Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0105 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JANUARY 5, 1999 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER `" 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * � .� � � � � .� * � .� .� * � * * .� � � � �. � � � .� � � � �. �. � ,� � �. � � .� � * �. * � ,� I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell ca(led the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Chairperson Campbell welcomed Jim Lopez to the commission. Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty Cindy Finerty ` Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Martin Alvarez, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the December 15, 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the December 15, 1998 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0- 1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained). ... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION f JANUARY 5, 1999 , �i V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MS. LINDA POHLMAN, 4163 Colada Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission regarding Royce International Investments. She said she understood that the project on Country Club between Portola and Monterey for the nursing home facility or some type of care use had been extended to January 19. She said she only saw the papers briefly, but the hospital rooms were scaled down from 280 to approximately 160. If commission was aware, Eisenhower Hospital has around 230. Chairperson Campbell informed Ms. Pohlman that the item she was addressing was on the agenda as a public hearing item and it would be moved up first for anyone present who wished to speak and that would be the appropriate time to address the commission. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR j � A. Case No. PMW 98-23 - MINISTRELLI DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND BIGHORN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines between Lot 12 of Tract 27520-3 and Lot "C" of Tract No. 28287 to widen Lot 12. B. Case No. PMW 98-27 - SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two lots to allow construction of condominium units on Lots 9 and 10 of Tract 26123-3 on White Horse Trail within Indian Ridge Country Club. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 �r.. VI11. 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 pubiic hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. F. Case Nos. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 - ROYCE lNTERNATIONA! INVESTMENTS CO., Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential to senior overlay, zone change from planned residential five dwelling units per acre to senior overlay, a precise plan and conditional use permit for a health and wellness resort for seniors consisting of a 161-bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility, 288 apartment units and 182 casita units, with a development agreement on 75 acres southwest of +�.. Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. Chairperson Campbell noted that this item was going to be continued and asked how many persons in the audience were present for the item. (Several raised their hands.) Chairperson Campbell advised that the item would be continued and anyone wishing to speak could, or they could wait until the next meeting. Mr. Drell explained that the item was being continued for two reasons. One was that the title company did not give the city a full mailing list for the legal notice, so in fact there was a defect in the legal notice. Also, the project architect had a family medical emergency and couldn't attend. Mr. Drell explained that staff would not be giving a presentation on the project until the next meeting. Mr. Joy clarified that the next meeting date was January 19, 1999. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission. MS. LINDA POHLMAN, 4163 Colada Court, readdressed the commission and explained that her husband met with one of the builders and the builder was trying to tell them how it would be, but she � said that really had no consequence because once the zoning was 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 � changed, they could do anything they wanted. She was concerned because she came from Denver Colorado originally and she has seen a lot of these types of places go in and not make it because the people that go in these places simply run out of money from the high prices. They would end up again with empty buildings all along Country Club which she considered a nice area with the Marriott and all the golf courses going in. There was also a fire station on the corner. She said she lives directly behind there and right now she knew it was zoned for single family homes and she was told a traffic study was done and that there would be less traffic if they had the nursing homes and casitas instead of homes. She felt the traffic was very bad now because she lives right on Portola and she while she knew that when she bought it, the project would make it worse. If they thought it would be better they were wrong because with a hospital, and she used to live near a hospital in Denver, there was no noise from the office buildings, but from the hospital there were constantly emergency vehicles from the fire station. She said that for the tennis club across the street, there were no representatives at the meeting from there and she found it very funny that only one of their people got a notice of the meeting and � when another person called, they were told there was an overlook and the notice wasn't sent to all the homeowners. That led her to believe that this was going to be "railroaded" through and she was very concerned because this area was going to be built up with homes and there was a parcel of land on Portola and Hovley that was originally supposed to be a park. Now she was told there would be homes there. She felt they were going to end up just like Palm Springs with lots of empty buildings in the years to come because she knew for a fact that for these types of things they were trying to build people went out of money and were the lousiest investments to make. She knew people who have done it and were very sorry to have to walk away from it before they got in any deeper. She didn't know how much the city knew about the builder. They intended to look into it and she just felt that there was enough commercial going on that Palm Desert has enough money and that single family homes were how it should stay and she would not approve at all what was proposed to be built there. Even as it stood now, they could change it. She said she had one last question. She would bet that the tax the city would collect from this project wouid be more than from homes. � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 � MS. VIVIAN SLOR, 41-591 Carlotta Court, stated that she would be back on the 19th, but she was concerned that they were not notified. They have approximately 130+ planned urban developments in Casablanca. This has come up and they just happened to find out and as Mr. Joy knew, she called yesterday and just then he checked and found that more than half of their particular development which would abut this one were not notified and she really had concerns about that. She thought that if he had not discovered this at this time, the city would have gone ahead and people would not have been represented as they should be because they were not notified, and this would have been passed. She thought that in the future this should be checked out very carefully so that people are properly as by law notified if there is going to be a change or an application to change a zone. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing o en and asked for a motion to continue. Commissioner Beaty asked if there was a problem with notification or if the �... city complied with the requirements. Mr. Drell explained that half of those residents required to be notified in Casablanca were not notified. There were two assessors' maps for Casablanca and the title company only took names and addresses off of one of them. Commissioner Beaty said he would move to continue the hearing to the 19th. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to continue Case Nos. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 and associated development agreement to January 19, 1999 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. A. Case No. VAR 98-2 - PAUL BAUER, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow the conversion and expansion of an existing carport into a garage with a one foot side yard setback and a rear/side yard building addition with a three-foot setback at 44-250 Russell Lane. � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 � Mr. Alvarez noted that the property was located at the end of a cul-de-sac street, Russell Lane. Russell Lane has a 20-foot easement giving access to about eight single family homes. The applicant was requesting two variances. The first was to convert the existing carport into an enclosed garage, decreasing the side yard setback to one foot and increasing the depth to six feet to allow for the applicants to store a recreational boat, some construction equipment and allow for additional storage. The required setback along the side yard was five feet. The second setback variance requested was a reduction along the northeast portion of the property to allow the construction of a storage shed and reducing the setbacks to three feet along the east side yard and the rear yard. For variance number one staff believed the findings for approval could be made although staff would recommend that the applicant be allowed to reduce the setback only four feet to accommodate a 23-foot depth for the garage, allowing the applicant to store the 22-foot boat and comply with the city's RV standards. For variance number two, staff believed the findings for approval could not be made. There were no privileges being deprived by not allowing the applicant to build to the requested setback of three feet. He asked for any questions. ' � Chairperson Campbell asked for the dimensions of a normal sized garage. Mr. Alvarez stated that the ordinance requires 20 feet by 20 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if with the 23 foot requested garage there would still have a one foot side yard. Mr. Alvarez said the resulting setback would be four feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant originally asked for a 26-foot garage. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. PAUL BAUER, 44-250 Russell Lane, submitted pictures to the commission of both the garage and workshop that he wanted to build in the back. He said he had talked to all the neighbors concerning this, especially on the east and west sides of his property. There were apartments at the back and he had called them four times and left his number twice, but no one had returned his calls. As far as the garage was concerned, if he was allowed 23 feet, by the time he got the walls up he would barely be able to get the boat in through the garage door and get it closed. If Commission looked at the pictures and the garage, they would see the backyard with the screen, the apartments and the � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 � garbage and that the seven feet at the back of this house were useless. It was like a big dump yard for the apartments and building ihe garage it wouldn't affect anybody. Mr. Bauer said he received approval from the owner to the west and the pictures showed the lattice work and vine that was dead on the carport so he wasn't actually building it any wider and as far as the neighbor was concerned, it didn't make any difference. He asked what good it would be for him to leave a four-foot aisle in the back, and one foot might be a little small, but if he left two feet, the extra two feet in the garage would make a big difference to him and wouldn't affect anyone else. It was a private road and he already had the approval of the people on the one side and the apartment complex people never contacted him back. As far as the workshop, the pictures showed the other neighbors' awning coming to within one foot of the property line. He talked with that neighbor (Mike) and he would have come with Mr. Bauer to the meeting, but he was on vacation in Arizona. That neighbor had lived there 34 years and it didn't do anything to his site (Mike's►. The only one it did affect was the apartments, but there was no view back there. It didn't change �•• anything for them. He talked to Martin Alvarez on Monday and Martin said he would be allowed to build the workshop without attaching it to within four feet of the property if he got Mike's signature so it would be just one foot smaller. The big difference would be that he would have to build it detached and he couldn't match the stucco on the house. What he was trying to do was match the stucco on the house and the roof line so that it looked uniform. Chairperson Campbell asked why people were dumping in Mr. Bauer's yard. Mr. Bauer said the apartments were back there and they dumped beer cans there. Chairperson Campbel( asked if there was a fence there. Mr. Bauer said there was a wall there, but it was only four and a half feet tall. Chairperson Campbell asked what Mr. Bauer did about it--if he just collected the garbage. �..► 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 � Mr. Bauer said he just collected it and threw it away. Half the time he was out of town and his wife didn't want to make any waves. He noted he has a family to be concerned with, so it wasn't a big deal for him to just throw it in the garage cans. Chairperson Campbell noted that if there was only one foot there, he wouldn't be able to get back there. Mr. Bauer said that was why afterwards he thought it should be two feet. He felt that if he left four feet there it wouldn't be doing anyone good--it didn't help the city or anyone else out. He could see the two feet because all the water from all eight houses drain into his yard and that was why he was leaving it open in ihe back. He could see having two feet to get back there and sweep everything clean. The extra two feet inside the garage would make a big difference for him whereas having it outside the garage would be worthless. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Bauer if he had ever considered putting his boat into storage. � Mr. Bauer said it wasn't only the boat idea of it, but it was all the stuff that goes along with the boat. The boat was the main thing, but he has the property there and the carport and it would be nice to have it accessible and be able to work on it at any time. He was also a big car buff and a big motor fan and enjoyed working on it. That was also something he talked to Martin about. He just got married a year ago and he was thinking about getting a bigger boat. The property was there and he was just enclosing the carport and it didn't affect anyone if he went back farther. No one was opposed to it. They were sent a notice and he went around and talked to everyone and no one had a problem with him building it how he wanted. All he wanted to know was how it benefited anyone by leaving a four-foot distance. If it was two feet, he would have an extra two feet in the garage and that would make a big difference. Chairperson Campbell asked if the workshop would have windows. Mr. Bauer said no, there wasn't anything to see back there. ; � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 +r.. Chairperson Campbell asked which room the common wall would be attached to. Mr. Bauer said it would be attached to the master bath. If he was able to attach there, the electrical was already there with an outlet and he wouldn't have to do any additional electrical work. If he built it detached, it would be in the same area and the only difference would be was where it showed three feet, it would actually be four feet and he could build a detached workshop in the same place. He would like it attached so that he could stucco it and make it uniform with the house. The rest was all backyard. Chairperson Campbell asked if this wouid have to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Alvarez said that typically it was approved at staff level since it would be consistent with the existing home, stucco, paint and roof line. Chairperson Campbell asked how staff would know after it was constructed that the wall inside wouldn't be torn down and the bathroom extended into that portion. Mr. Drell explained that the use of � the space was immaterial. They were assuming this was an addition to his house and Mr. Bauer could use it for whatever he wanted once it is built. The clarification was that Mr. Bauer couldn't build it in the same place. He would have to be at least ten feet away from the main dwelling to be an accessory dwelling and the setback was still five feet and technically staff would have to make the same sort of findings and he would have to build it in the rear yard. He was building it in the side yard where there is a srnaller setback, but because of the irregular shape of the lot, it was actually located in a rear yard which requires a 15-foot setback. It was up to the commission to determine if there were exceptional circumstances in this case that warrant a variance or a modified variance. Chairperson Campbell asked the applicant what he was going to use the enclosure for. Mr. Bauer said he was going to use it as a workshop. He had a table saw and wanted to do some woodworking. He had it inside the spare bedroom in the back right now. He felt he needed a room that large. 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. � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 � , � •% Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Alvarez if after hearing the applicant's comments if, with regards to the workshop, he had any different thoughts regarding the request. Mr. Alvarez said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a compromise for the workshop that might be reasonable from staff's standpoint. He was asking if they had explored the possibilities of allowing a workshop that might work. M�. Alvarez acknowledged that the back area was kind of a dead space and if commission was to find in this case that the side of the property of ihat location was in essence dead space and the findings could be made, then possibly a four-foot setback as opposed to three would be adequate. Commissioner Finerty asked what the purpose was for having setbacks. Mr. Alvarez replied that typically setbacks were to preserve open space, allow for setbacks between homes, preserve views, and provide access around homes. Mr. Drell said that like a lot of standards there was a certain subjective, arbitrary judgement that has been made. Commissioner Finerty suggested to Mr. Bauer that he build a normal 20 foot by 20 foot garage to use for his workshop and store his boat. She didn't see a purpose for making an ; exception to the ordinance when there are other areas on the property where � he could locate his workshop that would be in compliance. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was inclined to accept the two-foot setback with regards to the garage. He thought one of the persuasive factors with this application in his mind was that this was already a non-conforming use, the construction of the home went back to the 1950's and was there before these standards were placed, and giving the existing nonconformity of it he didn't think the modifications proposed by the applicant would create a detrimental impact to the surrounding neighborhood and in fact he hadn't heard any objections and apparently there was some support from the neighbors. One foot was too small because he felt they needed to have access back there and if there was a drainage issue, he thought it made sense to allow two feet. Four feet wouldn't serve anything and they weren't losing anything by going to two feet. He was okay with that and he thought it would get the applicant the size of garage he needed. With regards to the workshop, he would leave it to staff to work something out with the applicant, a compromise that staff felt would be reasonable. He thought the first finding that warranted an exception applied here with regard to the workshop which stated that the strict or literal interpretation/enforcement of the specified ; regulation would result in a particular difficulty and unnecessary physical � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 .... hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. He thought that could be interpreted in a favorable way to the applicant in that he was suffering a hardship based on how he wanted to use his home. He wasn't sure what the compromise was but he thought it was there and staff could be directed to work out a compromise with the applicant. If they couldn't, commission would see them back. In summary, his inclination was to allow a two-foot setback/25 foot garage and then to direct staff to work out a compromise for the workshop that would be acceptable to both staff and the applicant. Mr. Drell explained that he didn't believe this was a situation that should be deferred to staff. Staff was allowed to do minor adjustments, but this went beyond staff's ability since it was in a rear yard. Mr. Drell said that the one clearly exceptional circumstance finding that could be made was that the lot in general was irregularly sF�aped and he explained that staff had the ability to make findings as directed by commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification as to the setback the applicant was seeking. Staff replied 3'2". Commissioner Jonathan asked if there would be any obvious problem with four feet. Mr. Drell said he didn't believe so. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant could live with four feet, a difference of ten r. inches. Mr. Bauer said yes. Commissioner Jonathan said it would be his suggestion to allow a two-foot setback on the garage and a four-foot setback on the workshop. Commissioner Beaty noted a discrepancy on the drawing and asked what the actual distance was. Mr. Bauer said from the enclosure to the house was approximately eight feet, so it was probably 23 feet, not 13. Commissioner Lopez asked if there was an opportunity for Mr. Bauer to build the workshop in that area. Mr. Bauer explained that the whole room had patio enclosed windows and they talked about moving that enclosure, but with the way it was designed, it allowed him to have a good backyard. It was a dead space. Commissioner Lopez asked if on the garage Mr. Bauer would enclose it with doors in the front. Mr. Bauer said yes. Chairperson Campbell stated that if they were going to do any exceptions on the enclosure they should go ahead and go to four feet, then on the garage she would go with staff's recommendation to go ahead there with four feet also. If the garbage was there now with seven feet, one foot would make it even worse. With four feet at least a person could get back there and clean it up. Commissioner Beaty noted that Commissioner Jonathan was proposing � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 z � ..� two feet, not four. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Chairperson Campbell felt that two feet was inadequate. Chairperson Campbell concurred. Commissioner Beaty asked if the fire department would need access to the rear of a home in the event of an emergency. Mr. Drell stated that in terms of the building code normal construction was a minimum of three feet. For instance, staff was given the authority for adjustments and they were allowed ' to reduce side yards down to three feet with an adjustment. Commissioner Jonathan suggested three feet on the garage and four feet on the workshop. Commissioner Finerty thought that was inconsistent. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it wasn't a square property to begin with. He was open to any suggestions to move forward. He could live with three and three, but based on staff's input he felt that three feet on the garage made sense and he was comfortable with either three or four feet on the enclosure. He made a motion to have a three-foot setback on the garage and on the enclosure a four-foot setback with the justification previously given. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, � approving the findings as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty � voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1907, approving Variance No. 1 to Section 25.16.050 allowing the conversion and expansion of the existing carport into a garage with a three-foot side yard setback along the north property line and approving Variance No. 2 to Section 25.16.050 allowing a rear/side yard building addition with a four-foot setback at the northeast corner of the property. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). B. Case No. PP 98-20 - ROBERT L. BUCKLES for MYERS COMPANIES, Applicant (Continued from December 15, 1998) Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,1 14 square foot office building located at 44-666 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Alvarez noted that this matter was continued from December 15 to allow staff to address a couple of issues that the applicant had with regard to: 1) the � � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 � required five-foot dedication on Monterey; and 2) some concern by adjacent property owners as to the potential impact of the five-foot dedication to remaining properties all the way up to San Gorgonio and the feasibility of a six- foot sidewalk along that stretch of Monterey Avenue. He indicated that this matter was referred back to the Public Works Department for reconsideration. Attached in the staff report was a memorandum from the Department of Public Works amending the condition to read, "Prior to grading permit issuance, applicant shall dedicate three feet of street right-of-way along Monterey property frontage." The issue of the six-foot sidewa(k was also referred to the Public Works Department and their recommendation was to retain an eight- foot sidewalk along Monterey to insure the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. In terms of the three foot right-of-way dedication's potential impact to the adjacent properties, the city would be responsible for the potential relocation of palm trees, signs and other improvements as they pertain to future right-of-way and roadway widening. Before commission there was a letter from Nancy Noel dated December 29, 1998. She couldn't attend the meeting and wanted her voice in the record that she was deeply concerned with any potential right-of-way increase or dedication. She had some concerns ,.., with the removal of palm trees, noise, and potential deterioration of her property due to the closeness of the street. Mr. Alvarez recommended approval of the project with the modified condition. Mr. Drell added that technically the design of the widening of Monterey and the potential width of that sidewalk was really not before the commission at this time. There was an existing eight-foot sidewalk and existing curb and that would continue to exist. There was no obligation on the developer to change that in any way and at some future time the city might propose, along with the required purchase of right-of-way, to do that widening and have a capital improvement project to physically change the improvements out there. At that time was when the city council and the adjacent property owners would have the opportunity to voice their objection on the design of the change in the roadway. All they were doing now was reserving enough right-of-way at this location for a future widening. The applicant could still object to the redesign of the highway at that time regardless of the dedication. Chairperson Campbell asked if it was correct that the applicant would be able to do whatever he wanted to the front yard now and when the time came, then the city would be responsible for doing any modification. Mr. Drell clarified that the city would not want any permanent structures in that right-of-way, but in terms of landscaping, people normally landscaped public right-of-way and the ... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION k JANUARY 5, 1999 � � J city would want it landscaped out to the sidewalk in any case. They wouldn't want physical improvements like walls. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open from the December 15 meeting and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT BUCKLES, the architect, 7710 Westbrook Court in Palm Desert, stated that the staff report as given addressed the majority of problems they were concerned with. Mr. Myers couldn't be present and he was representing him. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Myers was comfortable with condition number 11 . Mr. Buckles said yes. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. � � Commissioner Finerty indicated that at the last meeting commission gave staff the option of going back to Public Works and finding out if the three feet would work with regard to widening northbound Monterey and apparently it did work and the applicant was pleased, so she would move approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1908, approving PP 98-20, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained). Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Buckles when Mr. Myers was planning to start on the project. Mr. Buckles indicated it would be when Mr. Myers' office in Glendale was absorbed by a redevelopment project which was anticipated to be in the fall and that meant they would move forward rather quickly in order to meet that schedule. He thanked the commission for their flexibility. �� � , � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 7 999 � In the lasi 45 years he had been before a lot of planning commissions and they were usually not that flexible. (Commissioner Jonathan left the meeting at this time.) CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL INDICATED THAT THE NEXT TWO PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS WERE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. C. Case No. CUP 98-19 and TPM 29068 - SELECT PROPERTIES LLC, Applicant (Continued from December 15, 1998) Request for approval of a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map for a 302,300 square foot master plan of development including retail uses, restaurants with drive- throughs, self storage, industrial buildings and a 100-room hotel on a 20.52 acre site on the north side of Country Club Drive, 340 feet west of Washington.Street. ` D. Case No. C/Z 98-9 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from PC(2) District Commercial to Service Industrial (S.I.) for 3.71 acres located east of Garand Lane, part of a proposed master plan of development for a 20.52 acre site on the north side of Country Club Drive. Mr. Drell noted that at the last meeting they discussed the problem that one of the land uses identified in the master plan was not a permitted use in the zone, so they had to notice a change of zone for the service industrial portion which would allow circulation with the existing service industrial property. The hearing was noticed and staff felt that the service industrial designation would be an appropriate, consistent use with the service industrial area next ' to it. With that, staff recommended approval of the master plan which designated those areas and the general configuration within those areas for commercial use, a hotel, the service industrial portion and mini-warehouse portion. Staff also recommended that the precise plan for the retail/ commercial portion be referred back to the Architectural Commission for them to complete their preliminary architectural review process and then the precise plan would be brought back before the Planning Commission. �...► 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � JANUARY 5, 1999 ; � Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still o�en and asked if the applicant wanted to address the commission. MR. RICK BLOMGREN, Axcess Architects, 18652 Florida Street in Huntington Beach, stated that he was the agent for the applicant. He indicated that modifications to the site plan had been made since the December 15 meeting. Buildings two and three were reoriented with a plaza put in between. They also gave commission a schematic description of a pedestrian circulation path for the entire site. They went ahead and tried to elaborate how people would move around. He visited a couple of other projects in Palm Desert, specifically on Fred Waring near Highway 1 1 1 that had an Aztec pattern on the driveway apron and had some covered canopy walkways and they were considering doing something similar at their project that would allow people to get from the major retail up to the front street and actually have a corridor along Country Club and a corridor along the buildings. They were very conscious of trying to create a nice environment for pedestrians on the site to tie in the retail with the hotel because they ; would all function together. They also reviewed the paperwork and he � had one question on the conditions of approval, item 1 1 . This referred to the day care fee and it was broken up into percentages, which made sense to them, and the only thing they wanted to add if they could and as they discussed on December 15, and that was that there was a potential on this project for a Gold's Gym to go in and a very good potential that a day care facility inside that would be for public use. In the event they have a public accessible day care facility, they would like to be able to negotiate with the Planning Department to mitigate that fee. Mr. Drell stated that the time to do that would be when the applicant actually processed that precise plan. Mr. Blomgren noted that in some cities when a condition is placed it is set in stone and he wanted to make sure they had that flexibility in the event the day care facility is public. Other than that everything looked good and he was open for questions. � � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 ■.. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Beaty said he liked the changes that were made and the comment that they are sensitive to making the project a pedestrian friendly workable site. He was in favor of the project. He indicated he would make a motion. Chairperson Campbell noted that the two cases could be combined. Staff asked Mr. Drell for clarification that the two resolutions shouid be combined into one since only the change of zone was required to go to City Council. Mr. Drell explained that the two should be combined so that the entire project (the conditional use permit, tentative parcel map and change of zone) could be considered by the City Council, not just the change of zone. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained). r.. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1909, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 98-9, CUP 98-19 and TPM 29068, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained►. Mr. Drell commented that for the future design of the mini-storage there was a desire on the part of some of the council to reserve enough room in the back for a potential bikeway to ultimately run along the back. He advised the applicant that that was something they should consider when they put together their precise plan for the mini-storage facility. That was a question to anticipate when the item went before City Council. E. Case No. ZOA 98-8 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to off-street parking for mini warehousing/self storage. Mr. Drell said that currently the city didn't have a standard for mini- warehouses which were different from an industrial warehouse. That was ■.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 '4 5 � J what was being created. The standard would be a minimum of six spaces per complex plus two spaces for any caretaker unit. He noted that most people park right in front of their storage unit. Chairperson Campbell o ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1910, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 98-8. Motion carried 4-0. G. Case No. ZOA 98-7 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from December 1 and December 15, 1998) � Request for approval of an amendment to Chapter 5.88 and Section 25.34.020 (M) and to add Chapter 25.1 10 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code regarding the location of Adult Entertainment Establishments. Mr. Drell noted that there was an omission in the summary sheet that he gave the commission and that was that residential uses would be 500 feet away as well as public parks. The map reflected that condition. The change from the current ordinance which allowed the expansion of available sites was that they moved the protection from the sewage treatment plan, restaurants which provide liquo�, the city corporate yard and other public uses. They also moved the distance from vocational schools which didn't cater to minors. In terms of the protection from churches, residences, parks, and a separation distance of 500 feet, those standards were maintained. Staff also noted that the uses would be removed from arterial streets. Mr. Hargreaves informed commission that the subcommittee looked at the different maps and locations and he believed that the map before ihe commission allowed for sufficient locations for a city the size of Palm Desert, especially given the fact that there hasn't ° ; been a demonstrated demand for these kinds of businesses in the city. Also, � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 r.. the sites and lots available in most cases have multiple sites upon them so there were potentially hundreds of locations within the zone. He felt that complied with the constitutional standards. With that they recommended this to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the case. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained►. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 191 1 , recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 98-7. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained). r... IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMtTTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Beaty asked if a resolution of appreciation was going to be prepared for George Fernandez from the Planning Commission or if .�► 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 � « r.i staff needed a motion by the commission. Staff said one would be prepared and no motion was necessary. 2. Mr. Hargreaves asked if Commission would like to have a study session to review issues such as conflicts of interest, etc., or if only Commissioner Lopez would like to meet with him to discussion those issues. Commission determined that they would all appreciate the review and instructed staff to set up a study session dinner on January 19, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. 3. Commissioner Beaty noted that commission received notification of a meeting in Escondido and he indicated he attended that meeting the first year he was on the commission and found it valuable. He asked if Commissioner Finerty attended the Monterey meeting. Commissioner Finerty said no, but she planned to this year. Chairperson Campbell noted that Escondido was only two hours away and Commissioner Beaty noted it was only one day. Commissioner Lopez said would be interested in attending the workshop. : � � 4. Chairperson Campbell again welcomed Jim Lopez to the commission. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. �'"' r'1A._.. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: /i t ' tl.�--�._L�. l_._��..--- �'��-�. ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California � /tm � 20