Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0905 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Members Absent: Sonia Campbell One Vacancy Staff Present: Phil Drell Joe Gaugush Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: �•• Consideration of the August 15, 1995 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the August 15, 1995 minutes as submitted. Carried 2-0-1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell said that there were no public hearing items at the August 24, 1995 city council meeting. He noted that the council had not yet appointed a new planning commissioner. VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 95-11 - ALFRED VOLLENWEIDER AND THOMPSON FAMILY TRUST, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments for `.. three parcels on Abronia Trail, Candlewood Street, and Panorama Drive. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 B. Case No. PMW 95-13 - MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between Lots 2 and 3 of Tract 27570-4 in order to construct an eight unit condominium on Lot 2 within the Desert Springs Estates . C. Case No. PMW 95-14 - JOHN & SHIRLEY STRINGER, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow merging of lots 40 and 41 of Tract 25161 within Bighorn Country Club. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. Vesting TT 28227 - SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of the re-mapping of the undeveloped southerly portion of TT 26123 ( Indian Ridge Country Club) to create individual single family lots rather than the previously approved air- space condominium lots . Mr. Drell said that basically the project was not changing in any physical sense, it was just a result of market preferences and allowing people to own the ground their unit sits upon. It was the same units and design and concept. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the typical lot was 47 x 130 feet, which was extremely small . He asked if that was because they faced onto the golf course. Mr. Drell replied that was correct. He noted that the were attached condominium units and this project had 50% common open space and all the things most country clubs have. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that they would continue to be attached 2 a'rri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 t.p condominiums, but on their own lots . Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ALLAN LEVIN, Allan Levin Associates, stated that he was present representing Sunrise Desert Partners . His address was 76-768 Bishop Place in Palm Desert. He thanked staff for the report and clarified that they were no longer building attached units, but were all freestanding individual homes and the transition from them being air-space condominiums to single family lots did not change the building structure at that point, it was just a matter of lot lines on paper. He was present to answer any questions . Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant did have detached single family homes, if they were subject to the normal setback requirements . Mr. Drell replied no, because these met the condominium requirements and the single family detached standards were in-lieu of common open space. If they didn't have the common open space, bigger lots and setbacks were required on individual lots . These were not %W subject to that and were part of the PUD standards . Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone present wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Beaty felt that Sunrise Company would do an outstanding job and maintain their standards and saw no problem with the request. Commissioner Fernandez concurred. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he had nothing to add and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0 . Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1697, approving TT 28227, subject to conditions . Carried 3-0 . `.. 3 I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 a 4 Commissioner Beaty asked when Avenue 42 or Hovley would be ali finished. Mr. Levin said that at the present time they were grading Avenue 42 and that would be improved with the north half, the half that was actually in the city of Palm Desert; Eldorado would be completed to its full width and Oasis Club Drive would be completed to its full width. The contractor had a 50 working day time construction for completion and he was somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 days into that. He felt that within the next 30-45 days it would be open. He noted that the city had not yet decided on what the name of the road would be. B. Case No. CUP 95-8 - STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 1500 square foot retail coffee products and onsite consumption coffeehouse located at the northwest corner of E1 Paseo and Sage Lane. Mr. Drell stated that this was a request for a Starbucks Coffee operation in the corner suite of The Plaza on E1 Paseo. He distributed a letter that described their ■o operation in detail . He noted that they proposed to sell coffee beans and products, as well as provide onsite sales of coffee to bring people into the store to sample their coffee. He indicated that 70% of sales volume was retail and 30% was onsite consumption. Looking at the floor plan and how dollar volume translated into foot traffic volume, he would estimate that it would be more like 50% retail and 50% onsite consumption. Using that figure and adding to the existing cafe in that center, which was approximately 1000 feet with a 400 foot patio, the total restaurant use in the complex would be about 15% of the total . Historically, given typical retail parking, these centers could accommodate about 20% restaurant use and Starbucks would probably have less impact then a typical restaurant since it was a very short turnover and would be more of an attraction in terms of the onsite consumption portion of the pedestrian traffic on E1 Paseo and would serve as a magnet or anchor to attract other customers to the retail stores in that center and to the vicinity. Generally, he felt these types of small restaurant uses were beneficial to the adjacent retail stores . Based on those findings, Mr. Drell recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the provision at this time that this floor plan was what was being approved with half restaurant and 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION j SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 i.. half retail . They would have an outdoor patio and if the patio was accessible and unrestricted to the general public, it would not be counted as restaurant floor area. He noted there was a condition included to insure it would remain available to the general public . Chairperson Jonathan noted that condition no. 6 stated that i approval was based on 50% retail and 50% restaurant use and i felt that was a bit vague. He suggested an amendment or a new condition that the maximum indoor seating allowed would be 21 and maximum outdoor seating would be 8 . Mr. Drell said that he did not have a problem with that amendment. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. FRED FERN, 49591 Canyon View Drive in Palm Desert, thanked Mr. Drell for his presentation. He said that this was simply a pedestrian friendly type store and was glad to be able to bring another national tenant to the street--it brought in stability and was hard to bring the right type of non-restaurant restaurant to bring the customers to the street. This should not cause a parking problem because the customers would come and go r••+ quickly and it would be important for the pedestrians walking the street and would bring them down from E1 j Paseo and Highway 74 , where the peak customers were now, and would bring them down and would help the patio area there. They put in the lease a very defined use so that this use would not hurt the existing restaurant. This j was going to be primarily coffee products and some ancillary products . The coffee products included sale of raw coffee and coffee drinks . It would not be a sit down restaurant per se' . They presented this plan to Commissioner Sonia Campbell, who was also the president of the merchant' s association, and he understood that she was in favor of the proposal and hoped that she had discussed this with the other commissioners . He introduced Mr. Kely Davis from Starbucks, who was present to answer any questions . Chairperson Jonathan noted that he would like condition no. 6 clarified that would indicate a maximum interior seating of 21 and outside of 8--he asked if that was consistent with their plans . Mr. Davis stated that there was absolutely no problem with that--he was grateful to see the active r. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 s e participation in the schematic of the store. He felt their drawing was what they felt would be the optimum schematic or configuration, so they were happy to comply with that. Chairperson Jonathan informed Mr. Davis that if the rest of the commission agreed to that amendment, ultimately if the configuration was changed and they needed more seating and parking was not a problem, under the conditional use permit the applicant was welcome to come back to the planning commission to request an amendment. Commissioner Beaty noted that the nature of E1 Paseo at peak time was if there was an open parking place, someone would grab it and wander up and down the street, or go to a specific location. He asked if he would be able to go to Starbucks to just buy a bag of coffee, because he did not see that much open parking. From the applicant' s standpoint, he asked if that would hinder the offsite sales of that type of a product. If he drove over there and no parking was available, he would shop somewhere else. Mr. Davis felt that what would happen was that Starbucks { would more fully circulate the people that were already there. The people who go to enjoy the shops in that area would, while they are downtown, take a few extra steps down and get a cup of coffee before they go to the stores or pick up a couple of pounds of beans before they went home. He felt it would be an increase to the circulation, but not a heavy consumer of parking spaces . The other element that needed to be considered was the greatest amount of coffee drinking use was consumed in the early hours of the morning and after that it became more of a retail situation. In the morning when there was less demand on the parking, people would wander in and get a cup of coffee and then go to work. Later in the day they would be using it more as a retail use. He felt it would compliment rather than impede. Mr. Fern noted that they were very sensitive to parking ! and that building shared parking with the other buildings around it and there had never been a parking problem in all the years he had owned the building, and ` he had owned the building for ten years . i Commissioner Fernandez wished them good luck. t 6 1 t M MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. ALAN ROSENBLATT, a resident of Palm Springs and a business owner at 73-080 El Paseo, echoed the comments made before him and added that Starbuck' s was the premier coffee company in the United States and he felt it would enhance the merchant mix on E1 Paseo and draw a great deal of people which all of them would enjoy seeing. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Beaty stated that he had no problems with the proposal and was looking forward to their success. Commissioner Fernandez was also in favor of the project. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission would be amenable to a clarification of condition #6 so that it would provide for maximum interior seating of 21 and outside seating of 8 . Commission concurred. Chairperson Jonathan called for a motion with conditions as amended. hrr Action: Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0. Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1698, approving CUP 95-8, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. MISCELLANEOUS None. low 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 3 XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Drell summarized the August 17, 1995 EDAC actions . He said they voted to recommend the cessation of activity relative to the peoplemover. He said that the consultant was finished with the current contract of producing a major investment study pursuant to federal funding and the feeling of everyone they had talked to was that given current federal budget priorities, it was unlikely that the city would ever be highly ranked relative to a transit project. Therefore, the city should not pursue the next stage which was another $200, 000 to attempt to go for the planning and engineering and given the likelihood of the federal funding that the plan was dependent upon, it was not a good expenditure of city funds or staff time. That recommendation went to city council and the consultant was given a two-week continuance. The council would be acting on that decision at their next meeting. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any developments with the train station and if it was still a possibility. Mr. Drell noted that Palm Springs was still trying to go ahead with their station, but there were still no tracks available unless Southern Pacific agreed to allow passenger trains on their tracks, which they don't at the present time, or if enough additional freight service started going through the valley to justify them building a second set of tracks . It was still considered to be a long shot. He informed commission that he took the metrolink from San Bernardino to Los Angeles and it was a quite comfortable and reasonable ride. By the time it got into L.A. , the trains were full . XII . COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Beaty noted that Sun City Palm Springs officially changed their name to Sun City Palm Desert. 2 . Chairperson Jonathan stated that he had been working with Mr. Winklepleck about the frequent helicopter landings and takeoffs at KESQ off of Cook Street without a permit. He asked if there was any update on that. Mr. Drell asked if they were frequent. Chairperson Jonathan replied yes, that during the ten day period of the fires, they were having landings and takeoffs that were anywhere from three to six or seven times per day. Mr. Winklepleck had looked into it. This was on the vacant lot that he did not believe belonged to them. It was noisy, disruptive, dangerous and kicked up dust-- ., 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 #am traffic would come to a stop to see what the helicopter was doing. The helicopter was dropping off film footage and they indicated to Mr. Winklepleck that it was their custom and any time an emergency or news-worthy event occurred, they intended to utilize this particular method to transport film footage. Mr. Winklepleck was looking into the legality and there was some question as to whether the ordinance specifically prohibited that use and whether or not the city could prevent them from doing that. In Mr. Winklepleck ' s brief investigation he found that there were not any FAA rules that prohibited helicopter landings . Mr. Drell said that the FAA regulated them while in the air, or if they themselves had to make an emergency landing. He indicated that while the ordinance did not speak to it, typically unless something was specifically permitted, it was prohibited. If it became a normal operating procedure of the use and not just an occasional occurrence, he believed the city could regulate them. Mr. Rudolph informed commission that he looked into the matter for Mr. Winklepleck when it came up and Mr. Winklepleck had indicated to him that it was a one time thing. Just because of the fires or some special event. The regulatory powers were not completely cut off, but were `... limited because there were federal and state laws that preempted the city almost completely in this area. In order to operate any type of helipad or heliport, they had to get special approval from the state. The city did have some land use powers to a certain degree. At one point hot air balloons were discussed and it was a similar type of situation. That was tabled and there was nothing on the books . It was not a permitted use, or a conditional use, so it was prohibited. If it became a problem, there might be something the city could do and an ordinance drafted. Commissioner Beaty felt there had to be something in the PM10 or air quality guidelines . Mr. Drell said that even if the city was preempted, in certain respects they could not just land anywhere they wanted. They would have to go through a procedure and there was probably a hearing procedure on the state level . Mr. Rudolph indicated it was quite a complicated process and it depended on whether they were just making a once in a while, temporary landing or whether it was going to be done on a regular basis . If it was regular use, the city could regulate it. Mr. Drell felt it would be the same situation as with airports . Mr. Rudolph did not � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 feel the city could prohibit temporary landings, but they could not make regular use of a particular site. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that the way state law was structured in a professional zone or warehouse industrial zone, helicopters could land occasionally as it now stands . Mr. Rudolph said that arguably if it was not permitted, then it was prohibited, although it was not as clear-cut as if the city did have something on it. Mr. Drell felt one could argue as to whether or not transporting film was an emergency--they could just as easily land at Bermuda Dunes Airport and it would take them only an extra 15 minutes . Typically what the city would do in this situation, if it was a nuisance, the city would talk to them about landing on unimproved property (that they didn't even own) and the city would not even let someone park a car on those lots, much less a helicopter. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was an eye witness that they did it on an average of three to six or seven times per day for a ten day period. He asked if staff could follow-up and broach the topic with them and advise them that it was not a permitted use. Mr. Drell concurred and would convey that staff did not feel it constituted an emergency. He doubted if FAA would consider it an emergency. Chairperson Jonathan said that it was a temporary situation on property they didn't own; we don't know if the owner was informed; it m/ was picking up dust so there was a PM10 issue, noise, danger, etc . Mr. Drell stated that staff would make them aware that as far as the city was concerned, it was not a permitted use and would let them raise any issues to the contrary. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a follow-up report at the next meeting. Mr. Drell concurred. XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting to September 19 , 1995 by minute motion. Carried 3-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 7 : 35 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Acting Secretary ATTEST: 2 . Paul Beaty, Vic hairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 10