Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0519 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 19, 1998 ;� 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � � .� .� � .� �. � �- .� .� .� * � � � �. � � .� .� �. .� .� � * .� � � �. � � � � � .� � � .� � � .� * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the piedge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty ' �•-� George Fernandez Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan �.. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Bob Hargreaves Martin Alvarez Steve Smith Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for approval of the May 5, 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the May 5, 1998 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 14, 1998 City Council actions. Commission and staff discussed Council's action regarding the Walgreen's drug store proposal for the east side of Monterey Avenue between Highway 1 1 1 and `r+ San Gorgonio Way. Commission requested a copy of the May 14, 1998 City Council minutes. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 ri VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 97-10 - MONTEREY PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approvai of a first one-year time extension for an approved precise plan of design allowing the construction of a 7,460 square foot office building for property located at 44-267 Monterey Avenue. Action: , It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS � Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Continued Case Nos. PP/CUP 98-5, TT 28818 AND DA 98-1 - MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 18-hole golf course, 1200 unit timeshare resort and supporting amenities on 300± acres on the east side of Monterey Avenue between Frank Sinatra Drive and - Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Smith informed Commission that an amendment to pages 5 and 6 of the draft resolution was distributed to them. He noted that the applicant provided a colored site plan which was on display and it delineated the two story, three � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 `.. story and four story units. A revised tentative tract map was distributed to Commission in their packets. Mr. Smith explained that the revisions included the entry point on Frank Sinatra being moved 300 feet further to the west. The street consequently had been curved away from the former location just west of the Kaufman and Broad development. Also, several of the buildings were turned so that the narrow points of the buildings were oriented toward the residents to the east. As well, the street had been angled to the northeast as a result of concerns expressed at the last meeting that car lights would shine into the rear yards of the homes on the west side of Drexell. The plan was revised to move that street and realign it in a northeasterly direction, rather than in an east-west direction. Mr. Smith indicated there was a site visit conducted at the site on Thursday morning at 10:00 a.m. Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Finerty were in attendance. The applicant put up a mockup of the locations and height of the proposed buildings. The mockup was viewed from a series of the rear yards of the homes on the west side of Drexell. He noted that they visited seven or eight backyards. As a result of this visit, it became apparent that the height of the buildings as proposed could impact on the views from those residential homes. Staff had originally put in `.. a condition, number 15, calling for the lowering of those pads by four feet relative to the height of the residential units to the east. He said he met with the applicants this afternoon and they were prepared to lower the buildings from 28 feet to 26 feet and then condition 15 was amended to reflect a two foot lowering of the pad heights on those buildings. They would still see a relative height of 24 feet from the homes on Drexell. During the last two weeks a traffic study was also prepared. It recommended certain mitigation measures which the applicant concurred with. That had been imposed as condition 16. Mr. Greenwood, as well as the traffic engineer who prepared the document, were present to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Smith indicated staff received comments from the City Attorney on the development agreement although the changes had not yet been made to the document. Staff and the applicant discussed them and there were no remaining issues with it. Staff's recommendation was that Planning Commission recommend the development a�reement to the City Council, subject to incorporating the comments from the City Attorney. He noted that the building heights were now called out in the revised condition number 20, which read, "The two story buildings shall not exceed 26 feet in height and shall be setback 167 feet from the perimeter property lines, three story buildings shall not exceed 36 feet in height and shall be setback 350 feet from •.. perimeter property lines, and four story buildings shall not exceed 46 feet in 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 ` � � �wi height and shali be setback 650 feet from the adjacent residential properties." That, coupled with the two foot reduction required in condition number 15, would net a height of 24 feet. Mr. Smith indicated that a new condition number 19 was also added which required that the golf course, clubhouse and sales center be constructed as part of phase one. Regarding condition number 17 and the orientation of what was described in an earlier set of plans as building number 37, that building was located northwest of the northwest corner of the residential area. As a result of deflecting the street to the northeast it turned this building so that its longer view would be noticed from the residential corner. Mr. Smith stated that it would be a two story building and it would be 24 feet relative to the home at the north end of the street and it was 250 feet or more to the nearest point. Staff had suggested in the original report that building number 37's siting be restudied to minimize its impact, but as a result of changing the street they created this situation. After study, staff didn't think it was something that could necessarily be addressed, so condition number 17 could be left in and at some point in the future, since this would take place at phase 3, they could possibly come up with a better solution, or condition 17 could be eliminated given the distance to the building � at 250 feet. Staff recommended that Commission delete condition number �.�i 17. Mr. Smith recommended approval of the precise plan/conditional use permit, the tentative tract map and the development agreement as modified by the City Attorney's conditions. Commissioner Jonathan asked what other prominent developments came to mind in excess of two stories and three stories other than the Desert Springs Marriott. Mr. Smith said that was the one and the recent approval of the Courtyard, which was three stories, came to his mind. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this was a trend or if it was just a coincidence that the Commission was seeing this kind of request. Mr. Drell replied that it was probably a reflection of land cost. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they might be looking at the beginning of a trend. Mr. Drell said probably, but recalled that nearly all the hotels in Palm Desert were three stories, i.e., Embassy Suites, Holiday Inn, Travelers Inn, Vacation Inn and basically all our "resort" hotels. Mr. Drell said they were all three stories and 35 feet high. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any in excess of three stories, other than the Desert Springs Marriott. Mr. Drell replied no. Commissioner Jonathan noted that any precedence being set here, other than a high rise like the Desert Springs Marriott, would be four stories. Mr. Drell concurred. He ; indicated that the Desert Springs Marriott was eight stories. � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 � Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RONALD E. EASTMAN, 935 Farmhaven Drive in Rockville, Maryland, stated that he was a Group Vice President with Marriott International, Incorporated. He felt that Mr. Smith covered all the points he had on his list to talk about. He noted that they did actually remove two buildings that were facing north and south instead of east and west, which gave them the extra space there. He thanked Mr. Smith and Mr. Drell for their wonderful cooperation and appreciated how well they helped a developer put together a project. Commissioner Finerty asked how many units of timeshare they would sell in a year with 52 weeks in a year, but allowing for refurbishment. Mr. Eastman replied 51 . ''"� Commissioner Finerty asked if the City Council would have the same .r opportunity as the Planning Commission to go out into the backyards of those residences and view the platforms. Mr. Eastman said that they could arrange that and indicated that because of lowering the building by two feet and lowering the pad by two feet, they would be redoing the platforms in order to take pictures for the record to show the minimal impact on the view corridors. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. �Eastman was comfortable with all of the conditions. Mr. Eastman felt the conditions were tough, but fair. He said that regarding condition number 20 the setbacks were to be from residential property lines, not from all property lines, and that was what they agreed to. He felt it was a minor change that he was sure Mr. Smith would make. He reiterated that all of•the property lines were to be from - residential properties. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. �.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � MAY 19, 1998 a � � MR. GARY KORT, 37-799 Drexell Drive, stated that he appreciated the Marriott cooperating with them in putting up the structures and from his understanding they would lower the buildings two feet and lower the ground two feet, which would be much more pleasant for their view. At the same time this was going on, he said if it was at all possible he would really like to see a three and four story structure put up to make sure that at 600 feet they wouldn't be losing any view either. That was the on{y thing he would be opposing. Everything else seemed to be fine. Mr. Smith said that earlier today the applicant had a line-of-sight drawing and asked if the applicant was going to rework it. He suggested that it be shown to Mr. Kort when that was done. With the distances involved, the two story units would block out the three and four story units. Mr. Eastman said they had it on a board and he would be�liappy to show it to Mr. Kort. He indicated that the three and four story buildings were so far back that the two story buildings would block it out long ° � before it got there. � Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that the first timeshares units to be built would only be two stories and in time they would build the three and four story units. Mr. Eastman replied not necessarily. The ones closest to the residential area would be two story and he believed that was phase three of their four phase development. Mr. Drell asked if they could expand the demonstration for the three and four story units. Mr. Eastman said they could. , MR. JOE BATOK, 73-500 Woodward Drive, stated that his home was - at the very northwest corner of the Kaufman and Broad development. Regarding the demonstrations, as far as he was concerned it was virtually non-existent because in that corner, their view was directly � west. The demonstration was off to the left, meaning off to the � southwest. According to what he had just heard, the fact that the road � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 ... was being changed had caused one of the buildings to be turned, meaning that the balconies of those buildings would be overlooking the Kaufman and Broad property. He raised the question of privacy and whether it would be possible for people on their balconies to be able to see down into their yards. It seemed strange to him that if they were going to set up this demonstration, that they should not set up a demonstration tower for the buildings on the far northwest corner and the view that most of them would have of Mount San Jacinto. That, along with privacy, were foremost in their minds. Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation from staff that there was no demonstration for lot 37. Mr. Smith concurred that there wasn't. He indicated that was the last yard and when they visited that yard they looked toward the northwest. For whatever reason, there wasn't a mockup at that location, but they peered.over the wall to try and visualize where it would be. He suggested that if they'�were going to show the three and four story buildings that they also include lot 37. �' Mr. Eastman agreed that they could show lot 37 as well. He noted that there was a little bit of a trade off in not having the road facing the development and having the building like it is. That was a trade off for the residents and he was willing to do it either way. He said they would put up the mockup for this building as well for the demonstration. MS. DENISE WELCH, 37-575 Drexell Drive, said that her home was third from the end lot. She said she had a couple of concerns. She was not sure what the degree of angle this building had been replaced at. She said that they discussed that at their meeting in their backyards and they were supposed to receive a copy of the new plans and didn't believe that anyone received those. Her first concern was the degree of angle and the second thing was that if this demonstration was going to take place, she would like to have a demonstration of the middle of that building where that would be positioned, at the angle. If it was • being angled out towards her property, then it came in the direct line of her property. If it angled away from her property, then it wasn't an issue. Until she knew the degree of angle and which way that building was being angled, she had some concerns. She said she didn't know „ if that could be addressed this evening, but she would appreciate a copy 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 ; � � of the new plan for review so that they knew what they were agreeing on. Mr. Eastman said he would be happy to show the residents how the views were blocked or not blocked and the drawings that they came up with. He wasn't certain they had seen them. He also said he wasn't aware that they were supposed to receive a copy of the plan until just now. He said they had them here and he would be happy to show them to the residents. If there was some trade off back and forth regarding the angle, that could be done. Mr. Eastman noted that they also had a number of photographs that the Commission might want to review of the wall and the plan for the property behind it. He said they were available. CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL CALLED A FIVE-MINUTE F�ECESS. THE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 7:32 P.M. CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL RECONVENED�'fHE MEETING AT 7:38 P.M. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in ; FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked if '� Mr. Eastman for any rebuttal comments. Mr. Eastman said he didn't have any rebuttal comments, but as far as reviewing the height they agreed to now, they would be having another demonstration probably the week after next. He felt they have come a long way and thanked the Commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Eastman had elevations of the clubhouse, the restaurant, and the other facilities. Mr. Eastman replied no, they didn't have the elevations with them, but it would not be a high building. He showed Commission a conceptual rendering. , Commissioner Jonathan asked if renderi�gs had been presented to the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Drell noted that those sorts of drawings indicate the general character of the buildings, not precise architectural elevations. � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 �... Mr. Eastman said they reviewed this with the Architectural Review Commission before the last Planning Commission meeting as those Planning Commissioners who were present at that meeting would remember. He noted that Commissioner Jonathan was absent from the last meeting. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't at the last meeting, but he listened to the tape of the meeting and read the minutes. On the drawing before commission, he asked what the drawing was of, if it was the clubhouse, the restaurant, or a combination. Mr. Eastman said it was the restaurant and clubhouse. There would be a cluster of buildings and while their designer was not present tonight, the building cluster included the restaurant, the clubhouse and the check-in area. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was the only rendering they had to show what it wou(d look like. ... Mr. Eastman concurred. He showed the Commission on the site plan the locations of the clubhouse, restaurant and entry way into the property. Mr. Drell said that if the Commission wished, as the actual architecture was submitted, staff could bring it back to the Commission for their review. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Eastman was comfortable with a continuance of the public hearing to June 2, 1998. Mr. Eastman said no, they would really appreciate a vote tonight, if possible. Their purchase deadline was coming up fast and they ' wouldn't be able to make it if it was postponed to June 2, because the 20th of June was his last day for conti�gencies and they wouldn't be able to have a council meeting befoFe June 25 if they were continued - to June 2. Chairperson Campbell asked if he would be able to make all the residents happy with the new demonstration. �.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 ; � Mr. Eastman felt they would be able to make them reai happy between now and the council meeting. Chairperson Campbell noted that they have done a lot aiready. Mr. Eastman felt they had done a lot and when the residents saw the other changes with the further setback and the building four feet lower, they would see more of an improvement. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty noted that he would again be abstaining from the discussion and vote. Commissioner Jonathan said that, speaking for himself, one of the endearing qualities of the desert to him was the fact that there were very few high rise buildings. Two stories high he could accept since that was what the Zoning Ordinance allowed in the PR zone. Three stories were sometimes approved � and he was a little surprised. He thought that was done when they were generally not much higher than two stories and looked like two stories. To go beyond two, much less three, was not acceptable. He thought they were deteriorating the very essence of what has drawn most to the desert. He was also not comfortable with approving a project that he didn't really know what it would look like after it was built. The rendering for the clubhouse, etc., was not necessarily what would go up so he wasn't comfortable with that. With regards to the development agreement, if he were voting in favor of the project, he wouldn't address the development agreement because he didn't feel qualified to do that so he would have passed that along to council. He stated that he wanted to explain his reasons for opposition to the application. Commissioner Fernandez stated that from what he has seen so far he thought it was a great project. He felt that Marriott �went out of their way for the neighbors in that area, that they had done a great job, that it would be a great project, and he would like to see something like this built. Commissioner Finerty said that she has tried to look at this as an issue between what the property is really zoned for, single family homes, versus the proposed timeshare units. She tried to break it down into all the significant �; 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 �.. issues. First was traffic. It was her understanding that timeshare guests would make six trips per unit per day, whereas a single family home owner would make ten trips per day. She was also appreciative that Marriott agreed to all of the traffic study mitigation measures. Financially, the City would receive 9% TOT if the owner of the units sublet or if Marriott used any unoccupied weeks. They were told that 30% of these weeks would fall into the TOT category. According to the Finance Department, whether it was timeshare or single family homes, the City wou)d receive the same percentage of assessed value on the units based on the appraised value at construction. As far as number of units, there could be 1 ,1 10 single family homes versus the 1,200 timeshare units. She said she was totally comfortable with the two story units. The three and four story units she was a little uneasy with at the last Planning Commission meeting, but having gone out into the backyards and seeing this for herself, it was an issue that to her was non-existent. It became apparent that single family homes would basical�y obliterate the beautiful views that the homeowners on Drexell Drive have. Looking at the setbacks alone, for a one story single family home it would only have to be set back 20 feet and the timeshare now was at 167 feet. By putting in the timeshare units '� they would be able to preserve in almost all cases, except for lot number 18, 80%-90% of the view. Because of the golf course with the timeshare, there wou(d be 83% of open space; with single famify homes there would be a maximum of 40%. Commissioner Finerty also appreciated the fact that the Marriott has worked with the homeowners in addressing all of their needs. She felt that going on the tour was a wonderful thing to do and she recommended that anyone in doubt of the project go look at the views from the Kaufman and Broad homes on Drexell. She noted that while there was sometimes a stigma just because the units were timeshare units, Marriott timeshare was a quality project. She said personally lives in Desert Breezes and they have 76 units of timeshare there. They peacefully coexist with the timeshare guests and they haven't had any problems with timeshare homeowners that they haven't encountered with their own homeowners. She said she knew that because she has served on their board for over eight years. She felt that in a sense, they could look at timeshare units as a financing mechanism for a hotel. She indicated that according to the City's 2010 Plan it was something they really worked hard at. They wanted to strengthen local businesses' environments to enable entrepreneurs to establish or expand activities. One of the ways they wanted to do that was to develop additional destination resort, convention and conference facilities. That was what she � saw this development as. There was a golf course, clubhouse, restaurant, and 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 � � there were people staying generally for seven days. She was in favor of the project. Chairperson Campbell stated that she was also in favor of the project. She thought the developer had done an excellent job in answering the homeowners' questions. Also, she didn't have a problem with the three and four story buildings because of the lowering of the site. With the building on the northwest, she was sure the developer would work on that section. The clubhouse and sales office would go through the Architectural Review Commission and she was sure they would give the City something very pleasing. She was in favor of the project and asked for a motion. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move for approval, but she would like to see condition number 17 remain because that was in phase three, which could be ten years from now. Chairperson Campbell also noted that it would be 250 feet away from the wall/perimeters. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Action: � It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Beaty abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1860, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 98-5 and TT 28818, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Beaty abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 , recommending to City Council approval of Case No. DA 98-1 , subject to the development agreement being revised pursuant to the comments of thL City Attorney dated May 13, 1998. Said revisions to be to the satisfaciion of the City Attorney. Motion carried 3-1-1 ICommissioner Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Beaty abstained►. � , . � � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 t.. B. Case Nos. GPA 98-3, C/Z 98-4 and PP 98-8 - LOWE ENTERPRISES COMMERCIAL GROUP, INC., AND DESERT EUROPEAN MOTORCARS, LTD., Applicants Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment from Office Professional to Specialty Commercial, a Change of Zone from Office Professional (O.P.) to Specialty Commercial (PC-1 ), a Precise Plan of Design for a 180-room hotel, restaurant and automobile dealership, amendment to an existing development agreement, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto for an 1 1 .95 acre site at the southwest corner of EI Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 , also known as: APN 640- 071-080-01 1 . Mr. Drell informed commission that the applicant was working toward a project that was going to include an auto dealership on two-thi�7s of the site (a European Motors) and a hotel up against the channel. Their goal was to find a project economical(y feasible for the developer or for the City to assist. That +�+ meant if it required City assistance and if the project would generate revenues back to the City which would make it worthwhile for the City's assistance, and if there was a project that was less intense than the current entitlement (which is 80,000 square feet of office and 20,000 square feet of restaurant). Unfortunately, with the amount of assistance that the City had to put into the project to make the car dealership work in terms of land write down, it turned out that given all the improvements that they needed to get to what they called "pad ready" they were paying about S 1 .00 per foot. Although it was ultimately a good deal for the City, they couldn't stretch public assistance with the limitations, especially as it related to car dealers, to make that deal work, so the car dealership portion was abandoned as a perspective use. What the applicant was now trying to do was either put together a proposal with just hotels and a restaurant. There was also an inquiry from a congregate care retirement facility, which was a use suggested by some Sandpiper residents, which would be in addition to a hotel and restaurant. Mr. Drell indicated that the applicants seemed to be running on a very short time fuse. The hotel developer franchise that they were trying to get was also looking at a competing property in Rancho Mirage that they apparently had to get a decision on in 30 days. (t appeared that there was a lot of interest in the property and they were trying to take advantage of that interest in getting a `.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 � l � solution to both the land use issue and the economic issue. Hopefully at the next meeting there would be something for Commission to review. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell had a sense of what the Sandpiper residents would prefer, a hotel and restaurant or retail use. Mr. Drell said that hotels generate about the same rate as a condominium/residential use. They were looking at about 9,000 trips for a retail project. A 300 room hotel would generate 1 ,800 trips. The existing entitlement, which was for a 20,000 square foot restaurant and 80,000 square foot office, projected about 6,000- 7,000 trips. They were still looking at half the trip generation of the existing entitlement with a 300 room hotel and 10,000-15,000 square feet of restaurant, which something that was memorialized in the development agreement. That was probably a third of the retail proposal. Commissioner Jonathan asked, if based on that information, �he residents would prefer that kind of use over a retail use. Mr. Drell said there�was no question. Whether they would be satisfied and would give them a stamp of approval, he didn't know, but their main objection was traffic and noise. This addressed those. � Chairperson Campbell noted that the applicant was requesting a continuance to June 2, but o.�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. MS. SANDY HOECH, 61 1 Sandpiper, informed Commission that she is the President of the Sandpiper Owners Association representing approximately one-third of the condominium units. She said they were all very much interested in having the property developed. They preferred the idea of a hotel over retail. They would like to see, if there was a restaurant, that it be a contained in a hotel rather than be a freestanding restaurant because a freestanding restaurant would generate much more traffic. She wanted that to be considered very seriously. The height of any development in the way of a hotel or hotels should also be taken very strongly into consideration. She said - she would appreciate that and thanked the Commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked if a four story hotel would be acceptable. Ms. Hoech emphatically replied no. � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 �.. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case Nos. GPA 98-3, C/Z 98-4 and PP 98-8 to June 2, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. GPA 97-6, C/Z 97-1 and PP 97-12 - F & M ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from medium density residential (PR-7) to PC-2 (district commercial) on 9.1 acres with a Precise Plan of Design allowing for up to 87,774 square feet of neighborhood center at the northeast corner of�ountry Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Drell informed Commission that due to a deficiency in the legal noticing of ` the project, staff was recommending a continuance to June 2, 1998. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing Case Nos. GPA 97-6, C/Z 97-1 and PP 97-12 to June 2, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case Nos. PP 98-6 and TPM 28830 - ROBERT BRIGGS AND MICHAEL HAY, Applicants , Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental • Impact as it relates to a parcel map to split two lots into three and a Precise Plan of Design to construct an industrial/warehouse building, not to exceed 8,758 square feet, on each of the three parcels. Properties are located on the west side of Entrepreneur � Lane between Springfield Lane and Enfield Lane. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 � , ; � Mr. Aivarez explained that the project was located in the Service Industrial zone and currently consisted of 1 .44 acres which would be subdivided into three parcels. Parcels one and two would be 20,160 square feet and parcel three would be 22,680 square feet. The precise plan included construction of three individual industrial warehouse buildings. Parcels one and two would each contain a 8,758 square foot individual building. Parcel three would contain an 8,004 square foot building. The project setbacks were 20 feet in the front and 62 feet in the rear. Mr. Alvarez stated that projects allowed in the industrial zone have zero setbacks on one of the sides which allowed for 24 foot wide drive aisles in between the setbacks. All three parcels would take access from Entrepreneur Lane. Parcels one and two would have a joint access and reciprocal easement parking in the rear. Parcel three would have a single ingress/egress point with stand alone parking in the rear and front areas. All three buildings would have the minimum required number of parking spaces at a rate of two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of use. On page 3 of the staff report he indicated there was an outline of four conditions/ suggestions incorporated into the plan by the Architectural Review Commission. He stated that the buildings would be single story, 21 feet high, � , flat roof structures. The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary ..r approval at the April 28 meeting incorporating the four outlined conditions. Number one was the addition of a landscape planter on the north side of building two to soften the appearance of the wall and prevent vehicles from backing up and damaging the buildings and to break up the length of the wall. Number two was to increase the overall size of the plant materials which was done by increasing the size of the shade trees to include 36-inch box and 24- inch box shade trees. Number three was to add a planter along the rear side property line between parcels two and three and creating a landscape buffer between the two properties. Number four was the creation of more individuality for the structures that were designed similarly. That was done through the use of colors. He said that the project meets all of the City's ordinance requirements and for purposes of CEQA he prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Mr. Alvarez recommended approval of the project. ' Commissioner Jonathan asked why parcel three had stand alone parking as opposed to participating in the reciprocal access easement. Mr. Alvarez said that was what the applicant requested for marketability purposes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a reason that the parcel didn't share in the reciprocal parking like the buildings on Monterey between Fred � .r� 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 +�.. Waring and Highway 111 . Mr. Alvarez wasn't aware of any other reason. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Alvarez knew how much office space was designed into the buildings. Mr. Alvarez replied 800 square feet of incidental office for each building. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff would normally take that into account when calculating the required number of parking spaces. He asked if staff would use the four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of use as opposed to the two spaces per 1 ,000 for the office space. Mr. Alvarez replied that they would count it as incidental office use. Mr. Drell explained that warehouse was actually one space per 1 ,000 square feet of use. Staff had in essence imposed the two per 1 ,000 instead of the one per 1 ,000. They had in essence imposed the two per 1 ,000 parking requirement on all industrial buildings knowing that this incidental amount of office use exists. A warehouse use was actually one per 1 ,000 and went down to one per 2,000 at a certain size. He said some people have tried to , park uses at warehouse levels, which was what happened in the county, but tFie�two per 1 ,000 assumed the mixture of a certain percentage of varying intensity of industrial uses including some incidental office. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the chart indicates that the ordinance requirement is two �... spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of building. Mr. Drell said that on this sort of use they assumed a certain amount of office. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the requirement is two per 1 ,000 and for office �se it is four per 1 ,000 and asked at what point office no longer became ancillary to the warehouse usage. What was to prevent someone from converting the usage to 80% office use. Mr. Drell said they would have to come in and get their tenant improvements approved by the Planning Department and staff has routinely rejected tenant improvements when they exceed 20%. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that there was a problem in that area with businesses not coming in for the permits and they end up with a lot more office and parking congestion. Technically 20% would be the cut off in staff's mind. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted this was about 10%, so it wasn't an issue in staff's mind. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Alvarez aboi�t the letter from Brent Conley and his comments on the increased height of the perimeter wafl. Mr. Afvarez said they were included in the commission's packet. Chairperson Campbell asked if that comment was added as a condition of approval or if it was necessary. Mr. Alvarez stated it was a recommendation from the Sheriff's Department and it didn't necessarily have to be implemented. �.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 � � � �./ Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT BRIGGS, 16-672 Milikin Avenue in Irvine, felt that Mr. Alvarez accurately talked about his project. He said that parcels one and two shared a driveway so that even though the lot line was down the middle of those, they were individual parcels. The minimal requirement was 24' and they used a 30' driveway so that they wouldn't get the congestion that was common with a narrower driveway. What was really reciprocal was the drive. Each building stood on its own merit as far as how much parking was being provided for it. He said that for building three, since it wasn't a shared drive and had its own driveway into its own building, if that was their building they wouldn't want the guy wheeling around from the other space if they had the proper amount of parking on their property. That was the reason they aid that. Also on building three, even though Architectural Review asked them to put a driveway in, that was the reason they made that buiiding smaller, so that they could maintain the 30' drive � into the back and it was their experience that that was a much better „r� way for a tenant. They tried to address what they have found to be good practices in building these buildings and in incorporating what the Architectural Commission wanted. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan felt the applicant did a good job and he was prepared to move for approval at the appropriate time. Commissioner Beaty concurred and said he was prepared to second the motion. Commissioner Fernandez also concurred. 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. 1862, and TT 28818, subject � to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 r.. E. Case No. ZOA 98-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit mixed residential/service industrial uses in the S.I. (Service Industrial) zone. Mr. Smith indicated that in 1995 staff processed a similar amendment that was applicable in the C-1 , PC and OP zones. In March 1998 they received a request for the Service Industrial zone. Staff saw the issues as being substantially similar and didn't have a problem with processing a mixed use as part of a conditional use permit and recommended that appropriate amendments be done to permit mixed use residential/service industrial uses in the Service Industrial zone. Mr. Smith recommended that Commission adopt , Resolution 1863 recommending same to the City Council. �.._.. Chairperson Campbell o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPO�SITION. There was no one and the public hearing ... was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1863, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 98-3. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. CUP 98-6 - LOUIS LASSABATERE/CITY LITES, Applicant ► Consideration of a resolution denying a conditional use permit - request to allow a two foot by four foot outdoor clothing display of women's apparel in front of the City Lites business at 42-335 Washington Street #J. �...� 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 � T � Chairperson Campbell noted that the conditional use permit was denied at the last meeting on a 3-1 vote. Since there wasn't a resolution before them for adoption at that time, staff was directed to prepare the appropriate resolution for presentation tonight. That was done. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he listened to the tape recording of the meeting and was eligible to vote on this matter. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1864, denying CUP 98-6. � �""' Motion carried 5-0. ; Commissioner Beaty noted that he passed by the site today and not only did � they still have their clothing rack out, but there was another store in the same shopping center that with a rack. He asked what happens if someone is cited. Mr. Drell said that since they were a good demonstration of the proposal, until their appeal was finished he would allow them to remain. The other thing they were contemplating was a "sweep". He noted that Mr. Lassabatere had submitted pictures identifying outdoor vending machines and as far as staff was aware the only ones that were exempt would be news stands, which were protected under the First Amendment. Staff would be in discussions with Code Enforcement people, the City Manager, and City Attorney relative to the ramifications of a citywide sweep of all outdoor sales displays and activity. He noted that they would probably be receiving an application very soon from one of the golf cart retailers for the outdoor display of a golf cart at Highway 1 1 1 and Presidents' Plaza. He said it would trigger a major code enforcement effort. ► B. Request for approval of revised Palm Desert Planning Commission . Bylaws Chairperson Campbeli noted that this item would be continued to the meeting of June 2, 1998. Mr. Hargreaves stated for the record that a discussion was `� held during study session and there were suggestions regarding amendments. � � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 1998 � He would come back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting with a revised set that would show the changes so that they could vote on it at that time. � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, to continue this matter to June 2, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - f No meeting) C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) ,�,r, F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. __. �.}i PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTES : � �� � � �Q. ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � 21