HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 06-42 Limited Outdoor display of merchandise at LowesCITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal to a decision of the Planning Commission
approving an amendment to the approved precise plan to allow
limited outdoor display of merchandise at the home improvement
center at 35-850 Monterey Avenue.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPELLANT: Regency Homes/Versailles
Robert Wilkinson
2 Chateau Court
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
APPLICANT: Lowes Hiw Inc.
1530 Faraday Avenue, #140
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CASE NO: PP 04-13 Amendment #1
DATE: March 23, 2006
CONTENTS:
Recommendation
Executive Summary
Background and Discussion
Draft Resolution
Planning Commission Minutes and Resolution
ARC (Architectural Review Commission) Minutes
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 06-42 denying the appeal and
affirming the action of the Planning Commission allowing limited outdoor
display of merchandise at Lowes, subject to conditions.
Executive Summary:
The applicant seeks approval of an amendment to the approved precise plan of
design to allow limited outdoor display of merchandise.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13 Amendment #1
Page 2
March 23, 2006
Specifically, the applicant requested:
A. Display of live plant materials on the walkway in front of the garden center.
B. In the alcove area between the garden center and the main store entrance,
the applicant proposes to display outdoor lawn furniture and the like. The
plan for the area includes three picnic tables with a total of 12 seats,
barbeque grill display, two benches, a swing set, a tent and a Woody's Hot
Dog vendor's cart.
C. In the area south of the indoor lumber yard entry, the applicant proposes to
display building materials (i.e., brick and block) for convenient customer pick-
up.
D. Along the north wall the applicant proposes to place six storage sheds
demonstrating the types of sheds available for purchase.
February 21, 2006 the Planning Commission, following a public hearing, on a 4-1
vote (Finerty voting nay) approved the requested amendment subject to conditions.
At the public hearing four persons from the residential tract to the west (Versailles)
spoke asking the Planning Commission to delay action on this request.
It was noted that Lowes landscaping is limited to a maximum of 15 feet in height in
the perimeter area under the SCE power lines. The neighboring residents felt that
if the request was delayed, Lowes could be encouraged to pay the developer of
their tract to increase the quantity and size of trees due to be installed on the west
side of Monterey. Larger trees were requested to mitigate "some of the damage
done by this project." Specifically, the neighbors and developer's representative (Mr.
Wilkinson) expressed concern with the Lowe's sign, unscreened building, display
of merchandise, parking lot lights and the general mass of the building.
Planning Commission determined in each case items are displayed in an
appropriate environment consistent with the customer's ultimate use and that the
requested outdoor displays were an appropriate, logical extension of this type of
business and since the requested outdoor displays would be limited in location, type
and size that it would not be visible from Versailles. The other concerns of the
neighbors (sign, building mass, landscaping and lights) were determined not to be
germaine to the request before the Commission.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13 Amendment #1
Page 3
March 23, 2006
March 3, 2006 this timely application for appeal was filed. The reason cited for the
appeal was that the outdoor display would be unsightly and have a bad visual
impact on the surrounding area.
Background and Discussion:
August 26, 2004 the City Council by its Resolution No. 04-87 approved construction
of the Lowes Home Improvement Center, subject to conditions. Condition No. 15
prohibits outdoor storage of any type on the site.
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Construction on the site is nearing completion. The street improvements are
pending the relocation of the SCE poles. Relocation work began the week
of February 13, 2006.
B. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The site is designated C/R-Commercial Regional in the general plan.
C. ZONING
The site is zoned PC-2 District Commercial. A home improvement center is
a permitted use in the PC-2 zone.
D. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
North:
PC-2 / Vacant
South:
PR-5 / Shadow Ridge Timeshares
East:
PR-13 / Sares Regis project under construction
West:
Residential / Single Family Dwelling
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF OUTDOOR DISPLAYS
A. Across the front of the building the site plan provides for a 12-foot wide
loading zone for the convenience of customers loading large items into their
vehicles. The sidewalk and the loading zone are level. There is no curb. In
the area of the garden center the sidewalk is 21-feet wide.
We see no issues with the display of live plant materials on this sidewalk
provided adequate access is maintained along the sidewalk and that the
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13 Amendment #1
Page 4
March 23, 2006
display is limited to live plant materials only (i.e., no fertilizer, soil, railroad
ties, wheel barrows, etc., displays).
A minimum of seven feet should be kept clear to accommodate open car
doors and pedestrian flow.
B. The outdoor lawn furniture display area south of the main entrance does not
present problems provided it is contained within the alcove and adequate
access is preserved along the sidewalk.
Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring that the merchandise
be located back in the alcove and that a minimum seven -foot wide path of
travel be preserved.
C. The display of brick/building materials outside the indoor lumber yard entry
presents possible visual concerns if it is allowed to spread out or exceed
certain height parameters. To contain this display, staff suggested six-foot
high masonry walls projecting 30-inches to 42-inches out from the building
should be installed to define the extent and height of pallets of material.
At Planning Commission, the applicant proposed a different solution which
was to install an opaque trellis system across the west openings on the porte
cochere over the lumber pick up area. Planning Commission ultimately
approved this in an either/or scenario. The applicant is scheduled before
ARC with a trellis system on March 14, 2006. Staff will report on the action
by ARC.
D. The applicant recently completed landscaping in the area along the north
side of the building where it now proposes to place a series of six storage
sheds.
The City's Landscape Manager advises that the current landscape plan will
need to be amended to reflect any changes resulting from this approval.
The area in question is 30-feet wide from curb to the building. Even with the
storage sheds against the building there will still be adequate room to create
an effective landscape plan.
ARC recommended screening the area from view through a combination of
landscaping and walls.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13 Amendment #1
Page 5
March 23, 2006
CONCLUSION
The outdoor display of certain merchandise at a home improvement center is a
logical extension of the marketing of the business. The building is 300 feet or more
from public streets. The only people who will see the low level outdoor displays are
customers who have driven to the site.
Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and the Planning Commission action
be affirmed approving the outdoor displays as requested, subject to conditions
which control the extent and height of the displays and preserve adequate
pedestrian access along the walkway. In the north area where the storage sheds
are requested, the landscape plan will need to be amended to provide pedestrian
access and heavier screening of the area.
Submitted by:
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Approval:
o r Croy
ACM for Devel ent Services
(W pdocs\tmts6ppG4-13a.cc5 )
Department Head:
C
Phi Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
arlos L. O ga
City Mana er
RESOLUTION NO. 06-42
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL TO A
DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED PRECISE PLAN OF
DESIGN TO ALLOW LIMITED OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF
MERCHANDISE AT LOWES HOME IMPROVEMENT
CENTER AT 35-850 MONTEREY AVENUE.
CASE NO. PP 04-13 AMENDMENT #1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 21 st day of February, 2006, adopt its Resolution No. 2378 approving the above noted
amendment, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed by Regency HomesNersailles on March 3,
2006; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 23rd
day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal to the
decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, Lowes Hiw Inc. has provided plans showing four (4) areas of limited
outdoor display of merchandise; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of said appeal:
1. The proposed outdoor displays of merchandise will be limited to areas
immediately adjacent to the building and will be limited to specific types of
merchandise in each area.
2. The proposed outdoor displays of merchandise as conditioned will not be
visible from a public street or nearby properties.
3. The proposed amendment to the precise plan, as conditioned, will not
substantially depreciate property values and will not be materially injurious
to the properties or improvements in the vicinity and will not endanger the
public peace, health, safety or general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-42
2. That the appeal by Regency HomesNersailles is hereby denied for reasons
specified above.
3. That the decision and conditions of approval of the Planning Commission at
its February 21, 2006 meeting is hereby affirmed.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this day of , 2006, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JAMES FERGUSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
TO:
DATE:
CASE NO:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMbiVITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission
February 21, 2006
PP 04-13 Amendment #1
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the approved precise plan to allow
limited outdoor display of inerchandise at the home improvement
center at 35-850 Monterey Avenue.
APPLICANT: Lowes Hiw Inc.
1530 Faraday Avenue, #140
Carlsbad, CA 92008
I. BACKGROUND:
August 26, 2004 the City Council by its Resolution No. 04-87 approved construction
of the Lowes Home Improvement Center, subject to conditions. Condition No. 15
prohibits outdoor storage of any type on the site.
A.
B.
SiTE DESCRIPTION:
Construction on the site is nearing completion. The street improvements are
pending the relocation of the SCE pofes. Reiocation work began the week
of February 13, 2006.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The site is designated C/R-Commercial Regional in the general plan.
C. ZONING:
The site is zoned PC-2 District Commercial. A home improvement center is
a permitted use in the PC-2 zone.
D. AD.fACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: PC-2 / Vacant
South: PR-5 / Shadow Ridge Timeshares
East: PR-13 / Sares Regis project under construction
West: Residential / Single Family Dwelling
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 04-13 AMENDMENT #1
FEBRUARY 21, 2006
II.
III.
CURRENT PROPOSAI�:
The applicant seeks approval of an amendment to Condition No. 15 of Resolution
No. Q4-87 to allow limited outdoor display of inerchandise.
Specifically, the applicant requests:
A. Display of live plant materials on the walkway in front of the garden center.
B. In the alcove area between the garden center and the main store entrance,
the applicant proposes to display outdoor lawn fumiture and the like. The
plan for the area includes three picnic tables with a total of 12 seats,
barbeque grill display, two benches, a swing set, a tent and a Woody's Hot
Dog vendor's cart.
C
�
In the area south of the indoor lumber yard entry, the applicant proposes to
display building materials (i.e., brick and block) for convenient customer pick-
up.
Along the north wall the applicant proposes to place six storage sheds
demonstrating the types of sheds available for purchase.
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF OUTDOOR D{SPLgYS:
A. Across the f�ont of the building the site plan provides for a 12-foot wide
loading zone for the convenience of customers loading large items into their
vehicles. The sidewalk and the loading zone are level. There is no curb. In
the area of the garden center the sidewalk is 21-feet wide.
v �<< ��
-T�nG� b�� rQ�L�
We see no issues with the display of live plant materials on this sidewalk
provided adequate access is maintained along the sidewalk and that the
display is limited to live plant materials only (i.e., no fertilizer, soil, etc.,
displays).
A minimum of seven feet should be kept clear to accommodate open car
doors and pedestrian flow.
ARC has no concems with this part of the request.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP 04-13 AMENDMENT #1
FEBRUARY 21, 2006
B. The outdoor lawn fumiture display area south of the main entrance does not
present problems provided it is contained within the alcove and adequate
access is preserved along the sidewalk.
ARC (Architectural Review Commission) had no concern with this area, but
questioned the need to display grills in this area.
Staff suggests a condition be imposed requiring that the merchandise be
located back in the alcove and that a minimum seven-foot wide path of travel
be preserved.
C. The display of brick/building materia{s outside the indoor lumber yard entry
presents possible visual concems if it is allowed to spread out or exceed
certai'n P�eignY parameters. To contain this display, six-foot high masonry
walls projecting 30-inches to 42-inches out from the building should be
installed to define the extent and height of pallets of material.
�
ARC expressed concem with this display area and suggested that it be
screened from view and contained.
The applicant recently completed landscaping in the area along the north
side of the building where it now proposes to place a series of six storage
sheds.
The City's Landscape Manager advises that the current landscape plan will
need to be amended to reflect any changes resulting from this approval.
The area in question is 30-feet wide from curb to the building. Even with the
storage sheds against the building there will still be adequate room to create
an effective landscape plan.
ARC recommended screening the area from view through a combination of
landscaping and walls.
IV. CONCLUSION:
The outdoor display of certain merchandise at a
logical extension of the marketing of the business.
from public streets. The only people who will
�
home improvement center is a
The building is 0 feet o� more
see the outdo r displays are
3�
STAFF REPORT �
CASE NO. PP 04-13 AMENDMENT #1
FEBRUARY 21, 2006
V.
customers who have driven to the site. In each case items are displayed in an
appropriate environment consistent wiih the customers ultimate use.
Staff recommends approval of the outdoor displays as requested, subject to
conditions which will control the extent and height of the displays and preserve
adequate pedestrian access along the walkway. In the north area where the storage
sheds are requested, the landscape plan will need to be amended to provide
pedestrian access and heavier screening of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Case PP 04-13 Amendment #1 be approved, allowing limited outdoor display
of inerchandise at Lowes, subject to conditions.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Lega� notice
C. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by:
r" ,.�����CJ`-(' ',,,
Steve Smith
Planning Manager
Review and Concur:
„
��
Homer Croy
ACM for De e ment Services
/tm
Reviewed and Approved by:
�
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
4
PLANNING COMMiSSION RESOLUTION NO. 2378
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNiNG COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIF�RNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED PRECISE PLAN OF
DESIGN TO ALLOW LIMITED OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF
MERCHANDISE AT LOWES HOME IMPROVEMENT
CENTER AT 35-850 MONTEREY AVENUE.
CASE NO. PP 04-13 AMENDMENT #1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on
the 21 st day of February, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
by LOWES HIW INC. for approval of the above described amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th
day of August, 2004, adopt its Resolution No. 04-87 approving a Lowes Home
Improvement Center on the subject property, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS. Condition No. 15 of Resolution No. 04-87 prohibits outdoor storage of
any type on the site; and
WHEREAS, Lowes Hiw fnc. has provided plans showing four (4) areas of limited
outdoor display of inerchandise; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering ali testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said precise
plan amendment:
The proposed outdoor displays of inerchandise will be limited to areas
immediately adjacent to the building and will be limited to specific types of
merchandise in each area.
2. The proposed outdoor displays of inerchandise as conditioned will not be
visible from a public street.
3. The proposed amendment to the precise plan, as conditioned, will not
substantially depreciate property values and will not be materially injurious
to the properties or improvements in the vicinity and will not endanger the
pubiic peace, health, safety or general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pfanning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, Califomia, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
r
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2378
(
2. The proposed Amendment #1 to Case PP 04-13 is a Class 5 Categorical
Exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further environmental review
is necessary.
3. That Precise Plan 04-13 Amendment #1 is hereby approved, subject to the
attached conditions.
PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on thls 21st day of February� 2006, by the following vote� to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
.
CAMPBELL, TANNER, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ
FINERTY
NONE
NONE
�, f<�.
� ���
PHILIP DRELL, �ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
�
1G
J S .L�P
f�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2378
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 04-13 AMENDMENT #1
Denartment of Communitv Develo en :
1. That all conditions of approval delineated in City Council Resolution No. 04-87
shall continue in fuil force and effect except that Condition No. 15 is amended
to permit the limited outdoor display of inerchandise as shown on plans dated
January 20, 2006 on file with the Department of Community Develapment and
as limited further by the following conditions.
2. The applicant at all times shall maintain a minimum seven (7) foot wide
walkway across the front of the building.
3. That with respect to the display of building materials outside the indoor lumber
yard, the display shall not exceed a height of six-feet and shall be limited to a
maximum of four pallets at any one time. To define the area of the display, the
applicant shall install wing walls extending out four feet from the building a
minimum of 48 inches in height.
Alternatively, the applicant may design a trellis/vine system on the west side of
the porte couchere to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission. If
this solution is implemented, the above limitations on height and amount of
material shall be waived.
4. That prior to placement of any storage sheds in the area at the north end of the
building, the applicant shall first obtain approval of a landscape plan amendment
from the City's Landscape Manager and shall implement any required changes.
Said amended plan to provide access to the area and screening of the area
through a combination of planting and walls.
5. That the display of live plant material associated with the garden center is
limited to plant material only. Fertilizer, bags of soil, grass seed, potting
containers and the like are not permitted under this amendment.
//
�����s
xo�� 3, zoos
�. Pv�lip �u
Direceor of Cotarmmity Develapment
City of Paltn Da�at
73-310 Fred Waring Drive
patm Desact� CA 9Z260-2578
R� rropo.ea Lo�►.•. Eom. Imprw�t war�hod,e
PP d4-13 — R�qna�ed Clarftl�e�tbti/Modi�atlos to Conditioa oi Appso�val
Depsrp�eat d Commodfy Davebpme�t Coaditloo Na is
OYtdoot Sboca�s on tY� $ite
Dosr Mr. Droll,
Per o� rece� diecuasios�. I am diroctiiag this lmttac to you to £ora�ally requeet a�ia� befare the
City Plmnda� CommiuioA for s ciari5cation aad/a modiAcatioai to the D�p�eat of
Commuaity Devdop�t's condiKon of approval no. l S prohibiting aqy wt�uor �toia�o of any
rype oa tba :ita At I aocPY�. �P�Y of cat�in artioloa of nevv ra�chsndise and live plsat
material� mor tl�e e�aacee to our store is aa i�e�ral psrt of our rotail menchandisinS Pro6��
W8 feel this aau be tbne tasttflilly and without beul� of�eosive. WQ W11I tfC r. �r ,,, .1 to
d�0 thi� i0 th0 �IDmi�SIOn.
I„ M� � � ��; �Ily rtiqtyest tbvt this itam be addod to the eadiest posdbla future planoiag connnsi�sian
aget�da. P1e4ae ]uap me advi�od as to whea this a►ill occur.
Sincei�ely,
Lowe's Cot�ies, Inc.
aak M�nde�
3eaior 5ite Dcwelapa�nt Maaager
Cc: Steve Ciale� Lowo'a Rrsl F,state
Chwck Land4 Nadol Architect�
LeAnn Mathia, Lowe's Store Manager
Mike Skilea, Lowe's R�1 Estate
1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 1�40, Carlsbad, CA 92008 . Phone: 760-804-5300 Fax: 760-602-1 p 1 S
� TOTAL PAGE.02 **
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
� APPLICATIQN TO APPEAL
DECISION OF THE
(Name of Determininp Body)
�L /a nl�tliN G. C.�o �.� � ss � a�t
Case No. 1�p ��i� 13 �9��:.vt�lN,t��� Date of Decision: �- Z� l" O L
Name of Appellant r vG��D��s/� S� ���S Phone �d �%' �� `% 3 7 3
O �RT%1i��-���J�p,v
Address 2 Cy�@? c`nr� ��c►2^ I�A��c �,a �/I� /�-RQ� CA 9� Z"�4
, �
Description of
Application or Matter Considered:
n � �r� r �t�e��s Q
.
L�� � ok, - ' ��.�+ �s
�
Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheefs if necessary):
.r.��wP_ �' /d��� L � �.o v/�,�i .�'- .v�.c.o w
t�v✓� S' ry �Jt j�,+�r �Li c.�a��v�. s� � K- �%a�.
�4T 3�"-��o ir.lD.✓�� ' .
f�� Q�ST p ��iv�^����d i` �/�y' �ia,NC � G �D S�G,�
f%-Ni�L vi4 9�T"l�o4•t �is�tC.�tC M� � Q o� s�G. �/
.-��s---s-�!^L.-�
(Signature of Appellant)
Ff� R OFFICIAL USE ONLY / �% (f�
Date Appeal Filed: �' �J "� �D Fee Received: � / �l �
Treasurer's Receipt No. �fCJ�I �Y Received by: ��� �
, ) � .
�...J
Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official:
Action Taken:
Date:
H��rkiassemWPdah\WPDpCS1FORMSIappl to appeal wpd
Rachelle D. Klasse�, Ciry Clerk
��PY TD ���1�I�%ll�
DATE �'3 `O /i�y�_ R�, ���
__---�__- `
__- �, pl,,✓� � �
j ? ?C A �� � � MA.��`�t�
�� ``�` e� � y- � � � .
��� ,�j �,tc�t, l� � . , S►^AL
�r.� �'�'� K.T l�o�i. ' `� f�,v,J �
� p�'� 0 / /��d� �
j S,'7 �� . 1„ �t� /� n�o�
� � � ��Sj���i � �
�
�vt�,/ ��u � � �/ C:� r N% � �
� t s� / 8 � !>'v' �'`' /� � �� -
� ��� � r
�
DESERI
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider e request by Lowes Hiw Inc. for approval of an amendment to the
approved precise plan to allow limited outdoor display of inerchandise at the home
improvement center at 35-850 Monterey Avenue.
CITY Of Pfll(�
73-5�o FrtEn W�wNc Duv�
Pw� DesFx7', GuFoltNu gii6o—i578
reu �60 346-06��
R�x:76o 34i-7og8
iaklp�lm-daat.oe�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEOAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PP 0413 AMENDMENT #1
—1 •
�
sve�Ecr
�xo�rr
��v �s-zeao�a
e
...� �
�u
:ii
����
Ii1
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesdey, February 21, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber et the Palm Deaert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning ell items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hea�ing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
February 10, 2006 Palm Desert Planning Commission
,��
DRAF`f
MINUTES
P�j�M DFSERT PI�.ANNIN(, f:nMM15SInN FEE3R.IIA,RY 21� 2�OR
(Commissioner Campbel{ arrived.)
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
Mr. Smith summarized pertinent February 9, 2006 City Council actions.
Vi. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
VIII. PUBLIC HEAR{NGS
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 No. PP 04-13 Amendment #1 - LOWES HIW, INC., Applicant
Request for approval of an amendment to the approved
precise plan to allow limited outdoor display of inerchandise at
the home improvement center at 35-850 Monterey Avenue.
Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. He noted
that a letter from Regency Homes and a letter from Mary Clarke of
Versailles, the development across the street, were distributed to the
Commission. He also indicated that he received a phone call from Mr. Matt
Mealey from Versailles who was opposed to Lowe's in general.
Following up on the letters the Commission received, Commissioner Finerty
asked for Mr. Smith's opinion on their complaints about the lighting, signage
and Lowe's reluctance to even address these issues with the neighbors. Mr.
Smith said the property has been zoned commercial since annexation in
1988. It was always intended to be commercial. Mr. Drell also pointed out
that that issue wasn't on the agenda. He thought it was exacerbated by the
fact that Regency Homes itself has no landscaping whatsoever along their
side, so there was a lot of opportunity to address it there. The limiting factor
2
DRAFY
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNfNC rt3MMI55fnN FE�BR11��1, 1()OR,
on the Lowe's side was the overhead power lines which couldn't be
undergrounded and Edison limits the size of trees that can be planted under
power lines. The landscaping that Lowe's put in was as required by Edison,
although it still fundamentally met Palm Desert's landscape standards. He
said the lighting of the parking lot meets our standards. It is a big commercial
building. lt's what it always was going to be. ft's a regional commerciai use.
The opportunity to fix it is in the median and landscaping on Regency's own
property, which didn't have a stick of landscaping. Lowe's was constrained
by Edison. Mr. Smith also pointed out that there would be a double row of
trees in the landscape planter on the Lowe's side that would be installed
when the power lines were moved. They included Acacia, Acacia Aneura
and the tree version of the Mexican Bird of Paradise. Edison didn't allow any
trees exceeding 15 feet in height, so whatever went in wouldn't block the
building. He noted that this is a major intersection of two major arteria{s in the
city.
Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Drell indicated that if Versailles
would do their landscaping on their side, the west side of Monterey, they
could put the height of whatever tree they wanted to camouflage Lowe's. Mr.
Drell said that was correct and pointed out that the closer a barrier is to the
observer, the more effectively it would screen. Also, they could work with
them on the placement of trees in the median, so there was room on the
west side of the Versailles wall, room on the east side of the Versailles wall,
and room in the median. His understanding was that they would be in the
process of planting the landscaping for that median. He didn't know what
Rancho Mirage was requiring or approved for Versailles itself. Commissioner
Campbell noted that Versailles had been there almost a year with no
landscaping. Mr. Drell said he didn't know the circumstances or why their
landscaping had been delayed.
Commissioner Finerty asked if this was something that Planning Commission
should respond to when they received a letter regarding these issues or if
staff would respond to the issues. Mr. Drell said that they could put it on the
next agenda as a Miscellaneous item and staff could research why it hadn't
been done. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was as simple as Mr. Drell
calling the Rancho Mirage Planning Director. Mr. Drell said he could do that
and report back at the next meeting.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if Condition No. 15 was placed on the project
by City Council or if it was part of the original application approved by
Planning Commission. Mr. Smith said it was both. At the time the application
3
DRAF`t
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PIr4NNINr CnMMISSInN , , FF�ARY ?1, �Q�
went through Planning Commission there was no request for outdoor
merchandising. By the time it got to City Council, there was discussion with
respect to sales throughout the year in the parking lot. The City Council
approved three, one of which was Christmas trees and a couple of other
occurrences that would happen in the area of the indoor lumber yard at the
north end of the site. Beyond that, the overall condition prevented it. Mr. Drell
said it was geared toward what amounted to storage, which is what was
occurring at Home Depot. So they were very clear with Lowe's that they
didn't want something that started looking like storage. They could display
outdoor items that belong outdoors and was appropriate in an outdoor
environment, but they didn't want to lose control and end up with the storage
issue liked at Home Depot.
Commissioner Finerty asked if staff thought six storage units were
necessary. Mr. Drell said staff specified that they could have one example
of each style. He believed that was their intent. In terms of display, staff saw
no reason for them to display more than one of anything. They didn't want
to see 20 wheel barrows. In reality, they couldn't buy that shed, they buy a
kit. So there was no reason to display more than one of a particu{ar style.
That was the purpose of it. Commissioner Campbell noted that was also on
the north side of Lowe's, so it wasn't really visible from any residents. Mr.
Drell concurred. He said the goal for each area was to landscape it or put it
in a setting as seen in someone's yard or patio.
Regarding Condition No. 3 and putting up wing walls, Commissioner
Tschopp asked if that took care of the Architectural Review Commission's
concems. Mr. Smith believed it would; their concern was with spreading out
beyond the scope of what they intended with this approval and coming up
with wing walls to contain or limit the area and the height.
Chairperson Lopez o e�ned the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. JACK MANDELL, the Senior Site Development Manager for
Lowe's Home Improvement, came forward. He said they are based
in Carlsbad, California. He said they were okay with the conditions
placed on them with the exception of the issue regarding the
screening of the block and building materials under the lumber
canopy. He said there was probably going to be a functionality issue
with them trying to create a wall outside the front of the building;
however, their architect Chuck Landen was present and they would
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNINr CnMM�S�ION
DRAFY
; �; ��.
like to propose maybe an alternative solution to that and work with
staff on the details. They've had this come up before and had been
successful in being able to mitigate the issue with some additional
treatment which Mr. Landen would describe.
MR. CHUCK LANDEN, Nadel Architects in San Diego, stated that
they were proposing in the arch areas in front of the lumber canopy
providing additional screening, like a mesh screen and growing vines
up it. That would add some additional landscaping to the building and
would screen off what was happening behind it. That way any
merchandise under that canopy would receive additional screening.
It had been very effective in other locations.
Mr. Mandell said that would go from ground to ground all the way to
the ceiling, which would effectively provide a complete screen across
there. (The area was pointed out on the plan.) Mr. Mandell said they
would basically see nothing behind there and would ask if they did
that, if they could add pallets, which was an integral part of their
business. He indicated that Lee Ann Matheson, the Store Manager,
was present and could explain that in further detail. He said they had
a real concem about not being able to use that area more functionally
for the palleted goods that would come in. There would be occasions
they would have them there until they were picked up by the
purchaser. If it was a visual nuisance or visual problem, they felt that
the proposed screening mechanism would eliminate that problem and
that's what they would like to work with staff on. He noted that it
looked like there were people present and he would like to reserve the
right for rebuttal comments.
Commissioner Tschopp asked how important it was to have all of this
material and goods stored in front of the building as opposed to inside of the
building.
Mr. Mandell said it wasn't really storage; what they were asking for
was to display new merchandise. Just some of the larger ticket items
during the year like barbeques and that type of thing. With the storage
shed issue on the north side of the building, they might or might not
do that. He didn't think it was that critical. The really important issues
were the live plant material and it sounded like staff thought it was
more of an amenity with more landscaping out front. The display of
��
..
DRAF'�'
MINUTES
�4L.M D�F.RT PI.ANNIN(; f;nN�IAISSION FF 1 20A,fi�
materials out in front of the store was a real integral part of the facility,
so they would like the ability to do that.
Commissioner Tschopp said that one of their competitors down the road
stores materials out in front and displays it as well, and he thought it looked
unattractive. He asked if Mr. Mandell could give them some assurance that
Lowe's would not degenerate to that level.
MS. LEE ANN MATHESON, the Store Manager, came forward. She
said they were obviously well aware of what their competitor looked
like down the street and that was not what Lowe's is about. That
wasn't even close to what they were proposing. They wouldn't be
using the area for storage, it was display purposes only. Around the
lumber canopy area was a quick load facility for their contractors or
commercial businesses. They were looking for pallets and weren't
looking for one or two bricks or blocks or one or two bags of cement.
So they were proposing strictly under their lumber canopy to make
sure their merchandising was no more than three pallets high and if
they have the screening in front from Monterey, they couidn't visualty
see it. But their contractors drive through that lumber yard so that they
can quickly load up and be on the way to their job sites. So that is
what they were proposing today.
Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that Ms. Matheson said it would
be no more than three pallets high.
Ms. Matheson repeated no more than three pallets high. At Lowe's,
they wanted to make sure they have security stacks so they would not
go more than that and wanted to make sure they do things safely and
would certainly not exceed the columns on the exteriors. On the front
of the actual lumber canopy, they were talking about the archways
and they would not exceed that by any means.
Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification as to the opposition to the
condition.
Ms. Matheson explained that they would like four to five different
items at three pallets high because they have different sizes of block
that they se{I to their commercial or contractor businesses. If they
were limited to just four pallets, that wouldn't take care of their
contractor needs because when they come in, they don't come in for
0
� R AF`f
MINUTES
PALIV� Q�,�RT PLA�VNIN(; rnMMISSinN F�IIAR.Y �1 20(1�
a few, they want several pallets at one time. So it was a quick load
facility. That is what that drive-through lumber yard was made for.
Commissioner Finerty noted that the Lowe's in La Quinta has a drive-in
facility and they pick up everything inside.
Ms. Matheson said that was a conversion of an old Eagle's. It was not
how they design their buildings today, so they don't actuafly have any
drive-through lumber yards. They design it on the exterior of the
building for quick load for their contractors only. They would not have
lumber out there. She knew that some people were talking about
timbers and that kind of thing. That wasn't what it was designed for;
it was mostly designed for concrete block and bagged bits. So they
wouldn't find rebar and that kind of thing outside the building.
Mr. Drell said that was predicated on a solution which in essence makes it
an interior drive-through based on the effectiveness of the screening.
Commissioner Finerty commented that they knew how things grow and stay
put. Mr. Drell said the goa{ would also be how effective the metal screening
mesh was by itself. Commissioner Finerty asked if they would have approved
a mesh screen as part of the building; no. Mr. Drell said they could have and
the subject came up before.
Mr. Landen said they could design something very similar to what
they have done with their garden fence with ornamental iron with a
mesh panel, and in the interim until the vines grow up, they could put
some of the shade cloth/wind screen material commonly used on the
fence in the garden center. It would cut down the visibility beyond until
the plants took over and did their job. He has seen bougainvillaea
trained on things like that and it could be very colorful and very
effective screening material. That was just one example.
Chairperson Lopez asked if he was willing to work with staff and come up
with a solution for this particular area.
Mr. Landen said yes, staff has been very helpful in offering ideas and
solutions.
Chairperson Lopez said he would be asking people to address the
Commission who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the
proposed project. As a matter of housekeeping, he said there were several
7
�iI�AF'f
MINUTES
P, nFSFRT P!„ANNINr GnNj�IAISSI(�N FFBR�_ 1. 2(1(1R
letters and Request To Speak Cards wishing to discuss concerns regarding
items other than what was on the application for the Planning Commission's
consideration. He said they welcomed their comments, but would ask them
to be brief, and then they wou{d give Lowe's the opportunity to respond to
those particular comments. He asked that those speaking give their name
and address for the record.
MS. MARY CLARKE, 17 Orleans Road in Rancho Mirage within the
community of Versailles. She said she was not hostile to Lowe's in
general and loved the old Eagles. They were compatible in their
communities. She thought this building was astonishing. She said she
prepared a packet for their review on the impacts to their community
from the new Lowe's store directly across from them on Monterey.
The intent was to show them the damage done to their residentiaf
community by the unscreened building, and more particularly, the
enormous sign on this new store. They were asking them to delay a
decision on outdoor storage for this store until such time as Lowe's
mitigates some of the damage done by this project. They did not
believe that Lowe's intended to damage their community. On the
contrary, they simply did not think of anything but their own best
interests in the design and placement of the project. However, when
one does significant damage to others however inadvertent the
damage, the right and honorable thing to do is mitigate the damage
to the extent possible. At this time Lowe's has disregarded this
obligation.
She said there is almost 1,300 feet of frontage on Monterey severely
impacted by this project and a total of 11 homes face on this frontage.
In addition, the sign is felt more than 2,000 feet, nearly a half a mile
back, into their project down the main street, Paris Avenue. This is
devastating to all of them, 270 plus home owners at this time. And
when the project is lighted, it was totally overwhelming. It was lighted
tonight.
She said they had attempted to get Lowe's cooperation and a solution
to this problem, but at this time they were not motivated to do the right
thing. She believed tabling the decision on the outdoor storage might
provide enough motivation to bring them to the table. They were all
willing to participate in a solution to this. The homeowners and the
developer of Versailles were merely asking that Lowe's do their share.
Specifically, the developer of Versailles was willing to install the
:
DRAFY
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNINC�( �SSION FEBRUARY 21. 2006
irrigation system and provide the labor and equipment to install
sign�cant trees on the west side of Monterey. In a few moments the
issue of why that was not done at this point would be addressed by
a member of Regency. The homeowners would incur the obligation
to irrigate and maintain these trees for the future, far more trees then
they would have had to install without that sign. They were asking
Lowe's to step forward with either the trees or the funding for the trees
to screen this project from their community. The trees needed to be
a significant size and number to be effective.
Again, as a community, she said they have no leverage to influence
Lowe's to do the right thing, but if Lowe's demonstrated their good will
and spirit of cooperation on this issue, "the City of Palm Desert may
then consider granting them the favor of outdoor storage in the
confidence that they are responsible members of the larger
community." This was a problem she thought should be easily solved
within the next two or three weeks by parties of good will. Until then,
she asked them to delay a decision.
Ms. Clarke said she included some pictures that were taken, one from
approximately 300 feet, one from about 800 feet, and one with a little
cheating from Photoshop that had some trees in there. As she
understood it, Regency had been delayed in putting in the
landscaping because Lowe's has not moved some of the utilities
across the street yet. She said that would be addressed in a few
minutes. Yes, they do have an obligation on their side to landscape,
too, but the scope of this building was much greater than anyone had
anticipated. She thanked the Commission for considering this. When
they were at a hearing in Rancho Mirage one night one of Palm
Desert's staff came and begged them not to put big box on a strip of
Monterey that would inflict harm on Shadow Ridge. She said fair is
fair. If they didn't want to harm Shadow Ridge, she really doubted
they wanted to harm them. This was a soluble problem. It did not
need to be a painful issue. She thanked them. She said they didn't
have enough time with Photoshop to do a super job, they only got on
it this week.
MR. DAVE CLARKE, 17 Orleans Road in Versailles/Rancho Mirage,
addressed the Commission. He showed a picture of what someone
would see driving down Paris Avenue in Versailles, which he said is
in an easterly direction facing the Lowe's project. He showed another
0
.� � AF't
MINUTES
�4L,M nESF+ RT P_LANNINr COMM15SInN FEBRUARY 21 20(1R
picture from farther back. He said anyone going down that street
could see the Lowe's sign and it was very objectionable. They couldn't
miss that sign. Unfortunately, they couldn't get there from Paris
Avenue. He showed an artist rendition if trees were placed along
Monterey on the Versailles side, which would be the west side of
Monterey, and they would totally obscure the Lowe's sign, which
would certainly mitigate that large sign, yet at the same time anyone
driving down Monterey looking for Lowe's would have no difficulty
seeing it, but the folks in Versailles wouldn't be overburdened by that
sign. He thanked them.
MR. ROBERT WILKENSON, Regency Homes, 2 Chateau Court in
Rancho Mirage, addressed the Commission. He said he appreciated
being able to speak before the Planning Commission and address
some of the questions brought up. Regency Homes began the
Versailles project in 1999 in the form of acquisitions and planning. He
said Versailles is located at the corner of Monterey and Gerald Ford
Avenue. Prior to Versailles, Regency developed and built Victoria
Falls in Rancho Mirage and Regency Estates and Regency Palms in
Palm Desert and Regency has been a local developer in the desert
for over 20 years.
He stated that he spoke personally with the Lowe's project manager
and was directed to the person in charge of site development. When
he called that person to talk about the visual impact the store was
having on Versailles, the signs, the lights and the yet to be allowed
outdoor display of inerchandise, he got to the point and asked the
Lowe's representative to provide or pay for some trees to lessen the
impact of their building sign, the display of inerchandise, and its effect
on Versailles. He received a lecture about the delays that the City had
caused Lowe's because of their conditions and the additional
expenses that put Lowe's over budget. He was told that the City made
Lowe's add another lane to Gerald Ford which cost them more
money, that Lowe's was also behind schedule because of Edison and
one time he was told that Edison's plans were wrong and that they
would need to be redrawn because of conflicts with existing
underground utilities and, therefore, �dison's start date needed to be
postponed. The next time he was told that the plans were okay and
Edison would take care of any conflicts with other utilities.
10
DRAF'1'
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PL.ANNINC f:nMMISSInN FEBRUARY 21;� 2(1t1R,
Apparently notices were sent out by the City when Lowe's went
through the City's landscape approval process and he was told that
was their chance for input on landscaping and those kinds of plans.
The problem with that excuse was that Versailles residents were not
moved in yet. His response to Lowe's was to again ask if Lowe's was
willing to plant any trees to screen or pay for any trees to screen the
building and the sign from the view of Versailles and the yet to be
approved outdoor display of inerchandise. That's when the Lowe's
representative hung up on him with no answer to the question.
Mr. Wilkenson said that Regency's engineering department, since
they started this project in 1999, has been working on their plans and
their development plans with the City of Rancho Mirage since and
their landscaping plans were approved in 2004 for Monterey. For over
a year they have been talking to Lowe's and Edison about the
overhead lines on the east side of Monterey and he understood that
was a condition of Lowe's approval to get those overhead lines
moved.
He said Versailles was also conditioned to put in a tum lane and
widen the west side of Monterey as a condition of approval from
Rancho Mirage. The guideposts that provide the tension for the lateral
stability on the ovefiead lines are on the Versailles side of Monterey,
so they were directly in the center of the deceieration lane they were
supposed to put in; as a condition they have to build out that
deceleration lane. So they were right in the way and they couldn't put
in the deceleration lane, they couldn't put in the curbs and
landscaping due to that Edison overhead line being moved. So they
had been waiting for this to be done. It wasn't due to negligence. They
would love to be finished with that; no one wanted things hanging out
on their project waiting to be done. He understood the complications
with dealing and coordinating with everyone, but they had been
working on this for a period of time. It was not by neglect that there
was no landscaping there.
Mr. Wilkenson said they couldn't complete their conditions until that
line is moved and the guidelines are relocated that hold up the power
line. It was conditioned, Lowe's and the landscaping, with height
restrictions by Edison. He heard it said that it was � 5 feet, but he
thought it was 12. The plants on the Monterey side could only be 12
feet high, but he heard staff say 15. He asked if that was correct.
11
DRAF`t
MINUTES
PA�SFRT PI,'4NNINC COMMoION F�BR� UARX 2�1;� 2(1�R
Mr. Drell said they had a meeting with Edison and they must have wrangled
an extra three feet out of them.
Mr. Wilkenson said that was good and made a bit of a difference. The
plants on the landscaping plans on the Lowe's side were categorized
as bushes and weren't even really identified as trees in that variety.
And because of the height, he was going to have to defer to his
landscape engineer with that information and wouldn't argue with
them about it. That variety didn't grow particularly tall. The visual issue
was compounded by the fact that Versailles's elevations of their
homes were three feet higher than the elevation on the other side of
the street where Lowe's is at, which further reduced the effectiveness
of the landscaping on the east side/Lowe's side of the road.
Mr. Wilkenson said he had also seen a copy of the median island
plans for Monterey in hopes there was some space there that could
mitigate and trees could be adjusted. The nose of the island at the
north end of Monterey before it touches Gerald Ford was 240 feet
long. It was a cobblestone nose. So for 240 feet back from the
intersection of Gerald Ford and Monterey, there was no opportunity
to put in any vegetation. Which took them back to the nearest point,
the next 125 feet comes back to where the center of the Lowe's
entrance off of Monterey. There were three Acacia trees spaced
about 80 feet apart. Typica{ly they have about a 20-foot canopy. That
was not enough to screen that picture. That was reality. What they
saw in the previous pictures were photo simulations. The situation
provided an oppo�tunity for everyone. Because of the delays,
Regency has been unable to start landscaping the Versail�es side of
Monterey. Regency was asking Lowe's to pay for and provide some
trees on the west side of Monterey for its landscaping in order to help
screen the view of the Lowe's sign.
He also said they haven't lit up their parking lot lights yet, or he hadn't
seen them. When they looked at the picture, they could see some
dots that were between the W and E blocking those letters, that was
how elevated their parking lot lights were. They had to be at least 18
to 20 feet in the air, which was way higher than necessary in terms of
traffic and parking in the evenings there. But that had probably come
and gone.
12
QRAF�r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING f:nMMISRinN FFBRUARY 21 1�(1R
Mr. Wilkenson said they would like to modify their irrigation system,
plant some trees, Lowe's could provide some trees, and the Versailles
Community Association would maintain those trees. But they could be
planted and balanced on the west side of Monterey, the Versailles
side of Monterey, to mitigate the size of this building. He said the
picture was taken approximately 250 to 300 feet back from the edge
of Monterey, which would be on the other side of the wall. When they
drive all the way out, it is right on top of them. He said they really
needed to go out and look at it if they haven't. They were asking for
some trees to help screen the view. It was not going to hurt Lowe's
marketing. Regency was all about marketing, too. They sell houses.
So it wasn't going to hurt their marketing to have trees on the west
side of the road. The traffic, both north and south bound on Monterey,
was going to be looking through the Lowe's landscaping on the other
side which was low because of the power lines and worked out great
for Lowe's in terms of visibility. The trees would only provide some
mitigation for the Versailles community. They weren't asking for a
bunch.
MR. JOHN GALLEGOS, 7 Lyon Road in Rancho Mirage in the
Versailles complex, addressed the Commission. He said he was bom
and raised in the desert and was proud to be from this area. He said
the picture was basically the view from his front yard. He could see
the garden center lights inside his house. He said that the Lowe's light
followed him throughout the complex, into his backyard and into the
house. The question came up as to their expectation. He understood
progress and understood commercial areas, but their expectation was
to be a considerate neighbor. That was his expectation. And in this
sense it seemed that Lowe's said this is where they were going to
plant themselves and if they had a problem with it, that was their
problem. He didn't think that was right. He was in opposition to the
outdoor setup they want. When he walks out to his car, he looks into
the parking lot and didn't want to see jacuzzis up against the wall or
all kinds of materials strewn throughout the parking lot.
He said the parking lot was not set back as far as some of the other
Lowe's locations in the desert, which was disappointing to him. So he
did have a problem with basically turning the parking lot into a swap
meet. Basically, what they were asking was for the Planning
Department to assist them in having everyone work together. It's
there. It wasn't going to move. It was huge enough that all the items
13
DRAFY
MINUTES
P�►L��M DFy�RT PL,ANNIN(; CnMMISSInN ��RRIJARY ,?1, ��
they were asking to have outside should do just �ne inside. He said
based upon the lack of consideration from Lowe's, obviously the folks
at Versailles were asking for their help in having Lowe's do the right
thing. He thanked them.
There was no one else wishing to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION.
Chairperson Lopez asked the applicant for any rebuttal comments.
Mr. Mandell came forward and said wow. He was astounded at the
accusations he was hearing about how Lowe's does not care; does
not want to work with the community. This project was not hid from
anyone. It was presented in a public hearing over a year ago. The
develo.per knew that he had a commercial property next to his
residential property. He was talking about the developer of Versailles,
who was not at the hearing at all that he recalled. There was no
testimony from Regency Homes even though they owned the property
then and knew this site was zoned commercial when they bought their
property. When they presented before the City of Palm Desert, it was
publicly noticed and they would have had to have been legally noticed
on this when they did their project.
They worked with the Architectural Review Committee and complied
with every condition regarding their parking lot lights, the big anti-glare
lights per the city code, they complied with the landscaping code
which was very strict and took a long time to get through the
landscape review people because they were very vigilant about what
they require. So they thought they had done what was required and
he never heard from Regency Homes, never received a letter from
them and the only contact he had from them was with regard to the
relocation of the power poles along Monterey. They were required as
part of their relocation to move the guide pole on the northwest
corner, which was the corner from the Versailles project. So it was
required that they grant a new easement. Edison told him they had to
get an easement from Regency Homes and when they met with Mr.
Solomon, they worked it out and got the easement. There was
another guide pole a few hundred feet north of there on their side and
Lowe's would also be taking that out at Lowe's expense.
There was never any mention of a concern about the look of their
building until a few weeks ago when he got a call from the engineer
about how incompetent he was at his job by not moving the power
14
�RAF't
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNIN(; CnA��I(�N F��IARY ?,1�,�0�
poles yet, as if he was dragging his feet. He said it was a very difficult
process because they had issues with the easement and he was sure
Mr. Drell could back him up with that. They had a horrible time trying
to get all of the ground work laid before they could get Southern
California Edison to move out there and get the poles relocated.
Finally, after about a year, they got the order out and he contacted the
Edison person and was told there was a 45-day PUC requirement. So
they were opening their store with those poles still not moved. They
had to work with staff to have a temporary access plan. And then he
got a call from Regency Homes on how he was holding up their little
comer because he was incompetent. That was the only contact he
had from Regency Homes.
Mr. Mandell noted that there were some neighbors here and it
sounded like their concems were if Lowe's would be willing to work
with them. He said it was nothing like that, just accusations at how
Lowe's doesn't care about the community. He personally took that as
an insult and he was insulted by Mr. Wilkenson, who wouldn't even
give his last name when he talked to him on the phone. He wouldn't
even tell him what he wanted until he was trying to ask how much
money Lowe's might have to buy some trees. In his mind he felt what
was going on here is these people should have gone to the hearing
and if they thought there was going to be an issue to the people they
sold the homes to, they should have proposed more than minimum
landscaping along there just to mitigate this and was what they should
be doing. Not coming back now and asking Lowe's to buy trees and
put in front of their development. He said Lowe's is putting in plenty
of landscaping in their parking lot and he was amazed that it was
being spun as something that Lowe's caused to happen. This in his
mind was not an issue for Lowe's to take care of, it was an issue for
the developer and seller of these condominiums for the people he
sold them to, to be responsible enough to soften the impact of what
they were going to see with the commercial development across the
street and provide a landscaped buffer. Again, he had no idea they
even wanted Lowe's to buy them trees until he was told tonight. All
Mr. Wilkenson was doing was being rude to him and accusatory and
not trying to find out if there was some way they could work together.
Mr. Mandell said that a letter from Regency Homes would have been
nice saying they have a problem. A phone call saying they have a
problem and what could they do about it together. All he got was this
15
DRAFY
MINUTES
P�,�A DF�SFRT P,�ANNIN(; (;nMMISSION F��ARY 21 ��
and it was three weeks ago. What he would like to do is get the
Commission back on track to what they were trying to do tonight and
that was get approval to do additional outdoor display, a minimal
amount compared to what they do at most of their stores, and he
respectFully asked approval of their amendment.
Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Mandeil when the City Council approved
the project and implemented Condition No. 15, if at that time he was in
agreement with the conditions of approval.
Mr. Mandeli said yes. He believed there was confusion on Lowe's
part. They thought all they were not being allowed to do was outside
storage and they were okay with that. They didn't plan to store
material outside the building. They did not conclude from it that they
wouid not be allowed to display any merchandise in front of the store.
When that was discovered by the store manager a few months ago,
that's when they approached staff about coming back and getting an
amendment.
Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for Commission
comments.
Commissioner Tschopp asked staff to address the parking lot light height
and asked if it was within code. He also asked for clarification on the Edison
situation with the poles on Monterey. Mr. Drell wasn't sure how high the
parking lot lights were; commercial lots were typically 20 to 30 feet. They
either have more or less of them and have better lighting when they are
higher. Mr. Smith thought they were 24 feet. Mr. Drell said that was below
what their maximum could have been. The issue with Edison, Edison was
impacted by the same increase in construction activity. Their crews are being
hit with the requirement to either underground or move poles all over the
place and it was getting them to schedule them in terms of their job that took
a long time. Obviously it was to Lowe's advantage to get it done sooner
rather than later, it was just that Edison was way behind. As it turned out,
they would have to have poles in the street for a while so the street work can
be finished. The timing on either side was conceivably unavoidable, but it
didn't really change the issue. Landscaping would get put in by Regency and
assuming their landscape plan anticipated the fact that they are on a major
arterial across from a commercial project, hopefully their IandScaping took
into account that they would want to buffer their project from Monterey, which
was a very busy street.
16
DRAFY
MINUTES
P►,M nE..�'iFRT P�NNIN(� CnMM� InN
�F,�R�(11 �� 2�i�R
Commissioner Tschopp confirmed that the height of the trees on the east
side of Monterey was limited by Edison. Mr. Drell concurred; staff was told
they could go up to 15 feet. Trees are Acacia Smallii, which is a tree, not a
shrub and it grows to about 12-15 feet. The other is a tree variety of
Caesalpinia which also grows 12-15 feet. That was as good as they could
do. They eliminated all the palms and they eliminated Stenophylla. They
scratched for a{I the landscaping they could get on that side. He thought the
Regency people were correct. The opportunity is on the west side where
there is plenty of room and no power poles. The choice was to put a
residential project backing onto a major arterial, two of the largest arterial
streets in the Coachella Valley, and in doing that one would have anticipated
that the need to buffer that from both the street and the commercial project
which was regional commercial designated dating back to 1988. Their
solution was correct. Their issue is whose obligation was it to create that
mitigation.
Commissioner Tanner said he had a question for Mr. Mandeli. When Mr.
Wilkenson came up he said that the trees have an 80-foot separation
between each of the trees. Mr. Drell clarified that was the separation
between the trees and the median. The trees on their property, they probably
have one every 20 or 30 feet. By definition, they require a tree every third
parking space. So that was 27 or 30 feet. They were correct that the ground
is sloping away, so the effective way to screen the building is to get those
trees as close to Regency as possible. There they have all the room, they
have no power poles and that's the effective place to put the screening.
Mr. Mandell said that one thing he forgot to mention in his discussion
with Mr. Wilkenson is that Mr. Wilkenson told him that they
intentionally added more landscaping on the north side of their
property because they knew there was going to be commercial to the
north. Mr. Mandell asked if he knew there was going to be commercial
on the other side of the street and he said no, he didn't know that.
Mr. Mandell noted that this property has been zoned commercial
since 1988. Why they wouldn't continue the landscaping down the
east side he didn't know. He didn't think that was Lowe's
responsibility.
Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action.
Aside from the lighting and the landscaping issue with regard to the housing
project and sticking to the issue before them, Commissioner Finerty
17
+�RAF'f
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANJVINC CnMI`AISSInN
F��AR.Y 21, 1�6
appreciated the fact that Lowe's called to their attention the difference
between display and storage. She could see where there was
miscommunication and it was much better that they brought it here instead
of just putting it out there. She appreciated that. She agreed with staff that
the plant material was an asset and she would have no problem with that.
Additionally, she wouldn't have any problem with the swing set, tent, grill
display and that sort of thing. Where she had a problem was with the storage
units and the pallet materials. She liked the Eagle's idea which she raised
earlier. She was sorry that Lowe's didn't incorporate that design element
because she thought it was a really nice way to solve the problem. With
regard to the storage units, she commented that perhaps the store needed
to be built larger to accommodate the display of storage units and when they
look at what is being asked, they have something on the north, something on
the south and something in front of the garden center. There basically was
merchandise all around the store for display purposes. She understood
because at the Lowe's in La Quinta, seeing the flowers in the front makes
her inclined to buy it. It was a great tactic. So she would really like to see the
first finro items allowed and her preference was to not allow the storage units
and pallets.
Commissioner Campbell said that this evening they had before them a
request to allow merchandise to be displayed, so whatever Versailles had to
say with regard to the plantings, the sign, the lighting, she thought that was
a problem they should have seen years ago when those homes were being
built. There were complaints about Home Depot regarding their trees when
driving north on Monterey. Home Depot has been there many years, yet their
trees never seem to grow any. So she was just disregarding that completely.
As far as the outdoor display, comparing it to something like Home Depot,
she had no problems with any of the flowers, there would be screening in
front of the lumber section. Home Depot was different in other states and she
could understand having the construction workers driving in early in the
moming picking up their stuff and leaving. It all depended on what material
was on the pallet as far as the height was concerned. As far as the storage
units and their location, they were on the north side of the building where
there was mostly parking and they would have Sam's and those uses on that
side of the street and no residential, so she didn't see a problem with having
the storage sheds. She was in favor of approving the project as requested
with the amendment.
Commissioner Tschopp said the issue truly was the outdoor display and not
the lighting or landscaping. It wasn't storage of materials in front of or on the
�,s�
�RaF-r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PL�ANNIN(; CnMMIS�InN FE,�ARY 21, ?.0(1R
sides of the building, so he was overall in agreement with staff's proposal. He
had no problem with Lowe's idea to screen the one area with trellises and
vines as long as it was well screened and the plant materials were
maintained and looked attractive. He said it might actually be an addition and
believed that it could be done very well. He was very sympathetic to the
homeowners across the street, but the developer of that project was very
well known, respected, and has been in the desert a long time and built a lot
of these type of developments and certainly knew that there was commercial
going in across the street and certainly should have and should be willing to
screen some of that with more planting material on his property. It would be
very surprising if he missed the commercial going in and very surprising if he
wasn't willing to do something for his buyers to help screen the commercial
he knew was going in across the street. While that wasn't the issue, that was
his two cents. He believed that as proposed by staff and modified by Lowe's
that the proposal would work well.
Cornmissioner Tanner said he, too, was sensitive to Versailles and their
concerns. He was also in favor of the proposal in front of them with the
conditions that had been implemented. However, he would also encourage
Versailles, Regency Homes and Lowe's to get together. They would be
neighbors and they needed to be good neighbors. If there was some way to
share in some of the expense to shelter and screen them, he would
encourage Lowe's to do it. He said he would also like to see the screening
be something that would not be blown down by the wind corridor they were
in and that it be something of a very substantial nature so that they didn't
have a constant eyesore driving down Monterey. With that, he too was in
favor of the proposal, but would like to see some cooperation.
Chairperson Lopez said they would probably want to take a look at Condition
No. 3 as it pertains to either some additions or revisions to this condition. Mr.
Smith suggested additional verbiage to the effect that, "Alternatively, the
applicant may design a trellis/vine system on the west side of the porte
cochere in the indoor lumber area to create an effective screening system."
Commission concurred.
Chairperson Lopez thanked the neighbors from Rancho Mirage for taking the
time to come out and speak with them. He appreciated their concerns and
would only ask that Lowe's and Regency get together to work out the issues
discussed this evening. As far as the application before the Planning
Commission, he did not want to see the area remain outdoor storage during
the evening. He was sure all the plants would be brought inside and there
19
oRaFr
MINUTES
�►,I_M DFSERT P�.ANNINC CnMMISSI(�N FERR.I IARY �1, 2�OR
would be some type of responsibility for the outdoor areas and how they
look. Lowe's in La Quinta was a very nice facility and he thought Lowe's
could be proud to say that this facility is head and shoulders above their
nearby competitor. So with the revision of Condition No. 3, he would also be
in favor. He asked for a motion. Commissioner Campbell moved for approval
with the revision to Condition No. 3. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the
motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Finerty voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2378, approving
Case No. PP 04-13 Amendment #1, subject to conditions as amended.
Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no).
B. Case No. TT 34391 - TRANS WEST HOUSING, INC., Applicant
Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 9.69
acres into 32 single-family lots (8,749 square feet minimum
size) located on the east and west sides of Shepherd Lane
2,400 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive.
Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report and recommended approval by adoption
of the draft resolution, subject to the conditions.
Chairperson Lopez onened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. KRIS SCHULZE, with NAI Consultants representing Trans West
Development, came forward. He thanked staff for their prompt
attention and said they had been very helpful on this project. He said
they accepted the conditions.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAYOR or
OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was cl e.
Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action.
20
1
• ` 'J
f Z
tl+ lif. 1F. _
ALL i,: i'44y,: r.,
D i
Fli ,/
1Y
I
J
Fes- 1
.
+ 6
Ps .
_ .
...
V J 1:
a;
fir!
/►
4?. .,........cli ., _
to
ti
s
,fir rx ;,
. .._...,..- ......4%,-•%.-.e.•-4,.:,'"•••- . ',./1._ . ''4" .•-...- .l .
, .
' .
4..,. • ,,,,, , .-, t. A-, ....L..•.4:,.-,;. • : . " . „ ,„
.. •• ,...'.•.7 ..''...O. .t - :7.N.IJW! '•':' -' .:• 'A,I . '•-C- ''•=:.':'•. ,04'.-Li-V'-e•.7. Y.-P.LI''.
.;'..-: ' 0,:t-:.!:...t 7 4.44t•.. =1:`,-,t,N,t..1.2 4,„ .---.•-.-•,-
•
' - :- •- ': -:7 -
c-. ' --.., -: •4'"'..'"'.'''.-',‘:._'.kt'''••.... .A*,...1.4:V, ,,,-..:;41>.
.. . . .
. '''Z.:: ' '. .../-.'":,i ...• .., ',..,:f•:. -,-..a... .. '
4: .., •!•-,;: '••. t"....,' : ' -
,,,,......,. '••g.•••`-:-.:+.pi. .,.!....4'..;,;-.'e't..7,-. '• •
__.• - ... .....1.-•, :I..., '.,.., ,..1..,..,,, z..i. .-
, ....4,v, ,. ,.: ,• - :"-,IN.s.7....ty..7-1`.1:4,6.4 —
•
-L . ,•:. ! ,,,,' e; - 1--4. 1--:.k,k.:„-
r
.. „.
, • ..,
. . I
. • „, 1111111 a U11IPIIIIIIIIIIII I II /40irr- .:
.. ..
11 Ilt Nall 111'4141-- ' 13
- •:.
.. *--_ • ,- .,
.A•:1"- .,.-1,, ,
1•`•':?•1/.71!"_.,•'7,' •
.. ,
, •
foitimj
t .
"'imlPlif', - .. 4T. . ,.,
..., . _/_...,...„,
ii
Or . 4 • ,,,. . , , ;
4 • ^ • 1..,,...1-V.,'• •.„, •
_ , •• e '
*,''.6% .-,•-•$'-
lit
' 4 1 •
•:'4.. ,,7.0.,.-.; '•••''. III% 1111P .
,•. , , ..
• :4',,-it'1.4.-'“V•4
.,.....,.2.5_,..„,..,.,
4ely,O,
•
,: -!,,A414i:W.,;'.0. •
0 '
. •.,. rglb fi.
.wi•••1:7;:r'... w.4- '
' ../ •''''' •
' •, ,,. i ' P 1
If
- ,,,,,* •'%
- . ., •
ti.
, . . .
.: . .„.... .,.. • ), 0 ,r• ,,..‘ -fr
, •,
„., . "‘Illt 1 • .1• •
..•
41111111111 •k•i 4 .
0401 $ 4
. .
P
- - • 4- ..•e ' ' ' .
.1.
Also. jr,4br
„IPorooliesill•Ilm *-^"......01110.7 0
; alb.”41
OBEEMINERO 1.1.111111111.006%.
-411111111111wiiorurt
IIIII
.-..
-,......................111
'116 '
j ( 1 +
L. a ;OW E11411
+, jZ i JIp J yy rr W' sI
'_ #ma's ♦ _f, �,- `' • f: <
r ' a1
��' .. a.•
'.� �4 - I .,Y`c,:'41.
_. , .h ,`!-� r A ,'fit. ff
St /. a �• A • I `
e
r A
a i r
I.
ii� t f
t
r
y Y y
1
a 4' r
lik‘ •*41 - ,
• •
s' ` - '
•
.1M.s
_
s f" • e ,
01 ry ` •
VI i
F ` �•� µ,'.by, '� L � Q` `�'��.
J '�' Y 8t v ,
r 2 �T
of . { e. k,: �`' � `
��, , t k.., 1 (1„ 1 '� .'1. ._
lb-
.
- •/
-_ "t4.'
fr
4"S ear •' '`- -
:
•
•
`Ili 1,`'„ • .,. '4111 :-3•+' ` _ems``. .�� f
v
• ,4 '•, rt ►-41'''� .:.. 111
Y
y i .1 r•Yt I T! t.-:.4'.,4•'/..€;•.Xi.1-..r
-+} „i Syr `-yy4 •, : r. rk • " -
*t i '1 A 3rAR'f` . 4 , may `..,r.
411k
I. F .-•
! .61. 1. 'V I,; • �J ,•
j,{ • 14,E j .•P
r W
R ?
February 21, 2006
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission
Palm Desert, California
Good Evening:
My name is Mary Clarke, 17 Orleans Road, Rancho Mirage, in the
community of Versailles
I have prepared a package for your review on the impacts to our community
of the new Lowe's store directly across Monterey from us. The intent is to
show you the damage done to our residential community by the unscreened
building and more particularly, the enormous sign on the new store. We are
asking you to delay a decision on outdoor storage for this store until such
time as Lowe's mitigates some of the damage done by this project.
We do not believe that Lowe's intended to damage our community — on the
contrary -- they simply did not think of anything but their own best interests
in the design and placement of this project. However, when one does
significant damage to others, however inadvertent the damage, the right and
honorable thing to do is to mitigate the damage to the extent possible. At
this time, Lowe's has disregarded this obligation.
There is almost thirteen hundred feet of frontage on Monterey severely
impacted by this project, and a total of 11 homes face on this frontage. In
addition, the impact of this sign is felt more than two thousand feet (nearly
one half mile) back into the project, particularly down our main street, Paris
Avenue. This is devastating to all of us (270+ homeowners) at this time, and
when the project is lighted in the near future it will be totally overwhelming.
We have attempted to get Lowe's cooperation in a solution to this problem,
but at this time they are not motivated to do the right thing. I believe tabling
the decision on the outdoor storage may provide enough motivation to bring
them to the table. We are all willing to participate in the solution to this —
the homeowner's and the developer of Versailles — and we are merely asking
that Lowe's does their share.
Specifically, the developer of Versailles is willing to install the irrigation
system, and provide the labor and equipment to install significant trees on
the West side of Monterey. The homeowners will incur the obligation to
irrigate and maintain these trees for the future. We are asking Lowe's to
step forward with either the trees or the funding for the trees needed to
screen this project from our community. The trees need to be of significant
size and enough of them to be effective.
Again, as a community, we have no leverage to influence Lowe's to do the
right thing. But if Lowe's demonstrates their good will and spirit of
cooperation on this issue, the City of Palm Desert may then consider
granting them the favor of outdoor storage in the confidence that they are
responsible members of the larger community. This is a problem that should
be easily resolved in the next two to three weeks by parties of good will.
Until then, please delay a decision on the outdoor storage issue.
02/20/2006 17:34 353 PAGE 02/02
DEVF.I.QPERS OE DISTINCTION
February 20, 2006
Planning Commission
City of Palm Deaert
73-510 Fred WBting Drive
Palm Desd't, Calif. 92260
Via Fax: (760)341-7098
Ref Case No. PP 04-13, Lowe's Hw, Inc.
Dcar Commiasioners,
I am tb�� dtvelope�/builder of tiae Vefsa,illes community which is located due west of the
subject r.��,, �:t�►, ap'os� Monterey Avenue. To dame, i hav� recei� more thaa 50
complairna from homeowners witba�n our oommunity about the stark glare and brightness
of the Lowe's electric sign atop the building.
At tlne original Public Hearit�g concerning the Lowe's project, it was promuised to the City
af Palm Desert by Lowe's that the sig�oage and building would be nicely landscaped And
not gaudy or obtrusive. Obvitoualy, such is not t�e cnse, eepecieily with tt� sig�nage in thc
cvening and at nigt�t.
It is our �reque�t that, prior to granting Lowe's any fwther consideratio� or concessions,
the city requires Trowe's to plant trees along Momereq A,ve �s a means w blocic aut the
signag� ar�6 its impact upon residents oi Vcirs�ilies. We have spoken to Law�es
representative� and they have told us in no unoa�tt�in urma that thay wiill do nothing to
obviate this problem. A�dditionally, as a teason for nat addressing our problem as�d
dealing with us, th�y have pointed to the City of Pa3m Desert as tht ceuae of the problcm
as the city has requirod them to s�end t million dollars raore than they orig��nally
budgeted for
A,�ay assistance you no�y give ta us would be most approciated. If you hav� any questions
or would iike sddirional infotmatiott, plea�e feel free to c�ontact me directly_
Siz� ly,
.�.l.�..
, Ptter omon
cc; Versailles Commun.ity Homeowttexs Associatiot�
2 Chateau Court D Rancho Mlr�e, U Azz7o D �dOV77a7�73 o Feoc 760l770-4633
Page 1 of 1
Smith, Steve
From: Knight, Spencer
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:51 PM
To: Smith, Steve
Subject: FW: LOWES
-----Original Message-----
From: Braun,Maria [mailto:Maria_Braun@CovantaEnergy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:32 PM
To: Knight, Spencer
Subject: RE: LOWES
Hello,
RECEI�,i�I�
��� t �: Z��6
�'�NMC;�ITY llEVELOPSiE`T UEPAftTHE�T
rITY OF PAL1t DESERT
Please note that we do not want Lowe's to sell items in the outside. They have enough
space in the inside. We are losing our beauty in the desert with so much
commercial. Why not add more tress to the outside so we the residents at Versailles
do not have to look at the awful building; instead of selling items outside.
Thank you for the consideration to my request.
Please request that the merchandise stays inside, and that more trees will be planted so
that we can see pretty landscape. It will be appreciated.
Maria Braun
327 Gran Via
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(568-3795
2/22/2006
LOUlE'S
REC�I.�'�D
t� AR :� � ��06
.:4t���4b+'*�TY nF.v : .OY�1E�T llEPAkT�tE�iT
CITY OF PALSi DESERT
March 6, 2006
Dear Versailles resident,
Greetings from Lowe's Home Improvement Stores! We are excited about the
rapidly approaching grand opening of our Palm Desert store and look forward to
being a good neighbor of yours.
This letter is being sent to you with some concem about something that has just
recently come to our attention. A few weeks ago I received a call from a
representative of Regency Homes informing me that some new residents of
Versailles were very displeased with the supposed irresponsibility of Lowe's due
to our visual impact on them. He wanted to know what Lowe's was going to do
about it.
I was genuinely surprised to hear this coming from Regency Homes. The Lowe's
project has been in the planning and development process for about two years.
Two public hearings were held for the project about a year and a half ago.
Drawings of our site plan and our building elevations were on display for any
affected nearby property owners to observe and a forum was offered to express
any concerns. Legal notices for these hearings were sent to all adjacent
properties within a specified radius around our development. Mr. Peter Solomon
of Regency Homes was included in that list. All of our plans have been available
for review at the City for anyone who was interested since then.
I recently met some of you at our planning commission hearing and leamed of
your concems. Not being unsympathetic, I agreed to contact Mr. Solomon to try
to work something out. What I leamed from him is that his landscape plans do
not adequately screen the view of Lowe's and he feels Lowe's should pay for an
additional eighteen (18) 48" box trees along his side of Monterey Avenue. I was
curious as to why no one from Regency Homes had bothered to either attend the
public hearings or seek to understand what Lowe's was going to be building and
how they were able to formulate their plans without this understanding.
However, in the spirit of cooperation and in being a good neighbor, I asked Mr.
Solomon to send me a plan and an approximate anticipated cost for these trees.
He sent me plans and an estimate of about $26,000.00. I took this information to
our people and responded to him that we would be willing to contribute
$13,000.00, or half the cost.
1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 140, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: 760-804-5300 Fax: 760-602-1018
We believe that Regency Homes needs to provide an adequate visual barrier for
those residents to whom he has recently sold homes to, along with any future
buyers. This is a Regency Homes responsibility, not a Lowe's responsibility,
even though we have offered to participate in the cost.
I encourage you to contact me if you would like to discuss this further. If I miss
your call, I promise to try to get back to you at my soonest availability. I have
included my business card.
Best regards,
�
Jack Mandel �
Senior Site Development Manager
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
Cc:
Bob Midkiff
Mike Skiles
Steve Gale
Phil Drell, City of Palm Desert
Steve Smith, City of Palm Desert
•
Y &::, ;'-��r'S`- ia,<r ,r'1.3`,.rr„" „lF�,'i -/ ,! r,,-: ,ar, ,..5;,:`>-ri :ta
d � RrN 9 yrN! ,g g�
,�-< sir" Y�
a3u� �.e
r5„r>,-
f
=:fix.,„'�� .
& 1,
Ls,r
';j' ;�, re�s%'';_„e*.,_,ram,s,;:
° sr z.
i
s:
•.., -. - :mot s \' r. 9'�
' :.. ,r ,..<". :-- .;rr r .,, - '„�! »°dr,.,._... ...:: rr,a., z,,;�;r ;psi'�;i'd�m
�* ,r
ryr �"'�'�
R ,
r�r v�
.Y- .kro x�kr
ram'. �. tr
y,>k"t/
s..r
Y
�Arz s.
r ,,Any 444/ 44; 44444,444, nib,� .« ;,,," ak �m` & r�.i Z pr ,
<
;''4",;!44,.4 1446.4: .- . ; , .:''.441;":444;;;, 4744;C4;;,...4,4;.;44Pt-4t;;: ;:'g.i4,t;.,iM"IrA''gr4gri .,i101~7,iiigirgilgil77‘,;!•-4:: . ...A.,,'.10 1`,;;;,;,.;"; ,;. ,;?;:,,t,,J;,:',Iil....,,,;;;::;;,,":,i1j,,,c;.'"::.:::',.:',::,::::,;,.,:444,,....i.:::';;:itit;..,...:,:.1:,=.;...:,, '-'4.1;i4;,;;;..;,7`,,,4;
1 r
s'.
e.
x
riP '� `'z F ,.•a x .yi' Pd �;t '� ...k _ lz rcks
: r5�
•:•`:"' C::::-,',Y.„:44411• ii'6";:::•;:,',:..,.;,,:::',411.%4",;.7`,.,„r:•:E,:c..::::!:•:•:cp, c ---jsm ',.,'•11.1 p*A.****, viiiifilit '',"'.;::::;.:'," .1•,ii,'
F
r,
s ,z
,}iZ;T it %€O
PERSPECTIVEE,�.. ,.gym
M
LOWE'S - Home Improvement Warehouse °t° � ' 1— Arch
ire 1rc
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
City of Palm Desert ArcIMS Lp Output Page 1 of 1
Cit of Palm Desert Ma.
t
16.
r
IIrid
♦. M .. o d R •' Pis-.a„ I __
'atiM.-.. A } 1 r t r�y�yyp if
.......ram . -- J-� %
7 .._ i
I
rc
MA1,444, 'fit,-,...," „.....?,,,, let ,
-..........4 , • - .,....44.-„T , . „ ....... ., , i r, , .i ,
, t .AF-41 r a * t —s .,
•
.� . -- ':rpALD FORD DR
Active Layer i„oIt Course f tau
http://10.20.2.3 5/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=CityOverview&ClientV... 3/13/2006
(�-�
DEVELOPERS OF DISTINCTION
March 13, 2006
��_�
�
��
�
:-.:
:a
�
�
Dear Versailles Residents, w
w
I have just now had the opportunity to read the March 6, 2006 letter sent t"c>
all Versailles residents from Jack Mandel, Senior Site Development
Manager of Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Lowe's Home Improvement Stoi•es).
To be honest, I was stunned, surprised and appalled by the
misrepresentations made in the letter and I need to set the record straight.
Although it is true that I had notice from the City of Palm Desert that
Lowe's had an application to construct a store at the sight, and while it is
also true that the existing Palm Desert zoning allowed construction of such a
store at the sight, when I looked at the plans submitted to the Planning
Department by Lowe's I had no issues with what was submitted and
concluded that Lowe's plans were consistent with the zoning.
However, what is not stated by Lowe's and Mandel is that there was never
any notice of the Lowe's sign being lighted for night use; when I initially
viewed the plans there was nothing which indicated the large sign would be
lighted for night visibility. It is now my understanding that the City of Palm
Desert had a separate (after the initial Public Hearing) meeting specificallv
to review the signage and landscaping for the Lowe's store. Although
single-issue meetings might be open to the public, none of the surrounding
neighbors were ever notified of such a meeting regarding Lowe's and the
proposed signage/landscaping. Nor, as a matter of common courtesy, did
anyone from Lowe's take the time or show any concern or consideration
about letting any of its neighbors know about these additional signage and
landscaping hearings. And now, Lowe's states that Regency Homes is
responsible for the visibility of the lighted sign from many hundreds of feet
away! Incredible. In its def'ense, iVlr. Mandel told me that Lowe's will not
put any more money into its project than is absolutely required because the
_ �:���%
� ��
� "_
--'� c.:
�� �
��
n
2 Chateau Court ❑ Rancho Miragc, CA 92270 0 760/770-7373 � Fax 760/770-6633
March 13, 2006
Page 2
City of Palm Desert has already cost Lowe's Corporation so much additional
money in construction requirements.
When we began Versailles a number of years ago, we submitted landscape
plans for Monterey Avenue which were approved by the City of Rancho
Mirage. Now Lowe's is expecting us to deviate from our approved plans
because they have a gigantic lighted sign. We did not take Lowe's into
consideration in our landscaping plans because at that time Lowe's had not
even made application to the City of Palm Desert to construct the property
across the street. In fact, at the time of Lowe's Public Hearing on August
?6, 2004, escrows had closed on almost all of the homes in phases 1 though
4 of Versailles. We believe wholeheartedly that this entire issue should be
addressed solely by Lowe's Corporation prior to their opening the store.
It is with this in mind that we have appealed to the Palm Desert City Council
on the issue regarding Lowe's request to display merchandise outdoors,
which currently is not permitted under the terms of Lowe's existing precise
design plan. If Lowe's cares so little for its neighbors and surroundings,
then we should certainly not aid them in their desire to create an "outdoor
trading bazaar or swap meet" setting on their property.
We did not create this problem. Lowe's did. We expect Lowe's to take the
necessary steps to rectify the situation. I hope to see all of you at the Public
Hearing to be held by the Palm Desert City Council, at City Hall, on
Thursday, March 23, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. City Hall is located at 73-510 Fred
Waring Drive, at the corner of San Pablo and Fred Waring, in Palm Desert.
S incerely,
� �
� - �, ��'_ - ✓ _--
Peter,��l�omon
L
�
PS/bjb
, Lou�E'S� �.
\`_'- ( . .
March 6, 2006
Dear Versailies resident,
Greetings from Lowe's Home Improvement Stores! We are excited about the
rapidly approaching grand opening of our Palm Desert store and look forward to
being a good neighbor of yours.
This letter is being sent to you with some concem about something that has just
recently come to our attention. A few weeks ago I received a call from a
representative of Regency Homes informing me that some new residents of
Versailles were very displeased with the supposed irresponsibility of Lowe's due
to our visual impact on them. He wanted to know what Lowe's was going to do
about it.
I was genuinely surprised to hear this coming from Regency Homes. The Lowe's
project has been in the planning and development process for about two years.
Two public hearings were held for the project about a year and a haff ago.
Drawings of our site plan and our building efevations were on display for any
affected nearby property owners to observe and a forum was offered to express
any concems. Legal notices for these hearings were sent to all adjacent
properties within a specified radius around our development. Mr. Peter Solomon
of Regency Homes was included in that list. All of our ptans have been available
for review at the City for anyone who was interested since then.
I recently met some of you at our planning commission hearing and learned of
your concerns. Not being unsympathetic, I agreed to contact Mr. Solomon to try
to work something out. What I learned from him is that his landscape plans do
not adeguately screen the view-af Lowe's and he fee4s Lowe's should pay for an
additionai eighteen (18) 48" box trees along his side of Monterey Avenue. I was
curious as to why no one from Regency Homes had bothered to either attend the
public hearings or seek to understand what Lowe's was going to be building and
how they were able to formulate their plans without this understanding.
However, in the spirit of cooperation and '+n being a good neighbor, I asked Mr.
Solomon to send me a plan and an approximate anticipated cost for these trees.
He sent me plans and an estimate of about $26,000.00. I took this information to
our people and responded to him that we would be willing to contribute
�13,000.00, or half the cost.
? 53U I=ar�Uay ;avenue, S��ite �='-.0. '�arlsbad, ��A 92008 Phc�ne: -60-8C4-;�00 r':�X: r JO-l7OG 1018
We believe that Regency Homes needs to provide an adequate visual barrier for
those residents to whom he has recently sold homes to, a4ong with any future
buyers. This is a Regency Homes responsibility, not a Lowe's responsibility,
even though we have offered to participate in the cost.
I encourage you to contact me if you would like to discuss this further. If I miss
your call, I promise to try to get back to you at my soonest availability. I have
included my business card.
Best regards,
� Jack Mandel
Senior Site Development Manager
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
Cc:
Bob Midkiff
Mike Skiles
Steve Gale
Phil Drell, City of Palm Desert
Steve Smith, City of Pafm Desert
MAR 17 2006 13:53 FR LOWES REAL ESTATE 7606021018 TO 3417098
dfr
RE.C.DVED
Mini"WSW MAR 14 2006
P.02/02
A T, fir-1
ri1
THE ALLIANCE
TC3 mad& LLC, 245 Fodor Ase, Sae 0-1, Costs Masa, CA 112.26 714-689-1905
March 12, 2006
Peter Solomon
Regency Homes
2 ChateauCourt
Rancho herage, CA 92270
Re: Lowe's, Lowe's Sign, Impact on Verlaine Property Values and Lack of Proper Disclosure
March 12, 2006
Peter Solomon
Regency Homes
2 Chateau Court
Rancho 1Vlirage, CA 92270
Dear Peter:
. .
I have written Regency Homes earlier in ,. the negative impact Lowe's and the Lowe's sign has on property v"Vues on
Paris Way, Lyon Rd. and an other residents' property living an streets that nut off Paris Way. I have my home at 16 Pour
currently on the minket I constantly get negative , 4 front the mal estate fon lining our home (Dyson & Dyson) and 71
from other brdcan showing; our property that the Lowe's sign has a negative impact on their ability to sell my home. Why
wasn't the fact that Lowe's would be built and their sign installed where it is disclosed to home owners during the purchase of
the ProPerlY?
The entire problem oould be addressed through proper landscape screening. As you are aware, the current landscaping plans
for both the interior and exterior areas of the Versailles project facing Monterey are inadequate ihr screening the new Lowe's
and its' sign.
Randy Synder, Maiming Manager, City of Rancho Mirage has offered to do an "over the counter's approval for a revised
landscapeplan of the interior and cosier areas of the Versailles development to provide an adequate visual barrier. The
landscape semen should block the line of sight to the highest elevation of the Lowe's signage from Paris
Way, and other streets in the Versailles development.
Since Regency Homes has had more than ample time to address this issue, particularly in the interior perimeter areas of
Versailles ilerd to Moseley, I urge you to address this raprirement without delay. I have discussed this issue with many
Versaille residents and we are of common mind and intention that this matter be addressed.
Sincetely,
George J. Dregame
Chatham and CEO
TC3 Health, LLC
CC: Dyson & Dyson, City Of Palm Desert, City of Rancho Msage and LOWe's
9!
MIA 'g 11;1
k� Via 6:
DATE J-121,2006
05352.00
625 ®ROADWAY,
, SCMAE921100215UW"SHome ImprovemenWarehouse MN D1 r0'2327177. U24 F 619 9
74T9.23
VAVWXAMARCCOM
Palm Desert, California
v JED
We 2006
TITY DEVBLOP,i!E?q DEPA.
CITY Of PALM 1)ESEp ,T
�,' chiteds Inc