Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0917 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE r.w * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance . III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell (arrived after minutes approval) Jim Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Steve Smith Sandy Jacobson Tonya Monroe Martin Alvarez IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 3 , 1996 meeting minutes . Action• Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the September 3, 1996 minutes. Carried 3- 0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained, Commissioner Campbell was absent) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized the pertinent items from the September 12 , 1996 City Council meeting. rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 wi VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None . VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None . VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 96-24 - SALVADOR VELAZQUEZ AND DANTE NUNEZ, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to establish a 1, 000 square foot restaurant with 20 seats located at 74-991 Velie Way, Suite #4 . Mr. Alvarez explained that the applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 1, 000 square foot restaurant located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Velie Way. The proposed location was one of four suites in a 10, 000 square foot building zoned S . I . (service industrial) . The restaurant would seat 20 people and would provide take-out service Monday through Saturday from 7 : 00 a.m. to 8 : 00 p.m. He noted that Exhibit A in the staff report showed that the site shares 20 onsite parking spaces and has additional unmarked space which is used as parking and storage in the rear portion of the lots . There were also ten off- street parking spaces directly in front of the site on Velie Way which could serve as overflow parking. The parking requirement for this type of use specified that the restaurant shall have a minimum of ten spaces per each 1, 000 square feet of use . In order for this use to meet the standards on this site, the building would require eight additional parking spaces . To meet the requirements, staff looked at the parking situation on Velie and Cook and conducted a survey of the parking during three weekdays (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) during the expected busy hours between 11 : 00 a.m. and 2 : 00 p.m. The table included in the staff report indicated that there is under-utilization of parking on the 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 site and there would be adequate parking to accommodate the restaurant and the other two uses . Mr. Alvarez also stated that the applicant also received approval to use the front portion of the site, in particular the eight parking spaces on the right-hand side of the lot, specifically for his restaurant . The restaurant would have the use of the entire parking on the site after 4 : 00 p.m. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions . Commissioner Jonathan said that in the remainder of the 9, 000 square feet of the building area, one of the suites was occupied by a CPA firm. He asked if Mr. Alvarez knew the approximate size of that office. Mr. Alvarez replied no, but said that he thought it was another 1, 000 square foot suite . Commissioner Jonathan said that if this was a normal type of office use, the parking requirement for the building would be four spaces per 1, 000 square feet (for the CPA use) 8 , 000 square feet at two per 1, 000 square feet (which would equal 16 for the industrial use) in addition to the other 1, 000 square foot restaurant with the requirement of 10 spaces . The total normal parking requirement if this was a new structure would be 30 parking spaces and they were looking at only 20 spaces . Mr. Alvarez said that correct and that was why the survey was conducted, to make sure there was adequate parking during the busy hours between 11 : 00 a.m. and 2 : 00 p.m. He drove out there on three weekdays and there was no one in the front eight spaces . Some of the other parking spaces in the rear were utilized, so staff felt parking would be sufficient . Normally this would require more parking. Commissioner Jonathan said that he understood that there were circumstances that warrant giving an exception. He noted that the survey was done in mid-September and we were not quite into the season and asked if the seasonal months would have more of an adverse impact . Mr. Alvarez referred the question to Mr. Drell . Mr. Drell noted that these were warehouse uses and typically industrial users were year-round. He said that he hadn' t noticed any big fluctuations in people in the area during the season. Commissioner Campbell said that being in retail, she didn' t feel the restaurant use would make any difference at all as far as the parking was concerned. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Nunez spoke from the audience and said he was present to answer any questions . Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was concerned about the shortage of parking spaces, but he found staff' s presentation persuasive and there were circumstances that justify an exception and this seemed to be one of them. He stated that he would move for approval . Chairperson Beaty concurred and felt that more variety was needed in that area and hoped they were successful . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Nod Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1763 , approving CUP 96-24 , subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . B. Case No. ZOA 96-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the El Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay Zone. Mr. Smith stated that what was before the commission was a proposed amendment which would alter an ordinance that became effective in 1987 . Along El Paseo between Portola and Highway 74 there is a restriction limiting street-front first floor uses to pedestrian-oriented retail and personal service businesses . The original intent in 1987 from the Core Area Commercial Plan was to limit all new uses to that criteria in that the goal was to create a continuous succession of 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 tow pedestrian-oriented store fronts . During the processing of the 1987 ordinance there was input from businesses and the ordinance ended up being applicable to commercial frontage constructed after July 1, 1987. The proposal at this point is to eliminate the verbiage applying it to new construction after July 1, 1987 and making it applicable to all new tenants in all first-floor street front spaces regardless of when the building was constructed. This has come to the city at the request of the El Paseo Business Association because that group feels that future vacant spaces along El Paseo should be filled with retail pedestrian-oriented businesses . A second part of the amendment would change the words "new uses" to "new tenants" . Staff felt that would help clarify things. He said this was a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and the recommendation is that Planning Commission recommend approval of ZOA 96-3 to City Council . Commissioner Ferguson stated that this was prospective in its application. Even though the buildings were constructed after 1987 it would only apply to tenants coming in after the OEM effective date of the ordinance, whenever that is . Existing tenants wouldn' t be disturbed, but new tenants would be subject to this overlay. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Drell also indicated that this ordinance didn' t prohibit non-listed uses, it just made them subject to a conditional use permit process . He felt this created a significant hurdle and an incentive for landlords to try and find pedestrian-friendly uses and would give the city the ability to deny them if they were detrimental to the street . Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DAVID FLETCHER, 74-095 Covered Wagon Trail in Palm Desert, stated that he manages a number of buildings on El Paseo and he was on the board of the merchants association for the street . He said that all of the buildings that he manages were either remodeled or built after 1987 and they have adhered to this policy. They would have done that regardless of the city ordinance . 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 i } They found that certain uses were incompatible and prevented the filling of vacant spaces as they occur. Retail tenants were very sensitive to their neighbors and as the street has matured, there were uses on the street that block walking traffic and as those become vacant, he recommended that they try and get more pedestrian- friendly uses in those spaces . It was not a function of when the building was built--those tenants that were there should be there, but if the spaces become available as a city they should try and make E1 Paseo more pedestrian friendly and try and do something in that direction. He recommended approval . Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Ferguson informed commission that this issue was before the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee which overwhelmingly gave its endorsement . They looked at the purpose and the history of the original ordinance and its evolution since that time. He said he personally would like greater uniformity to the pedestrian flow on E1 Paseo. He enjoyed walking down there and understood where the gaps were and felt that overall this would be good for El Paseo and he supported it wholeheartedly. Action• Moved by Commissioner Ferguson seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1764 , recommending to the City Council approval of ZOA 96-3 , an amendment to Chapter 25 .29, the El Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay Zone . Carried 5-0 . i 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 C. Case No. ZOA 96-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to regulate commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas . Mr. Smith explained that the proposed ordinance was to allow regulation of commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas . He said that applications were received by Pac Bell Mobile Services to install antennas around town at three different locations . The matter went through Architectural Review Commission and eventually to the City Council . When it got to City Council, Council chose to enact a moratorium, which was done through an urgency ordinance on July 11, 1996 and then that urgency ordinance was extended at the Council' s August 22 meeting. The moratorium would continue in effect until July, 1997, or until a new ordinance is in effect . He explained that what the commission had in the ordinance before them was a series of regulations that would apply to the communication towers and antennas . Effectively it defines commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas . They are prohibited in residential zones except under an exceptions procedure which is outlined. It would permit the facilities in the C-1, Planned Commercial, Service Industrial, Public, Open Space, and in the Planned Industrial zoned districts . It would require all commercial communication antennas to obtain approval from Architectural Review Commission and would require new freestanding commercial communication towers and antennas to obtain approval of a conditional use permit obtained through the Planning Commission. He said that Pac Bell has filed revised applications that would be before the Planning Commission at the next meeting (October 1) . The ordinance would also establish minimum separation requirements from residential zones and minimum separation requirements between individual towers to the point where Item I comes into play in that the separation requirements in the zones where they are permitted is such that it encouraged the shared use or co-location of antennas on a single mast . Lastly, it would establish an exceptions process where if, subject to certain 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 findings, the Planning Commission could approve them in a residential situation and what they were thinking of in that instance was if a company could come to some arrangement with, as an example, Ironwood Country Club or Bighorn and come up with some sort of design concept acceptable to them the city probably wouldn' t have too much opposition to it if they made peace with those bodies . In order to cover the south end of the city it might be something they want to hold open. They don' t expect to see it happen, but they have tried to provide for it . For purposes of CEQA ZOA 96-2 is a Class 5 categorical exemption. Staff recommended that Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Council . He noted that this matter was also reviewed through the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee at its last meeting. Staff received some ideas from them, they tried to incorporate those suggestions into this document and re-circulated this draft ordinance to that group approximately ten days ago indicating that staff would like some comments back if anyone had any. Mr. Smith had not heard from anyone so staff assumed the changes were satisfactory. Commissioner Jonathan said that as he understood the amendment if a new mast is going to go up the first step is the Architectural Review Commission and the second step is the Planning Commission for the conditional use permit . That would be a public hearing process with notification. Mr. Smith concurred that it would be a full conditional use permit process . Commissioner Ferguson stated that at the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee meeting the issue was raised that by requiring setbacks from residential zones they were actually maximizing the visual impact to that zone in that an 85 foot tower immediately adjacent to a residential zone would be seen by far fewer residents then a tower set back "x" number of feet . He asked if the 300 foot notification radius for a public hearing was sufficient when talking about an 85 foot tower. He asked if it should be broadened. Mr. Smith said that it was something to consider. Mr. Drell indicated that it could be . Commissioner Ferguson felt that people within 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 'Irr 300 feet would be less impacted then those outside of 300 feet . Mr. Drell suggested a distance of 500 feet . Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Mr. Drell said that they were talking about some very massive mailings when getting higher. Commissioner Jonathan said that was better then having people before the Commission after the fact . Mr. Drell said that 500 feet gave a 1, 000 foot diameter circle . Mr. Smith asked if that was internally inconsistent with the rest of the ordinance . Mr. Drell replied no, not if they could make the finding that this unique use impacts that larger area as opposed to a restaurant or other use, where once you are out of sight and out of traffic range it didn' t impact at all . This would be within the sight of far more people . Commissioner Jonathan felt they should include it in the recommendation. Mr. Drell said that the commission could direct staff to do some site diagrams for council of an area and the profile seen from certain distances . Commissioner Jonathan felt it came down to whether they wanted to deal with those people through the due process or whether they wanted to hear from them when the towers/antennas were being installed. Commissioner Ferguson noted that 500 feet is a greater than five to one ratio, tower height to notification perimeter; 300 feet is less than four to one . It seemed to him that the people that fall within that additional 200 feet would be the ones that would be much more visually impacted then the 300 feet . Like Commissioner Jonathan, he would like them to be notified up front and give them an opportunity to speak about it . He didn't feel that 300 feet was an adequate notice area. Mr. Smith said there was a proposal for the roof at the Town Center. The parcel that it is going on extends all the way out to the perimeter of the mall property, which is probably 800-900 feet from the actual antenna. If they go 300 feet beyond that, they were already noticing residents at 1, 000 or 1, 100 feet . The same thing would happen for the Gold' s Gym site in that they would move the antenna so that it is 200 feet from the property line and then they would notice into the residential area, which happens to be one residential ownership at this time because it has not been subdivided, but from the actual location of the tower, they were probably 1rr 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 and talking about 500 feet. Mr. Drell felt that what they should do would be to have a unique noticing provision that the noticing distance should be based on the location of the tower, not on the parcel . Whatever they chose, it should be the distance from the actual base of the tower. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that the noticing could be the larger of 300 feet from the parcel or 500 feet from the tower. If they just said 500 feet from the tower and it was a 900 foot parcel, then no one was being noticed. Then they might be in violation of the normal ordinance . Mr. Drell concurred that they would have to do the 300 feet at a minimum from the parcel, or 500 feet from the tower. He noted that under this ordinance the antenna on top of the Town Center would not require a conditional use permit . Mr. Smith agreed, noting that it was only 16 feet above the roof, so it was not subject to the ordinance and would only be going before the Architectural Commission. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he felt that when getting 85 feet into the air, which is higher then anything else allowed, the visual impact in the valley was such that they should broaden the notice area and he would recommend limiting it just to communication towers . �■ii Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DARRELL DAUGHERTY, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, thanked Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith for working with them on this. He felt it has been a good experience for them and they would before the Planning Commission at the next meeting. Co-location was something when they look at sites that people have to want to do. The industry generally didn' t want to do it for a lot of reasons . First of all they didn' t want to be bothered with allowing other people on their towers, generally, and there wasn' t incentive for them to do that . He liked parts of this ordinance that didn' t give people a choice not to. That would be his message to the commission. If they really wanted to work for co-location, they should use some of these things as a tool . When they come before the Planning Commission for their facilities, 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 +r. he wanted to let them know that there was a commitment for co-location and that Pac Bell would stand behind that and whatever the commission wanted to do with their site- they would work with them. He said that he was present and available to answer any questions regarding technology. Chairperson Beaty asked how many of these he anticipated were required to cover Palm Desert . Mr. Daugherty replied that they have three and about 14 throughout the whole valley. They have 3-4 in Palm Springs, 1 in Cathedral City, 2 in Rancho Mirage, 1 in Desert Hot Springs, and 1 in Indian Wells . He said that when looking at the size of the city it was proportional and 14 would cover the whole desert region. Chairperson Beaty asked if this was new technology in competition with cell phones . Mr. Daugherty concurred. He said that about a year and a half ago the FCC auctioned off licenses and Pac Bell received a license for new technology called PCS (Personal Communication Services) to compete with the existing cellular providers and they would do that on an all digital platform whereas the existing cellular service is analog now. He noted that the cellular companies were currently switching their services over to digital platforms . That process of migrating people off the analog service to the digital was estimated to take three to five years . Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments and action. Commissioner Ferguson said that they reviewed this at the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee . He thanked Mr. Daugherty and said that he has dealt with many lobbyists in his time and felt that Mr. Daugherty was eminently reasonable and he felt that this was a perfect accommodation between emerging technology and a city' s desire to regulate its own land use. As the ordinance was drafted, they went through a number of changes in such a way that it would not limit emergence of new technology artificially because none of them on the Review Committee were analog friendly and he felt it was a good compromise . It gave the city the ability to %NW 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 Wiwi evaluate each project . Ironwood came up as mentioned by Mr. Smith. He said that he lives up there. Bighorn is back in a cove which is traditionally difficult to service by cell phone regions and if his country club was able to reach a compromise where they were able to put a tower way back at the south course where it would only be seen by a very few Ironwood homeowners and no one objected, they should be allowed to do SO. That flexibility was built into the ordinance, but the ultimate control was retained by the Planning Commission and Council . He liked the way the ordinance was drafted and they way the committee reviewed it and endorsed the proposed ordinance wholeheartedly with the greater notice provision for residents . Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1765, .490 recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 96-2, subject to amendment of the legal notice radius distance . Carried 5-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS None . X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None . XI. COMMENTS 1 . Mr. Drell said that he was contacted by the engineer for Katrina Heinrich and Lionel Steinberg, who were owners of a lot of property along the freeway. They were 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 putting together a master plan for all of their properties and they would like to consult with the Planning Commission at the next meeting. He said that it could be as a study session item or a Miscellaneous item on the agenda. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was a long agenda. Mr. Drell said that they would have the three proposed towers on the agenda. Commissioner Jonathan said that if the agenda was pretty light, he would prefer the item under Miscellaneous . Commissioner Ferguson asked how long the presentation would be; Mr. Drell replied that it would be approximately 20 minutes . They had some ideas of land uses which might relate to the issue of freeway commercial zones, which the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee would be working on in October. They have some mixed use ideas . Commissioner Ferguson asked if they would have items in their agenda packets . Mr. Drell said that he could get some exhibits from them. Commissioner Ferguson requested at least an overview. Mr. Drell indicated that they have some land use concepts for them to look at . Commissioner Campbell asked if they could leave it up to the secretary to decide on whether it would be a study session item at 6 : 00 p.m. or a Miscellaneous item depending on the agenda length. Mr. Drell said that as far as staff knew, there were only those three items . Mr. Drell noted that staff didn' t know what the reaction would be to the cell sites, although given the location of these three, they were probably the three that staff would have chosen. He hoped they wouldn' t be massively controversial . Commissioner Ferguson stated that as he understood it, under federal law they couldn' t be prohibited they could only regulate where they are located. Mr. Drell felt that under Miscellaneous on the agenda would be fine . 2 . Mr. Drell noted that Commissioner Ferguson asked him about the S. I . zone and the use of the zone as a kind of "grab bag" of miscellaneous uses and specifically allowing restaurants . He said that staff did a search to find out how many restaurants had been approved and there were only two other existing restaurants . They rr 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 were primarily to serve the area. He said that they have, through the determination of uses not listed, put a lot of things like churches in that area in that the demand for the property and the buildings have fluctuated very radically through the years, therefore, a lot of property owners have tried to build in flexibility to their projects by building to the office standard development which allows them the flexibility of having office or industrial . As of two years ago he ran a business license check on the whole area and about 90% of the business were still fairly strictly industrial in nature. To a certain degree having diversity wasn' t bad although it was difficult for staff to monitor when new uses come that are not obviously industrial and then staff has to do some research into what the building is and what it was approved for and how much parking it has and the other tenants there. He felt that they have it somewhat under control and when there is a better computer system, they would be able to track it better. 3 . Commissioner Fernandez noted that his term as Planning J Commissioner is up and asked what the next step was; Mr. Drell asked if he had been contacted by the City Clerk' s office . Commissioner Fernandez replied no. Mr. Drell said that all of the appointments have been extended to December. They have gone into a system where perspective applicants are being invited to come to commission meetings to decide whether they really want to be in it . The City Clerk should be contacting him and inquiring if he is interested in re-appointment . That determines whether they would throw his hat back into the ring and whether or not they would be considering other ones . Mr. Drell asked if Mr. Fernandez was interested in continuing. Commissioner Fernandez said yes . Commissioner Jonathan felt that was a good procedure . 4 . Mr. Smith noted that Commissioner Ferguson would be absent from the September 18, 1996 Zoning Ordinance Review Committee meeting and asked if any other commissioner would like to attend. Mr. Smith said that 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 the meeting would be at 3 : 00 p.m. Mr. Drell said they would be covering building coverage in residential zones, among other items . Commissioner Fernandez volunteered. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting to October 1, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 7 :43 p.m. PHILIP DRE , Secretary ATTEST: PAUL R. BEATY, Chair erson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 15