Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1217 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 17, 1991 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Bob Spiegel Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Gregg Holtz Kandy Allen Tonya Monroe Phil Drell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the December 3, 1991 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the December 3, 1991 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Spiegel abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent December 12, 1991 city council actions. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PP/CUP 89-3 Amendment - CUSACK RADAKER DEVELOPMENT, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/ conditional use permit amendment adding a second restaurant, 7, 500 square feet in area, increasing total restaurant area to 13, 000 square feet in a 70, 000 square foot office/restaurant complex on 4.7 acres at the southeast corner of E1 Paseo and Highway 111. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval subject to the addition of a condition #6. He explained that this was an unusual case in that they were dealing with an existing building that could have been developed by itself and was part of an approval which would add two other office buildings and the applicant was still in the construction phase of the entire project and had not completed all of the improvements that were required under the full precise plan. He indicated that typically no businesses were usually operating during the construction phase of a project, therefore improvements did not have to be completed until the project was finished and finaled. In this case relative to the requirement along the east side of the project r, for the east side of the parking lot where there was a combination of chain link adjacent to residential, the precise plan conditions require construction of a block wall and that parking lot would be used by the restaurant. He stated that the condition would be that the perimeter block walls be installed as a condition of the second restaurant so that when those lots are used, there won' t be lights showing into the apartments. Commissioner Spiegel asked if the building was originally approved for three restaurants; Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Spiegel asked if there was any intention to go ahead with another restaurant; Mr. Drell stated that he did not believe so, because the developer increased the square footage of the offices when they eliminated the other restaurant. Mr. Drell noted that in relation to the standard allowing 20% restaurant use in a project, an additional restaurant would exceed that standard for an office- retail/restaurant mix. 2 arrr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification regarding the amount of parking being provided and any r... deficiency. Commissioner Spiegel asked if the restaurants being open for lunch was considered; Mr. Drell replied yes. Commissioner Richards asked about the fact that the present restaurant was only open in the evening and provided valet parking; Mr. Drell felt that would be another positive point and indicated that staff had to consider the possibility that both restaurants would be successful at lunch and dinner. Commissioner Richards stated that his problem with this development was not the restaurant, but where the parking was located and felt it was too far away for people parking themselves, but was probably fine with valet parking. He asked if this restaurant were approved, could it be assumed that no more would be allowed; Mr. Drell stated that it would be staff ' s recommendation against any additional restaurant that would exceed the 20% and there would have to be a compelling reason to change staff ' s recommendation. Commissioner Richards felt it was important for the developer to understand where staff and the commission stood, that there were limitations. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BILL CUSACK, General Partner of Cusack Radaker Development, informed commission that their intention was to only have the existing building as a restaurant use and the other two buildings would be strictly offices. He stated that he had no problem with the limitation to restaurants. He indicated they would attempt to create a fine office project with the restaurant complex in the center. He confirmed that he did not have a problem with the condition to install the block wall now. Commissioner Spiegel asked what type of restaurant this would be; Mr. Cusack replied that the restaurant next to L.G. ' s Steak House would be a California cuisine, Wolfgang Puck like restaurant, with a multi-menu, multi-price range operation. He stated that the man who would operate the restaurant owns the Marriott Hotel in Vale and originally developed it as the Mark Hotel and had three restaurants in it. He felt this man 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 has a great deal of experience and that the city would be pleased with both restaurants when they were complete. Chairperson Whitlock asked if any wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. CONNIE VANDERKLOMP, 45-205 Panorama Drive in Palm Desert, manager of the apartments on the east side of the parking lot. She asked if the new restaurant would provide valet parking also; Mr. Cusack concurred. Ms. Vanderklomp stated they had two primary concerns. The first was the wall that wasn' t up yet, but the restaurant was in operation. She also said that a few tenants had informed her that trash was being picked up at 5:00 a.m. and they had been assured that it would not be done before 8:00 a.m. She indicated that there had been other restaurants in that location in the past that generated a lot of problems. She said they were very concerned with what would be happening at the lot in the evening because of the proximity to the apartments. Mr. Drell suggested that the whole line of spaces along that wall be restricted at night. Mr. Cusack indicated that the Alcoholic Beverage Control office had already placed restrictions on them. Mr. Drell felt he could probably completely eliminate parking along that wall . Commissioner Richards indicated that all that would occur was that a valet would drive the car to where it would be parked and then would come back to pick it up, which would eliminate normal noise from talking. Mr. Cusack noted that the previous business was open until 2:00 a.m. ; their restaurant would close at midnight and would provide the valet parking. Commissioner Spiegel asked about the trash pickup problem. Mr. Cusack stated that he had not known that this was a problem and would contact Palm Desert Disposal to see if they would change their hours. Commissioner Downs recommended the addition of a condition #7 that no trash shall be picked up before 7:00 a.m. Ms. Vanderklomp asked about the time schedule for the wall to be completed and also noted that the construction trailer and equipment was next to their project; Mr. Cusack stated that the restaurant was scheduled to open in mid February, and based on the added condition, the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 wall would have to be in place before the restaurant could open. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Action- Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1549, approving PP/CUP 89-3 Amendment adding a second restaurant 7, 500 square feet in area, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 91-16 - BIGALOW'S, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the addition of 28 seats to an existing take-out restaurant at 73- 671 Highway 111. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Ron' s had a conditional use permit to operate in that location; Mr. Drell answered yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Ron' s were to go out of business, would the C.U.P. expire; Mr. Drell explained that the C.U.P. would run with the land, and if not utilized within one year, then it could expire. He suggested that depending on the ownership or arrangement/interest Ron' s still had in the property or lease, part of the square footage approved for Ron' s could be transferred to this site, but the seating at Ron' s would have to be physically decreased as well . Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an agreement by the property owner, if a portion of the seating could be transferred to Bigalow' s; Mr. Drell felt the landlord could distribute their allotted portion as he saw fit. Commissioner Downs noted that someone was already negotiating with the landlord to take over Ron' s site. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 MR. MICHAEL REITER, owner of Bigalow' s, said that if each space should be allowed 20%, he wondered why Ron' s was approved for 30% of the parking and they also took the deli, because he was supposed to expand and when the deli moved in, they automatically did not have to get any seating. He said that he did not understand that logic. He noted that the place was closed now and he brought a letter from the owner saying that they would never open for lunch. Now that the place was closed, he could not wait for one year for the C.U.P. to expire, he would be out of business. He said that he needed to attract pedestrian traffic and could no longer survive on a delivery only business. He said that he and his partner had $50, 000 tied up in the business and they were trying to find an answer to get through this depression. Mr. Reiter indicated that staff had told him he could put in eight seats, which he would not do him a lot of good, because he would still have to move his kitchen equipment from the front of the restaurant to the back--he would still have to spend the money to do that. He indicated that his landlord had no objection to the changes in the restaurant. He noted that one of the things about Ron' s was that there used to be a front door and there was an existing parking lot in the front that had approximately 20 spaces, that was usually vacant except for one or two cars there. He said that Ron' s now has a patio that took up more parking spaces and the front entrance to the �f restaurant was closed off so that the way to go into Ron' s was through the back entrance, or one on the side that was hardly ever used. He felt that the majority of patrons used the President ' s Plaza entrance and he did not feel that the parking area in the front was being used. He said that he had spent two hard years working there 15 hours a day and did not want to lose his restaurant because of the depression. He indicated that if commission did not like this idea, maybe there was something else that would be acceptable. He said that the addition of the 28 seats was what he wanted to do right now. Commissioner Jonathan said that he shared Mr. Reiter' s concern, but many things were beyond the commission' s control and they had to look at usage of property beyond the time this recession would end. He felt that other solutions would have to be found. If parking usage was maximized, he would find it difficult to add more seating; however, he felt that maybe 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 the applicant should work toward a continuance and work with staff for another solution. Commissioner Jonathan noted that one possibility was that Mr. Reiter could try and trade on the conditional use permit for Ron' s and possibly get a portion of the allowed space for his business. He felt another possibility was that if there was going to be a new tenant and maybe they would agree in writing that they would not do any lunch business, and Mr. Reiter would agree in writing that he would only do lunch business, which was another possibility. He also felt that staff might have some creative ideas that could be used. Commissioner Jonathan said that the applicant simply coming to the commission saying that the parking was maximized and asking for additional seats anyway would not work. Mr. Reiter said that he understood that, but felt that commission needed to think about the places already in business. He said that he could not wait and felt that within two months he would be out of business. He felt it was too much to assume that if someone new came in and if they got busy for lunch, or if they did a good business dinner, then there would be overcrowding. He stated that he was there now and no one else was. Commissioner Jonathan informed Mr. Reiter that the landlord was in a position where he could make the agreement to allow Bigalow' s a portion of that C.U. P. and could limit any new tenant to a certain amount of restaurant use and could make a business decision to work with him. Commissioner Jonathan stated that it was his opinion that the applicant was risking a denial and he might wish to explore other alternatives with staff. Commissioner Spiegel asked what the hours were for Bigalow' s; Mr. Reiter stated that they were open from 11 : 00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Downs asked what the hours would be if there was seating; Mr. Reiter replied the same hours. Commissioner Spiegel asked how many days per week he was open; Mr. Reiter replied he was open 11 :00 a.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. six days and 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sunday. Commissioner Spiegel told Mr. Reiter that he was by the restaurant yesterday (Monday) at 11:30 a.m. and the restaurant was not open; Mr. Reiter stated that it had to be open, he was there. He thought that perhaps the sign in the window hadn' t been turned over. Commissioner Spiegel said that he knocked on the locked door and nobody came. Mr. Reiter again said that he 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 was there. Mr. Reiter informed commission that his landlord was present if they had any questions for him. Chairperson Whitlock asked the landlord to address the commission. MR. JOE BRANDT, stated that he lived in Rancho Mirage and was the landlord of the property. He said that he granted his approval to whatever Mr. Reiter wanted to do. He said he had no right to tell the applicant what to do, but suggested that he cut down the seating capacity, which might help. He indicated that he did not know what else he could recommend. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. BONNIE WALL, one of the owners of Bigalow' s, addressed the commission. She said that her only statement was that they were not looking to take away from anyone else' s parking space. She again noted that there were two entrances to Ron' s: one in the back lot and one from President' s Plaza. She felt that if that back lot was filled, which was the original intention, Ron' s wanted valet parking. He wanted the valet parking from the parking lot, which meant that everyone in the parking lot would not have use for the front area and had Mr. Brandt explained that prior to opening, use the Presidential section could be canopied off for valet parking. She said the entire back parking lot was open in the evening hours. She asked if an existing restaurant came in, which they did not know, but if it did come in, whether they do lunch or dinner business, the entire back parking lot would be available to them. Even if they provided access through just one door, she felt there was ample parking area for everyone. Mr. Brandt informed commission that he did have someone looking at Ron' s space and they did want to use the back parking area because it is more difficult to get into in the front because of the steps. He felt they would want to use President' s Plaza and would want their main entrance there. He indicated that would leave plenty of parking for Bigalow' s in the front. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 Chairperson Whitlock asked if Mr. Brandt had a tenant for Ron' s; Mr. Brandt said not yet, he had only talked with someone the day before. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for comments by commission. Commissioner Richards stated that he was not persuaded to do anything more than what staff suggested. He explained that President ' s Plaza was already horribly under-parked for the amount of commercial usage there. He noted that several years ago when the area was empty on the north side of Highway 111, the city stretched things. He felt that even with Ron' s of the Desert the city went overboard and was more than that area could stand. He said that he had sympathy for Mr. Reiter' s problem, but Mr. Reiter went in there and took his chances. Commissioner Richards did not feel there was a compelling need for a planning decision to implement and change the way the city has their codes. It was moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, to approve the findings as presented by staff to deny the request. Commissioner Jonathan called for discussion. He said that he would like to give Mr. Reiter the opportunity to request a r... continuance. Mr. Reiter said that he would go along with that and suggested that commission review his video showing the parking lot. He indicated that the parking lot was never full . Commissioner Jonathan explained that the time for public testimony was over, he just wanted to know if he would be in agreement with a continuance to possibly come up with some creative ideas to resolve this situation. Commissioner Richards said that he felt strongly about this but would be willing to yield and would withdraw his motion. Commissioner Richards noted that with the equipment in the restaurant where it was located, the applicant would be required to make a financial commitment to turn it from a take-out restaurant to a sit-down restaurant, even if starting off with eight or ten seats. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he just felt the applicant should be given the opportunity to work out an alternative that would be acceptable. If they did not come 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 up with something, Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would be in full agreement with Commissioner Richards and the denial . It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, to continue this case to January 7, 1992. Commissioner Richards called for discussion. He asked that staff outline some of the possibilities. Mr. Drell felt there were two options: 1 ) A reduced expansion of the inside--noting that one problem was the logistics of it and indicated the big cost was moving the kitchen and once that kitchen was moved, the applicant wanted to get as much as possible for his money. Mr. Reiter indicated that it was not a substantial expense. Mr. Drell stated that if that was the case, the question was how many seats could he live with, which was a question Mr. Reiter would have to answer. Mr. Drell noted that a solution offered by staff was that to dress up that parking lot, the applicant take one parking spot and plant a tree there and create room for some outdoor tables for the people who do want to sit down and eat. He felt that outdoor dining during the day typically worked well . Mr. Drell indicated that this was something that could probably be done within two weeks. The other solution would be to reduce the design and square footage on the inside. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a possibility of taking 28 seats away from the Ron' s space if the landlord agreed and give it to Bigalow' s. Mr. Drell stated that was an option. Commissioner Downs asked how many ,r parking spaces Bigalow' s would need for 28 seats; Mr. Drell answered that theoretically he would need 28 parking spaces, but he would have to physically look at the floor plans for Ron' s to see if approximately 1, 000 square feet could be removed from Ron' s and if it made sense to do that. Commissioner Richards suggested there was another problem: Ron' s enjoyed being next to the President ' s Plaza parking lot, an access which Bigalow' s doesn' t have. He asked for the vote because he could not see any possibility for a swap because the parking requirement should be from Highway 111, and not from President' s Plaza. He did not feel that was practical . Chairperson Whitlock asked for a vote. The vote was 2-2-1 (Commissioners Richards and Spiegel voted no, Commission Downs abstained) . Commissioner Richards said that he would reinstate his previous motion; it was moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel to adopt the findings as presented by staff. The vote was 2-2-1 ( Chairperson Whitlock 10 .r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 and Commissioner Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Downs abstained) . Mr. Diaz noted that the landlord was a key player in this and if he was not willing to step forward with some solution other than to suggest the city cut down a few seats, everyone would lose. He felt a continuance would allow enough time for a solution or a determination to be made. Commissioner Downs informed commission that he had abstained because Mr. Reiter was a competitor in the same block. He did not believe the owner of the property understood all the ramifications yet-- or if he was willing to reduce Ron' s use. He indicated that he did not understand how part of a conditional use permit could be split, with the landlord negotiating with new tenants, since the C.U.P. goes with the property for the first year. Commissioner Richards stated that he was also disturbed to hear that there was a transfer between Ron' s and a delicatessen. Commissioner Downs explained that when Ron' s came in for an expansion, the expansion portion ended up being in the form of a delicatessen instead of Ron' s enlarging Ron' s; same owner as far as he new and same owner of the property. Commissioner Richards felt that a C.U. P. was very definite and was for a particular business. Mr. Drell indicated that when it was approved, it was on the property. After further discussion Mr. Diaz explained that the delicatessen did not require a conditional use permit and Ron did not use his expansion, so there was a non-use expansion and was not a transfer because the delicatessen was acceptable standing on its own. Mr. Drell noted that Bigalow' s could have eight seats without a conditional use permit, however the layout inside Bigalow' s made that difficult to do. Commissioner Richards indicated that if nothing was done, the applicant could do eight seats; Mr. Drell concurred, and noted that the applicant could provide as many seats to the general public outside as they wanted, but couldn' t appropriate outdoor area by roping it off. After further discussion, it was clarified that in the President ' s Plaza a building could be built from the curb line of the Frontage Road to the easement line of President' s Plaza. This was the one example on President' s Plaza where the property owner decided to provide a parking lot instead of building on the whole area of their buildable pad, and under the ordinance they could almost build a building on it, but staff would discourage that because of Ron's use being approved partly on Ron' s having that additional parking. 11 low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 Commissioner Richards indicated that he would initiate a motion for continuance to allow the applicant to work with staff and his landlord. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would second the motion with the understanding that if nothing substantive was changed at the next meeting, he would similarly be moved to approve staff ' s recommendation for denial . Mr. Reiter concurred with the continuance. Action• Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing CUP 91-16 to January 7, 1992. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Spiegel voted no) . C. Case No. ZOA 91-4 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25. 24 PR Planned Residential District relating to development standards and perimeter setbacks for two story single family detached buildings. Mr. Drell stated that this item was initiated by city council after it became clear that the main use of the planned residential zone was single family subdivisions and there was a great demand by the general public and developers to build two story homes. He indicated there were no clear, consistent standards that were being applied relative to regulating two story homes in single family subdivisions in the PR zone. He said that the controversy was that the PR zone by right allows some two story homes because it provides a height of 30 feet. He explained that in order to provide consistency when a developer approaches staff and for the planning commission, staff looked through the various approvals given by planning commission and city council relative to two story homes and came up with a set of standards. He indicated that with a second story, there would be greater setback standards, side and rear, and a lower overall coverage requirement. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification on the proposed sideyard requirement. Mr. Drell indicated that on the single story side, the side setback would be five or nine feet. He also noted that in single story standards, staff takes the predominate lot size and applies the R-1 12 Sri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 standard to it. He said that the minimum setback for the two story portion would be 15 from the property line of that lot. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like to add a condition #D to the development standards . That condition would say that windows on the second story in the sideyard, or any windows on the second story that have the possibility of looking down into a neighbors windows should be relegated to a high window that would provide light only. Mr. Drell clarified that this would be a window adjacent to another side yard, not necessarily a side yard window, and would not have a clear view to the property adjacent to it. Commissioner Downs felt it would be better to have a five feet eight inches minimum height, because if it were the clerestory glass and got broken, it could be replaced with something else. Staff concurred. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. low Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1550, recommending to city council approval of ZOA 91-4, subject to the amendment. Carried 5-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MS. RUTH GUIBERSON, 44-875 San Antonio Circle in Palm Desert, informed commission that she was told by the planning department that the December 3 meeting minutes regarding her property would not be available until February, 1992. She asked commission if they would be available before that date. Chairperson Whitlock informed Ms. Guiberson that since they were approved earlier in the evening, she could have a copy. Ms. Guiberson said that she was told February; Chairperson 13 too MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 1991 Whitlock stated that someone might have made a mistake and told her that they were available as soon as they are approved. Commissioner Richards offered his copy of the aw minutes to Ms. Guiberson. Ms. Guiberson said that she also objected to the notice advertising the December 3 meeting of the planning commission in that the wording was the same as the September 17, 1991 meeting. Chairperson Whitlock asked for clarification that Ms. Guiberson was talking about the meeting two weeks ago; Ms. Guiberson concurred, but said that this was her first opportunity to address the commission since that meeting. Chairperson Whitlock noted that Ms. Guiberson addressed the commission on December 3 and she had pointed out at that time that she was dissatisfied with the notice. Ms. Guiberson said that at that time she objected to the September 17, November 5 and 14 meeting notices. Chairperson Whitlock noted that the matter was no longer at the planning commission level, but at city council, and asked what she hoped to achieve by returning to the planning commission. Ms. Guiberson said that she also wanted to apprise the commission that the Plan C of the Felidaz Corporation was not available for the commission on December 3. Chairperson Whitlock informed Ms. Guiberson that the commission was not in a position to address the issue any longer since it was now at the city council level . Ms. Guiberson indicated that she understood that and had addressed the city council at their last meeting, but felt it might be rl appropriate to also let the planning commission know they did not have that advantage, which would have precluded the use of her lot 137, Las Palmas. X. COMMENTS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adjourning the meeting to January 7, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8: 10 RAM ON A. DIAZ,• Siec ary ATTEST: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 14 .rrr