Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0707 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 7, 1992 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE err * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Downs 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 Joe Gaugush Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 2 and June 16, 1992 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the June 2 , 1992 meeting minutes as amended. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the June 16, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Commission and staff discussed June 25 city council actions . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos . PP 89-11, VAR 89-3 and PM 24630 - DAVID AND MARY STOLTZMAN, Applicant Request for approval of a second one-year time extension for a precise plan, parcel map and five foot height variance to permit a 47,430 square foot medical "MW complex on 4 . 08 acres on the east side of MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 Portola Avenue, 700 feet north of Country Club Drive. B. Case No. PP 90-8 - TOWNSGATE FINANCIAL, Applicant Request for approval of a second one-year time extension for a 47,000 square foot medical office building at the southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and San Pablo Avenue. C. Case No. TT 24773 - DAN ARTHOFER, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a 38 lot single family subdivision located south of Hovley Lane, 2,000 feet west of Portola Avenue. D. Case No. PMW 92-13 - WESTINGHOUSE DESERT COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the side lot lines of Lot 19 of Tract No. 26068. Commissioner Richards noted that because of the economic situation that commission was granting second one-year time extensions . Mr. Diaz explained that the only time staff would recommend against a time extension was if zoning codes had changed (i .e. parking regulations) . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. TT 27546 - STERLING PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a 161 unit single family tract map implementing conditions of approved Precise Plan 91-12 on 23 acres on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 1400 feet easterly of Cook Street. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 Mr. Diaz explained that all the tentative tract map did was implement the development agreement that was agreed to by the council . He noted that this case was denied by the commission, appealed to and approved by the city council . He indicated that in a report by City Attorney Bob Hargreaves concerning another matter, the commission was very limited as to what rights the city had on a tentative map. All the conditions and agreements worked out with the residents on Fred Waring Drive were part and parcel of this approval . He stated that the tentative tract should have been processed with the precise plan application and in the future it would be done together. Staff recommended approval of the tentative tract. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY NOGLE, Sterling Partners, stated that there was an extensive presentation made on this project in January and was present to answer any questions . Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Downs stated that he voted against the project before and was still opposed to it because there would be too many children for that area. Commissioner Spiegel noted that when this item came up before there were some strong comments from Desert Horizon residents . He stated that he saw nothing in the report that indicated they had been talked to or agreed to the project, only a letter to the Waring Place Homeowners Association. He asked what the feeling of Desert Horizon' s was; Mr. Diaz stated that he received one call from Desert Horizon' s and they asked what the tentative tract meant and he replied that there was a very limited amount of action that could be taken on a tentative map because of the development agreement. He noted that just because there were no comments from Desert Horizons did not mean they approved of the project, but had probably resigned themselves to the project. He felt it was unfortunate that the tract map was not processed with the original application. Commissioner Richards asked what would happen if the commission denied the tentative map request. Mr. Diaz stated that the applicant would appeal to the city council and there would be another hearing before council and staff would have ... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 to send out another notice. It would delay the project and the project would ultimately cost more. He said that if the commission had concerns about the project, he recommended that commission indicate that while the commission disagreed with the project, they would approve the tentative map. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the tentative map divides this property into 161 units and as he stated before, he felt this added to the existing problem of traffic at the I-10 interchange. He said that until there was a new interchange at Cook Street or the Monterey Interchange expanded, it would be inappropriate to add to an existing problem and he would be voting against this project and every other project that comes along. Chairperson Whitlock noted that she would continue to abstain on this project. Chairperson Whitlock asked for a motion. It was moved by Commissioner Downs to deny the proposal and seconded by Commissioner Jonathan. Mr. Diaz noted that the commission did not have a resolution of denial before them so the appropriate action would be to instruct staff to prepare the resolution for adoption at the next meeting. Commissioner Downs stated that the only thing wrong with going along and approving the tentative tract now on a piece of property they disapproved, would be they would indirectly be approving the project and he was totally against the project. He asked why anyone against the project should vote for it. Mr. Diaz stated that commission could make the statement that the commission was opposed to the project, they would approve it, and would approve it only because the commission's hands were tied. Chairperson Whitlock indicated that the delays by virtue of the denial would only create a hardship for the developer; Mr. Diaz stated that it would increase the cost of the project and because it was a housing project financed out of affordable housing money, costs would go up and more affordable housing money that could go toward other developments would be used on this project. Commissioner Spiegel asked what kind of a delay this would create; Mr. Diaz stated that the resolution of denial would be at the next meeting (July 21) , then the applicant could appeal that denial to city council and felt the earliest meeting would be September, which would be a six week delay. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 Commissioner Richards stated that this was a redevelopment agency project in his mind and he did not like it for many reasons but was prepared to vote on it if his colleagues had expressed a majority in favor, but since it did not look like it was going to happen, his concerns were location and amount of money being spent. He liked the design of the project. Commissioner Downs withdrew his motion. Commissioner Spiegel asked Mr. Diaz if whatever action commission took the project would be approved; Mr. Diaz stated that ultimately that was correct--it was a 5-0 vote at the city council . The city attorney indicated that a 1-0-3 vote of the commission would also carry. Staff was in favor of the project and recommended that commission approve it because there was little that could be done at the tentative map stage. Commissioner Spiegel asked when they were planning to break ground. Mr. Nogle stated that they would break ground in December. Commissioner Downs noted that if this was delayed until September, it would March or April of next year and the cost would go up 10%-15% . He said that he would move for approval, stressing that he had the same reservations and objections and still disagreed with the project in that location. It was moved by Commissioner Downs to adopt the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was not persuaded; he sympathized with the developer but could not vote against his conscientious . Commissioner Downs noted that it was still the city's money being spent, which was the only reason he would be willing to change his vote. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that speaking for himself, by approving the tract map he would be approving 161 single family units and to his conscientious that was not appropriate and he could not be persuaded to vote in favor knowing that he disagreed with the project. Commissioner Spiegel stated that when this first came up he listened to Commissioner Jonathan' s comments about putting that many children at Cook Street and Fred Waring Drive and it appeared to him that was an inappropriate location. Chairperson Whitlock stated that the motion died due to a lack of a second. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 Mr. Diaz stated that it would be noted that the findings forNot denial were the same reasons as those on the original plan and would be reflected on the resolution. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the July 21 meeting by minute motion. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained) . B. Case No. CUP 92-9 - TERRY AND KAREN BENNETT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a four unit bed and breakfast use located southwest of Verba j Santa and Tumbleweed. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval . He said that the project received architectural commission approval . He also noted that two letters of opposition had been received; one asked if a variance was necessary--it was not because it was allowable in the zone; the other letter opposed the development because of the potential damage by transient occupancy uses . He indicated that the proposed development was within the Palm Desert Homeowners Association and received their approval . Chairperson Whitlock asked if Mr. Diaz knew who UMF Enterprises was that wrote in opposition; Mr. Diaz replied no. Commissioner Spiegel noted that directly across the street on the east side it looked like there was an apartment complex; Mr. Diaz confirmed that it was an apartment building; he noted that commission could add a condition that would say that no further conditional use permits for this type of use would be approved until this business had been in operation for a period of at least six months . He indicated that if there was a problem people could come back and request that the conditional use permit be terminated. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TERRY BENNETT, owner of the property, stated that he was present to answer questions . 6 ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 Commissioner Spiegel asked if this would be the Bennett ' s primary residence. Mr. Bennett replied yes, that it was to be built like a single family residence to conform in a pp to the single family residences to the south. He notedrance that there were apartments on the other corners and a parking lot from El Paseo. Commissioner Richards asked what Mr. Bennett ' s research told him would be the potential occupancy levels; Mr. Bennett replied approximately 50% and averaging 10% occupancy during the winter and spring months and dropping ing the summer months . Commissioner Richards asked5i f6 M . Bennett would be associated with any group; Mr. Bennett replied yes, they would be members of the National Bed and Breakfast Organization, as well as listed with several bed and breakfast reservation organizations . He stated they would not be advertising their address for people to walk up to their door and ask for a room--it would be by phone or mail and they had a post office box already set up. Any inquiries would have to be by phone or mail . Commissioner Jonathan asked what meals would be served on site. Mr. Bennett stated that they would provide a complementary continental breakfast and would not serve lunch or dinner. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that they would not be providing alcohol; Mr. Bennett stated that it would not be served by them, but they would allow their guests to have it. Commissioner Spiegel asked staff if approval of this project would set a precedence. Mr. Diaz replied yes, because it was the first application of its kind. He said that it would not require commission to approve any additional conditional use permits for bed and breakfast uses in the R-3 zone and each hearing would be separate. He noted that conditions of approval placed on this project would impact any future applications, which was why commission might wish to add another condition that no advertising or signage directing people off the street into the facility would be permitted. Commissioner Richards asked if the applicant would have a sign; Mr. Bennett said they would not have a sign on the street, but possibly in the french doors on the front with the name etched in, depending on the cost. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 MR. SANTIAGO FERNANDEZ, stated that he lived beside the „proposal . He said that despite the fact that the lot could be used for commercial purposes, the fact was that the area was a close community in which there were apartments, but people have lived in them for years so it was a quiet community and they were afraid that people coming from outside with the intention of having good fun would create problems for the residents around the project. He stated that most visitors come to have a good time and usually drink a lot and go to bed very late and usually go back and forth with their friends and would create a disturbance in their community. He felt if commission took the time to go over there and walk around they would see mostly older people and very iet residents . This project would destroy their peace nand quiet that they built with a lot of money and care over the years . From a business point of view it would be good, but the right of the developer would destroy their community. Commissioner Jonathan noted there would not be dinner served on site and even breakfast would only be for patrons . He stated there would only be four units . He also felt that people who use bed and breakfast establishments were not necessarily the partying kind and were more likely to go to a hotel with a disco. He asked if Mr. Fernandez felt that was Wo the case or if he was still concerned. Mr. Fernandez stated that he did not want to argue the point but did not want to make that definite of a statement without supporting information; he felt the proof was that those places were used for people looking for an adventure. He said that they were human beings and they knew what human beings were like when they got out of their own town and decided to have fun. MRS. KAREN BENNETT informed commission that there would be quiet hours observed between 11 :00 p.m. and 7 :00 a.m. She stated that they would be raising their two children there and they did not want drinking and carousing at all hours of the night. They would not allow anyone to use the pool other then the quests . Commissioner Spiegel asked if there would be hours on the Pool; Mrs . Bennett replied yes, that everything would close at 11 : 00 P.M. Commissioner Spiegel asked what the room rates would be; Mrs . Bennett replied anywhere from $90 to $140 in season. 8 00 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 MR. FRANK SCHMIDT, the President of UMF Enterprises, stated that he owns and occupies a residence almost directly across from the project. They primarily objected because their neighborhood was essentially an area of retired older folks and the proposal raised concern on all of their parts . They wanted to maintain the neighborhood tranquility they have had for the past 10-15 years . He was not opposed to someone making a decent living, he just did not want their lives disrupted. Commissioner Downs noted that six units was what the zoning allowed, which would be more people and cars, and the conditional use permit would allow the residents to come back to the commission if there was a problem. He felt the conditional use permit with four units would provide more control toward tranquility than six units and not conditional use. Mr. Schmidt said that the property immediately to the west was a six unit condominium. The property to the east was eight units and the property to the north was apartments . He said all of these structures appeared to be long-term residents . He indicated that they do not w . experience much traffic and the transient activity was quite light. He said they were not trying to preclude anyone from using their property, but wanted them to conform to the neighborhood sentiment. Commissioner Downs indicated that he was not arguing with Mr. Schmidt, but tried to make it clear that what the property owner could ask for was much more dense then what they were proposing. He did not feel this would be any worse then six units . Mr. Schmidt felt that use would be more transient then permanent. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony. Commissioner Richards asked what would happen if the bed and breakfast did not make it--what kind of operation could it be; Mr. Diaz replied that if the bed and breakfast was not economically viable, then it would become a large seven bedroom home with a lot of garage space. One of the conditions that could be added was that rooms would only be leased for less than one month at a time, otherwise it would .. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 be considered an apartment. If it was an apartment, additional requirements would have to be met. Commissioner Richards informed commission that for nine years he operated a motel in Palm Desert and for many years he lived in Europe and on his street two doors down was a bed and breakfast establishment. He stated that he did not even know they were there. He noted that Europeans had an appreciation for that type of accommodation. He was concerned about what would happen if this use did not make it and it would come back with another developer asking ' what he could do with a seven bedroom house and five garages. He stated he was curious as to how the financing would be obtained for this use because it was new to the valley. Chairperson Whitlock noted that was not any of their business in making a decision. Commissioner Richards concurred, but was concerned if the project did not make it and what would happen if it came back. Mr. Diaz noted that if this did not make it and anyone buying it could not make it, they would have to come in and redo the project, particularly if the condition was included that the rooms could not be leased or rented for more than 29 days . Staff was satisfied with the proposal . He noted that the other condition that could be added was to not approve any other bed and breakfast uses until this one had been in operation for six months; he did not know how strong that too condition would be legally if someone applied, but with the length of time for application and the hearing process, it could take longer than six months . If this one proved to be bad, the next one could be denied. He indicated that in the R-1 zone (single family) there could be up to five non-related individuals in a house for any period of time. There was more control with this conditional use permit and staff was satisfied. He noted that the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce had also written a letter of approval . It is a new concept for Palm Desert and staff did not want to experiment in anyone 's neighborhood and if there were any problems and complaints, it could be shut down. Chairperson Whitlock congratulated the Bennetts for wanting to provide the city with this new concept. She stated that she had some history with bed and breakfast inns and they usually appealed to a different clientele than the rowdy hotel users . She felt that the Bennetts with a family would not go into this lightly and they had done sufficient research to believe this could be a profitable endeavor and a nice environment to raise their family. 10 aw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 Commissioner Spiegel agreed with Chairperson Whitlock. He for noted that most recently he was in a bed and breakfast in Santa Barbara and it was in an older residential section of town and he felt that people in the United States could be as quiet as Europeans and he felt it was a very interesting experiment for Palm Desert and would like to increase time limit of six months to one year to see how successful it will be and as this was a conditional use permit if the neighbors had any kind of problem from this development, the commission met every two weeks and would be happy to listen to the problems . Commissioner Richards stated that one reason he plays the "devil 's advocate" was because he had seen projects that did not make it and when the city was dealing with one developer first time around and the next time around someone else owned the place. It was one thing for the Bennetts to come to the commission and say they would raise their children there but something could happen and a new owner could take over. He noted that this was not a contract with the land, but a use permit. He said that when a condition was placed, it was placed on the use of a piece of property. He said that he found nothing wrong with this project and hoped they would be able to secure financing and build it. He stated that in the nine years he operated a 25 unit hotel/motel he never had a policeman at the door and it was a pleasant experience overall . He indicated that he was ready to move for approval subject to the conditions . Mr. Diaz clarified that no advertising or signage directed to attract people from the street would be permitted and any signage would be approved by the planning commission and/or architectural commission. Commissioner Jonathan felt a condition that the quiet hours of 11 : 00 p.m. to 7 :00 a.m. be included. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that "quiet" meant no excessive noise and no pool use. Commissioner Richards wanted that clear for the benefit of the neighbors . He also felt a nice, discreet identification sign should be allowed on their building. Mrs . Bennett indicated that the name would be "Trace Palms B & B" . Mr. Diaz recommend that they come back with the sign. Commissioner Richards felt a decision now would allow the neighbors to hear what was being considered. Their intent was to provide something in the archway. Commissioner Richards asked if the commission had any problem with that; there was none. Mr. Diaz indicated that when the sign came back the neighbors could be notified. Commissioner Richards asked why MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 it needed to come back; Mr. Diaz replied that it was because Wei they were trying to decide on a sign without having a picture of it. Commissioner Richards said that the design review board would take care of that and if the intent was just for an identifiable purpose, he did not see a problem--it would not be out in the road, would not be neon, but was just so that people could see where to go. The Bennetts concurred. Commissioner Spiegel noted that 99% of the people would have reservations, either through the chamber, phone or mail . Commissioner Richards felt that the sign should be subject to staff ' s approval, not have it come back to commission. Mr. Diaz concurred and clarified that the quiet hours from 11 : 00 p.m. to 7 : 00 a.m. meant no outdoor pool use or activities . Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1577 , approving CUP 92-9, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . C. Case No. PP 92-4 - GONZALO MENDOZA, Applicant Request for approval of a 9,000 square foot industrial building south of Sheryl Avenue between Caroline Court and Melanie Place. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and informed commission that the design received architectural commission approval . Staff recommended approval of the project. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ED STRELCZYK, general contractor representing Mr. Mendoza, and was present to answer questions. Commissioner Richards noted that commission approves these uses and then there is never enough parking when the use changes from industrial to another use. He asked staff if the parking being provided was for industrial or "quasi office" . 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 ,yam, Mr. Strelczyk replied industrial; he stated that the owner does not want restaurants or those type of uses there. Commissioner Richards stated that what they don' t want now can change. He noted there was a history of requiring more parking then was required for industrial in that area because there were so many changes . The parking spaces here were right on the code and he asked staff to address that issue. Mr. Diaz stated that the code was 1 space per 500 square feet and this project met that requirement. He said this was a infill slot and there were not many vacant properties out there. He indicated that it was a redevelopment project area and staff continued to recommend approval and felt it could be specified that one of the problems before was that people came in and said they wanted 1 per 500 spaces and then they provided a couple of extra spaces and gave them to tenants with less than 1 per 500 zone. He suggested a condition of approval that all uses must come to the commission for approval under the consent calendar. Commissioner Downs stated that he had no problem with that. Commissioner Richards stated that he did. He did not think that was necessary. He said that there had not been a project come by the commission in the last three years where they had not required parking to be more closely in tune to what was really being used out there. He indicated there were retail and quasi retail uses and there was a parking problem in the area and did not see why a project should be approved that was at the maximum level . He felt the commission should stand their ground and deny the project until it meets the standard of 1 space per 250 square feet or some compromise thereof . Mr. Diaz said that non-retail uses could be specified. He felt a lot of the parking problem in that area was caused by uses that were only allowed in the industrial zone that met the requirements ( i .e. Harv' s car wash) and then there were some semi-charitable organizations that have their offices out there and furniture stores that have the same parking requirements as industrial. If staff could come back to commission with the uses specifically, that would stop it. Meanwhile, staff would start processing a zoning ordinance amendment making the parking requirements in the industrial zone 4 per 1000 like everywhere else in town and then they could have any use they wanted. Commissioner Downs said that when that new zoning was done he would like to retrofit any building that had a 50% or more retro and he would like the parking increased. Mr. Diaz stated that it could be worked out to the point where in terms of legal non-conforming uses "" 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 when a tenant leaves that requires that greater parking the new tenant must meet the industrial 1 ' or add additional parking. He indicated that one of therement projects the redevelopment agency could do there was provide additional parking. Commissioner Downs asked the applicant how much problem there would be to double the parking. Mr. Strelczyk replied quite a bit. He said that it would reduce the amount of square footage for rental . He informed commission that the building was designed basically for small businesses like sheet metal . Commissioner Downs stated that an owner and a secretary would be two parking spaces and if anyone works for the owner there would be no parking space for him. Mr. Strelczyk stated that in Indio he built a project similar to this and the tenants included sheet metal manufacturing, another was an insulator who parked truck inside the buildings. He noted there were roll-up doors for truck access . Commissioner Downs asked where employees would park their cars when they came to work in the mornings . Mr. Strelczyk stated there were six units and there were three spaces for each one. Basically it was set up for small starter businesses. He said that there was no yard and it was less than 12,000 square feet of warehouse. Commissioner Downs stated that he had a small starter business on the corner of Joni and Cook and he had 20 trucks and 30 people working for him and two parking spaces . He said that when he had 3000 square feet he had six parking spaces . He felt that the proposed tenants would do the same thing. Commissioner Richards said that it was unfortunate that the applicant was caught in the middle of this indicated that change. He for years the city had been experiencing a problem in this area because the parking requirement needed to be updated. He stated that he was not prepared to allow this project to go forward with the proposed amount of parkin . said that he understood the applicant's intent, but when Ha tenant comes in and wants to rent, there won't be a lot of questions asked about the number of employees and how many 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 parking spots they would use. He noted that at a previous law meeting it was concluded that a hazardous situation existed. Commissioner Spiegel felt this was being unfair to the developer; he came to the city and wanted to build a type of structure and asked what the code was and was told a certain number. He went back and put a plan together just like the city asked and when it got to the planning commission, they said it was not enough. Commissioner Richards stated that was why they were here. Commissioner Spiegel felt that the planning department should do something about the zoning and parking then so that the concept and number of spaces required were correct. Mr. Diaz stated that Commissioner Spiegel was right; when someone comes in and asks what the codes are they should be given the correct numbers . He suggested that the commission approve this project and staff would set for hearing a zoning ordinance amendment for the next meeting requiring the parking in the industrial zone be 1 per 250, the same as other commercial zones . He stated that a condition could be added that any uses on this development would come to the commission for approval or staff would review it and it would be pure industrial uses . He said that he did not know if the council r.► would approve the 1 per 250, but noted that there was a joint luncheon on Thursday and while he did not know what was on the agenda, this item might be able to be added. Commissioner Richards said that item was on the agenda last time there was a joint meeting. Chairperson Whitlock notified commission and staff that the luncheon was cancelled and would be rescheduled for some time in the fall . Commissioner Richards stated that other developers had been required to provide the higher level of parking. Commissioner Jonathan informed commission that he was a property owner in that area and would have to abstain on this specific application, but stated that this was not an infill project. Everything was completely vacant; that was known as Cook Square and the subdivision originally went to George Berkey. The only projects already built that were in or approved were up. The only industrial usage was Harv' s Auto Detail, there was vacant building where RF Davidson used to occupy on Sheryl and Caroline Court; Cook Square Business Park which was 30,000 square feet of strictly office; the Sherman Building fully occupied by KESQ as strictly office; and the vow 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 building that was initially an ancillary to the Design Center which was now strictly office. The intent of the owners in Cook Square was to develop that area as offices . He stated that there was an architectural committee for that owners association which they pay dues into and this proposal had not come through it. Mr. Diaz stated that the facilities that were built there were built under the county at the 1 per 500 industrial code. Commissioner Richards noted that projects had been delayed in the past when staff was in the process of implementing an ordinance change and he felt this project should be continued. He felt the code should be set up to allow the developer to provide either use. Commissioner Downs asked the applicant if he would be willing to accept the two week delay to the next meeting and review it with the owner and change it to 1 space per 250 square feet and come back to commission. Commissioner Richards stated that the city did not allow zero lot lines anywhere else especially for office uses. Commissioner Downs clarified that it was allowed as long as they had parking otherwise. Commissioner Richards said that the area had been utilized as a lower cost office and quasi wholesale supply places because the rent that could be charged was under $1 and when they have to go somewhere else they have to pay more. Commissioner Downs stated that the 1 per 250 would give them a choice of tenant. Mr. Strelczyk determined that what commission was saying was that the differential between industrial and commercial--it could not be a commercial building because of the number of parking spaces being provided and it could not be used for retail . Commissioner Richards concurred, but explained that there were a lot of uses that fall between that gap. He said that once the building was built, if it came in and didn't fit a strict set of guidelines, he couldn't open a furniture store but could open a furniture upholstery business that has people coming and going and uses more parking than an industrial use. He felt the applicant should go back to the drawing board and implement the change. He indicated there might be more uses available to the owner if he conforms to the parking of an office. Commissioner Spiegel clarified that if it was a 9,000 square foot building, 36 spaces would be needed--if the building was smaller there would not be as many spaces needed. Commissioner Downs suggested cutting down the building size a 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 little bit and redesigning the parking and it would be a much more multi-purpose use building; or if it was left the way it was, it would be conditioned that any tenant going into the building would have to go before the planning commission. Mr. Strelczyk asked if that meant he would have to redesign the building and come back. Commission concurred. Commissioner Richards said he would need to go back to the drawing board and get with staff to come up with a smaller building and more parking spaces . Mr. Strelczyk stated that their intention was to keep the units affordable. Commissioner Richards noted there would be obvious economic benefits and he could get a higher price per square foot. Mr. Strelczyk indicated that he could make it a two story building. Commissioner Spiegel stated he could as long as he stayed within the restrictions . Mr. Diaz suggested that the applicant give him a call so they could work on this . Mr. Strelczyk stated that two weeks would be enough time. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing PP 92-4 to July 21, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . VIII . MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Spiegel stated that on the revised minutes of June 2 there was a discussion on the lighting at 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 C.0.D. and the comment was made by Mr. Hargreaves that he did not research the lighting issue, but agreed with Commissioner Spiegel ' s interpretation that if the city could show that the lights had nothing to do with the instruction program, the city could probably argue that the city had some ability to regulate what was going on. He did not know if anyone had gotten involved in that, but when talking about the college and how they were not getting money from the state, he noted that the Alumni Association gave them $6,000 to build a garden over there. If they could build a little garden on campus for $6,000 from the money received from the swap meet, they could do a lot to correct the lighting problems, but the city did not seem to want to step on the college 's toes . He felt this was wrong. Commissioner Richards noted that the city had already committed to spend the money. Commissioner Spiegel said he understood that, but wanted to go on record that the city will spend the money because it had been approved, but if it does not correct the situation, the college should correct it. Commissioner Downs stated that he had been trying directly and indirectly to talk to Dr. George about this and it did no good. He felt the college had a moral obligation if nothing else to correct this problem. He stated that he and Commissioner Richards had worked to get this agreement to fix the lights and did not want anything to go wrong now--the ball diamonds were needed. Commissioner Spiegel clarified that if the problem was not corrected, the city should use whatever was available to correct the problem because the college has money through the Alumni Association, which he felt was being wasted. Mr. Diaz indicated that the report from Mr. Hargreaves did indicate that if something was not used for instruction, that the city would have some control . If the city could not solve the driving range problem, the city had the alternative legal issue of whether the driving ranges were part of the college instruction or if the driving range was a separate enterprise apart from the college, in which case it would have to go to court to be decided and would require a lot of money to pay for, but that issue could be looked at. If it became an issue that the ballfields could not be lighted because of that, then staff would go to council and tell them the problem could not be solved unless the lights at the driving range were totally eliminated and would work with 18 w MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 the city attorney. He said this was something they did .. not want to use unless it was necessary. 2 . Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that staff would be preparing a proposed amendment to the service industrial zoning for increased parking. Mr. Diaz concurred and explained that the amendment would include: 1) all service industrial parking would be at 1 space per 250 (4 per 1000) ; 2) in the case of any existing legal non-conforming uses they must be replaced by uses requiring 1 per 500 spaces or provide the additional 1 per 250 . This would amend the legal nonconforming use ordinance and that was where the controversy would occur. He said that was what staff would propose. Commissioner Richards stated that his concern was that when someone comes before the commission today and wanted to put up a building that commission knows from direct history that the existence of other tenants would create more parking; it did not make sense and he wanted to see it changed to reflect what was really occurring in that area. He was not sure that he wanted to get in the middle of a deal with a land owner or tenant that has a tenant move out and the new tenant 's use was close, but by city definition did not comply. He felt that was going after the horse after it's out of the barn. He was concerned with the future development and not so much as what had happened in the past. Commissioner Jonathan stated that what has happened was that there were people breaking the rules that came in under conforming uses to the 1 per 500, but then did a subdivision type thing in the back and now was all office only instead of warehouse with an office in the back, which created a parking problem. He felt what the director was proposing made sense--leave the existing tenants alone, but when a new tenant is brought in, the new tenant has to conform to the permitted usage or they have to come up with the extra parking spaces . Commissioner Richards felt those types of changes have been the most difficult in the past because if a person owns a piece of property and has the investment in the land and possibly in a set of plans, it was different compared to a person that had owned a piece of property for years; he was also concerned about the facilities built in the county. He noted that this type of thing had been done with restaurants and apartment buildings 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 which had been put out of business . Commissioner Jonathan stated that they were not talking about changing it, just making the owners stick with the permitted uses that they originally came in with, even if it was in the county. Mr. Diaz indicated that he would have a staff report for the next meeting and the issue could be debated then. 3 . Chairperson Whitlock informed commission that the joint luncheon for July 9 had been cancelled and would be rescheduled in the fall . 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1992 XI . ADJOURNMENT %Now Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adjourning the meeting to July 21, 199 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned 8 : 32 p.m. ��rr�i�Jf • RAMON A. DIAZ, S C ARY ATTEST: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 21