Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-19 PC Regular Meeting Minutes1 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2021 — 6:00 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lindsay Holt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Lindsay Holt Vice -Chair John Greenwood Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Also Present: Craig Hayes, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Nancy DeLuna led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2021 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 2020. Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application for a lot line adjustment at Monterey Crossing (Dinah Shore Drive and Monterey Avenue). Case No. PMW 20-0005 (Monterey Crossing, LP, Newport Beach, California Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 20-0005. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application for a lot line adjustment at Monterey Crossing (Dinah Shore Drive and Monterey Avenue). Case No. PMW 20-0006 (Monterey Crossing, LP, Newport Beach, California Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 20-0006. D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application for a lot line adjustment at Ironwood Country Club (APN 655-120-032). Case No. PMW 20-0009 (Dawson Surveying, Inc., Colton, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 20-0009. Upon a motion by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Pradetto, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. SELECTION of a Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson. Commissioner Pradetto moved to, by Minute Motion, nominate and appoint Vice -Chair Greenwood to Chairperson. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). Commissioner Pradetto moved to, by Minute Motion, nominate and appoint Commissioner DeLuna to Vice -Chairperson. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). P" MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2021 B. SELECTION of Commission Liaisons for Art in Public Places and Parks and Recreation Commissions. With Planning Commission concurrence, the Commission reappointed Commissioner Holt to the Art in Public Places Commission; and reappointed Chair Greenwood to the Parks and Recreation Commission. IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a request for Tentative Parcel Map 37978 to approve the subdivision of 10 acres into eight (8) parcels within the Millennium Specific Plan, and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. TPM 37978 (Palm Desert University Gateway, LLC, Rancho Mirage, California, Applicant). Principal Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report (staff report(s) is available at www.cityofpalm desert. org). Staff recommended approval and offered to answer any questions. At this point, Vice -Chair DeLuna recused herself due to a conflict of interest with the affordable housing component of this project and left the Zoom meeting. Commissioner Holt asked if a map with five or more parcels is considered a tentative parcel map or a tentative tract map. Mr. Ceja explained that there is a distinction between commercial and residential maps. He believed that a residential map could not be subdivided into more than four parcels without being a tentative tract map. However, a commercial map could be subdivided up to 10 lots. Chair John Greenwood declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. Mr. Ceja noted that the applicant is not in attendance. With no testimony offered, Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Holt assumed that the new proposed parcels are restricted to the 30-foot- wide access easements. She asked what would happen if a developer proposed access in a different location or does not want to share access with the adjacent property. Mr. Ceja responded that a Precise Plan application would go before the Planning Commission to develop the parcels. At that point, if access easements need to be modified, the Commission would see an action or mechanism for that on the map. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2021 Commissioner Holt inquired if the parcel would have its own on -site stormwater retention. Mr. Ceja replied yes, which is part of the Millennium Specific Plan. Commissioner Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2785, approving Case No. TPM 37978, subject to the conditions of approval; and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with CEQA. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: DeLuna). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 65-foot-tall monopalm wireless telecommunication facility and ground -mounted equipment at 73750 Dinah Shore Drive, and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the CEQA. Case No. CUP 20-0007 (AT&T-Smartlink, Cardiff, California, Applicant). Assistant Planner Nick Melloni presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval and offered to answer any questions. He noted that the applicant is also available to answer questions. Chair Greenwood asked if there was no option to collocate with an adjacent existing monopalm. Mr. Melloni said if an applicant shows that collocation would work without there being an issue with the screening of the facility, collocation could work. In this case, the existing monopalm allows for only a single array, and it was determined that an additional antenna was not feasible. Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. CHRIS DOHENY, Smartlink, LLC (the applicant representing AT&T), Cardiff, California, thanked City staff for the presentation and the Planning Commission for their time. He added that Smartlink, LLC (Smartlink) did an extensive search within a quarter - mile radius search ring that AT&T provided. After completing their initial search, they did not find any successful candidates (east of the 1-10 and Monterey intersection). Therefore, they expanded their search ring to include commercial space and area. They exhausted their search and were not successful from willing property owners. After a year, Smartlink received a positive response from Extra Space Storage and agreed to the installation of a 65-foot-tall monopalm. He stated that they would install two additional live palms in front of the property to assist in screening and blending in the proposed monopalm. He offered to answer questions. Vice -Chair DeLuna asked how tall the live palms are. MR. DOHENY replied that the live palms would be 40 feet tall. He noted that they are shorter than the monopalm due to the distance from the street to the live palms; the proposed monopalm would be in the background. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2021 Vice -Chair DeLuna asked if it is correct that the live palms would grow. MR. DOHENY said that they would slowly grow. Chair Greenwood asked if it is correct that there is a generator in the drive aisle. MR. DOHENY replied that is correct. Chair Greenwood inquired if there are bollards that would impede the drive aisle and if there would be ample space. MR. DOHENY said no, there would not be any bollards. With no further testimony offered, Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing closed. Since the proposed location is in an industrial area, Commissioner Joseph Pradetto said that he supported the project and was not concerned with the appearance and collocation. In general, he said it would be interesting to conduct a study to look at alternative designs for cell towers. He commented that modeling nature badly is the default for cell towers. He felt that there has to be other ways to disguise cell towers as structural art elements or incorporated into a building design. He stated that he would make a personal effort to look at alternative designs, noting that the City could be missing an opportunity to have something structurally cool looking in certain areas of the City. Commissioner Ron Gregory agreed with Commissioner Pradetto. He said that maybe after the approval, the Commission could ask the applicant if it is possible to have alternative designs. Commissioner Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2786, approving Case No. CUP 20-0007, subject to the conditions of approval; and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with CEQA. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Doheny if there are alternative designs for wireless telecommunication facilities. MR. DOHENY responded that in the last 10 to 20 years, tree designs have improved. Some things need to be taken into consideration for designs. Such as, the proposed project, the environment, and certain trees do not blend in with the desert landscape. He said creativity has grown a lot to blend in with the existing architecture of a building, but also limited. He agreed that the faux trees lack desirability. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Precise Plan and a Conditional Use Permit to demolish the existing Pizza Hut building and construct a new 7,500-square- foot retail and restaurant building located at 72310 Highway 111, and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the CEQA. Case No. PP/CUP 20-0002 (Nadel Architects, Inc., Los Angeles, California, Applicant). 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2021 Associate Planner Kevin Swartz presented the staff report. He offered to answer any questions and noted that the applicant is also present to answer questions. Since there could be a restaurant, Vice -Chair DeLuna asked if it is correct that there is no concern with a drive -through restaurant. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct, noting that the City does not allow drive -through restaurants in the area. There is no possibility of a drive -through restaurant unless the City Council changes the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. RALPH DEPPISCH, Director of Development, thanked City staff for their cooperation and support. He said they have been working on this project for months to bring forward to the Planning Commission for review and approval. He noted that they have been receiving some interest for the restaurant and retail space, but nothing definitive. He stated that he and members of his team are available to answer questions. Commissioner Gregory commented that the use of green screens on lattices is not sustainable in the desert. His other concern is the selections made on the plant palette. He noted that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) should address landscape; however, there is not a landscape architect on the Commission. Therefore, it falls on him because he is a landscape architect. He understood the effort to provide screening from Highway 111, but there are attractive architectural solutions such as a breezeway that would be permanent. It would be more successful with this type of architectural approach. He also listed his concerns with the plant selection. The selection of trees is semi - deciduous. He noted that a mesquite tree would look like a skeleton during the winter when people are visiting Palm Desert. The selection of Mexican fan palms is cheap; however, they are 15 feet tall. He asked why there is not some variation in height. The plants that were chosen look like they are from the City of Palm Desert plant book. The proposed plants are not planted in the way they should be. He noted that rodents like to live under Acacia redolens, and Yucca gloriosa would burn and be useless after a summer. He felt that someone that is not familiar with the desert prepared the landscape plan. As he mentioned before, he voiced his concern with screening. MR. DAVID ANDERSON, with Nadel Architects, Los Angeles, California, noted that he is not a landscape architect. They hired a consultant for the landscape architecture. He stated that when they met with the ARC, they spent a lot of time on the screen wall, and the suggestions came from the ARC about the landscaping. He said the wood trellis was a suggestion by the ARC. The applicant originally proposed a cast-iron trellis; however, the ARC was concerned that plant material would not survive. Commissioner Gregory interposed that he would not recommend a cast-iron trellis either. He said other materials could provide screening. 1 C. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2021 MR. ANDERSON apologized because he could not speak on the plant materials; however, he could speak with the landscape architect. He noted that the ARC felt a wall would be too much of a barrier. Commissioner Gregory commented that he would be happy to speak with the landscape architect to facilitate a design that would work for the project. MR. DEPPISCH appreciated the comments by Commissioner Gregory. He said they could work with him in a collaborative effort to improve the landscape design. Commissioner Gregory clarified that a screening element would cost more money. MR. DEPPISCH said there might be other elements that are economically compatible. He stated that the building is well designed, and they would like to have the landscape right. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that there is some landscaping in the right-of-way along Highway 111. He asked if the landscaping would be updated to accommodate the new landscape within the property lines. MR. SWARTZ responded that the landscaping is not the applicant's scope of work. He would discuss the landscaping with the Public Works Department. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Deppisch to have his architect contact him. After hearing any additional comments from the Commission, Mr. Swartz suggested a continuance. Additionally, City staff would be happy to facilitate a Zoom meeting with Commissioner Gregory and the landscape architect. Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell interjected, noting that the ARC had a significant concern with the orientation of the building, and they decided that a screen wall as a solution. He stated that the landscape would need to be vetted correctly. There have been several times where Commissioners drive by a project, and it is done incorrectly. Mr. Stendell apologized to the Nadel team; however, he is tired of architect teams telling the City that they have issues solved when they are not. If it takes a meeting to discuss a solution for the landscape design, it would be the staff's recommendation to continue this item. Commissioner Pradetto concurred with a continuance. He thought procedurally, the right thing to do if a Commissioner is involved in officially modifying the proposed project, the rest of the Commission should get a second look at the project. MR. DEPPISCH understood the comments made, but he voiced disappointment that the Commission would continue the project for "X" amount of time. Commissioner Pradetto addressed Chair Greenwood and mentioned that they are in a Zoom meeting, which makes it feel more casual. However, the applicant has seemed to turn the meeting into a conversation instead of a public hearing. He understood the applicant's concern, and he wished that the ARC had given the Planning Commission 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2021 something that they would love and praise. Unfortunately, the ARC and Planning Commission do not meet directly hand -in -hand. At this point, the Commission would need to move forward on more issues and determine how to proceed. Vice -Chair Greenwood pointed to the larger elements on the northeast and southwest corners and asked if it is correct that they would be fully enclosed and they would not see anything on top of the parapets. MR. DEPPISCH replied that is correct. Vice -Chair DeLuna commented that the landscape issue is significant. She asked Commissioner Gregory if he felt the issue could be solved in two weeks. Commissioner Gregory replied that he thought so. However, he wondered if other Commissioners are okay continuing this item or consider approving the architecture and not the landscape plan. Chair Greenwood said he would first ask if there are any other questions of the applicant and ask the public for comments in favor or opposition to the project. With no further testimony offered, Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Pradetto referred to the breezeway wall or other potential elements and asked Commissioner Gregory if they would affect the architecture. Commissioner Gregory responded that the breezeway wall and potential elements could be perceived as part of the building architecture. Vice -Chair DeLuna commented that she understood the applicant's concern with continuing this item. She asked again if the landscape plan could be handled in two weeks, which would not be a terrible burden on either side. Chair Greenwood felt that a continuance would benefit the project, with Commissioner Gregory's willingness to assist the applicant. He noted that it also depends on how quickly the applicant could provide revised exhibits. Commissioner Gregory said he is offering his services to assist the applicant. He did not intend to hinder the project. However, he wanted to make sure the Commission was in accord to continue the project. The Commission agreed to continue this item. Commissioner Pradetto moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. PP/CUP 20- 0002 to February 2, 2021. The motion was seconded by Vice -Chair DeLuna and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). Mr. Stendell thanked the Commission and commented that it is not the first time nor the last that a Commissioner has lent their services. N. n 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES JANUARY 19, 2021 Commissioner Holt reported that Desert X was postponed to a date uncertain, the Art in Public Places fund is fiscally sound, they discussed the art for the traffic signal cabinets, and the City released a call for art entries on December 14 for the art on San Pablo Avenue. B. PARKS & RECREATION Mr. Stendell reported that the City completed the work for the naming of the bridge at the Civic Center Park. XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS Commissioner Pradetto remarked that he is making it a personal pursuit to study wireless communication facility designs, or he and the City could do the study together. Mr. Stendell agreed with Commissioner Pradetto. His first thought went to public art, and it is something that they should look into. Mr. Ceja added that there is an opportunity coming up. He said that the Planning Department was entertaining a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to update the wireless communication ordinance this year. Commissioner Holt commented that she had seen flagpoles as a wireless communication facility. Chair Greenwood referred to collocation in which it seems easy for the applicant to say that they cannot collocate and want to build their own facility. Thus, there are monopalms all over the City. He felt it was in the best interest of the City to push the collocation requirements. Mr. Stendell replied that Chair Greenwood made a good point. It is helpful when the Commission makes comments during a recorded meeting, so the staff could go back say why they are not recommending approval. He mentioned that due to state law changes, the City would find out more about cell towers. When the time comes, staff would put a subcommittee together to review the telecommunications ordinance. Chair Greenwood commented that he feels for the applicant when they go back and forth with the ARC, then they go before the Planning Commission in which it is a land -use issue, and the Planning Commission is addressing architectural items. He felt it would be of value to have a joint study session with the ARC, so they are all on the same page. He �7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2021 does not want to see the applicant going back and forth with ARC and the Planning Commission, which could be costly and frustrating to the applicant. Mr. Stendell responded that staff would facilitate a meeting. Vice -Chair DeLuna asked for an update on the San Pablo Avenue improvements. Mr. Stendell responded that the intersection at San Pablo Avenue and Magnesia Falls was destroyed, gutters are being formed, and the tamarisk trees are gone. He said temporary signal lights would go up at the City Hall entrance off Fred Waring Drive. Once that signal lights are installed, San Pablo Avenue would be completely closed from Fred Waring Drive to Magnesia Falls. Closing San Pablo Avenue would save three months off the construction schedule. The project is scheduled to be completed by the end of the calendar year or sooner. XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Greenwood adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. ATTEST: IYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY J J N G EENWO CHAIR MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDI SECRETARY 1 10