Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1021 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 21, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE 4.. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Martin Alvarez Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the October 7, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the October 7, 1997 meeting minutes. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent October 9, 1997 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-28 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, L.P., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustment of Lots 17 and 21 of Tract No. 26068 and Parcels 1-3 of PMW 92-13. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, '""' approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1997 Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. CUP 94-2 Amendment #1 - MICHAEL CASTELLI, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to an existing conditional use permit to allow a 620 square foot ground floor expansion of Castelli's Andreinos plus 200 square foot loft at 73-098 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell indicated that Mr. Castelli has lost a lot of his offsite parking agreements as was technically in noncompliance with his existing conditional use permit. He would be able to get, on a rather temporary basis, some additional parking and make up some of that from First Bank, but to avoid this problem in the future he has gone into escrow on one of the vacant lots behind him and he would be coming back to the commission with an amendment to his application including the development of that lot as a parking lot as part of his conditional use permit. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was requesting a continuance to a time uncertain when he would come back with an amended application. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and noted that the case would be readvertised when it came back and asked for action by the commission. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing CUP 94-2 Amendment #1 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that he would like to take the next two cases together. B. Case No. C/Z 97-12 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from single-family residential (R-2) to office professional (O.P.), for six parcels located on the east side of Monterey starting from San Gorgonio Way, extending 360 feet north. C. Continued Case No. PP 97-13 - HOWARD HAIT, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design to construct a 1 ,975 square foot office building on property located at 44-650 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Alvarez noted that the commission directed staff to renotice the change of zone to include the six parcels located on the east side of Monterey from San Gorgonio and extending six parcels to the north. The parcels were currently zoned R-2 single family. The zone change to Office Professional would make the parcels consistent with the City's General Plan. The zone change would allow for an office professional use which would be compatible with the existing and 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1997 `r.. future land use of the area. He noted that a letter from Public Works that was included with the staff report addressed the circulation as it pertains to all six parcels. The letter indicated that the Public Works Department would encourage the use of joint access points off of Monterey and common parking as it relates to new development and they would be discussing the circulation as it pertains more particularly to the precise plan application. As mentioned, three of the six properties were currently office uses approved by conditional use permits. The City could not require them at this time to join a rear parking plan unless they modified their existing building or came in with a precise plan request. Mr. Alvarez stated that the project would not have a significant negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration had been prepared. Regarding the Precise Plan application, it consisted of a 1900 square foot office building at 44-650 Monterey Avenue. Access would be gained from Monterey and would give access to seven parking spaces in the rear as required. The applicant would also be required to secure or record a reciprocal access agreement with the property to the north and also be required to record an irrevocable access offer to the property to the south to allow for future access to the parking area. He indicated there was an alternate layout for PP 97-13 at 44-650 Monterey Avenue that was devised by the applicant to be implemented once the property to the south developed as office and it would allow for the relocation of the trash enclosure and movement of three parking spaces to the east property line. He noted that a letter was received from the south property owner indicating a concern with the zero lot line proposed on the south property line. In researching this, staff concluded that a zero lot line would not significantly impact the south property or the existing residents. The ultimate use of that property had been designated as office and the current design should reflect the future use as office professional. Secondly, the building would only be 15 feet 6 inches high and would not have any windows on the south zero lot line and a residential zero lot line was not uncommon in the residential district. He recommended that the change of zone be recommended for approval to the City Council for all six parcels and that the precise plan be approved, subject to conditions. Commissioner Campbell asked if staff had heard anything from the Armentas to the south. Mr. Alvarez replied no, not within the last three weeks. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that there were a couple of people that had just arrived at the meeting and noted that the commission was discussing the change of zone on Monterey for six parcels 600 feet to the north of San Gorgonio, three that had been converted from Single Family Residential to Office Professional and three which have not. The change of zone was legally noticed to try and bring uniformity. He indicated that both matters were being taken up simultaneously because the change of zone only made sense when viewed in the context of a precise plan, which they received from Mr. Hait. Staff notified commission that the idea here was to consolidate these six lots from having six points of ingress and egress to three points of ingress and egress to help congestion on Monterey �r.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1997 and provide for an orderly office professional buffer which would minimize the mid impact on the neighboring properties. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. It was noted that the applicant was not present. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. RICHARD STANTON, 44-695 San Antonio Drive, stated that his property was immediately behind Nancy Noel's lot and they were concerned about the effect of creating a common drive through the back area and would like to know where the ingress and egress points would be. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that with respect to Ms. Noel's property, there would not be a common access point. The City approved her conditional use permit and the City asked Ms. Noel to provide common access with Mr. Bolas, the owner to the south of her use, and she declined. The commission was now trying to address the three lots that haven't already been changed and had no power to do anything with Ms. Noel, Allstate or Mr. Bolas unless they come in with a new precise plan. Mr. Stanton said he had another question. In a similar situation of this nature where they have commercially developed property or developing property which is backed up by residential, he asked if there were any new standards set for wall height between the properties. Chairperson Ferguson thought the standard was five to six feet, but deferred to staff. Mr. Drell stated that the standard is six feet. If in the commission hearings the residential property owner requests it, they have gone as high as seven feet. It was a dilemma for that property owner because they didn't want to get too high a wall which could get to be oppressive by itself. The City has sometimes left the decision to the adjacent property if they wanted to go as high as seven feet. Mr. Stanton stated that they have been particularly adversely affected by the development. They never knew nor were informed that the development behind them would occur. As a result, while they have a five- foot fence on their side, it was four feet on the other side and they have a lot of traffic in and out of Nancy Noel's place, plus a lot of light that comes across the parking lot at Penney's that they never had before when there was a garage there. With respect to other people that might be in a similar situation, he was hoping that there would be some side wall at least established. Mr. Drell asked for clarification that the wall at Nancy Noel's was only four feet high. i 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1997 Mr. Stanton said it was only four feet on Nancy Noel's side. There was about a foot of difference. It was five feet on his side. He said they were never given an opportunity to address the commission when that was done. Mr. Drell said that theoretically there was a hearing, but the wall should have been six feet high. Mr. Stanton stated that it was a continuing problem for them and he was hoping that if something had occurred on the common access, it would also involve putting in a little higher fence. Mr. Drell said that unfortunately that was not the case, but staff could see what was required. Chairperson Ferguson said staff could check the conditional use permit for the wall height. He said that since he has been on the commission, they had Mr. Bolas come in and those exact two issues were raised. The light that comes in through the absence of the garage and the height of the garage and he believed that Mr. Bolas was required to build a six-foot wall and put in landscaping. Mr. Stanton said that was great for their neighbor and if they had that, they would be happy. Chairperson Ferguson stated that staff would review the conditions in Ms. Noel's conditional use permit. He explained that the change of zone before them would r.. affect all six parcels, but it simply allowed the permitted uses to remain as they are and really affected the properties to the north which have not been developed yet. The idea of noticing all six at one time was to hear from the neighbors and to do exactly what Mr. Stanton was suggesting, get mitigation measures that would protect the residential parcels, provide a buffer of office professional and have some orderly design on the parking. Mr. Stanton stated that they would love protection. Mrs. Stanton spoke from the audience and indicated that the wall that was there now was their wall. Mr. Stanton explained that originally there was a wooden wall on Nancy Noel's side of the fence and there was no problem until they took the garage down, then they also took the fence down. The block wall on their side was not adequate because their side was a foot lower than Nancy Noel's. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would make a motion for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. r... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1997 .l It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1834, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 97-12. Motion carried 5-0. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Mr. Drell noted that before commission there was a plan for the ultimate design of a common parking area which contrasts with the current design in that it has some parking spaces in that aisle. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted to discuss it. The issue was whether the commission wanted to approve this design now. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the commission was told that when the common access parking became available, this was the plan that would be the precise plan. Mr. Drell stated that should be part of the amendment. He said that there should be a condition that says that in the case of the reciprocal access being executed, this is the plan that would be the parking plan which would be implemented. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that it was for either the north or the south. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was part of the conditions now. Mr. Drell said no, it needed to be added and the plan attached as an exhibit. Chairperson Ferguson called for the vote. The motion carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1835, approving PP 97-13, j subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP 97-15 - OLIPHANT/MATZNER, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a Precise Plan to construct a 4,400 square foot medical/ office building located on the south side of Fred Waring Drive, 300 feet west of San Anselmo. Mr. Alvarez stated that the subject property consisted of two parcels located on the south side of Fred Waring approximately 300 feet west of San Anselmo. He noted that the Sunlife Medical Building was located on five parcels to the east and Precise Plan 97-6 was located to the west, which was approved in June of 1997 as an 1800 square foot dental office. The current precise plan consisted of a 4400 square foot medical office building on two parcels. The building would be two stories with a maximum height of 23 feet. Access would be from Fred Waring Drive and a total of 24 parking spaces would be provided along the rear and side yard. The applicant would be required to record a mutual access agreement with the property to the west, the dental office, to allow for the use of a joint access off of Fred Waring and rear parking to tie into each other. The property to the west was approved with an individual access from Fred Waring. It has now been consolidated so that they can share a common drive. The common access on Fred Waring would tie into the adjacent west property with the rear parking. Staff received one letter from the adjacent south property 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1997 owner. Their concerns specifically addressed second story windows on the south elevation and the east and west balconies. He stated that the Office Professional zone prohibited any open views into residential districts. Condition Nos. 14 and 15 mitigated those concerns. The minimum sill heights on these rear south facing windows would be a minimum of five feet nine inches. The east and west balconies were required to be screened with a solid six-foot material to each of the south facing elevations. The building's elevations were granted preliminary approval by the Architectural Review Commission on September 11 . Mr. Alvarez stated that the site design was compatible with the existing and proposed development and recommended approval. For purposes of CEQA the project would not have a significant negative impact and a Negative Declaration was prepared. Commissioner Campbell asked for and received clarification on the ingress and egress points. Mr. Alvarez explained that both properties would gain access from Fred Waring and then would tie in through the parking area. The property had a condition of approval that required that they must record access for the property to the west also. Commissioner Campbell asked about the property to the east of the dental office between the building and the medical office parking lot. Mr. Alvarez explained that it was previously the ingress and egress for the other property. Commissioner Campbell asked what that property would now be used for. Mr. Alvarez said that potentially the building square footage could be increased. Mr. Drell said that the applicant could possibly expand his building 250-500 square feet as a result of the shared access. r.. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification that on page 1 of the staff report the dental office referred to as PP 97-1 1 should instead be PP 97-6. Mr. Alvarez concurred that it should be PP 97-6. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this application has been through the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the renderings presented to ARC were the same as what the Planning Commission received or if they received something that was more descriptive. Mr. Alvarez asked if he meant in regards to the elevations. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He asked if the ARC received plans that gave a better depiction of what the building would look like. Mr. Alvarez said that what was before the commission was what ARC received. Commissioner Jonathan asked if ARC gave approval based on the specific renderings that were received by the Planning Commission in their packet. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Mr. Drell asked if there was a colored elevation. Mr. Alvarez explained that the colored elevation was displayed on the wall with a sample material board. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he has expressed this in the past, but he has a better comfort level if he can visually see what he is approving with the precise plan as a colored rendering a little better than what they were provided in their packet. He said he wouldn't deny this application, but for the future if the commission could have a copy of the colored rendering or something that was visually a little more illuminating he would appreciate it. Chairperson Ferguson agreed. Mr. Drell felt that it was partly because of the style. Some people could lbw 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1997 draw flat elevations that almost look like renderings and some couldn't. Commissioner Jonathan felt the colored version was an improvement and requested that the commission be given colored copies. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. WESLEY OLIPHANT, 77-900 Avenue of the States in Palm Desert, thanked Mr. Alvarez for his presentation. He said that he wanted to comment on two of the conditions of approval. The first was Public Works Condition Number 12 that stated that the grading permit issuance should be subject to review of a parcel map waiver and parcel consolidation being approved and recorded. He said that the condition was placed because the project sits on two pieces of property. The observation was that the property line that separates the two pieces should be eliminated. Because of the way that the project was laid out, they have the building on one piece of the property and the parking lot on another piece of property. He said he discussed this with staff and Public Works and a more economical way of handling that condition was to provide an access and parking easement so that both parcels would have equal rights and access. He suggested that "or a recorded access and parking easement as approved by Public Works" be added to that condition. Mr. Drell stated that as long as the "or as approved by Public Works" was there, it was still discretionary on the Director of Public Works to accept that as an alternative to the parcel map waiver. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Oliphant indicated that the Public Works Department found that to be an acceptable alternative. Mr. Oliphant concurred. He stated that the other condition he wanted to comment on and modify was under the Riverside County Fire Department conditions. He noted that this was a standard set of conditions that Mike McConnell generates. He asked Mr. McConnel to generate a modification of his standard conditions, which he did. Mr. Oliphant asked that staff incorporate Mr. McConnell's letter into the conditions. Chairperson Ferguson asked to see the letter. He asked which condition this applied to. Mr. Oliphant said it applied to Condition Nos. 3 and 4 and related to the gallons per minute. He indicated there was a questionable amount of pressure in Fred Waring right now and there are plans by CVWD to do additional capital improvements. In the interim Mr. McConnel felt comfortable with the flow that he is anticipating out of the existing water lines in Fred Waring. Chairperson Ferguson asked when he received the letter from Mr. McConnel. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1997 Mr. Oliphant explained that he picked it up that morning. Chairperson Ferguson felt it would have been beneficial if staff had received it earlier. Mr. Oliphant said he spoke with Pat Conlon about it. Mr. Drell clarified this would be in lieu of Conditions 3 and 4. He assumed that what the letter was supposed to say was that Mr. McConnel would accept whatever pressure is there now, but we don't know what is there now. Mr. Oliphant said that Mr. McConnell did know what was there. Mr. Drell said he didn't have a problem. Chairperson Ferguson suggested that the same type of wording be used as on the previous condition. Mr. Drell concurred that the words "or as approved by the Fire Marshal" should be added to Condition Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Oliphant said he was comfortable with that modification. Mr. Drell stated that the letter from the Fire Marshal would be added to the record, as well (see attached Exhibit A). Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or %NV OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan felt this was an appropriate project and was prepared to move for approval. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he appreciated the work that has gone into this proposal. He said that they have struggled a lot trying to get common parking and mutual access points along Fred Waring and this was a perfect example of how it could work. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1836, approving PP 97-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. tn.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1997 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (October 15, 1997) Mr. Drell indicated he attended the meeting and one of the issues that came up was that there are various proposals before RDA concerning undeveloped parcels. There is a ten-acre parcel on Country Club and a 21-acre parcel on the southeast corner of Portola and Country Club Drive. He said that on five of the ten acres there was a proposal for another convalescent or nursing home like Manor Care. There were also rumors of a proposal relative to office development. Also, there was a proposal for an indoor sports arena on the 21-acre site with ice hockey. Although they thought it was a good use for the city in general, they felt it was a little too intense for a resort and the use was directed elsewhere. The goal on these parcels was to not generate more golf demand. The feeling was that if all the existing hotel pads develop, that would be plenty of golf demand for the two courses. They were also considering a possible office park on the 21 acres. C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) a D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) Chairperson Ferguson asked if this committee was ever going to meet. Mr. Drell said that he received a proposed plan prepared by the two city engineers for signalization and he would get it together and send it out to the committee members. F. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (October 16, 1997) Mr. Drell said it was his understanding that there was some rediscussion of the home occupation ordinance. Staff heard that there was some reaction from the City Council relative to the change to allow two employees, especially from the current allowance of zero employees and it was Council's request that CZORC reconsider some of those issues and the City Manager specifically directed staff to do that. He thought the recommendation would be that only one employee be allowed. XI. COMMENTS None. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1997 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary A E JAM PS C FER USON, Chairperson Pal Desert lann' g Commission /tm 11