Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0417 ����� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION . TUESDAY - APRIL 17, 2007 * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chair Dave Tschopp, Vice Chair Connor Limont Mari Schmidt Van Tanner Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Tony Bagato, Acting Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the April 3, 2007 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the April 3, 1007 minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian reviewed pertinent April 12, 2007 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17. 2007 Vl. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 07-03 - D.R. HORTON, INC., WALTER RAYMOND, AND PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for property located at 42-260 Warner Trail. B. Case No. PMW 07-06 - FEIRO ENGINEERING for RICHARD AND MARILYN FROMME, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to accommodate development on Lots 18 and 19 located on Calle de los Campesinos, more particularly known as APN's 628-020-012 and 013. C. Case No. PMW 07-09 - PATRICK TERRELL AND STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to add a portion of Common Lot "I" to Residential Lot 6 at 48-336 Northridge Trail at Stone Eagle. D. Case No. PMW 07-13 - JAMES AND KATHLEEN SHORT AND ROBERT AND JODY LANDERMAN, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to relocate parcel line from current location through existing structure to new location that will create proper setbacks to structures at 215 and 221 Strada Nova. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION _ APRIL 17, 2007 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. TT 35271 and TT 35272, PALM DESERT GREENS ASSOCIATION, Applicant (Continued from March 6 and 20, 2007) Request for approval of two tentative tract maps to subdivide 7.58-acres into 331 lots for property at 73-750 Country Club Drive, also more particularly described as APN's 620-272-014, 620-261-050, 620-251-039, 620-241-027, 620-094-026, 620- 082-035, 620-131-031, 620-141-001 and 620-151-034. Ms. Aylaian reported that staff's recommendation was a continuance to May 15, 2007. She explained that the applicant and their neighbor were continuing to work toward resolving outstanding issues. Staff recommended a continuance to May 15, 20Q7. Chairperson Campbell indicated that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no response. Leaving the public hearing o�en, Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Limont, continuing Case Nos. TT 35271 and TT 35272 to May 15, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 06-11 - GREGORY & GREGORY, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a residential lot to be used as a parking lot for 18 additional parking spaces to an existing office complex for property located at 74-039 San Marino Circle. Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report. He indicated that one letter and one petition signed by 98% of the residents on San Marino Circle were received and distributed to Commission. Both pieces of correspondence requested 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2007 removal of the condition requiring installation of a four-foot wide sidewalk, 22 lineal feet along San Marino Circle, which would replace some of the existing mature trees and landscaping. Mr. Bagato explained that the condition was to bring the sidewalk down the street for people crossing San Marino to get to Portola. Right now there is only one handicapped access point at the curb and Public Works was trying to increase pedestrian safety. Having the sidewalk 22 lineal feet was a compromise that would result in only three trees being removed. While Public Works originally wanted the sidewalk to extend over both properties, that would remove all of the trees. Mr. Bagato said that staff was comfortable with the proposed solution for the sidewalk. Based on the rest of the design, he said the project complies with all the standards of the zone and the specific plan requirements. He indicated the findings for approval were outlined in the staff report and believed the improvements would enhance the neighborhood; Mr. Bagato recommended approval. Commissioner Limont said she walked the circle and there are no constructed sidewalks; there are some pathways, and she asked if it was primarily for safety just to get across Portola and would be four-feet by 22 feet? Mr. Bagato said yes, it was four-feet wide by 22 feet long. Typically six feet wide sidewalks are required, but in this instance they wanted it narrower to provide more room for landscaping to screen the building. The thought is that there is a sidewalk on Portola on both sides of the intersection, so it's more for the residents that come up from San Marino Circle so they don't have to walk all the way along the street to get to that ramp. It wouldn't necessarily increase the safety on Portola, but more inside the neighborhood for people to get around Portola. Commissioner Limont asked if the neighbors feel there is an issue with safety--they are the ones walking there. Mr. Bagato said there were some neighbors in the audience that could address that issue. To his knowledge there has never been any safety concerns. Public Works added this condition and he thought Phil Joy could probably speak to the issue. Mr. Joy stated that currently there is a blind spot coming around that corner from Portola onto San Marino Circle. Public Works was trying to provide a safe place for pedestrians to get onto the Portola sidewalk. Currently if someone comes around that corner to gain access to that ramp and a car happens to be turning right, there was really no visibility on that corner. Commissioner Limont asked if they were attempting to make certain that everything tied into the neighborhood and there would be no access into the parking lot from San Marino Circle. Mr. Bagato said there was no legal 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17. 2007 access, but from what the applicant said, people cross through there right now since there's no fence. The intent is to get people off the street going to Portola. Commissioner Limont clarified that she was just asking about the parking lot and clarifying that they wouldn't have access from San Marino Circle into the parking lot, the access would be on the other side. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Limont asked if there was a reason there was no wall there. From a neighborhood standpoint, she thought it would be really nice if the neighbors didn't have to look at a parking lot. She thought it was safe to guess that the parking lot would be used at night since the Chop House is there, as well as the Chinese restaurant, and if the landlord rents out to the restaurants, she wanted to make sure the neighborhood didn't suffer because of the additional parking. Mr. Bagato said he spoke with some of the residents in the area and they preferred the thicker landscaping versus a block wall. The house right across the way is rented by someone he knows who says there are cars there all the time, but she doesn't have a problem with it and she actually prefers the landscaping compared to having a wall. Commissioner Limont thought a wall with landscaping would be nice, but might be overkill. Mr. Bagato explained that a wall with a footing would decrease the amount of landscaping. This was kind of a compromise between the two departments to find something that addressed the safety issue and the landscaping needed to screen the building and cars. Commissioner Schmidt asked about the one letter from Scott Fisher that referred to a five-foot wall. Mr. Bagato explained that he was basically requesting if there wasn't going to be landscaping, he would like to see a wall instead, but Planning staff would agree to keep the landscaping. Commissioner Schmidt asked who was responsible for maintaining the landscaping. Mr. Bagato said the applicant/property owner was responsible. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RON GREGORY, 74-020 Alessandro Drive, informed Commission that he and his brother built this building and he moved in in 1990, so they've had the building about 17 years. It was interesting to him how things change in terms of what the City wants. When they first build this building the request was to plant it heavily to mitigate the view of this commercial development from a residential neighborhood. Later when they had the opportunity to purchase this single family residence type of lot and add to their parking lot, he was asked to get permission from all the neighbors to do this because 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2007 there was concern on the part of Planning staff to see if the neighborhood felt they would be good neighbors and that this would be something they would like. They did that. At the time they had requested continuation of the same trees already there, the African Sumacs and the dwarf oleanders, to have a theme running along that portion of the street. Since then, the sidewalk issue came up and several neighbors talked to him. He said his goal is to make a parking lot here, but he would also like to be a good neighbor. On the other hand, he was also very concerned about safety as well. If it was really felt that this sidewalk is important for safety, he would agree to install it. But then there was the issue of the neighbors. He said he was available for questions. Chairperson Campbell said that even though there was a sidewalk there, there would be enough landscaping to camouflage the parking lot. Mr. Gregory thought so; the compromise with four feet would still require a little gravity wall because there is a little slope there. He thought it was possible to plant some new trees/a new tree in the area between the new sidewalk and the interior curb adjacent to the parking. Chairperson Campbell asked if the sidewalk should just go around the corner for safety. Mr. Gregory explained that the 22-foot proposal was shortened. It was narrower and shorter than the original request from Public Works. There were no other sidewalks in the neighborhood. Some neighbors expressed concern about that because it is basically a landscaped parkway type of neighborhood. Commissioner Tschopp understood that Mr. Gregory's office was in that building. Mr. Gregory said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked if he saw very many people crossing the street right there. To him it seemed to be a busy place to cross the street because of that left-hand turn onto Highway 111 and to Alessandro. It seemed a dangerous place to cross there. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17. 2007 Mr. Gregory thought a lot of people cut through his parking lot to avoid it or take a short cut, but people do walk there. Commissioner Tschopp asked if he saw people crossing from San Marino Circle across Portola. Mr. Gregory said he has seen people illegally cutting across, but not from San Marino Circle. It happened adjacent to his building. Commissioner Limont asked if there was a crosswalk there. Mr. Gregory said no. Commissioner Limont asked if this would encourage people to cross illegally. Mr. Joy said no; the sidewalk would be to gain access to the sidewalk on Portola, it was not to cross Portola. He clarified that when they have a commercial parking lot on a single-family residential street, a sidewalk is required. In this case the original request was for 160 feet of sidewalk and their compromise was to go down to 22 feet. That was the request right now and that was only to get to the sidewalk on Portola, not to cross Portola. Coming down San Marino Circle, coming up to the intersection is a blind spot so that's all they were asking for is 22 feet to get to the sidewalk. Once someone gains access to the sidewalk on Portola, then they can travel to the signalized intersection. Commissioner Tanner asked if there was a sidewalk on the west side of the greenbelt on Portola. Mr. Bagato said yes, San Marino curves around and the sidewalk goes up to Highway 111 and also goes south to Fred Waring. It wouldn't cross Portola, it was just to get them to the sidewalk that goes up to Portola and then to Highway 111. Commissioner Tanner said what they were trying to do was get safely across San Marino. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Regarding Commissioner LimonYs concern about the parking at nigF�t being used by the Chop House and Tsing Tao restaurants, Mr. Gregory said their agreement with the owner of the other building is for a shared use of 35 parking spaces. The valets are only allowed to park cars in the large area of parking lot. They were not allowed to go in the covered parking area or where the new parking lot wilf be. There would be no parking back there for valets, only in the large parking lot. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2007 Commissioner Tanner noted there would be no valet parking, but thought there were occasionally patrons who could park there. Mr. Gregory said that had been an issue once before, but typically people don't. They had to use cones there before, too. Chairperson Campbell thought there hadn't been any parking problem or noise complaints since Ruth's Chris left. Mr. Gregory said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt asked about the distance between the curb on San Marino Circle and the end of the parking lot asphalt. Mr. Gregory said it is eight feet. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that was where the proposed sidewalk would go or if it was further to the west. Mr. Bagato replied that it was further to the west on the existing parking lot, but was still on the Gregory property. Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that this was a trade off; instead of putting in the whole sidewalk down the street, the 22-feet was to mitigate the traffic concern at the corner of San Marino Circle and Portola. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Initially staff wanted a sidewalk from Portola to run all the way across the existing parking lot with landscaping and the vacant lot which the applicant was seeking approval on. It would eliminate a lot of the landscaping and that's when they arrived at the compromise. Commissioner Schmidt asked for confirmation that no one in the neighborhood seemed to want any additional sidewalk in the neighborhood. Mr. Bagato concurred; there was a letter opposed to removing any of the trees or adding the sidewalk. He thought there were a couple of neighbors present at the meeting who would also be speaking. Commissioner Schmidt asked if any of the new parking lot had covered spaces or if it was open. Mr. Gregory said they were covering the side contiguous to the existing covered parking spaces; the west side would be cove�ed. There were no other questions and Chairperson Campbell asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. DOUG FISHER, 74-053 San Marino Circle, said his home is the second house from the lot in question. He was in favor of the parking 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17 2007 lot and said Mr. Gregory was kind enough in his good neighbor efforts to knock on his door and show him a proposed plan to develop the lot prior to his owning it. Mr. Fisher said one of the things they really enjoy about that office building and the parking area is how well landscaped it is. Some might think it's over landscaped, but to them that is a plus. He said it is lush, pleasant to look at, and creates a buffer for them from the commercial buildings, as well as the parking area. He has lived there for seven years and they went through the expansion of Portola, the tearing down of the house on that lot, and some things occurring in their neighborhood which made them feel like the commercial properties were encroaching on them a little bit. They enjoy that buffer. Personally he saw no need for a sidewafk to nowhere in a neighborhood that has no sidewalks. He walks the neighborhood routinely and what he presumed to be the majority of traffic pedestrian-wise was traffic along San Marino, generally from the north to the south crossing San Marino Circle and continuing on the east side of Portola for which there were no visibility issues. There is a pedestrian ramp for handicapped folks and they can proceed from the sidewalk to the north up Portola and north of San Marino Circle to the south without any difficulty whatsoever. He said there was very little pedestrian traffic within San Marino Circle or San Marino Way to Portola and what little traffic there is, would be around the corner and heading to Highway 111 or Alessandro and across to EI Paseo. He said no one in their right minds would attempt to cross Portola from San Marino Circle. The traffic is four lanes of heavy traffic; there is a median in the middle of the road and it would be unsafe to attempt to cross. The closest place to cross would be De Anza or Highway 111. Mr. Fisher said they would like to see the mature trees maintained, the small oleanders maintained and that landscaping buffer was important to maintain the residential quality of their neighborhood. So far they were extremely pleased with how Ron Gregory has landscaped the property, maintained the property, and kept it looking A+ for all the years he has lived in the neighborhood. He didn't understand the reason for the sidewalk since they have no sidewalks and no pedestrian traffic. Pedestrian traffic follows along the east side of Portola towards Highway 111 or the opposite direction. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17. 2007 Chairperson Campbell mentioned a letter from a Mr. Scott Fisher requesting a five-foot cement block wall along San Marino Circle. Mr. Fisher said that letter was from a neighbor across the street who was not able to be present. They communicated by E-mail and in person and he had the same issues with the quality of landscaping and happened to think a wall would be another way to buffer them from the commercial sight of the building. Mr. Fisher said when he was given the drawing a year ago from Ron Gregory, in the drawing a four-foot wall was indicated on the proposed lot he was expanding the parking on, so he didn't know if that was still part of the plans, but it was mentioned in the original drawing. He thought a tall wall would be less attractive to the neighborhood than lush landscaping. A wall would be too harsh. MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS, 74-060 San Marino Circle, reiterated the comments by Doug Fisher in that Ron Gregory has been a fine neighbor who goes out of his way to insure his lot is pristine and they appreciated it. He said he bought this house 25 years ago and he didn't know if anyone remembered the issue when Mr. Gregory built that building, but one was that it is a finro-story building with a balcony that overlooks San Marino Circle. Scott Fisher's house has a wall around it with lush landscaping and he has a pool. From the second- story balcony of Mr. Gregory's building it was possible to look down into Scott's pool behind that six-foot block wall. That pool was there when Mr. Gregory put in his building and the request at the time was that the landscaping be so lush they wouldn't be able to see through those trees down into their neighborhood because of the height of that building. It was an issue then and he thought Scott felt it was an issue right now because he uses his pool all the time. Having lived there 25 years, Mr. Beauvais said he knew the pedestrian traffic and how the neighbors use San Marino Circle. He said most of them walk that circle and rather than going all the way down to the end of that block and walking up Portola, what they do is cross through the oleanders and walk behind Mr. Gregory's building to the Chop House, to the Chinese Restaurant and to Ace Hardware. It was a convenient shortcut. Why walk a block out of the way? He asked Mr. Gregory if it would be possible to put in a tiny little footpath so they could just cut across without scraping into the oleanders. It wasn't a premier issue, but would just be a neighborhood thing. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17 2007 In his opinion, the proposed sidewalk would be a sidewalk to nowhere. If they thin those trees, people would be able to look from that balcony into the privacy of the neighborhood. He thought the sidewalk was less important. He said they are tree crazy in that neighborhood. If people walk the circle, they would see nothing but trees everywhere and the thought of tearing out mature trees was a problem for them. Mr. Beauvais said they respectfully asked Mr. Joy to reconsider the need for the sidewalk. It occurred to him about 10 minutes ago that if it was absolutely a must to put in a sidewalk there, there were no trees on the other side of Alessandro directly across from where the sidewalk would go. And that was City property. He asked if it would be possible to put the sidewalk in the same place with the access so instead of on the south side of Alessandro, put it on the north side of Alessandro so they could walk up onto the sidewalk and approach Portola safely and at the legal sidewalk where there is wheel chair access, people could cross over. That way they wouldn't be cutting down any trees, the sidewalk would be on City property, they were saving lush landscaping they all enjoy, and it seemed like a way to solve a problem without cutting down trees. He thanked the Commission for their time. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Gregory had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Gregory said they would like a parking lot. They would do whatever the Commission would prefer and he would like to be as amenable as possible. He clarified that when they went around the neighborhood about a year ago, the plan did have a four-foot wall. At the time they thought it would be helpful in mitigating any type of headlights if someone did drive in at night. They were asked to remove the wall so there could be more of a landscaped feeling. If it was felt that the wall should be back in there, he would put the wall back in. Right now the landscape look was more desired. Chairperson Campbell asked for Mr. Gregory's opinion on having a passageway. Mr. Gregory hoped they didn't fall down because he would be liable, but acknowledged that people walk through there and it didn't bother him. He said it would be his pleasure to put in some stepping stones. 11 MlNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17. 2007 Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Gregory saw any way to engineer this to allow a short sidewalk and still maintain some of the trees that the neighbors were concerned about. Mr. Gregory wasn't sure it would work because of the grade change. He thought to get the sidewalk four-feet in, they would have to cut the tree roots and the trees would then be unstable. He thought that was why it was felt by all parties involved (the City's Landscape Manager, Phil Joy and even himself) that the trees would be impacted by a sidewalk and they would have to be removed. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were other types of tall, luscious trees that could be put in at a later date that could grow up next to the sidewalk. Mr. Gregory said yes. They could plant a host of different trees that would grow to a nice tall height at a later date. It would take time. The beauty of the situation right now is the trees are already there. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the only reason for the trees to be removed would be because of the sidewalk. A sidewalk was usually required in these circumstances. Mr. Joy said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt said she would rather see the landscaping. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Limont agreed with Commissioner Schmidt. If they could, without in any way endangering people, since San Marino has been around quite a while and is a mature neighborhood, and she had yet to find a major accident on that corner involving individuals walking, if there was any way they could preserve the neighborhood and mature trees without endangering residents, that would be the direction she would like to see them go. It is a wonderful neighborhood. Mr. Bagato informed Commission that the minimum width for ADA is 36- inches or four-feet wide and there was no way to put in a sidewalk there and save those three trees. Commissioner Limont asked if they could just leave things as they are. Commissioner Tanner said that he has heard it expressed that as long as they have someone coming in asking for a change, let's put in what staff wants. He didn't think they needed to put in a 22-foot walkway wheel chair accessible. It was for part of it. He didn't think it needed to be on 22-feet that 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2007 swings around into Mr. Gregory's property. He concurred with Commissioners Schmidt and Limont and preferred to go with the neighbors of 25 years and what they like there as opposed to what the City staff would like to see happen. Commissioner Schmidt said she would like to see the trees and the landscaping as a requirement of the parking lot instead of the sidewalk. She didn't hear anyone in the audience that really wanted a sidewalk. Commissioner Tschopp said he was a little torn; he could see that corner sidewalk right on the corner as being a safety issue, especially for someone on a wheel chair or small bike; however, they were talking about building a sidewalk that wasn't even adjacent to the proposed parking lot being discussed tonight. It has worked well for the neighborhood up until this time and there haven't been any problems, so they were basically trying to catch the proposed development in fixing something down the road that wasn't really part of this parking lot. He thought the parking lot worked well, was a nice addition to the neighborhood and he thought at this time they should leave things as they are. If at some point in time the City believes it has become a safety issue, they will need to move forward with the neighbors at that time. Chairperson Campbell also concurred. She understood the City's view about the safety purpose of having the sidewalk, but it would go in 22 feet with a sidewalk to nowhere because there would never be any sidewalks in the neighborhood, so she agreed they should not disturb the landscaping. People jaywalk across to Alessandro, but she didn't see people crossing Portola there. For the time being, she was also in favor of leaving things as they are. Commissioner Schmidt clarified that she wasn't proposing that it stay the way it is, she was proposing that it be landscaped appropriately. Chairperson Campbell said they were just talking about the sidewalk so the landscaping would remain as is. Action: Commissioner Tanner moved that the recommended action not be approved as the findings, but as the Commission presented it. Mr. Bagato clarified that the Commission would be approving the project without the condition for the sidewalk by removing Public Works Condition No. 12. Commissioner Tanner concurred. Mr. Joy clarified that only a portion of No. 12 would be removed. For the record, he also wanted to state that the first time they modified this condition, right behind the new parking lot is an existing curb cut that would 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17. 2007 need to be filled in as part of the project and should be made a condition of approval--that the curb cut on San Marino Circle be filled in. Commissioner Tanner asked if Mr. Joy wanted that added into his motion; Mr. Joy concurred. Commissioner Tanner did so. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Limont. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2440 approving Case No. CUP 06-11, subject to conditions as amended above. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 07-04 -OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS/T-MOBILE � USA, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 75-foot telecommunications tower and equipment shelter on property located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Eldorado Drive, 76-002 '/2 Honeysuckle Drive (APN 626-190-035). Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report. He pointed out that in the Commission's packets there was an incorrect photo simulation; contrary to those photos, the antennas would be fully enclosed. He also indicated that two exceptions were being requested: the first involved allowing a tower in a residential zone, and the second exception request had to do with the required 1,000-foot separation. The location would be� within an existing cluster of palms and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) felt the location within those palm trees mitigated the impacts. He said the homeowner's association also approved this location and staff was also in agreement and recommended approval of Case No. CUP 07-04. Commissioner Limont noted that on Eldorado there is an existing cell tower. Mr. Stendell concurred. Commissioner Limont asked if the two would be comparable. Mr. Stendell originally thought there was a pine there, but he could be mistaken and it could be a palm. Commissioner Tschopp noted that ARC was in favor because of the cluster of existing mature palm trees. Mr. Stendell concurred. Commissioner Tschopp noted on Condition No. 6 it basically stated that the applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. He asked if they should expand the condition to include maintaining the existing landscaping if that was why they were considering approving it at this time. Mr. Stendell agreed that the mitigating factor was 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17. 2007 the existing palm trees on the Palm Valley site. He believed they had the ability to expand it, because the approval was contingent upon those palms and the condition should include maintaining those palms in order to provide stealth to this tower. Commissioner Tschopp agreed. Commissioner Schmidt asked who would be replacing the palm trees that shield the two towers. She thought it should be conditioned to maintain and/or replace the existing trees. Mr. Stendell concurred; those trees are an integral part of this approval and said there was no reason not to condition that from the beginning. Mr. Hargreaves thought the problem might be that . the condition extends beyond the bounds of the applicant's lease and there would have to be an agreement between the applicant and the lessor. They might want to approve it conditioned on the fact that they find an acceptable way to implement the condition. Commissioner Tanner was concerned that they already approved one site and asked if that was a condition of approval and if it wasn't a condition of approval, as discussed between T-Mobile and the Palm Valley residents. They were saying it had to be conditioned now and he asked if they were overstepping the boundaries. Mr. Stendell said the conditions for the original tower stated that they would enter into an agreement for their leased area as was typical of any approval. This, however, was an interesting situation where the approval is dependent upon something outside their leased area, so legal counsel would assist them in figuring out a mechanism to carry out that condition to allow approval of the project. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the lease would be between T-Mobile and Palm Valley; Mr. Stendell concurred. Mr. Hargreaves said they would find a way to cover them both. Commissioner Schmidt stated that there is an incredible difference between 1,000 feet apart and 60 feet apart. That bothered her a lot, but she was willing to go with it if it was mitigated and they weren't seen. She thought the residents there would feel the same way. There were no other questions and Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BOB HONROTH representing T-Mobile, 3 Imperial Promenade Suite 1100 in Santa Ana, California, 91707, stated that they were in support of staff's conditions and the various departments' conditions. Regarding the additional condition raised this evening to maintain the existing palms, they rely on those for compatibility and he spoke with representatives of the HOA that were present in the audience and they were in agreement with a condition that would require 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17 2007 replacement of one per one. If a palm blows down or dies, it will be replaced with another palm tree. The trees were key in making this stealth. He was in support of a condition and how it could be worked out to move this forward this evening. The 1,000-foot setback was something that stemmed from the early days and some cities have given staff and Planning Commission the ability to overrule that condition because they have gotten better with stealthing. They've gotten a lot better. There were no questions for the applicant. Chairperson Campbell 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 Campbell asked for Commission comments. Action: Commissioner Tschopp moved for approval with the addition to Condition No. 6 that it be amended to include an acceptable way to implement maintenance and replacement of existing palm trees. Commissioner Tanner seconded. Chairperson Campbell asked if it would be required from T-Mobile or the Association to replace the trees. Commissioner Tschopp confirmed that it would be the applicant. Mr. Hargreaves recommended expanding the condition to include both of the towers because they are waiving the distance requirement and can incorporate both of them so they should get a maintenance condition that requires maintenance of the existing palm trees that camouflage both towers. Commissioner Tschopp amended his motion and Commissioner Tanner amended his second. Chairperson Campbell asked for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2441 approving Case No. CUP 07-04, subject to conditions as amended above. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. ZOA 06-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from December 19, 2006) Request for recommendation to City Council for approval of an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, Title 26, and a zoning ordinance amendment relating to residential condominium conversion approvals. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2007 Ms. Aylaian informed Commission that staff was recommending a continuance of this item until May 15. She has been in contact with the owners of Seville and Canterra, as well as the owners of Palm Lakes who actually went througF� a conversion in the city a couple of years ago and are quite excited to be able to offer review and comments. There were also a couple of minor changes to incorporate from the Departments of Public Works and Building & Safety. She said she was also able to chase down exact numbers on quantity of units that are impacted in those areas including the smaller, four and fewer, as well as in larger developments that were of concern to the Commission at the last hearing. She stated she would like to gather all the information into a single report for the Commission's consideration on May 15. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open and would remain o en. There was no one in the audience to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion, to continue Case No. ZOA 06-02 to May 15, 20Q7. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Chairperson Campbell reported that the meeting would be April 18. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont also reported that the next meeting would be April 18. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont informed Commission that the Project Area 4 Committee would not be meeting until June. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17 2007 D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner stated that Freedom Park would be open on Wednesday, June 9. The celebration would start at 9:00 a.m. and go until noon. There would be food and entertainment. He also reported on the other discussion items. Commissioner Schmidt asked for and received clarification on the status of the pool. XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Campbell reminded Commission and staff that there would be a study session on May 1 beginning at 5:00 p.m. Sandwiches would be provided. Ms. Aylaian asked the Commission to contact staff with any special dietary requests. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. , _.. ;,_. ._— �--_. �-- � _ -- � � C--- LAURI AYLAIAN, Secret ATTEST: / ' / NIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 18