Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0516 ����'� MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNlNG COMMISSION . TUESDAY - MAY 16, 2006 * * * * * * * * * * « * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * w * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * « I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell 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 Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the May 2, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the May 2, 2006 minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 11, 2006 City Council actions. �.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ar VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 04-04 - SURESH C. SHAH, Applicant Request for approval to merge three lots into one for property identified asAPN 627-101-005, 627-101-006 and 627-101-036 on Fred Waring Drive. B. Case No. PMW 05-14 - RJ VENTURES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments to accommodate building and parking uses for property at the northwest comer of 35th Avenue and Gateway. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner ,,,, Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. 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 05-06 and TT 34626 -WL HOMES LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and tentative tract map to allow construction of 198 residential condominium units, private recreational facilities and public park site on 26.83 acres south of Gerald Ford Drive west of Cook Street, more particularly described as Lots 10 and 14 of Parcel Map 31730, 74-825 College Drive. 2 "' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ... Mr. Drell explained that a continuance to June 6, 2006 was being requested to allow plan amendment. Chairperson Lopez c�pened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one. The public hearing was left o en and Chairperson Lopez asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. PP 05-06 and TT 34626 to June 6, 2006. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. VAR 06-02 -WILLIAM HANOUSEK, SR., Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow a reduction of the R-1 20,�00 zone side yard setbacks from 15 feet to 8 feet on both side yards to allow the expansion and remodeling of a single family home on a 75-foot wide lot located at 45-644 ,�„� Verba Santa Drive. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of Case No. VAR 06-Q2, subject to conditions. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. MAXWELL WUTHRICH, P.O. Box 7223 in Rancho Santa Fe, California, stated that he was present to answer any questions or provide clarification. He thought staff nicely summed up the proposed project. There were no questions. Chairperson Lopez asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was cl se . Acti n: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. �-- 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 � Commissioner Finerty commented that it would be a dramatic improvement and appreciated that the applicant wished to improve the neighborhood. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. Chairperson Lopez concurred and called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner,adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2395,approving VAR 06-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP 03-11 Amendment#1 - PREST VUKSIC/THE EVANS COMPANY, Applicants (Continued from May 2, 2006) Request for approval of an amendment to previous approvals to allow a drive-thru specialty coffee outlet adjacent to Cook Street, Pad #4, at 37-825 Cook Street. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report. He altered the recommendation in the ..r staff report from approval to a recommendation of approval to the City Council. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty noted that with the Wonder Palms Ordinance certain criteria was adopted at that time for drive-thru restaurants. One issue was that it needed to be screened if it was in the Freeway Ove�lay Zone. She recalled there was other criteria and asked how this project met that criteria. Mr. Smith replied that it included stacking for seven, which this project provided. Commissioner Finerty asked if it needed to provide an open area. Mr. Dre11 said an outdoor amenity. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Finerty asked if this project complied with that requirement. Mr. Smith said that with other drive-thrus they've come up with specific details relative to open space. This was more like the area at Country Cfub and Washington. If they wanted, they coufd ask the applicant to come up with some specific art or something else they could emphasis in the area. Going back to the criteria of stacking the open space and blocking it from a major arterial, Commissioner Finerty asked if there was any other criteria contained in that overlay ordinance. Mr. Smith replied that if there was, he wasn't recalling it at the moment. Mr. Drell noted that there was a landscape 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 � requirement, but thought the normal 15% for parking went to 30%. With the comer, he thought this project was at 30°/a. Basically, the public space was part of the landscaping and half of it had to be usable space. Those were the three. Commissioner Finerty asked if the usable space was the patio area. Mr. Drell said the patio, in theory, was available to the general public. It wasn't exclusive to the coffee user. He said the project itself had a huge amenity area which is the main street. The public amenity space was substantial in the grand scheme of the public promenade that goes down the center. Mr. Smith indicated that the patio was accessible to two of the units. Chairperson Lopez Qpened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, Prest Vuksic Architects at 44-530 San Pablo Avenue, stated that he was present, as well as the owners. He stated that the original building pad that was there was a rectangular-shaped building. Since then they pushed it, pulled it and massaged it into something they thought was more interesting and more conducive to using outdoor space. He said there were actually three patios around � the project. There was the main one they had been talking about, another nestled in the "L" shape, and another one to the west. Two of them were completely accessible to the public. Access to the third would require going through some of the spaces to get to. He stated that the architecture itself was a bit of a departure from some of the things they have done. They were really excited about it. It was more of a mercantile architecture they worked pretty hard on with the owners. As far as the drive-thru, they called it a soft drive-thru because instead of going around the building, it was part of the parking lot. It was kind of a fun little arrangement because they could circulate through the parking lot and still pull up and get a cup of coffee. There were some sections provided to the Commission that showed how it was screened from Cook Street, as well as renderings. He reminded the Commission that this was located in the parking lot, so the cars were pretty natural there. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked for con�rmation that someone could enter the area also from College and Cook. Mr. Vuksic concurred and confirmed there was a right-in. �- 5 - .-,- .-� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ..r Mr. Drell clarified that there is a left-in, right out. Commissioner Tanner noted that 1,240 square feet would be the "Bad Ass Coffee Company" (hereinafter referred to as BACC). He asked if any other tenants had been signed into this project. Mr. Vuksic said no. He confirmed BACC was the anchor tenant. Chairperson Lopez mentioned the pedestrian flow from the parking lot to the BACC and asked about the customer flow from the parking lot into the building. He noticed that customers would have to walk across the front of the traffic flow leaving the drive-in. Mr. Vuksic said that was right. Cars were moving pretty slowly there and the access out was curved on purpose to keep the traffic flow slow. He thought that was just a part of the texture of life as you move around through your daily activities. Get a cup of coffee and a newspaper, people are walking and driving. It wasn't a fast area. Commissioner Campbell asked if he had any idea what other kinds of stores .,rr would be proposed. Mr. Vuksic deferred the question to Rick Evans,who had been ta{king with some tenants. MR. RICK EVANS, 74-000 Country Club Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he was the developer and owner of the project. He said the merchants they expect to see in the remainder of the building along with BACC was at least another sandwich parlor, maybe an Italian cafe, small. It was only a 4,000 square foot building and BACC was taking about 1,100 square feet of the building. They were giving them this particular location. As John pointed out, they were looking to come up with a real soft drive-thru. It was intended to be one lane. John's plan actually separated the two lanes so that the drive-thru lane would stack and queue separately. As a matter of fact, in the drawing layered under the trees parallel to Cook Street there was a retaining wall. They raised the elevation of it considerably so it blocked the view from the street up to the queuing. Typically, queuing for coffee drive-thrus was 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ... in the range of three to five cars. The provided for the City standard of seven. Even at the busiest Starbucks in the desert, they might get seven or eight at the busiest time of the day for 15 minutes. He said they invited their tenant, and they already had a signed lease for this, to be at the meeting. He said she was the franchisee for BACC out of Salt Lake City. He thought there was a great story about the name and how the name was created. It was in the brochure and thought it was a cute story and fun. Mr. Evans stated that if Commission wanted to see an existing store, there were two open. Christine and her partner opened one in Rancho Mirage in the Von's shopping center across from The River. The second one was in La Quinta in the Point Happy center. They were both great little stores. What he liked about what they had been able to pull together here was again, it had been their objective since they started talking about this project a couple of years ago and they were probably tired of hearing him repeat himself, but he asked them to endure with him a minute. Their attitude about the merchandising of the center is that it would be as much non-chain as they could � possibly produce. They pulled the best of the local and regional merchants to a project like this. They had a chance to do a Starbucks, but they wanted a big drive-thru which he said wasn't really functional. They were very pleased to end up with BACC, Christine and her partner. They thought it was a very exciting concept. He was even more excited about the fact that John and his team agreed to come and do this. He thought they had seen a lot of John's buildings and this was completely different. They were also pleased that John was pleased. Mr. Evans thought it was a handsome building and if they looked at it all the way around, the patio had the intention of being a private patio for the people who go to BACC and the people who come to the little cafe that would be next to them. It was intended to be on the shady side so they would get the full benefit of being able to live in this environment and enjoy a patio, even on a shady aftemoon that is warm. The other tenant had a choice of two patios, either in the front or on the side. So he thought it was a real 360 degree building. A really �.�. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ..r handsome building. And they endeavored to make it feel like a retail experience without it feeling like a drive-thru. They had to be there and get in line to know they were coming to the possibility of having a drive-thru and fundamentally it was functional without interfering with regular traffic because of the dual exiting lane. The drive-thru lane could exit right onto the village main street and then the people circulating could make a full right and queue a different direction. That was with the help of staff to be able to engineer this thing and make this thing work out nicely and give it a real taste of what they originally tried to do. Mr. Evans noted that a question was asked about walking across the traffic. The village was always designed to be a walking place as much as they could get people to walk in the desert and in California. There was a sidewalk that continued parallel with Main Street that had always been in their plan. It went from the hotel at the end of Main Street all the way down to plaza at the corner and around that corner up to the office and the spine. They tried to continue and had successfully continued that. With the addition of this building and the changes they made and staying within the water and water calculation „„ ordinance, as well as the landscape ordinance providing a bit more shade for people to walk in, they were really pleased with it. He appreciated the Commission enduring his speech for the hundredth time and thanked them. Commissioner Tschopp asked if only the coffee shop would have a drive-in. Mr. Evans confirmed it was just the coffee shop. Commissioner Campbell noted that they had three employee parking spaces close to the building. Mr. Evans explained that in this particular case they didn't have a problem with employee parking being next to the building because they knew they would have to provide some close employee parking for this many square feet. They decided to use it to help get some of it closer, especially for stores open late at night. That was really something they would look at subjectively at the time to see the best place for it. Right now it was one of the plans. 8 "r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ... Commissioner Tanner also thought it was a good idea with the drive-thru. Some permanence in those three parking spaces could help hinder traffic conflicts with people backing up. Mr. Evans concurred. There were no other questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty thanked Mr. Evans for following through. She believed this building was designed knowing full well the concern for a drive-thru based on previous conversations. She thought Mr. Evans, along with Mr. Vuksic, addressed all of the criteria for this location. She appreciated that and thought it was a nice looking building. With the screening and open area provided for in the ordinance, it would be acceptable. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was happy to hear that the rest of the building was going to be a restaurant-type use, so it would all blend in �" together and not have any type of retail there, and everything would flow very nicely. It would be very nicely camouflaged from Cook and she congratulated Mr. Vuksic. Commissioner Tschopp also thought it was well designed and would fit in well. He looked forward to the project. Commissioner Tanner concurred and was anxious to get the coffee shop open. Chairperson Lopez agreed. He thought the use of the site itself, the creativity of the building and the look fell right in line with what he was looking for at this location. It was consistent with what they asked for back in November of 2003 when they talked about where there could be a drive-thru and this worked out just great. He congratulated them on the concept and the great tenant. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. .... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 � It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2396 as amended, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 03-11 Amendment #1, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 - SINATRA� COOK LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 4, 18 and May 2, 2006) Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for 268 condominium units and a 38,000 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. Mr. Drell said that taking the Commission's direction relative to the need for rental housing and expanding open space in the project, the applicant engaged in a fairly extensive redesign and wouldn't be ready until June 6. ,.,,r Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was o�r, and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left QRen and Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission action. Acti n: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion, continuing Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 to June 6, 2006. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. PP 06-02 - PACIFIC POINTE PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for seven industria! buildings totaling 143,942 square feet and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. The property is located at 34-300 Gateway Drive. 10 "'r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 .... Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report. He noted that an e-mail was received requesting that the roof-mounted equipment be screened. That was something Architectural Review regards quite closely. Staff came up with a condition to address that and recommended that Community Development Condition No. 12 be added, "Roof-mounted equipment shall not exceed the height of the adjacent parapet." He recommended approval, subject to the conditions as amended. Chairperson Lopez o eR ned the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. GARY LEVINSKY, 3636 Birch, Suite 260, in Newport Beach, California, 92660, addressed the Commission. He thought Mr. Smith summed up the project fairly well. For the record, they were also the owners of the adjacent office project to the north and the industrial project to the east. There were no questions for the applicant. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez � asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell said it had great architecture. She thought all the buildings along that area being built were fabulous and an asset to the City from I-10. She moved for approval, adding Community Development Condition No. 12. Commissioner Finerty concurred and seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2397, approving PP 06-02, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. ... 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 .� IX. MISCELLANEOUS � A. Request for determination for Tract Map 31020 block wall height compliance with Zoning Ordinance Sections 25.56.195.0 and 25.56.300.A Mr. Urbina explained that Tentative Tract Map 31020 was approved in 2003 by the Planning Commission. Subsequently it was recorded. It created a 16- lot subdivision south of homes on Jeri Lane. There was a disagreement between the current property owner of the tract map and the property owner to the north who lives on Jeri Lane, Mr. Ken Baker. He explained that the disagreement was over the height of the existing block wall. The original developer for the tract on Jeri Lane constructed a perimeter block wall along the southerly property line for the homes on the south side of Jeri Lane, which included Mr. Baker's home. The property on the new tentative tract map, which had not yet been constructed with homes, was 19 inches higher than Mr. Baker's property. Mr. Urbina noted that the staff report said 17, but it was supposed to say 19. � Mr. Urbina said that in early 2003, Mr. Matt Gerhardt of Las Perlas, the property owner of the undeveloped tract map to the south, attempted to obtain written permission from Mr. Baker to add an additional one eight-inch course of block to the top of the existing wall as was required by the approved grading plan in order to bring the height of the wall from the higher g�ade, which is the new tract map, up to the minimum five-foot height required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission was being asked to determine and help clarify whether the spirit of two sections of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. Section 25.56.195 stated, "All new residential construction shall include walls or fences of a minimum five-foot height enclosing rear and interior side yards." Another section of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.56.300.A stated that the height of a fence or wall shall be measured from the higher finished grade adjoining the wall or fence. Mr. Urbina stated that the existing wall at the rear property line of Mr. Baker's property was 5 feet 8 inches high from Mr. Baker's side. He has a swimming pool in the rear yard and he was concemed about security and privacy for his rear yard. The height of the wall was going to be only 4 feet 4 inches higher 12 ""i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 �.. than the higher pad elevation on Lot 12 of the tract to the south. That was the reason that the approved grading plan called for Matt Gerhardt to add an additional eight-inch course of block to the existing wall to bring it up to a five-foot minimum height measured from the finished pad elevation of vacant Lot 12. He said that Mr. Baker initially refused to grant permission to add the additional eight-inch course of block because he was concemed whether the existing wall footing was sufficient enough to accommodate the additional eight-inch course of block. He was also concemed about liability if the wall were to fail. Shortly thereafter in December Mr. Baker went on vacation and instructed the block wall contractor to not touch his wall and that they would talk after he returned. Mr. Baker indicated he called and left several messages with the block wall contractor and his calls were not returned. In the meantime while Mr. Baker was on vacation, Mr. Gerhardt wanted to proceed with construction of parts of the block wall he was required to raise as part of his tract map grading plan approval. So not having obtained permission from Mr. Baker, Mr. Gerhardt came up with an alternative solution which was to lower the rear ten feet of Lot 12 by eight inches and the Public � Works Department approved that solution. It also meant that Mr. Gerhardt had to remove part of a retaining wall he had constructed adjacent to Mr. Baker's rear wall. Mr. Gerhardt incurred additional expense in excavating the rear 10 feet of Lot 12 and removing the previously built retaining wall. The wall as it stands now was 5 feet 0 inches in height from the Lot 12 side immediately adjacent to the wall. Zoning Ordinance Section 25.56.300 states that the height of the fence or wall shall be measured from the higher finished grade adjoining the wall or fence. The question for the Planning Commission was if this met the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. There were two main purposes in providing fencing or a wall around a rear yard of a tract or lot. One was to provide security for the property owner and the second was to provide privacy befinreen neighboring properties. Mr. Urbina said that Mr. Gerhardt claims that from his perspective, that one of the reasons Mr. Baker initially refused to grant permission to add the additional eight-inch course of block was that Mr. Baker wanted two eight- inch courses of block added instead of one at Mr. GerhardYs expense and Mr. Gerhardt stated that he would only add one at his expense and if Mr. �— 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ..r Baker wanted a second course of block, he would have to pay for the additional block. Given that Mr. Gerhardt made a good-faith attempt to initially seek permission from Mr. Baker to add the additional eight-inch course of block called for in the approved grading plan and having failed that, since he worked with Public Works staff to come up with an altemative which involved excavating the rear ten feet of Lot 12 and removed part of the top of an existing retaining wall he had previously constructed and he incurred expense, staff's recommendation, which probably didn't completely please either party, was, "Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a determination that the existing wall at the rear of Lot 12 of Tract Map 31020 is not in compliance with the spirit of Zoning Ordinance Sections 25.56.195.0 and 25.56.300.A and that the property owner of Lot 12, Mr. Gerhardt, and Mr. Kenneth Baker, the adjoining neighbor, equally share the cost of constructing one eight-inch course of block on top of the existing wal{ along the rear of Lot 12 to achieve compliance at such time as a home is built on Lot 12." Mr. Drell stated that he would like to add a little qualification to that „� recommendation. Since it was in technical compliance with code, that the course of block be added only if Mr. Baker agrees to pay for half of it. Obviously they couldn't force Mr. Baker to participate. If he wanted the course of block added and he participates, then Mr. Gerhardt would be required to build the wall, paying half the cost. If Mr. Baker refuses to participate, then the wall would be deemed to be in compliance with those finro codes. Commissioner Finerty thought Mr. Baker was concerned about the structural integrity for the first eight-inch block. Mr. Drell said they were only talking about one eight-inch block. As a matter of course Mr. Gerhardt had received building permits, so it had already been determined. They wouldn't allow anyone to add block to existing walls unless the Building Department determined the existing footings and structure were adequate. Commissioner Finerty said that the structural integrity could withstand it. Mr. Drell said yes, that was determined prior to Mr. Gerhardt beginning the activity. Commissioner Tanner was concerned also that Mr. Gerhardt complied with adding b{ocks to other rear homes that weren't in compliance. He had a little bit of a problem with Mr. Gerhardt having to pay anything for this. He had 14 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 � gone to the expense of not only putting the block on those that needed them, but he also graded down the pad of Lot 12. That incurred cost. Once given an opportunity and it fleets away, he didn't know if he should be given the opportunity again. Chairperson Lopez noted that this wasn't a public hearing, but there was a request to speak from Mr. Baker. He invited Mr. Baker to come forward. Commissioner Tschopp said he had a couple of questions first. He asked why Planning Commission was hearing this and why it wasn't just an interpretation by Code or Compliance Department. Mr. Drell replied that staff was confident that one of the parties wouldn't be satisfied. The issue was brought to the attention of those above him and, therefore, it was thought to be expeditious to get a more authoritative interpretation. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Gerhardt complied fully with the conditions that Public Works asked of him. Mr. Drell said in the revised plan, yes. But again, technically all decisions by staff were appealable up the line. The City was not held responsible for the faulty decisions of its staff members. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the City had considered sharing ~ responsibility. Mr. Drell said that was why staff produced that recommendation. If they read the literal language of the ordinance, the current condition complies with those ordinances. Again, this was in a gray area. They were also confronted with a he said/she said or he said/he said situation. Without witnesses it was always hard to adjudicate. It was clear in staff's mind that Mr. Gerhardt made a good faith effort to comply with the requirement. There may have been extenuating circumstances in Mr. Baker's mind at the time why he did not give permission and it shouldn't be held against Mr. Gerhardt. ThaYs why staff said this was not necessarily 100% black and white on either side. Given those muddled circumstances, none of which they were witness to, they came up with Solomon's solution. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Public Works independently had an idea of the cost to raise the wall eight inches. Mr. Drell thought Mr. Gerhardt probably had a better idea of the cost. Chairperson Lopez invited Mr. Baker to address the Commission. MR. KEN BAKER came forward. In response to a couple of comments by Mr. Urbina, he said he never tried to reestablish a �— 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 .r contact with the building contractor or the wall contractor. He tried to always deal and call Mr. Gerhardt. Mr. Urbina said he tried to call contractors, but he only tried to contact Mr. Gerhardt. Mr. Baker said he was present to go on record regarding noncompliance of Section 25.56.195 of the Building Code which calls for a minimum block wall height of five feet. The Code was exact in its wording of minimum height. It didn't mean almost or close to, it called for a minimum of five feet. He personally took the measurements from the retaining walls on the Las Perlas lots. The noncompliance would be more severe once the retaining walls on Las Perlas were covered up due to landscaping. So they would be more severe. In addition, he measured that entire block of wall and there were noncompliance issues on Lots 2, 4, 7 and 8 of the Olive Grove tract. So it wasn't only his. They were talking about 4 foot 7 inches, 4 foot 8 inches, shortages. The noncompliance was a security and noncompliance issue for him. The City allowed Mr. Gerhardt to remove a course of his retaining wall in order to artificially comply with the five-foot minimum. Nevertheless, the western portion of his wall ,,,,r measured from Mr. GerhardYs Lot 12 is 57 inches. It was not five feet as Francisco said. He didn't measure from dirt where he coufd pick it up, he measured from the block retaining wall. He put a stick there and it measured 57 inches. So it was short of five feet substantially. From the pad level of Lot 12 on Las Perlas, there was approximately four feet of block wall. That severely intruded on his privacy. He could not believe that the City or the Planning Commission felt this complied with the spirit of the code in question. He was hoping they could resolve this issue. Mr. Drell probably hit it on the head when he said it was a he said-she said type of situation. He was hoping they could just resolve it on the issue of facts, but Mr. Gerhardt in his finro letters in the packet he got made some very fabricated untruths in there that he felt he had to address. Mr. Gerhardt never attempted to contact him on December 1 as he stated in his letter. The first time Mr. Baker became involved with this was when a block wall contractor at 8:30 a.m. on November 8 was at the project. He did tell that contractor to not touch his wall. He admitted to that. He called Mr. Gerhardt three times and he finally returned his 16 "0� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 call at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Baker's only concern, and he wasn't a contractor of building person, so when Mr. Drell said they wouldn't give approval unless it was structurally sound, he was a citizen and didn't know those things. So his only concern was that the wall was structurally sound to add courses and that Mr. Gerhardt had liability insurance if someone was hurt on his property. All he had to do was say yes. This whole thing would be avoided. But rather than answer his question, Mr. GerhardYs statement was that he has been in this business for many years and no one has ever asked him that. Mr. Baker said he was sorry, but he was asking that. All he needed to do was say yes and this whole thing would have been avoided. Mr. Baker said he was scheduled to leave town that evening to go on a cruise and he told Mr. Gerhardt that they could talk when he retumed. When he retumed on the 19th of December, Mr. Baker tried to call him on five occasions and the calls were never returned. Even after the 19th when Mr. Gerhardt had someone out to remove the one-course of retaining wall on his side to artificially comply with the five feet, Mr. Baker called before the contractor began work two or three times and he left him a message. He said they could resolve `� this thing and asked why Mr. Gerhardt was spending money to do this. They could resolve this; it was resolvable. Mr. GerhardYs assertion that Mr. Baker has a bad reputation was untrue, but that wasn't even germane to the decision so he wasn't going to get into that. Another issue was his neighbors, the Bennetts, who were directly west of him, the final grading plan said to add two eight-inch courses. His neighbors, the Bennetts, paid Gerhardt to have a second course of block wall added. What Mr. Gerhardt failed to mention was that the final grading plan, as shown to him in Mr. Drell's office, required that Las Pe�las add at their cost that second course of block wall for free. Mr. Bennett paid Mr. Gerhardt $600 for that second wall. It just demonstrated the unethical behavior of this gentleman. He tried to work with him but he wouldn't. The only thing Mr. Gerhardt said that was absolutely true was that he was very unhappy. Certainly not about wanting something for free. He was unhappy because the City and Mr. Gerhardt were not complying with the code for which they have a liability, whether it be one, two or three courses of block wall. ••� 17 T � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ..� All Mr. Baker wanted was the spirit and the facts of this issue to be resolved. In his judgement that would require a minimum five-foot wall from the pad level of Lot 12 of Las Perlas. That a wall five feet above that be built back there. That's all he wanted from the beginning. He never wanted anything for free. He read the code and it said build a five-foot wall. It has a pad level. Build a five-foot wall above that pad level. He was opposed to the staff recommendation as read tonight that he should split the cost or bear the cost because he thought it was totally unfair. He felt the City throughout, and he started working on this 7 or 8, maybe 8 or 9, months ago in the Public Works Department and they always took the contractor's side. No one had ever listened to him. They were claiming he changed his mind, that he did this, that he did that, and that Mr. Gerhardt was well intentioned. It was all fabricated and was all lies. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Gerhardt wished to address the Commission. ..� MR. MATT GERHARDT, the owner of Las Perlas, 78-004 Red Hawk Lane in La Quinta, came forward. He said this was kind of embarrassing to bring this up. It was like talking about his brother to his parents. First of all, they were advised to put the block wall up as seen in the plan. They did that. They got everybody's permission, got letters, he stayed out there in the evenings and waited for people to come home. He introduced himself to everyone and became friends with just about everybody. The day that Mr. Baker called him, Mr. Baker said there were people on his wa{I. Unfortunately, the workers out there were working on other walls at the same time and decided to start working on adding a course on Mr. Baker's wall also without permission at that point. So Mr. Baker was right in saying to remove the people. Mr. Gerhardt called them and told them to stop because they didn't have permission yet. When Mr. Baker talked to him, he said he wanted a few things. He wanted a letter from the City stating that the wall was structurally sound. He said he wanted a letter from the structural engineer. He wanted a copy of Mr. Gerhardt's liability insurance and he needed that all before tomorrow when he was leaving for ten days. Mr. Gerhardt 18 '°� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 w said that was fine, he would work on that and he explained to every single person when he got the letter for permission from them, he gave them a copy of the map, a copy of their liability insurance, a copy of the structural engineering, which he had done that day even though he was in San Juan Capistrano, he had that block wall structurally engineered so that it showed that it would hold the blocks. So he had all that, got permission from everybody. At that time Mr. Gerhardt said that according to the condition, they had to add one course onto Mr. Baker's block wall. Mr. Baker said no, that wouldn't be high enough. Mr. Gerhardt said he didn't make the rules, he was just saying thaYs what he had been told to do: add one course on. He understood in these situations that people think they want their block walls really high and he understood that. He didn't make the grading, he was just building the block walls and trying to enforce the conditions. Mr. Baker said he wanted two courses and he told him there is one course. Mr. Baker said that if he wasn't going to build two courses of block wall, he could stay off his block wall. That was when he said uh, oh. That same day he went to speak to Mr. ... Drell and he followed it up with a letter. He asked Phil what happens if there was a problem. If he couldn't get permission from someone, how could they do this? Phil looked it up in the ordinance and one of the alternatives was a wood fence. Mr. Gerhardt asked if that was the only altemative he could think of. When he went out that night and got everybody's signatures along the cul-de-sac and knocked on everybody's door, Mr. and Mrs. Lovich next door, Mr. Gerhardt told them the situation. They called up Mr. Baker, while Mr. Gerhardt was right there in the garage and told Mr. Baker that he was going to get a wood fence if he didn't let Mr. Gerhardt put up one course and they didn't even have to go on his property to put up one course. Mr. Gerhardt would pay for it, no problem. But he would get a wood fence unless Mr. Baker let him do it. Mr. Baker said no, he would not let him do it. It needed two courses. It would be too short and he wanted more privacy. A couple of days later Page Garner from Public Works called him because Mr. Gerhardt was keeping him abreast of the situation because he knew how this all works. He had to make sure everyone knew exactly what was happening. Mr. Garner thought they had a solution and asked him to come in. He ran it by Phil Drell and thought �-- 19 I -I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ..ii if they cut it back ten feet, reduce it by eight inches, then he would be in compliance. Okay, he did. He brought his grader back out there and cut it back eight inches. Building Department got a ca11 from Mr. Baker saying they were still not in compliance because the retention wall, that he just built and spent money to build and it was like a step, so you could still see eight inches of the retaining wall. He had to chop that down. So he took the expense and chopped that part down that he just built. Then he had Building Department go out there again and measure and they were approved--60 inches. So now that they are done, Mr. Baker wants them to come back and put up another eight-inch block up there. He stated that this is Mr. Baker's wall, but he was willing to do this. There was nothing saying Mr. Baker couldn't start tomorrow and put two courses up there. They had done that. Some people wanted two courses. They were wiUing to pay for the additional course. Mr. Baker could do that. Mr. Gerhardt was just saying that the time for him to do that for free was back then when all the block workers were there. Now he has gone through considerable expense, working with the : City, going through their recommendations, doing exactly what they ,..r wanted him to do, and informing them and keeping a paper trail and for him to go back and have to pay for some of this was wrong. He asked the Planning Commission to agree with Public Works in approving what they recommended to him, which he had done and complied with. Building Depa�tment said he was in compliance. The rules said he was in compliance. He didn't know what else he could do. He did everything he could do. Commissioner Tschopp asked what the approximate estimated cost would be of adding eight inches to the block wall. Mr. Gerhardt said that when they were out there, his subcontractors gave him a cost of around $500 to do that one eight-inch block. That was when they were out there. Some people did that. He would have done that and did that with everybody else. At his cost. Commissioner Tanner asked if he had any idea what it would cost now. s 20 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 Mr. Gerhardt said they have done two, so Mr. Baker knew he could do two, so if he were him, they would get a better price on two then one and get it all done at the same time. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Gerhardt would have wall contractors out there in the future. Mr. Gerhardt said yes. They have done all the demising walls and now the perimeter walls between the lots would be done eventually. That might be an opportunity. They would be out there if Mr. Baker wanted to talk to them. He thought them working together was opening a can of worms and he didn't want to touch his wall or go near that place. He asked them to not make him. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments. Mr. Tanner said they had his initial thought process and he wasn't going to waive from that. It certainly appeared, and he told Mr. Baker that he wasn't casting any doubt on what he said occurred, but at the same time he was sitting there listening to what Mr. Gerhardt has done and reading the letters � given to Mr. Drell and to the City. He thought in good faith he did what he had to do and unfortunately for him, he was gone during that ten-day period of time. He acknowledged that Mr. Baker was shaking his head no, but he didn't think Mr. Gerhardt owed another course of block on that wall. He would certainly be in opposition to award any type of money or any compromise at this point to get that other course put on the wall. Commissioner Tschopp noted that they were being asked to determine two things. The first one was if Mr. Gerhardt made a good faith effort to obtain permission from Mr. Baker and he thought it was obvious from what they were presented in the staff report that he did. Five out of six other homeowners gave him permission. There obviously was dialogue befinreen the two, so he made a good faith attempt to get Mr. Baker's permission. The second issue was if the alternative solution from Public Works to meet the wall height met the spirit. Commissioner Tschopp said he was in technical compliance. He was approved by Public Works and came to a resolution of the problem with Public Works' knowledge and moved forward on it. So yes, Mr. Gerhardt made a good faith attempt and he didn't think he should be held responsible. Mr. Gerhardt brought up that he felt like he was �-- 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 r.r having a fight with his brother. When he got in a fight with his brother his � parents used to punish both of them no matter who was wrong just because they got them involved and they both got sent to their rooms. He thought Mr. Gerhardt was right and made a good faith attempt, but he also thought it would be a good faith attempt right now to offer up to pay half just to get this thing behind him and move forward. Commissioner Campbeil agreed, although not necessarily with Commissioner Tschopp's last remark. She thought that Mr. Gerhardt did everything in his power to get all the approvals from Planning, etc., and went to great expense to remove the retaining wall that was there. She felt like he did; he just wanted to stay away from that wall because if anything happened to that wall while being allowed to put blocks on it and something happened, Mr. Gerhardt would be held responsible and sued for anything that happened. ThaYs the way she felt about it. Mr. Gerhardt was willing to give him one row and Mr. Baker wanted two and she felt that Mr. Baker should have paid for the second one. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She thought that Mr. Gerhardt made a good faith effort and that the wall was technically in compliance. She was „r sorry it had gotten to this point because life's too short and hell's too hot to worry about the wall and afl of this to the point it had gotten to. When he first read through this, Chairperson Lopez wondered why they were even talking about this and why it was even before them. This was a code enforcement situation. And with all due respect to the explanation, although he chuckled at it, it should have been handled way before it go to the Planning Commission. They were being asked to make a determination on two items which were basically judgement calls. The Commission could disagree amongst themselves on which direction to go on this and it wouldn't cure anything. But he tended to agree with his fellow commissioners that Mr. Gefiardt had done what was required in that he went through quite a bit of expense to hopefully from his perspective be in compliance with the wall height of five feet. They all knew that during the course of construction and during the course of landscaping, things do change. But things could also change for the positive in the way landscaping was handled. Privacy was something that could be enhanced by the addition of landscaping on both sides of this wall. If they looked at the wall right now, it was pretty darned near five feet on the side that was open and unfortunately, he thought the wall was in compliance. 22 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ... Mr. Drell asked for a minute motion making that determination if that was Commission's pleasure. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion, determining that the existing wall at the rear of Lot 12 of Tract Map 31020 is in compliance with Zoning Ordinance Sections 25.56.195.0 and 25.56.300.A. Motion carried 5-0. B. Request for determination of General Plan Consistency for proposed street vacation - HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY, INC., Applicant Request for findings of General Plan consistency for a partial street vacation of a 100-foot dead-end section of New York Avenue at the southwest intersection with Virginia Avenue. Mr. Drell said this was currently a huge street that goes no where and serves � only one driveway, so they couldn't vacate the whole street because it does serve one property. By vacating the 15 feet, that would provide enough room to build a habitat house while retaining ample street width and good access to the driveway. He stated that there would be a public hearing before the City Council on the vacation itself. This was simply a determination that given the circumstances, the 32-foot width is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Tanner asked if there was any comment from the one inhabitant of that small area. He asked if there was any objection to the habitat house. Mr. Drell said no. Typically in this situation they would vacate the whole street and both would get half. The developed property owners said they weren't interested in incurring the expense, although Mr. Drell believed that the City would pick up the expense of rebuilding the road. The road wouldn't be as usable to play football on as before, but it was surely adequate in width. He requested a minute motion determining consistency with the General Plan. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, finding that the proposed street vacation consistent with the General Plan. Motion carried 5-0. r-• 23 MiNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 � X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell stated that the next meeting would be May 17, 2006. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty said the next meeting would be May 17, 2006. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was canceled. D. PARKS � RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reported on the May 16 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting actions and proposed projects. .r XI. COMMENTS 1. Chairperson Lopez asked about the meeting location for the June 6 Planning Commission meeting. Staff wasn't sure, but said it might be held in the Administration Conference Room due to the City Clerk's office needing the Council Chamber for voting purposes. 2. Commissioner Tschopp noted that during the hearing on Case No. PP 03-11 Amendment#1 staff made the comment that centers that meet the five spaces per 1,000 square feet code requirement were never 100% full. He asked if staff ever thought about visiting that because the�e was no need to have huge parking lots. Mr. Drell agreed. He said that recently in a local govemmental commission newsletter there was a whole section on parking. He recalled they tried to reduce the parking on some industrial projects about a year ago. It went through Planning Commission, but Council refused to approve it. He tried to do it a couple of times, once with residential apartments and condominiums. Instead, the apartment requirement was raised up to condominium standards instead of lowering condominiums to 24 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 ... apartments. He thought it was worth trying. To a certain degree staff had done that informally in that they build projects at four and five and a half and then just like the Mall, end up adding more. The Mall was officially now at 4.5 right now, but it was functioning at 3.5 since part of the 4.5 was the back forty which never got used. There were conditional uses with restaurants and he could see in this project some of these parking lots, especially those on the street, being occupied by buildings sometime in the future if over time once they actually see the dynamics of the lot. He had carried that spear a couple of times. Commissioner Tanner commented on the University Park parking situation in the future with the college students parking there. Mr. Drell said that was a management issue. They were going to have to put in two-hour parking or three-hour parking to try and address that issue. It would be an enforcement problem, no question. Another good example was Starbucks on EI Paseo. They agonized over the parking and hoped that a lot of the business would be EI Paseo pedestrians. As it turned out, there was no change in the parking lot. " The same thing could happen here. The goal with this project was that people would park in that big lot at the one end and become a pedestrian. Or become a pedestrian from the college and come over. The whole discussion of too much parking was part of the whole newer smart growth issue that they actually want parking tight. They were also in discussion with Sunline, so far unsuccessfully. They were trying to convince them that there would be enough intensity of both origins and destinations in this one area to have a loop, almost from the casino in Rancho Mirage to the campus. This would be downtown Coachella Valley, from Bob Hope to Cook Street, Sinatra north, would be downtown for this valley in terms of employees. In between the campus and the casino, there was a huge group of employees of all ranges and hopefully they would have a broad range of housing in all ranges so that there would be enough intensity for enough buses with short headway that getting and using a bus would actually be an efficient way to get around as opposed to the routes now where if you miss your bus you've missed half a day. He noted that downtown San Francisco prohibits parking more than 50% of a building because they know their streets can't handle the -- 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16. 2006 .nr traffic. They provided an efficient, convenient underground system. Portland did the same. Downtown is gorgeous and people walk and take buses downtown. There were pictures of what it would look like if they had parked using the regular standards and half the buildings that are offices would have been parking structures. Again, it was a good question if the Commission wanted to take it up. Commissioner Tschopp said Mr. Drell had covered it, but these massive parking lots had spaces far away and people weren't going to use them. Mr. Drell thought Desert Crossing was a good example. There were probably spaces in Desert Crossing that have never had a car on them. What he thought would happen was if they could get the major tenants to agree, they could see some more buildings in Desert Crossing befinreen Target and Chuck E. Cheese. It was an important question. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner „r, Campbell, adjouming the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. `--��., , n �t,� PHILIP DREL , Secretary ATTEST: L JA . LOPEZ, r erson Pal D sert Plannin C mmission /tm 26 ""�