he read was change. This
wasn't a major change and was a change he thought was needed for
the Palm Desert area.
Mr. DeLeeuw said there is a threat to the economic viability of the
area by other cities. He said Indian Wells was trying to attract projects
like this to their city and trying to get the merchants on EI Paseo to
move down to Indian Wells. Two major developments were for lease
right now. They haven't broken ground yet, but they've contacted
most of the upscale merchants. The merchants want to stay in Palm
Desert and he thought the City wanted to keep them.
The overlay zone would bring people in. Hotels increase the tax base
for the City and secondly it hopefully brought affluent people into the
area to spend money and not drive to restaurants in other outlaying
areas. They will eat at restaurants and shop right in the EI Paseo
` 11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
..�r
area. In addition, he said the hotels would generate significant
transient occupancy tax for the city. So the City would win in a lot of
ways. He also thought the neighbors in the area, if they thought about
their concems, other than the fact that it would change some things,
it really was the best thing for the area. It is economic development
and it gets vibrancy into an area that is dormant.
Mr. DeLeeuw said right now there are homeless people living there.
The subject property has had about five notices over the last five
years for vagrants inhabiting the property. There was a motel that
would be demolished for this project.
He said he would like the architect to address some of the
architectural features regarding the height, but basically didn't
consider the hearing so much about this project as it was about the
overlay zone and about the economic viability of what would happen
to the EI Paseo area. He thanked them and said he was present to
answer any questions from the Commission or the opposition.
There were no Commission questions.
..r
MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, 73-626 Highway 111 in Palm Desert,
stated that he was the project architect and would be happy to answer
any questions.
There were no questions for the architect. Chairperson Lopez said he would
ask for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matters before the
Commission. Starting with testimony in favor and referring to the Request to
Speak cards submitted, he invited Mr. Fletcher to address the Commission.
MR. DAVID FLETCHER, 73-061 EI Paseo, Suite 200, in Palm Desert,
came forward. He stated that he manages a number of buildings on
EI Paseo, seven different properties. He has been managing the
buildings since 1987.
He stated that he was present for two reasons. First, to comment on
the project itself. He thought it was a great project architecturally arrd
on its own. He was present more to speak on the overlay zone and
impart on them his feeling that this overlay zone is very important to
the ongoing success of EI Paseo. They are getting more and more
competition in the valley for their retail stores and the more customers
12 ""
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
...
they can bring to EI Paseo that are close by, the better it would be for
those stores and their economic viability.
One of the things they see with their stores is the challenge to bring
people from the hotels the City has put in place. They are great
hotels, but they are a distance from EI Paseo and it is a challenge to
get people into their cars when they are on vacation and get them to
EI Paseo. He noted the difference in current foot traffic on EI Paseo
versus downtown Palm Springs or Union Square. A couple of years
ago he was in San Francisco and was standing at Union Square and
wondered where all the people were coming from in the middle of the
day. Didn't they have to go to work? He looked around and realized
that economic base was surrounded by a million hotels 20-30 stories
tall. They were missing that from EI Paseo. And he wasn't suggesting
they have 20-story tall buildings in the middle of Palm Desert, but
thought if they could put in some upscale boutiques near EI Paseo
that would be a big benefit to the street. He thanked them.
Referring to the next card, Chairperson Lopez invited Ms. Messenger to
come forward. He said the card didn't indicate whether the testimony would
` be in favor or opposition.
MS. FAITH MESSGENGER, 73-860 Shadow Mountain in Palm
Desert, said she is a resident of Palm Desert living on Shadow
Mountain. She was present to voice her approval of the proposed
project on Larrea and the proposed general plan amendment that
would add the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone.
She informed the Commission that she has lived and worked in the
valley for well over 25 years. She has been witness to the growth of
Palm Desert and the building of the original Hahn shopping center,
which is now Westfield. When that project was first proposed to the
City of Palm Springs and that City declined Mr. Hahn's invitation to
bring value to the city by constructing a regional shopping mall with an
ice skating rink that would attract revenue and growth. The City of
Palm Springs had no future vision and was soon to discover what a
dramatic impact that would have on their business. Mr. Hahn went to
the City of Palm Desert and built his Town Center. From that point on
the city of Palm Springs has never recovered from the loss to
business to Palm Desert.
� 13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
..r�
Within a short time after the development and success of the Town
Center, EI Paseo was developed. In its original conception it was
designed to appeal to more luxurious shoppers that would enjoy the
intimacy of a small street setting to walk and enjoy outside window
shopping and buying.
Ms. Messenger said the proposed EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone
would enable the City of Palm Desert to enhance the special and
unique qualities of EI Paseo by allowing upgrading of existing zoning.
The proposed boutique hote{ with its quality design would speak to
visitors who wish a higher standard of accommodations that are within
walking distance to all of our shopping. This would translate to more
dollars spent here in Palm Desert.
Ms. Messenger thought it was important today to keep pace with
Indian Wells and their proposed development. They needed to hold
onto and capture revenue for our businesses here and this overlay
zone was the first step. They have a unique opportunity to enable
someone with a vision who is willing to take the risk with the City to
provide a new direction. She thanked them.
...�
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. There was
no response. Referring to the Request to Speak Cards expressing
opposition, he invited Ms. Cynthia Bliss to come forward.
MS. CYNTHIA BLISS, 73-780 Shadow Lake Drive, came forward.
She stated that she opposed the zoning change. She moved here
about five years ago and chose Palm Desert because it is quiet, she
can see the beautiful starry nights, and the traffic. Those were the
reasons she moved there. Now she sees the change of zoning and
she was worried about her property value, the increased traffic
already on her street with people driving through to go through to
Portola, and she was concemed about that. She was also concerned
about the increase in noise, increase in crime, and the loss of her
view. She said she has a view going out, which would be toward the
hotel, of the mountains.
She grew up in Corona many years ago and watched the changes
there. She watched what they did to that city. When she returns there,
there is nothing left of what she grew up with. She was concerned
because this is her home, her only home, and she was concerned
14 �""'
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
�
about the value. She hoped the Commission wouid consider her
comments. She was against changing the zone.
MR. GEORGE JOHNSON, 73-775 Shadow Lake Drive, addressed
the Commission. He said he lived finro or three blocks just above the
area. He met with Mr. Bagato, who showed him the plans for the new
building. He said he had no problem with any new projects going in.
He understood that money was usually what happened and that was
why a lot of those places in that type of area can't be developed the
way developers want to do them.
There were parameters that City Council and all the members have
put up, for instance the variance they are asking for is to go higher.
He was doing something for himself, but also was speaking for people
who might not want to go out or voice their opinion until iYs too late.
If they don't get out and voice their opinion or concems, things won't
happen. With this, he had no problems with any of the things going on
architecturally, it was a good looking design.
The problem he had is when they are going above a 24-foot level
� already, they are adding a 5'8" wall onto a sun deck or what was
going to be the jacuai area for people to go up and onto. They would
love to have great people who would not come in, have a few drinks,
get loud and obnoxious and then they would have to call the police
and the rest of the people who would have to get involved. It was
hard enough for them to take care of the disco or whatever it was that
plays music down further. He currently lives three and a half to four
blocks from that area and it carries through there like it's at the next
door neighbor's house. He called the police several different times
and they say they will go and take care of it. So that is a problem he
has with the noise level that will be impacting the neighborhood.
Mr. Johnson said the next thing that was going to happen, in the
police report that they reported back to Commission, they were
concerned about a crime rate that was maybe going to start to
happen because of the parking structure underneath the building. And
that would take more lighting that would go into adjacent houses and
single apartment buildings. He didn't know if they got to see any of the
pictures, but a neighbor took a picture out toward the mountains. Not
only would that picture be erased, they wouldn't be able to see the
mountains any more because of the structure going up. His neighbor
� 15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
.r
would also have lighting impeding into her place and he thought Palm
Desert had a low light situation and that's why there weren't a bunch
of street lights all over the place. Other than that, the noise was a
concern.
He was all for the architecture and related stuff. He would love to see
the city get better and better and love to see the whole community
and EI Paseo get better. He thought it was doing a great job already
with the renovations the City has commissioned so the face prints of
all the o{der buildings got redone. Everything was looking reaHy good,
so he had no problem with the actual development of the area.
Mr. Johnson did have a problem with the height and the privacy issue
because he thought people were usually above 5'8" with the
exception of some women and being able to look over into a woman's
unit, maybe when she was changing and forgot to close her drapes,
and that would be pretty devastating to a person. So those were the
issues he had.
MS. NANCY LEPPERT, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive, addressed
the Commission. She said her property is on the south and east �
corner of where this project is going. So she had concerns, mostly
having to do with height, noise and lighting. She wasn't against having
a project go through, the height was her basic problem. And the other
thing that Mr. Johnson mentioned regarding the police report and the
anticipated vandalism in the garage area and having additional
lighting and that sort of thing. That was going to be right in her back
yard.
In addition to that, her view wouid be changed as well because she
can look out her living raom and see San Jacinto. It's a nice view. The
project was pretty with nice colors, but it would block her view and that
was something she was very concerned with. She embraced the
change that was anticipated with this project and throughout the
whole EI Paseo and hotel district and whaYs going on. She thought it
was a very good idea, but didn't like the height, the noise or the light.
Even though there wasn't a lot of single residential homes right in that
Shadow Mountain area, there were numerous families that live there.
She thanked them.
16 r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
�
MS. SUSAN MYRLAND, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive, Unit 6,
addressed the Commission. She said that was the same one-story
co-op as Nancy and Faith. She walked around Larrea and around the
neighborhood and was very familiar with it. The first thing she wanted
to do was commend Mr. Bagato because she has been working with
him since she heard about this project in December and even though
he knows she is against it, he has never failed to be responsive,
professional and friendly. She thanked him for that.
She stated that she was most definitely against this project, as was
her husband and several of their neighbors. What drew them to this
part of the valley is that it is an ideal mixed use neighborhood. They
can walk to EI Paseo, they can shop, have dinner and yes, contrary
to conventional wisdom, residents spend money on EI Paseo. She
has dropped her fair share of cash in those stores and restaurants. It
wasn't just tourists. Yet they can still hear the birds and see the stars
at night. It is a very unique, special place. They can still feel safe
walking around the neighborhood. She hadn't seen any homeless in
two years.
�, Ms. Myrland said the hotel kept growing and growing. It started out at
24 feet and then it became 28 and 31 and now it is 33 with the towers
and another three feet with the increased grade, so they are looking
at 36. Having that in her backyard would just destroy that. Right now
like Nancy she has a lovely view of the mountains and instead she
would be looking at a five foot eight inch stucco wall. The wall was not
the solution. The developer didn't want it, they don't want it, the
customers weren't going to like it. The high end customer wasn't
going to want to have their pool surrounded by a wall. The worst thing
was it wasn't going to solve the problem because noise travels up that
hillside. She didn't even realize until she started talking to her
neighbors how much of an issue the noise from Augusta and the night
clubs are along there. That noise funnels right up the hillside and they
would be able to hear it very clearly.
So the solution wasn't to keep going higher. The solution was to stay
within the existing zoning which was developed for a reason. All she
could say is don't kill the goose that has been turning out the golden
eggs by squishing in an overly dense project into an area where it
doesn't belong. What makes this area attractive to visitors and to
residents is it isn't like anywhere else. Indian Wells can build
� 17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
..r
something, it wouldn't be like the EI Paseo neighborhood because the
EI Paseo neighborhood is very distinctive. It has grown over the years
and has different styles of architecture. It wasn't cookie cutter.
She stated that the existing hotels are very good neighbors. They
have functioning attractive good boutique hotels in the area that
increase the appeal for visitors and for residents and they are busy,
so they are making money. When she sees that they want to allow
unlimited density and high waivers red flags went up for her because
this particular project, although {ovely, already exceeded the height
limit they would have under the resort zone. So that told her that this
was the first of many and they were all going to keep going up and up
and up. As Mr. Bagato said, several of them have expressed their
concerns to the Commission in writing and they are concerned about
the increase in traffic and the potential for crime. They are concemed
about the comment that the Palm Desert Police Department made
about the underground parking garage being a great concem for theft
and vandalism, so now they are going to light up the building at night.
She would be looking right at that building. The Architectural Review
Board tofd them it looked too squished even for an urban
environment, so putting a 36-key project in a space zoned for 18 keys �
was not the way to go.
Ms. Myrland was concerned that they have been working on this
project for a year and this is really the first time that the community
has been involved and learned about it. As Mr. Bagato said, they
have lots of multifamily units down Shadow Mountain Drive, so each
of those units received only one notice and it was up to the landlord
to circulate it around to everybody. So there are lots of people who
are completely unaware of how this project in particular and the
overlay zone might effect them. She was asking the Planning
Commission to take into account what the resort zone in this
particular project will do to the residents because they are the people
who will be looking at it, listening to it, dealing with the trash and the
traffic day in and day out. They were saying they can live with
reasonable change. She thought the existing zoning was the reason
why the area is valuable and attractive. They were not supporting
height waivers and special exemptions. What has been working is
working and is what has made this area beautiful and valuable. She
thanked them.
18 �"
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2006
...
MS. GAIL BASSIE, 73-298 Joshua Tree Street, addressed the
Commission. She stated that Joshua Tree is one street south of
Shadow Mountain. She said they started coming to EI Paseo about
10 years ago and about three years ago they bought a house to be
within walking distance of EI Paseo. She knew that EI Paseo was not
wanting for business or people. They have special places they go to
and they can't get in right now because iYs really busy.
One big red flag that went up for her is seeing that studies were done
without the knowledge of the residents. It sounded like it was on
purpose, that the reason is so they can slip it through and they
weren't contacted. She noted that Mr. Bagato stated that it's not a
large change in the height for this particular one, but she asked what
happens in five years when the next guy wants to come in and maybe
add another six feet or eight feet. Then they were talking about four
stories. ThaYs the problem with the changes. In a sweeping motion of
the change of the overlay like that, they don't know what the effect will
be in three years or next year because they don't know what might
come in. Traffic was already being diverted up her street. Her property
backs up to Shadow Mountain one group of houses past, so she
� expected this would change that.
Someone spoke comparing this to Palm Springs and foot traffic in
Palm Springs. The main difference she saw to foot traffic on EI Paseo
and the Palm Springs people is that the people on EI Paseo are all
carrying bags full of inerchandise that they've purchased. She
thanked them.
There was no one else wishing to speak regarding the project. Chairperson
Lopez offered the applicant the opportunity to respond.
Mr. DeLeeuw indicated that the architect could address the issue of
height. He was present if the Commission had any questions
regarding the density or other issues.
MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA said he knew he probably wouldn't
change the minds of the people in opposition, but wanted to provide
clarification. They have a two-story building behind this property on
the south side. That pad is about four feet higher then their pad. The
elevation of that building which is already two-stories and the
elevation of their building was basically the same. Whoever had the
+� 19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
.rr
view on that side certainly wouldn't have any view blocked because
their building would be the same height. That's one of the things.
He also indicated that someone mentioned how nice it was to walk to
EI Paseo and he said why not share that experience with visitors if it
was something we like and would like to promote.
He said the building was not 36 feet high. The parapets were about
28.5 feet on the end buildings and about 27 feet on the center
building. There were certain e{ements raised three or four feet higher
than that, but the buildings were not 36 feet high.
Regarding the parking concern, they saw the comments and were
considering putting in a gate for the residents of the project so they
would have a gate at the parking. So that issue they could also
address.
He said that perhaps people were not aware of this project because
up to this point they have been working with the City trying to address
any concerns or comments. It did take them about a year to get to this
point. They weren't trying to shove this or hide this, or have it at the �
last moment, it was just that it had taken this long to get to this point.
They weren't trying to put anything behind anyone or bring it in at the
last minute.
Mr. Ochoa said if they saw the rendering, especially the 3-D exhibit,
they would see that this isn't a low end type of project. This is very
high end and they were trying to make it the best as possible. They
were certainly not going to attract those not affluent enough to shop
on EI Paseo. ThaYs what they were trying to do.
Another comment he heard is that EI Paseo gets a lot of people
during the wintertime. He stated that his office used to be on Highway
111 on the south side for about six or seven years, so he has driven
EI Paseo at night and during the summertime and it is absolutely
deserted. There was no one there. He didn't think it was only this
project, but also the other elements needed to be addressed along
side the whole length of EI Paseo to really attract more people. EI
Paseo operates full year, not just during the wintertime. He wasn't
trying to change anyone's point of view, he was just trying to clarify
some of the comments he heard. He thanked them.
20 ""'
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
...
Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for comments or
action from the Commission.
Commissioner Campbell said after living in Palm Desert for 20 years, being
on EI Paseo in business for 18 years, and seeing how many changes have
taken place just on the street itself, when she opened her business 18 years
ago, there were many empty lots. The Gardens wasn't there and now they
see it and iYs all filled up. There are two-story buildings there. She noted that
there were many people who were against The Gardens at the time because
it was going to bring in more traffic on Shadow Mountain and now it just
seemed like everyone was living in a great environment.
Also, people have moved recently to Palm Desert to be close to EI Paseo.
They want to have that feeling of walking to a street, shopping and having all
those conveniences close to home. She didn't think they shouldn't be able
to share this with other people who want to go ahead and come to the desert
to have these big larger hotels. This hotel wouldn't be any different then
Shadow Ridge. It was lower in height and they could see from the rendering
that there weren't that many windows that people would be peeking out of to
see what was on the other side.
�` Commissioner Campbell also noted that people are saying there are so
many people on EI Paseo now and they can't get into the restaurants, but
when someone is in business,the three months from January through March
are their peak months. Then they struggle through those summer months
and it was the other people they want to bring into the city. If they have little
intimate hotels like this, and there are little hotels right there on Larrea and
Shadow Mountain which they really appreciate having, but to bring this
higher scale hotel to be near EI Paseo and have other people share in the
shopping and the convenience.
She was all in favor of this hotel and the zone change. They would see more
and more of those smaller homes there or even motels there that are in time
going to be replaced, but if not by little hotels like this, then other larger
developments. She was in favor of the change of zone and the hotel. She
thought it was a fabulous project.
Commissioner Tanner acknowledged that it was a beautiful project, there
was no question about that, but he shared the concern with one of the
speakers that this opened the door for future establishments with a greater
impact then 30 feet or 35 feet to those that are maybe on an equal level from
� 21
MINUTES
PALM�DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
.r
a pad standpoint. There was going to be disruption of the beauty of the
Coachella Valley, but that he thought was going to be mitigated by the pad
level. He was concemed about doing the overlay zone and doing the entire
rezoning to establish that as a precedent for areas further down and away
from this particular spot. Again, he thought this was a potentially beautiful
boutique hotel, something that EI Paseo and Palm Desert needs, but it would
open that door. That was his concern.
Commissioner Tschopp said there were finro issues here. One was the
concept of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone that would put small boutique,
upscale hotels in the vicinity of EI Paseo. He was generally in favor of that
because he believed the more people they could have living next to a very
nice commercial center like they have on EI Paseo, the more shopping they
would do and the better off it is for everyone in the city.
He was a little disappointed that they didn't study the issue a little bit further
and incorporate maybe members of the residential community around there
that would also be impacted by the changes of the zoning. He would like to
see it studied a little bit more, also given Commissioner Tanner's comments
that if they grant exceptions here, what is going to happen down the road
and how much will that density become as it spreads down toward EI Paseo. �,,
So overall he was in favor of the concept, but thought they needed to study
it a little bit more.
On the proposed development, Commissioner Tschopp thought it was
absolutely beautiful and was a great upscale concept. He wasn't concerned
so much about the traffic and crime really wasn't an issue because he
thought our Police Department would address it. The height wasn't really a
problem for him because the building behind it to the south is two-stories and
wouldn't be any taller than it except for some architectural elements. So he
didn't have a problem with the height. The only issue he had was the density.
They have an 18-unit maximum.
Five years ago they actually approved a finro-story 12 unit place and it was
not built. He didn't believe there was very much, if any, opposition to that
going in. So to him it had to be an issue of density and how it effects this
project and future projects down the road. So at this time he would like to see
the area studied a little bit more and this project studied a little bit more as
to how it fits into the whole general scheme.
22 """
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
...
Commissioner Finerty said she always has concern about height and she
also had concern about losing Palm Desert as we know it. She was also
worried that Palm Desert was going to turn into Orange County and one of
the reasons she left Orange County was because of how fast it was growing.
She believed that Palm Desert was growing way too fast now and she
wanted to see it slow down and would like to see them take a breath. While
this was a lovely project, she thought it belonged in a different part of the city.
It didn't belong in one of our neighborhoods. The reason she was opposed
to it in the neighborhood was because of the density and because of the
height. It was just not the place for it. For that reason she was opposed.
Chairperson Lopez looked at it the same way that Commissioner Tschopp
was looking at it. There are two distinct items here, although staff opted to
• put them together. The first was the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. He
thought the concept was one that merited an awful lot of review. Personally
he didn't know if it made much sense to have an ove�lay zone. He has spent
25-26 years here in the community. From San Pablo west there is a large
residential area that was fairly nice. IYs the area that goes east of San Luis
Rey and Larkspur where there are vacant lots and abandoned buildings. To
him as a resident it was a terrible eyesore and one that has a tremendous
amount of potential. Unfortunately, no one has opted to do this in that area,
� at least not from the standpoint of building homes and developing residential
areas there on that particular stretch. They had one come before them
before and unfortunately it never got off the ground. He drove around there
several times during the course of the weekend and said you just shake your
head and ask why isn't this taking off?
He thought they needed to take a look at the EI Paseo Overlay Zone and
take some more time to review it. He thought the concept was a very good
concept. IYs been said before that EI Paseo is considered the Rodeo Drive
of the desert. He has been in the resort business for a long time and EI
Paseo is one of the major selling factors when selling this destination. There
are great restaurants and great shops and they can feel proud when driving
down that road, any time of the year. For 4th of July when all the flags are
out, at Christmas with all the lights and it is an absolutely gorgeous place.
As much as he would like to make sure all of those shops are very very busy
and stay busy all year round, and the restaurants stay busy on a year round
basis, that's really a task that our leadership and the community had to take
to consider how to create more demand in this area during off season.
During prime season a person can wait a little while to get into restaurants.
� 23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
.r
On weekends the wait is a long time. But he thought the concept of the
overlay zone was a very good concept that needed more time for review.
Specific areas, one being where this particular project is located, is one they
needed to look at a little bit longer and take a good view of to welcome a
project such as this.
Chairperson Lopez said the second item was the project before them tonight.
He thought it was something that was really needed in that area and hoped
that a project like this would help just to bring in additional projects of a
similar quality. From a standpoint that this would be a boutique hote{
probably demanding relatively good sized rates, but obviously people would
have access to EI Paseo within walking distance to those areas. He was
concerned about the density and he was particularly concerned about the
height. Although there were architectural elements, he thought the
developer and architect could come up with some ideas that would he{p to
alleviate some of the concems in the community regarding the height. He
hoped they would work together on it.
At this point in time, he was not particularly in favor of the application before
them this evening, although he was not in opposition to the concept. He
thought they needed to review this a little bit more and pefiaps have a study �
group or at least have the community involved in it. They did a lot of work
with the General Plan and this was maybe a little different and smaller
concept in scope, but he thought it required more study. He was in
opposition to the project this evening.
Commissioner Finerty didn't know if the right thing was to continue this and
ask the applicant and architect if they were interested in scaling back the
project and reducing the density, the height, obtaining neighborhood input,
or to ask staff to prepare a reso{ution of denial. She asked if they could go
a little out of order and ask the applicant if this was something they would like
to look at.
Mr. DeLeeuw said there were certain things regarding the density.
Once again, this was proposed as a 12-unit condominium project with
strictly a conditional use permit allowing it to be operated conditionally
according to the terms staff would put out as a 36-unit hotel project.
He said they could build the 12 units right now, no problem. They
were providing 41 parking places for the 12 units now. The conditional
use permit probably wouldn't require that, it would only require 29 or
30 if it was strictly condominiums.
24 �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
.�
With all due respect, Commissioner Finerty said she wasn't asking Mr.
DeLeeuw to promote his project again, she was asking if he was willing to
talk with the neighbors and willing to go back to the drawing board and look
at scaling this back and reducing the height. Whether they wanted to say it
was 12 units, it had the potential for 36, so it's semantics and was still going
to bring in the increased density. She asked if he was willing or not to work
with them because that would determine the way the Planning Commission
decided to vote.
Mr. DeLeeuw thought they have worked well with staff and were
happy to work again with staff. There had been a lot of compromises
already regarding height and everything. Some of the height factors
were as a result of neighborhood input. There was neighborhood
input at every level. This was the first time it had been before the
Planning Commission, but it has been in the paper and in public
hearings before as recently as a month and a half ago. Yes, they
were willing to work with somebody. They didn't want to have the
project turned down by Planning Commission for something they
didn't do. A lot of the stuff they were proposing he thought had been
done already because there has been a lot of work on this project and
,,,,� a lot of work done with the overlay zone.
Commissioner Finerty noted that at the beginning Commissioner Tschopp
asked if there had been any meetings with the neighbofiood and she
believed Mr. Bagato said that other than the legal noticing, there had not
been. (Mr. Bagato concurred.) So there really hadn't been any input from the
neighbofiood. Generally developers wip go and have meetings and explain
their project while working with staff. This isn't generally the first opportunity
when trying to get a project approved that is out of the ordinary for a
residential neighborhood. This isn't the first opportunity they should be
meeting with the homeowners and the neighbors.
She noted that there was great concern here from a lot of the neighbors
because it was going to change the character of their neighborhood.
Therefore, since they were there first, they needed to be incorporated into
some of the initial conversations so that hopefully an agreement could be
reached. But at this point with the density and the height, she believed three
Commissioners were ready to give it the hands down unless there was some
compromise. She understood that he has already worked with staff and that
he has already made compromises, but what she was saying to him is that
this will require further work and further compromise.
� 25
�
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
..r
Mr. DeLeeuw thought a compromise was possible.
Mr. Drell said that what the applicant was trying to say is that he would like
a continuance to see this studied more. Commissioner Tanner asked if there
should be a point of order to reopen the public hearing. Mr. Drell said yes.
Chairperson Lopez said that this was a question to the applicant.
Action:
Commissioner Finerty moved to continue this matter for six weeks to give the
applicant time to relook at the project, meet with the neighborhood and to
see how he and his architect might go about reducing the density and the
height so that a project like this could fit better into the neighborhood.
Chairperson Lopez seconded the motion. He asked for further discussion.
Commissioner Tanner requested clarification. They were talking about the
overlay zone and to actually have a new zone. He asked if they were talking
about this right here today, because if that was the case he was not in favor.
Mr. Drell said they were talking about finro things. In order to build projects
like this, they have to change the standards in the R-3 zone. They could
change the standards wholesale in the R-3 zone which would then apply in
every zone in the city. Or through this overlay they could apply these �
standards very selectively and in only one location within the R-3 zone. So
they were saying that these height standards would not apply in every R-3
zone in the city, only within this confined area close to EI Paseo.
Mr. Drell explained that staff had a dilemma, as explained by Mr. Bagato, in
that in all our other planned zones there is an exceptions provision that says
if they have a unique project that they really like that has some differences
with standards, they can approve them on a case by case basis. That was
sti41 an option with this application. Instead of having this overlay zone, they
could put that little exceptions section into the R-3 zone.
He also said they weren't really creating a new zone in that respect. They
were applying some different standards very selectively in a particular area
to an existing zone. He said it would apply to the area identified on the
overlay zone map.
He indicated there were finro types of applications. They could separate them
if they wanted, but staff thought it would be good to talk about them together
because they could see the standards and see the project that would be
26 �+'
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
�...
developed according to those standards. But in theory and in practice they
were separate.
One is an application by the City to create a special set of standards in
proximity of EI Paseo for hotels and then to look at a specific project that
needs those standards for the Commission to approve it. If they felt
uncomfortable about designating this whole area or part of the area, they
could either make the area smaller if they felt it really only made sense east
of San Pablo, not west. Or if they'd rather, they could selectively put in an
exceptions section within the R-3 zone for hotels.
Commissioner Tanner said that would help with their discussions during the
next six weeks. He asked if these alternatives would be made available to
them. Mr. Drell said that was the other suggestion. To study it, he thought
they needed more specific direction and if they wanted to create a little
subcommittee to work with staff to talk about these issues. Unfortunately, on
stage isn't always the best place to delve into all these things. Again, they
have residents here and anyone here who wanted to participate, he
suggested that they submit their name and phone number to staff. He said
that with homeowner's associations it was a lot easier to contact people.
,r, Here they were talking about whole disparate areas and that's what they
have public hearings for. They notify everyone and they are having the input
here. But now if there are those in the audience who want to participate and
talk about this in a more intimate setting with some members of commission
and staff, anyone interested could submit their name and staff would set up
meetings.
Commissioner Finerty asked when they did the Freeway Overlay Zone if it
went to the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) and if that
committee was still around. Mr. Drell said it was not around. Commissioner
Finerty asked about creating something like that because this is something
unusual and she knew that if they changed it in this area, there was no
question that it would move up and down east and west EI Paseo. This was
opening the door. There was no question. Her thought was they needed to
really think this through about what direction they want it to go, how high they
want it to go, what the density would be and the full impact. She didn't know
if it would be advantageous to look at this as a project by project basis. Then
they would have a hotel here, a boutique there, and residential, and it would
be mumbo jumbo. They needed to have some well thought out plan for EI
Paseo to stay competitive with The River and with Indian Wells, rather than
to just piecemeal it. That was how she saw the direction they were heading
"'� 27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANN{NG COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
.r
right now. Piecemeal. And they needed to have a more well thought out
planning process.
Mr. Drell didn't think it was piecemeal. He said they were comprehensively
designating an area and setting the standards. He thought they were doing
the exact opposite. He said one could argue about the appropriateness of
the whole policy and if they want to actually attract hotels or not. If the
conclusion is they don't want to attract hotels, then surely they wouldn't want
to do this. That was the goal. But it was to do it comprehensively with what
staff thought was the minimum standards that would be required to attract
the money. As they knew, hotels were a very difficult business proposition
any where. They just had to talk to the City's Redevelopment Agency.
Commissioner Finerty clarified her point by saying that this is for the overlay
on properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane
befinreen Ocotillo, Larrea and Portola. They have one area. But what about
east and west of this? Mr. Drell replied that the main retail section of EI
Paseo was pretty much defined by Portola to Highway 74. ThaYs why staff
felt that was the appropriate area to promote it. But she was right. There
might come a time in the future when the retail portion of E{ Paseo would
wrap all the way back to Highway 111. He said we are always reexamining �
our policies, adjusting as they see projects occurring, correcting mistakes
when they are made. What they do is try to create the environment for the
private market to do what we want it to do. As he has observed over the last
25 years, our standards have not been especially effective in these areas if
they want to attract hotels. In fact, west of San Pablo they haven't attracted
anything. So the first question is if they want to attract hotels. The second
question is what it would take to do that.
Commissioner Tschopp thought those questions should have been
answered before coming before the Planning Commission. Staff prior to
coming to them should have had those answers and enlisted the residents
and the busir�ess people of the area before this general plan amendment
overlay for a very extensive area was even looked at. He thought the big
concem tonight was what the overall impact on the area would be if this was
approved. They were uncertain about that, so they were asking staff for more
study with the people involved and to come back.
The second issue was that he thought there was a really nice project here.
They didn't know how it fit into the general plan amendment submitted to
them tonight. This plan runs from Portola all the way to Ocotillo. That was a
28 r+
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
�..
big area they were requesting for boutique hotels that could have extensive
amounts of density, height variations and so forth. What he was saying is
they need to study this to make sure this is what they want and then go
forward. Mr. Drell asked what specific issues he wanted studied.
Commissioner Tschopp thought he heard them tonight in this meeting. Mr.
Drell asked about density. Is it good or bad? The density is the density. He
wasn't sure how they study it. Commissioner Tschopp asked if this was built
out, how the density would effect the entire area and the living conditions of
the people there.
Commissioner Finerty noted that when the general plan was updated, they
spent months trying to look at all the impacts for changing the general plan
and changes of zones and everything that was contained within the general
plan. This was something they got all in one fell swoop tonight trying to move
forward and she thought they needed to slow down.
Chairperson Lopez agreed that they did a lot of work on the general plan and
this was something that merited additional review from the standpoint of the
residents. He reiterated that he supported the concept, but he thought it
needed some additional thought as to exact locations of the zone area, and
` good or bad, this project was attached to this particular application and they
both had to be judged as one at this particular point in time.
Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a motion on the floor for
continuance and a second and asked if there were additional comments or
discussion. He called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Lopez
indicated that it was continued for six weeks (to April 18, 2006)and reiterated
to the residents that the applicant for the hotel project was present and the
other applicant was the City of Palm Desert and they could direct their
questions and wish for involvement to them.
Mr. Drell asked if any of the Planning Commissioners wanted to participate
with staff in the discussions. They could have up to two.
Chairperson Lopez stated that the public hearing would remain o en for the
continuance.
Commissioner Tanner said he would like to participate. Commissioner
Finerty also volunteered.
� 29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNiNG COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
..rr
Mr. Juan Carlos Ochoa came forward and stated that as the architect,
they are accustomed to finely tuned projects, so he welcomed the
opportunity to do as much as they could to hopefully arrive at a point
where everyone was happy. There was always room for improvement
with every project.
Chairperson Lopez thanked him and thanked everyone for attending.
Mr. DeLeeuw said he wanted to clarify one item. He didn't answer the
question they asked previously about whether or not they met with
people in the community. For their project they met with all the
residents directly around them. At least two of them appeared here;
one in favor and one against their project. But they did not go out to
anyone outside the zone because as indicated, there were two
applicants here. Him for one simple project and the City of Palm
Desert for the other. He thought they did their homework and met with
people in the area, but didn't feel it was their job to go out to everyone
else in the whole area for the rest of it.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
...
Chairperson Lopez noted there were no Miscellaneous Items, but pointed out
in the previous meeting minutes there was reference to the communication
with the City of Rancho Mirage about the Lowe's project. He thought
Commissioner Finerty asked that they perhaps get some feedback from Mr.
Drell regarding any discussions regarding that issue. Mr. Drell said that as
explained at the hearing, it had to do with why landscaping hadn't gone in on
the residential side. They were being delayed by the undergrounding of the
lines which had a guideline going over to their side that had to be
undergrounded. That was now undergrounded. So right now there was no
obstacle to Mr. Solomon to install his landscaping. His understanding was
that Lowe's was in discussions with the developer to donate some trees to
enhance that landscaping. A resident still appealed that decision, so it would
be going to Council. He thought that answered the question.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner Campbell indicated the meeting would be next
Wednesday.
30 �+
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7. 2006
r
B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
Commissioner Finerty noted that the meeting was canceled.
C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE
Commissioner Finerty said the meeting was canceled.
XI. COMMENTS
None.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned :05 p. .
. n
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
� ATTEST.
�
�_
JAMES Z, Chairpe so
Palm Des t anning Com is ion
� 31