Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07 Draft Minutes MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY – OCTOBER 7, 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Schmidt led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair Sonia Campbell, Vice Chair Russ Campbell Mari Schmidt Members Absent: Connor Limont Staff Present: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the September 2, 2008 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner R. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner S. Campbell, approving the September 2, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Bagato summarized pertinent September 25, 2008 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda are on file in the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, (760) 346- 0611. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 08-303 – DONALD AND KATHRYN BLACK AND STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the rear lot line of Lot 1 north to allow use of area not usable by Lot 27 at 72-428 Southridge Trail (APNs 652-070-020 and 652-350-027). B. Case No. PMW 08-311 – GREGORY OTTO OLTA, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two existing parcels into one at 44-277 Portola Avenue (also known as APNs 627-131-041 and 627-131-043). Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Limont absent). VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. VAR 08-304 – NATIONAL SIGN AND MARKETING AND THE EVANS COMPANY, Applicants Request for approval of a variance for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs, to permit a 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 third monument sign for Carl’s Jr. located in the University Village Center which currently has the maximum number of monument signs the code allows located at 36-879 Cook Street. Mr. Swartz reviewed the staff report. He showed the Commission pictures of the area, as well as the proposed signage. Staff was opposed to the request and recommended denial of the sign exception request. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if all of University Park had a Cook Street address, even though Carl’s Jr. is on Gerald Ford. Mr. Swartz stated that was correct, they all have a Cook Street address. Reviewing the different pictures of the site, Commissioner S. Campbell pointed out that they have quite a bit of signage. Mr. Swartz concurred. Commissioner Schmidt asked if other tenants in the complex have applied for additional signage. Mr. Swartz said no. He stated that the owner expressed that this would be the only tenant that they would approve to go forward with a monument sign, but staff didn’t want to set a precedent with it. Commissioner R. Campbell asked if staff had any feelings regarding the Architectural Review Commission’s (ARC) suggestion of taking down the “For Lease” sign and putting up a temporary sign. Mr. Swartz said ARC came up with the idea that maybe they could convert one of the For Lease signs along Cook Street into a temporary Carl’s Jr. sign. Staff had not analyzed that since the application was for a monument sign. If the applicant was to come forward with that request, staff would look into it. Chairperson Tanner asked for and received clarification on the location of the temporary sign that ARC suggested. Mr. Swartz also explained that staff approves temporary signs for a one-year basis. There are about five of them on Cook Street and five of them on Gerald Ford. ARC’s suggestion was to replace one of the For Lease signs with a temporary Carl’s Jr. sign. Mr. Swartz reiterated that staff reviews these signs every year. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if that application would come before the Planning Commission again because the current application wasn’t for a temporary sign. Mr. Bagato explained that temporary signs are approved at a staff level, so it would not come before the Planning Commission. ARC’s suggestion was to just replace one of the current signs in lieu of a monument sign while the economy is down and some more build out occurs in the area. With the apartments and the hotel approved in the area, hopefully there would be more activity out there in another year. But the temporary sign was something staff would approve over the counter. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 He indicated that staff supported the idea at ARC, but the applicant still wanted to go forward with the variance request. ARC’s alternative was to deny the monument sign and allow a temporary sign, and staff concurred. Commissioner S. Campbell asked how many temporary signs would be allowed, if it would be just one, either on Gerald Ford or Cook Street. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. They would allow one on Cook Street. He said they were for one year, but were reviewed on a year to year basis. Mr. Swartz pointed out the location which he thought would be the logical sign to convert. Commissioner R. Campbell asked if it was close to the driveway location and near the monument sign for Cook Street. Mr. Swartz said yes, and pointed out the location. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. STEVE ROSENBLUM with National Sign and Marketing th Corporation, 13580 5 Street in Chino, California, as well as Kelly Karcher with CLK Inc. at 74-478 Highway 111, No. 187, in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. Mr. Rosenblum said they tried to work with staff, as well as the property owner. The way the project is situated, unfortunately there has been an incredible down turn in the economy. Right now what they were looking to do was create information that there is a dining option here at this shopping center that is available to the motoring public. Unfortunately, if you’re headed in either direction, either north or south bound on Cook Street, unless you are fairly familiar with the area, it’s pretty hard to know that it’s there. You can drive south on Cook Street and if you don’t happen to glance to the right, if you are going through the traffic signal, you’re never going to see the Carl’s Jr. project. If you are headed northbound, you’re definitely not going to see it. What they were looking to do is create awareness. They have the landlord’s support. This is the major tenant for the center. Staff did create a couple of suggestions to do this, possibly a multi-tenant sign, and things of that nature. But because this is a major tenant for the center and for the simple fact that the landlord didn’t want to open that slippery slope to a whole bunch of different monument options, they thought a tastefully designed monument that complemented the center, matched their signage, met code, was small in nature, and kind of subtle to blend in with the landscaped area, it would be an ideal way to promote business, as well as keep in mind what the City would like to have. Something that was not going to create a slippery slope. He said it’s the only drive-thru 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 oriented business in the center. The way that Carl’s Jr. operates, and several fast food establishments, about 75%-80% of their business goes through that drive-thru. What they could do in approving this project is stipulate that this is being approved because it is a drive-thru oriented business and therefore they aren’t creating that slippery slope that anyone can have it. They could stipulate that it has to have a Cook Street address. Again, this is a unique situation. This is a business that fronts on Gerald Ford and has a Cook Street address. Without that visibility he thought they were doing a disservice to the motoring public. As much as signs aren’t always the favorite thing, if you are driving around and are looking around for somewhere to eat or maybe gas, it’s pretty important to find what you are looking for. So they tried to design something that was simple, met the needs of the community, and at the same point in time met the needs of the business. He asked for any questions and hoped they could move this forward. Commissioner S. Campbell said that she was driving around that area earlier, around 1:00 p.m., which was lunch time. Starbuck’s was empty. Jack in the Box was empty. Where Carl’s Jr. is, that whole area is still empty; there is nobody there. She is in retail and business has been bad. She could ask for more signage for her business, but that wasn’t going to be granted. That’s the way the economy is right now, and she was wondering if there was a freeway sign out there right now before Cook or anything like that. Mr. Rosenblum said unfortunately there wasn’t. They would love to have freeway signage; that would be wonderful. Commissioner S. Campbell noted that once the businesses come, they will be busy, but right now it is empty there. It’s brand new and might be empty for a while until people learn about them. All the other places were empty, too, so it wasn’t just his business. Chairperson Tanner asked if they had considered the temporary signage as an alternative to the monument sign and if it was something they would be agreeable to. Mr. Rosenblum said they considered it. Temporary signs would be a huge positive compared to where they were right now, but the downside to temporary signage for his client is they are throwing good money in on something that is eventually going to be thrown away because it is considered a temporary sign. And even if it continually got approved, a temporary does wear out and does look 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 bad after a certain amount of time. The design they are looking at is something that is simple and would look good for a long time. One of the things with a temporary sign that is also a concern is vandalism and things of that nature. It tends to attract problems versus a permanent sign which is much longer lasting, is a simple block design and performs the same function, but just looks nicer. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed signage. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Schmidt was concerned that the restaurant wasn’t near where the sign would be. It’s way on the other side of the center. It also seemed to her that it would create sort of a dangerous precedent in that the ordinance is pretty clear. She knew business was bad, but there were other marketing things to do other than putting up a sign. She didn’t like the precedent it would establish and she was less keen on a temporary sign because that would simply encourage others in the center unless it was worked through the ownership to have a directory sign. She didn’t think it was a good idea for them to do it. Commissioner S. Campbell concurred. They have adequate signage that is allowed by ordinance right now. This business is new, the whole area is new. With what they were shown, she would not allow a third monument sign. It was hard to tell from the pictures what a temporary sign would be, but again, if they put a temporary sign there now, there’s a sandwich shop and a coffee shop that would probably want a temporary sign also. It’s a new area and it takes time to develop. She has been in her business for 21 years. It takes a long time and she was sure when people learned about the business, they would know where to go. Commissioner R. Campbell basically concurred with the other Commissioners, except he would be willing to promote the temporary sign because he had not yet seen any damage. He was out in that area and he knew there was an additional cost. That cost might bring in enough customers to offset that cost. But he would not vote to approve a new third monument sign. Chairperson Tanner wanted to promote business in Palm Desert, but also wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission does what they’re supposed to do and that is to make sure they follow the ordinance and variances weren’t something they were very keen on granting. Regarding the comment on vandalism, the University Park has been there a long 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 time and they do have temporary signs and he hasn’t seen any vandalism to those signs, at least at this point. Again, he wanted to promote business in the city of Palm Desert because that is what really runs us. He would not be opposed to putting up a temporary sign on Cook Street, and Cook Street alone, with the understanding that it is a temporary sign. Once that center is active, it is going to be something that probably won’t need advertising other than what is on the building. They might also end up with signs on the interstate if it becomes available. He would be in favor of not a monument sign, but a temporary sign in a fashion designed at least for one year. He asked for a motion. Mr. Swartz explained that the request tonight was for a variance for the sign, so it would be a resolution denying the variance, but direct staff to work with them on a temporary sign; it wouldn’t be a resolution for the temporary sign. Chairperson Tanner reiterated that it would just be working with the applicant for a temporary sign. Commissioner Campbell asked if that sign would be lit at night. Mr. Bagato thought there would be some sort of landscape lighting to help light it at night. Commissioner Campbell said it wouldn’t just be a wooden sign, it would be nicely done. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. The ones out there are fairly nice and would match those. Commissioner Campbell said it wouldn’t be cost prohibitive; Mr. Bagato said no. Chairperson Tanner asked if they denied the variance, but conditioned it with a one-year temporary sign, if that would have to come back to Planning Commission or if they would just direct staff to work with the applicant. Mr. Bagato noted they couldn’t place conditions on a denial. The variance was for a monument sign and they could deny that, and then they could direct staff to work with them on a temporary sign. The temporary signs out there were already approved under Phil Drell with a temporary use permit that is reviewed on a one year basis. At this time there haven’t been any issues with them, so they have been renewing them. They were just going to replace one of the For Lease signs with a Carl’s Jr. sign under the temporary use that is already there. Commissioner Schmidt asked how many tenants were in the complex now; about 20? Mr. Bagato wasn’t sure about the retail component, but the office component in the back would probably put it around 20 or more. On the front part he didn’t think there were more than 10. But they had specifically said it could only be for Carl’s Jr. Commissioner Schmidt said they couldn’t do that; they couldn’t deny someone else the same opportunity, and that was her concern. Once they allow any kind of signage, they open the door for the other tenants to seek the same. Mr. Bagato said that if it became a problem, they could revoke the TUP and 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 they wouldn’t get any signage. Those signs were out there just by staff approval. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it wouldn’t be a new sign; it would replace an existing commercial For Lease sign. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Limont was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2487, denying Case No. VAR 08-304. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Limont was absent). Commissioner Campbell said she would recommend that staff work with the applicant on a temporary sign for a one-year period. Chairperson Tanner noted that they didn’t need to vote on that. Mr. Bagato concurred. Chairperson Tanner hoped that would work for the applicant and wished them the best of luck at that site. B. Case No. PP/CUP 08-241 – RON HENDERSON / MICHAEL JOHNSTON, Applicants Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design and Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single family home to an office building for Farmer’s Insurance located at 74-426 Alessandro Drive. Mr. Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report. The recommended action was to adopt the draft resolution approving Case No. PP/CUP 08-241, subject to the conditions. He noted that there was a typo in the conditions of approval. On page 6 under Department of Public Works, Condition No. 8 referred to Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code; it should read Chapter 27. He asked for any questions. Commissioner R. Campbell said he visited the site and went to the back parking and thought that is awfully tight and asked for clarification on how many parking stalls would be there. Mr. Swartz said it was 8 parking stalls. Commissioner R. Campbell noted that if someone drove in there, they wouldn’t be able to turn around; they would have to back out onto a street, which could be dangerous. Mr. Swartz clarified that they would be 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 eliminating the garage, which was deleting 327 square feet. Commissioner R. Campbell thanked him. Commissioner Schmidt asked if anyone had spoken to the occupants and owners of the house directly to the north of this site that abuts the parking. There was a very nice single-family residence to the north. She asked if they had weighed in on this at all. Mr. Swartz indicated that the meeting was advertised and staff had not heard from anyone. Commissioner Schmidt asked if Mr. Swartz knew the height of the wall outside the parking that defined the north boundary of that lot. She thought it was about a five-foot concrete or cinder block wall. Mr. Swartz said the wall would remain and would not change. He confirmed that it would not get any higher. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if the building height would be 18 feet like a normal home or if it would be changed after the remodel. Mr. Swartz indicated that the height to the top of the parapet would be at 14 feet 7 inches. Under the R-3 zone, if they were under a conditional use permit, they had to meet the R-1 zone, which allowed an 18-foot maximum, but they were staying at 14 feet 7 inches. Commissioner S. Campbell asked about the height of the wall. Mr. Swartz thought it was a five-foot wall, and that there was also a four-foot wall on Alessandro. Chairperson Tanner asked if the front elevation would be facing De Anza. Mr. Swartz said yes. He also confirmed that was the location of the parapet. There were no other questions of staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. SKIP LYNCH with Lynch Design Studio, 78-215 Calle Cadiz in La Quinta, stated that they looked at the existing structure which had seen better days and thought they could refurbish and extensively remodel it to create an attractive building, trying to keep the elements required in terms of the height and also to create a situation that would allow easy in and out access. The building would be reduced in three locations. Along the parking area a big chunk of building was being removed and the parking conformed to the City standards; the main aisle coming in would be 24 feet plus the depth of the parking. So the Engineering Department required them to conform to the standard parking situation. They also reduced the building in the garage area. There were two fronts; one was on De Anza, so they did that to conform to various requirements, including parking. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 The overall use of the building was for a new office with single user occupancy. There were existing walls around the property along De Anza and Santa Margarita. They planned to reduce the sidewalk area; it was fully paved wider than the normal requirement, so they wanted to remove a portion and install landscaping. He thought that would improve the area quite a bit. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Tanner asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Lynch deferred the question to the owner. MR. RON HENDERSON, 73-708 Highway 111, said their hours of operation essentially would be from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday. Chairperson Tanner asked how many employees he would have. Mr. Henderson said currently about seven. Chairperson Tanner asked if they all had the same hours. Mr. Henderson said they were staggered a little bit; a couple of them came in a little early and a couple of them stayed a little bit later. Chairperson Tanner asked how many cars he typically had coming in and out on an average day. Mr. Henderson said maybe half a dozen at the most. They didn’t have a lot of walk-in traffic. Chairperson Tanner asked for confirmation that it wouldn’t create a problem on Alessandro or De Anza. Mr. Henderson said no, it wouldn’t. Commissioner Schmidt was also concerned about the parking. She asked how the trash would be collected. Mr. Henderson said the trash truck would go around the back side and there was a little collection area they were putting in there. They would have the roll out ones, not the big trash cans. Commissioner Schmidt heard that the existing wall on the north boundary between the existing home would remain at the current height. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 Mr. Henderson answered yes, that there were some hedges there which helped block everything out. They just got through trimming it up. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they had heard from those folks. Mr. Henderson said they came over and said hi one day and that was about it. A couple of people were happy to see that they would be cleaning it up. It has been an eyesore for a long time. Commissioner Schmidt wasn’t as concerned with the apartment buildings as the single-family home to the north. Mr. Henderson said they were really hoping to enhance the entire neighborhood with what they were doing. They wanted to conform and be as visitor-friendly as possible. Commissioner Schmidt just had a feeling that downstream when they start, they might change their mind a little bit about the barrier between them and want more hedges. Mr. Henderson said the hedges were actually on the property to the north. On their landscaping plan, they would see that there would be some trees and other vines up on the wall. Commissioner Schmidt acknowledged that this is a transitional area and said there was no question this was a good use for that spot, but there is an existing residential community directly to the north and she wouldn’t want to have that upset. Mr. Henderson said they were trying to keep it low to blend in with the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Schmidt thought they had done a good job, but she had that one concern. There were no other questions of the applicant. Chairperson Tanner asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR or the proposed project. There was no response. He asked for testimony in OPPOSITIOIN to the proposed project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing. Mr. Spencer Knight, the Palm Desert Landscape Manager, said if they would like a hedge on the north side, he would encourage them to make 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 that comment, because typically they don’t do hedges. If that was a concern, they could and would still fit within the water efficient ordinance. Chairperson Tanner noted that the landscape plan called for ficus nitida and he asked if that could be hedged. Mr. Knight believed the applicant said it was on the neighboring property. Chairperson Tanner indicated that it looked like it was on the inside of the project’s property. Mr. Knight said it would be some other plant material that would meet the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Knight clarified that the Landscape Services Division had not reviewed the plan yet. Mr. Knight said they had a plant material that could achieve the same thing; it was a little thriftier on water use, but if that was a specific concern of the Planning Commission, his request was that it be made known so that they would make sure that happens because they typically don’t have hedges. Commissioner Schmidt requested a more visible screen, preferably landscaping, that would separate this new building from the existing residence. She knew there was an existing hedge on the property owner’s side to the north. Commissioner S. Campbell questioned the need for the new owners putting in another one there since that property owner has one. Mr. Knight said that if they were concerned about it, he would put a hedge on this property and make that a requirement also. They didn’t know what might happen on that other property. He said they could make sure that something is planted that withstands our climate and also meets the water efficient ordinance, and it was in the control of the property owner, so in case something happens on the neighboring property, there is still that screen. Commissioner Schmidt thought that was a good idea. Chairperson Tanner asked for Commission comments. Commissioner R. Campbell said he took a look at it. He thought it would improve the whole area and might set a precedent for other offices to go in there. He was in favor of the recommendation. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the colors and signage shown on the elevations were approved. Mr. Swartz replied that the colors were talked about at the Architectural Review Committee. If she wanted, they could propose new colors, but the signage was not approved; they would have to come in for a separate review. The signage was just to give them an idea of what it would look like. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she likes the color scheme and wondered if that was what was being proposed. She thought the site lent itself to deeper colored buildings rather than white. She thought it would carry well, although she wouldn’t make it a 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 restriction. Commissioner S. Campbell noted that it was like mustard yellow. Commissioner Schmidt said it was taupe dark. Commissioner S. Campbell indicated that in Palm Desert they have converted quite a few homes to office buildings and they have turned out beautiful. She thought this building would really complement that area also. She moved for approval with the addition of Condition No. 10 adding the hedge, if that was agreeable to the applicant. Chairperson Tanner seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Limont absent). It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2488, approving Case No. PP/CUP 08-241, subject to conditions as amended adding Condition No. 10 under Department of Community Development requiring a hedge along the north property line. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Limont absent). Mr. Joy noted that this project would probably be one of the first ones subject to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan fees and they should probably list it as a condition of approval. They could add it on later that the project would have to comply with all the local ordinances. Mr. Bagato disagreed since this project was already an existing improved site. Mr. Joy said that the conversion of a residential use to a commercial use is what triggers it. Mr. Bagato said staff would look into that matter. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner S. Campbell reported that the meeting was informational. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 No report. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt indicated there was no meeting. D. PARKS & RECREATION No report. XI. COMMENTS Mr. Bagato indicated that there were no agenda items for the November 4, 2008 meeting, so it would be canceled. The next meeting was October 21, 2008. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner R. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Limont absent). The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. _______________________________ LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: ___________________________ VAN G. TANNER, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 14