Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0718 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - JULY 18, 2006 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner 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 Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the June 20, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the June 20, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0- 1 (Commissioner Finerty abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION .� Mr. Drell summarized pertinent June 22 and July 13, 2006 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2996 �r VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 06-02 - ELIZABETH BENTON/BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to accommodate construction of a new pool at 101 Kawish Court, Palm Desert. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising .�.+ only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Mr. Drell informed Commission that there was a request from the applicant of Public Hearing Item G for a continuance. He asked if the Commission wanted to take that item first, get it continued and out of the way, based on the drive-thru issue. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to continue Public Hearing Item D. Mr. Drell stated that the public hearing still had to be opened. Commissioner Finerty noted that staff originally recommended a continuance to a date uncertain and he was saying that the applicant was requesting a continuance. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Finerty asked for how long. Mr. Drell said August 1. aw 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2006 Chairperson Lopez asked to hear the motion again. Mr. Drell explained that the public hearing still had to be opened. First they had to act to change the order of the agenda by minute motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to reorganize the order of the agenda to hear Public Hearing Item G first. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case Nos. C/Z 06-05, PP/CUP 06-03 and TPM 34437 - SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council to approve a change of zone to add the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone to the existing PCD zone, a precise plan/conditional use permit to construct a 99,200 square foot retail center with a two-story parking structure, an exception to reduce the front yard and rear yard setbacks from 32 feet and 30 to 10 feet, a height exception to allow building heights up to 34 feet, an exception to allow a second single-faced freestanding sign on a street frontage less than 1,600 feet, and a tentative parcel map to subdivide 6.10 acres into 13 parcels. The project site is located at 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant was requesting a continuance to August 1, 2006. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing. MR. WAYNE GURALNICK, 74-399 Highway 111, Suite M in Palm Desert, California, informed Commission that they were requesting the continuance to the first meeting in August to revise the plans to delete the drive-thru. They saw the handwriting on the wall and wished to bring it in consistent with what Palm Desert has in store for this area. Chairperson Lopez asked if there was going to be a staff report. Mr. Drell said no. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Lopez asked for a motion. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2006 .r Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion, continuing Case Nos. C/Z 06-05, PP/CUP 06- 03 and TPM 34437 to August 1, 2006. Motion carried 5-0. A. Case Nos. C/Z 06-03 and PP 06-04-BOB SIPOVAC JR., Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a change of zone from PR-7 to PR-8 and a precise plan of design to add five units to the existing 44-unit "Park Village" residential project at 74-360 Magnesia Falls Drive. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report. He noted that in the Commission packets and as recently as tonight there were comments received from neighbors on the south side of Magnesia Falls raising issues relative to parking of vehicles on Magnesia Falls and privacy issues with the second story. He noted that the two-story units were a considerable distance. From the north across the channel it was more than 500 feet away and the distance between the units and the structures on the south side of Magnesia Falls, specifically on ..r Buttonwood, was at approximately 147 feet with a major four-lane street between them with an 88-foot right-of-way and 70 feet curb to curb. Additionally, the lots on the south side of Magnesia Falls there had considerable mature vegetation; the ficus trees were quite large. Also included in the packets was an aerial photo perspective of the area. With that Mr. Smith recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 06-03 and PP 06-04, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Campbell asked why two-stories were needed. The other homes in the surrounding area were only one story. Mr. Smith stated that he wasn't sure it was necessarily needed, but the PR District allowed it as a matter of right. Commissioner Campbell said otherwise they could extend it to have one-story homes. Mr. Smith thought if they went that direction they would have fewer units. Commissioner Campbell said that was correct. If they have 44 units now, if they had five units that would make it 49. Two- stories would allow two families and up to ten. Mr. Smith clarified that the units were designed so that the upstairs for the most part would be clerestory. Mr. Drell said the total number of units is five. They weren't flats, but townhouses. Mr. Smith said that two-thirds of the upper floor was not a floor, but clerestory from the first level. G / 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2006 Commissioner Finerty asked if this was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Smith thought given the distances between uses that it was. Commissioner Finerty asked if because it was on the outskirts of the neighborhood that it fit. Mr. Smith described it was isolated. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification regarding the clerestory. There appeared to be a lot of windows on the second floor, but very few and kind of oddly shaped positioned ones on the first floor. Commissioner Campbell also asked why they needed balconies on the second floor. Mr. Smith said that page A103 in the plans showed the area. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was like a loft. Mr. Smith said it was not a loft because there were solid walls. A loft typically had a rail at 42 inches and you would be able to stand there and look down. That couldn't be done with these units. Commissioner Finerty asked if they had all this clear open space, why did it have to be two- stories. Mr. Smith noted that there were two bedrooms upstairs; one at the front and one at the rear. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that on the pictures they received, the plans showed balconies with people standing on them outside. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Tschopp said they weren't all just open to the ceiling, there were some that allowed access to the outside. Mr. Smith said �.. that was right. There was a sliding door on the bedroom to the front that provides access to the balcony. Commissioner Tanner asked if the bedrooms were facing south or north. Mr. Smith said there was one of each. Commissioner Tanner asked how many would face the westernmost. Mr. Smith said one in each unit. Commissioner Tanner said that meant five bedrooms would be facing Magnesia Falls. Mr. Smith said that the easternmost unit that was oriented in long fashion there would be two for a total of six bedrooms facing that direction. Commissioner Tschopp asked if this development was separate from the development to the west. Mr. Smith said it was part of the map that was created as part of that project in 1987 and there is a condition in the draft resolution that requires that it be merged into that homeowners association. Commissioner Tschopp asked if this was approved tonight, there would be a total of 93 units. Mr. Smith said no, there would be 49. There were 44 now and this would add five. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were sufficient amenities onsite such as a swimming pool to handle the additional five. Mr. Smith said at the northeast end of Park Place was the existing recreation area and there is a 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18._2026 am pool in that area. He drove in twice, maybe three times and he didn't see anyone using it. From that observation he concluded that there was adequate availability for an additional five units. Commissioner Finerty asked about the square footage of the two-story townhouses. Mr. Smith said approximately 1,750 square feet. Commissioner Finerty asked for the total number of bedrooms. Mr. Smith stated that there were three; two upstairs and one downstairs, which could be an office. Commissioner Campbell asked about the lower small windows. The living area probably faced the channel. Mr. Smith indicated they were all living rooms. The bedroom on the first level faced north/the channel. Commissioner Campbell asked why they needed the balconies. Mr. Smith deferred to the architect to explain his rationale. Commissioner Campbell asked if this was the same architect who designed the other 44 units because it didn't look anything like them. Mr. Smith said no. Chairperson Lopez o ep ned the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BOB SIPOVAC, 72-651 Theodora Lane in Palm Desert, said that originally he had three different designs. He tried to make use of that land and it was difficult because of its triangular shape. He thought this design was really nice. The reason why the units were two-story was because the footprint was a lot smaller than a normal footprint of a single-story house and also to accommodate parking in the rear. He showed pictures of the area including the lot looking north from the south side, the heavy brush, he pointed out the trash from people walking through there. He said it would be nice to remove that portion of the lot. There was still a lot of land left on the east side. He had a picture further to east showing the landscaping continuous all the way to the side. To answer some quick questions regarding the layout of the units, He said there would be three bedrooms and three baths. One bedroom downstairs and two upstairs. The reason why he came up with a balcony is because he thought it was unique, it looked like Palm Springs modern and would be a nice touch/added feature to the units. It was only accessible to one bedroom upstairs and that was the master bedroom. The balcony went all the way across the clerestory and those windows were up above the living room, so there was no privacy issue and no one could look through there because it was .r 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2006 clerestory. As far as privacy issues, he showed a view looking from the lot looking south. There was a lot of vegetation on the other side of the wall. He showed a red mark and said that 75 feet to the left of that was the area that would employ the balcony. There were some citrus trees approximately 30 feet high obscuring the neighbor yards. He showed where the end of the balconies would be. He showed two houses on Buttonwood on the opposite end of the wall and the relationship to the project. Balconies would be to the left. There was a cross section showing the dimensions to the houses from across the way and the height of the balcony line of sight. It was approximately 130 feet from the balconies to a structure. The line of sight would impact just the bottom portions of the fascia board. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked why they couldn't put the balconies on the north side. She also asked if the master bedroom needed a balcony. Mr. Sipovac explained that he originally designed the units with the garages in the front and the City/Public Works was against them having the access from Magnesia Falls, so subsequently redesigning everything, redesigning the footprint, it just made sense to put the NNW everything, and bedrooms in the back and have the living spaces in front. On the master bedrooms since it faces the front, he thought it would be a great idea to have a balcony to sit out and enjoy the evening. Commissioner Campbell went by there and she noted that most of the area should be painted red to prohibit parking, which was why it was nice to have the parking in the back if they would park there. But if it was painted red, they would. It was very dangerous. Mr. Sipovac said this particular project would be 1,750 square feet and would be more upscale. It might not be for a single family, it might be for a professional family. It was close to the schools and parks and could be just a starter. Commissioner Finerty asked what he envisioned the units selling for. Mr. Sipovac replied about $500,000. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2006 no Commissioner Campbell thought anyone buying there should have kids because if they didn't have children, they would be complaining about all the traffic and the children. Mr. Sipovac indicated that there was a similar project just around the corner off of Deep Canyon. There were some single family homes there that are two-stories as well as some single-story ones. There were no other questions. Chairperson Lopez asked for testimony in FAVOR. MR. KLAUS HUCKFELDT, 2207 Sonora in Palm Springs, came forward. He informed Commission that he has been the President of the existing Park Place Homeowners Association for four years. This particular lot presented to the HOA a tremendous drain on resources. It was a mess. No matter what they do, they have plenty of kids from the school that after hours go over there and either rip things apart or sit on the corner smoking and doing whatever they please. He couldn't tell them the exact cost to maintain it, but it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,600 per month if they would Now have it maintained in the proper manner. That meant the sprinklers working, the planting done and the trimming done. They just didn't have the resources there. In fact, he said once the Association sold the land for whatever price, what would happen to the existing project. He was saying no, the money would not be split up among the 11 owners they had there, but the entire sum would be used to renovate Park Village. The buildings needed painting, the pool needed redone, the driveways needed resurfaced, the sprinkler system needed redone because it wasn't put in properly, the entire landscaping needed to be redone, the trash enclosures up front were too small for the cans that Waste Management delivered to them recently, the garage doors needed redone, and some of the roofs. So they should find that one project by the sale of this land will enhance the other project considerably. He approached the owners for a special assessment and he had a hard time getting out of the room alive. He thanked them. Commissioner Finerty asked how long this homeowners association had been in existence. Mr. Huckfeldt thought since the place was sold in 1991 or 1992. no 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2006 Commissioner Finerty asked if adequate reserves were being put away on an annual basis. Mr. Huckfeldt said yes, but they had maintenance problems there. For instance,they had exterior lighting. Those were the little black 110 volt lamps scattered throughout the project. The cost to replace one was $110. Over the last four months all of them, 27 or 28, had been demolished three times in a row by someone going around after hours with a baseball bat and hitting them and breaking them. They didn't have the resources to hire a guard on a 24-hour basis. Commissioner Finerty asked if they had thought of using a different style of light. Mr. Huckfeldt said that would be the next thing if they get broken again. He said they have a fairly large swimming pool and spa and in that pool house they had two bathrooms. The bathrooms were crime dens and had to be closed up. Where the kids came from, he didn't know. There was a school across the street and he had to assume that plays a major part there. The doors were broken twice on the pool equipment room. The equipment has been hammered with something like a baseball bat. He estimated the repairs last year at $22,000-$23,000. They were afraid to contact their insurance carrier. Commissioner Finerty understood, but if they successfully sold the land and took the proceeds and repaired it, what was to prevent all the repairs from being destroyed. Mr. Huckfeldt said nothing would prevent it. They just had to make sure they rent to tenants that have a personal interest in living in a pleasant place and keep their eyes and ears open to what's going on. Commissioner Finerty asked if these were rentals. Mr. Huckfeldt said yes. At this point, the landscaping as dilapidated as it is, because the bids were in the neighborhood of $13,000- $14,000 for a new sprinkler system. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that the existing 44 units are rentals and the new five would be for sale. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2006 .r Mr. Huckfeldt said he couldn't answer if they would be for sale. His interest was in selling off this triangular piece of land. But it had become for them rather difficult to recruit good tenants when the place looks as it does now. Commissioner Campbell asked if the Association had a say regarding the cars parked on the street, even though there are garages, but they're being used for storage. Mr. Huckfeldt stated that about two months ago they started cracking down on that. It turned out that a fair number of garages were being used as storage units and the cars were parked everywhere. Two weeks ago they had the first batch of cars towed away. They have two additional spaces on each driveway for guest parking. That was where some of the tenants were parking their cars and they would find cars without there without plates, sitting on blocks, and that sort of thing. They advised all the tenants to remove their cars and he believed three cars were towed and word got around fast. Some of them started cleaning up their garages. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was an onsite property manager. Mr. Huckfeldt said they have a gentleman there, but he doesn't live on site. It was his goal to have that, but so far it hadn't materialized. Mr. Drell explained that these are condominiums. He asked Mr. Huckfeldt if all the owners rent them out. Mr. Huckfeldt said that was correct. There are 11 four-plexes and basically they had 11 owners who use them as rentals. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no one. Chairperson Lopez asked for testimony in OPPOSITION. MR. ROBERT SPENCER, 43-081 Buttonwood, said he lives south of the project, quite close to it. He said he had about nine issues. The first was that the notices regarding the project were sent out pointed to the wrong parcel number and were primarily addressed to the renters who live there and the people who live in Wedgewood down the street. Very few of the notices actually went to the residents south of the project around Buttonwood and San Felipe, the existing single families. rr 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2006 Secondly, he did not feel at all that two stories were consistent for the neighborhood and was just not appropriate for that location. Number three was parking. It was a problem. Even one of the applicants for the project pointed that out. He couldn't see how adding five units would fix that. Earlier this evening Magnesia Falls was described as a four-lane road. As far as he knew, it was only two lanes. It was also interesting that the amenities at the project were described as adequate. When he first moved to the desert he rented a unit at that complex. One of the reasons the swimming pool was not used is that it was nasty. It was not a nice place to swim. Very harsh on your skin and eyes from a combination of urine and chlorine. It was not a place he would want to swim if he was buying a $500,000 condo. Earlier also it was mentioned that kids tend to hang out on that lot. Not that he has ever seen or any of the residents in his neighborhood had noticed. Additionally, a point was made that the Association was planning to sell this parcel of land and use the proceeds to improve it. He found it interesting that in the past the Association was successful in a construction defects lawsuit where they received a great deal of proceeds, none of which was invested in the project to his knowledge. He heard it was divvied up among the owners. He found it interesting that now they're claiming to plan to reinvest in it. They had heard what a poor condition the project is in and he didn't see why they would add to a project that's in poor condition and not properly maintained. He thanked them. MR. KING McWILLIAMS, 43-042 Buttonwood Drive, stated that he was directly south of the project. He submitted a letter and stated that he was strongly against the project. For a zoning change from an R-7 to R-8, the City would need to reduce three setbacks out of four-sided properties. Why change the City's setbacks for one project just to get a bigger building on a smaller lot? This was a two-story 24-foot high project. They had no two-stories in the surrounding area of homes, apartments or commercial buildings. They want to build five units two- stories high and each one is over 1,700 square feet. None of the om 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 209 .r single family homes or apartments in this area are over 1,500 square feet. The second-story balconies would look right down in their backyards and rear windows. This would take away their privacy and also the pools in the area. With five units built so close to the Magnesia Falls road, the noise coming off the street traffic would no longer be able to dissipate going to the north over the wash, but would bounce off of that two-story building right back into the yards of the existing homes. Also, with all the street parking in front of the units, the street traffic would be pushed closer to their side of the street. This was not a four- lane road. It has an island in the center and a bike lane. The five units were planned to be built on a pie-shaped lot. Ending at the east end of that lot is where Magnesia Falls Road starts its curve. Coming from the east on Magnesia Falls they would encounter parked cars. Because it was going to be easier for the new people to park on this side of the street then go around back and try to get into a small garage. There was not much extra onsite parking for either the second car or a guest. They were building a three bedroom, three bath unit and there would be more than one car. There was a real lack of pride in ownership that could be seen in the existing apartments. Sometimes they could see the people who rent the apartments and some are very young. They live on Buttonwood and the last unit to the east is the worst offender of that because at this point these people have their screen doors off, their cars there and access to the lot to the east, which they say is always dirty and torn up and was true. Three months ago he called the Sheriff and had the Sheriff come by because there was a person that took a mini motor bike out of the last unit, put it in the front yard, put a two-year old child on the handle bars and drove off to the area they say they want to build on and then down into the wash because the fence is missing. It looked very dangerous, so he called the police and the Sheriff came over and talked to the man, very nicely, and they did not do it any more and he thought they moved. If they have 44 existing units and they build five more, that gave them a total of 49 units. He questioned how many they needed to build before they decided they needed an onsite manager or an onsite maintenance man or grounds keeper. He was told the City's Code rr 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 20Q6 Enforcement should patrol that area and keep it under control. He didn't think they should use those people to monitor the wear and tear and all the extra curriculum around that apartment when if they had an onsite manager, they could take this problem and nip it in the bud before it ever started. He has owned and lived in his Buttonwood house since 1978 with his family. They bought it new and they have seen a lot of changes come and go to Palm Desert and the desert. Some were good, some were bad. But to put five two-story units on this small pie-shaped lot was really a bad idea. They have a chance to stop this now. Not next year when they drive by and say boy, look at that eyesore. He said they had a problem with the maps they were showing, they were not true. The driveways were not even shown on the plan that they were going to put in. It was a bad plan. MR. TOM REBENTISCH, 43-080 Buttonwood Drive, said his concerns had already been brought up. MR. SCOTT LEWIS, 43-120 Balsam Lane, said that the two gentlemen who spoke previously kind of covered all the bases he was low going to talk about as well. The only other issue he had was, being the father of a brand new child, he wanted to find out the type of people who were going to be in this neighborhood. Being on the second level looking over onto the streets and yards where his mother-in-law lives and his brother-in-law who has two children as well being able to see and look over in that area. A good point was brought up. Why does it need to be two-stories? It doesn't need to be two stories. All of the houses in that neighborhood are single story. All of the apartments that are right next to it as well are single story. If something needs to be there, which he believed it didn't. The space was pretty much used as much as it can be. A single-story could work out, but the big issue was two-stories and being able to have an access to see over everything. He thanked them. MS. MYRA DECKER, 43-121 Buttonwood Drive, said she was also opposed to the proposed project, mostly the two stories. If it was one story, she was still opposed. If two stories was allowed, what's to keep other people from adding onto their homes? It didn't make sense. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2006 ..r Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission in opposition. There was no one. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Sipovac wished to offer rebuttal comments. Mr. Sipovac stated that there are two units on Buttonwood. The one to the right decided to add their own second story. It was a deck that was probably not permitted. They were so opposed to two-stories, but had it for themselves. He said that was all he had. Chairperson Lopez thanked him. Someone from the audience asked to speak. Chairperson Lopez invited him forward. MR. TOM REBENTISCH, 43-080 Buttonwood, stated that in the last picture they could see right in their pool. The landscaping did not protect their pool and they loved skinny dipping. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was his home shown in the picture that Mr. Sipovac showed them. Mr. Rebentisch said they could see his pool through the vegetation. He said his house was next door. Commissioner Campbell asked if he had a second story he added to his house. Commissioner Tanner also asked if he built a deck in his backyard. Mr. Rebentisch said no, he didn't have a deck. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Commission Tschopp thought that the City got it right in 1987 and PR-7 was the right zoning for the area. He thought at this time they were trying to cram too much into too little into a small irregularly shaped lot that was included in the side area for density purposes back in 1987, but not developed for the same reason it shouldn't be developed today. He thought the architecture was very nice, but didn't fit the surrounding neighborhood. Somewhere it would be very nice. When he visited the area and stood on the lot, he could see two windows. They had the blinds down, but he could see two windows, so there is an elevation difference there sufficient enough to allow a person on a second-story balcony to look in. He thought it was an invasion of privacy in an area that doesn't have any other two-story buildings that he could see in the area at all. Some of the residents mentioned some of the problems in no 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2006 the area. That wasn't so much germane to this project, but Magnesia Falls Drive is a very busy street. They had it included in traffic studies when they have done things with regard to the church. They knew the problems there during the school days and how bad that could be. He didn't think adding units and more traffic ownership there was the right way to go at this point in time. So at this time he wasn't in favor of the project. Commissioner Finerty concurred. It was too small of a lot for the proposed project and that was substantiated by the need for the setback variances requested. Additionally, the building separation requested 13 feet instead of the standard 20 feet. When they started looking at all these variances, there was a reason why. The reason is there is too much proposed to go on the lot. She thought fewer units than five and single story would be more appropriate and would tend to fit more into the neighborhood. Commissioner Campbell also concurred. She thought it was very nice architecture, maybe for a different location, but not there. She would go for a single story and also to have this kind of building with three bedrooms and three baths would be beautiful, but again, they wouldn't have adequate parking if each bedroom was used and each one had a car. She went by there often and there was a lot of traffic. It's a beautiful building for a different ... location. She would go for a one-story and fewer units. Commissioner Tanner said he understood the economics of the area and $500,000 may or may not sell. And he understood the economics of the property value. If they were going to build and get the most out of it, they were going to have to use the land effectively and that was a two-story complex; five two-story units. But in that particular area, he was sorry to say he was not in favor of that particular development in that area. It didn't fit and didn't work. He knew that one-story single family probably wouldn't work economically. He concurred with the other Commissioners who were not in favor of this particular project as presented. Chairperson Lopez thanked everyone who took time to come to the meeting and share their thoughts. He also appreciated Mr. Sipovac's presentation. Obviously they learned more about this project from the standpoint that they are all rentals. He has been by this area many many times and noticed the cars parked on the street, some of the activities going on in the area because he raised his boys playing baseball across the street, so it was an area that needed some attention, but didn't think this was the right way to go about it from the aspect of selling this land and putting in two-story units on it. He said they all pretty much agreed that this was too much on too little property 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2006 and that height alone was not the issue. The density was also a problem. He personally had a question as to whether the funds would go back to the project itself or to the owners of the individual condominiums. He was also opposed and asked for a motion. Commissioner Finerty noted that they didn't have a resolution of denial. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial based upon Commission's comments. Action It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion, directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 06-06 - LING LING WANG, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a massage business in an existing 972 square foot commercial suite located at 73-330 El Paseo, Suite D. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. There was no response. Mr. Urbina indicated he didn't see 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. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2403, approving Case No. CUP 06-06, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. .r 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2006 C. Case No. TPM 34911 - DON AND ROSALIE RICKERD, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to convert an existing duplex into two air-space condominium units at 43-342 Callaway Court. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of Case No. TPM 34911, subject to conditions. Chairperson Lopez ogened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. DON WARD, 42-818 Clifford Street in Palm Desert, said he was present representing Mr. Richerd who was out of town. He was present to answer any questions. There were no 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. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2404, approving Case No. TPM 34911, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. SA 06-54 - BEST SIGNS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of an exception to Section 25.68.310.A of the zoning ordinance to allow a second freestanding sign on El Paseo for the Palms to Pines West/Vons shopping center located at 72-655 Highway 111. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of Case No. SA 06-54, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there would be any wall signs in Palms to Pines West if this request was approved. He knew at present they didn't and Now 17 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18. 2006 aw couldn't be seen, but things change over time and if vegetation was removed, they might want to come back at some point in time for wall signs. He asked if they could make that a condition. Staff said yes. Commissioner Tanner noted that Mr. Urbina talked about other people in the center benefiting from the sign as well. He asked if they were looking at multiple tenants on this sign or just Von's. He knew there was one sign that identified Remax. He asked if that was the sign that was being proposed in both locations B and C on El Paseo. Mr. Urbina said at this time it was the sign being proposed; however, if the applicant wanted to change one of the lower tenant names, they could on one of the two signs on El Paseo if the Commission granted the exception. He thought the applicant might be able to provide additional information. Mr. Drell stated that the signs had room for two other tenants. Given the letter from Mr. Holker, the Manager Member of the other half of this shopping center who was requesting signs on El Paseo, Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any feelings that additional signage would be overdoing it there. Mr. Urbina said it was a matter of opinion. Staff did receive a letter stating that he wasn't in opposition to granting the exception for a second sign, but he would like a condition that would require this property owner to add lighting to the palm trees to make it more compatible with the lighting on his property. Commissioner Tanner asked if that was part of the conditions. Mr. Drell said no. He didn't think they could force someone to light palm trees. They were different projects. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the adjoining property owner wanted signs as indicated in his letter for the other half of this shopping center, if staff thought that would be too many. Commissioner Finerty noted it was the letter's last paragraph he was referring to. Mr. Urbina said no, that property owner's proposal for monument signs would be evaluated on their own merits based on the same standard of one monument sign per street frontage unless he had 1,600 feet of frontage on El Paseo. He asked if it was Commissioner Tschopp's concern that the property owner to the west could propose another monument sign. Commissioner Tschopp said he stated so in his letter. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was already a sign there at that entrance. Mr. Drell concurred that there was a little directional sign. Commissioner Campbell said it listed a lot of the businesses there including the restaurant. Mr. Drell thought the issue was that kind of by design there was virtually no signage on El Paseo. These were the main .r 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2006 accesses/immediate accesses to the project. It would give the public a little insight as to the businesses inside. He didn't know if that was ever a bad thing. Commissioner Campbell agreed that the signs were badly needed there. Mr. Drell said no one knows what's in there and they couldn't be seen from Highway 111 or anywhere. This gave people a fighting chance to figure out how to get places, which was kind of a good thing. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JESSE CROSS with Best Signs at 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail in Palm Springs said he was present to answer any questions. 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 reiterated that the signs are badly needed and it was very difficult to give direction to people that come and want to know where the grocery store. It was easy to send them to Indian Wells, but not easy to tell them how to get to Von's. She moved for approval. Commissioner Tanner agreed that signs were needed, but he wasn't sure that was what they needed to do on El Paseo. He had a difficult time because this could potentially open the door to others coming to Planning Commission saying they were having a difficult time with customers finding them, so let's add a sign here and there. He wasn't disagreeing with the need, he just wondered if this would open up the flood gate for signs up and down El Paseo. He knew it was needed because Von's is in a strange area, but at the same time he had a difficult time saying yes to one sign because it could lead to more. Commissioner Tschopp believed the additional monument sign was needed in this location. He has driven that street many times and you have to make sure you have the right entrance to get to Von's, so he thought it was a great additional. The way it was proposed would look nice. Because this was a unique property with two different owners yet appears to be one center, he thought it would be nice to incorporate that other center into this one, but said they would deal with it when it comes up at that point in time. He was in favor of this monument sign. .r 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2006 .r Commissioner Finerty concurred that the signs were needed, were attractive and fit in and were low. They weren't offensive in any way and would help people to find Von's. Coming from the back side, unless you know what's in there, it was difficult to maneuver. She was in favor of the proposal. Chairperson Lopez also concurred. In this particular area it was necessary and he thought the signs were quite handsome. He thought it was appropriate in this particular location; however, maybe not in the future, but they would review them one at a time. In this particular situation there was enough frontage to allow the signage. He also concurred. He noted there was a motion on the floor. He believed there was discussion regarding an additional condition of approval. Commissioner Tschopp said the condition would be that the Palms to Pines West center would not request any further wall signs on the El Paseo side. Chairperson Campbell concurred with the additional condition. Chairperson Lopez asked for a second to the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Tanner voted no). .r It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2405, approving Case No. SA 06-54, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Tanner voted no). E. Case No. VAR 06-04 -ANNE SALERNO, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow a reduction of a side yard setback from 12 feet to 4'Y to allow construction of a carport for an existing single family on an R-1 13,000 zoned parcel located at 74-251 De Anza Way. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report. He noted that a letter in support was received from the adjacent property owner to the west and variance reduction from 12 feet to 4 feet 3 inches. Mr. Urbina recommended approval of the findings and Case No. VAR 06-04, subject to conditions. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. No 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2006 MS. ANNE SALERNO, 74-251 De Anza Way, addressed the Commission. She said she had no additional comments. She thought Mr. Urbina did a beautiful job. She also said she would have constructed some type of parking some years back, but she had to acquire a lot line adjustment. She wasn't aware when she bought the property that it was an issue. She appreciated Commission's consideration. 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. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting 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. 2406, approving Case No. VAR 06-04, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. TPM 34843 - PACIFIC POINTE PARTNERS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 6.56-acre parcel into ten parcels for condominium and building address purposes. The property is located on the southwest corner of Gateway Drive and Dinah Shore Drive at 73-501 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. GARY LAVINSKI with Pacific Pointe Partners at 3636 Birch Street, Suite 260, in Newport Beach, California, 92694. He thought Mr. Smith presented their case. They had an adjacent neighborhood caught up in the same type of issue and he thought what he was 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 2090 no proposing would work for their tenants/buyers as well as the Fire Department. 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. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2407, approving Case No. TPM 34843, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES .r A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell indicated that the next meeting would be July 19, 2006. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the next Landscape Committee meeting was July 19, 2006. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was canceled. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reported that the Parks & Recreation would be dark until September. no 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18 2006 XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Lopez reminded Commission that the next meeting would be August 1 and the August 15 meeting was canceled. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. PHILIP DREL , Secretary ATTEST: l ... JAME 0PEZ, Chalfir son Palm e rt Planning o ission /tm 23