Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0201 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNiNG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 1, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER r""" 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE �. ,� � � .� .� � �. � * � � ,� * � * * �. * .� � * �. .� .� .� � * � � � * � �. * * � � �. �. ,� ,� * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. lll. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez �"" Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steve Smith, Pfanning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the January 18, 20d0 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the January 18, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained►. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith indicated there were no pertinent January 27, 2000 city council actions. �... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 z � , � � VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 99-18 - SIXTH STREET PARTNERS 1, LLC, Applicant Request for approvaf of a parcel map waiver to merge into adjacent property to the west previously vacated street right-of- way at the north end of Desert Country Circle. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar Item A, PMW 99-18, by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. TT 27055 - MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, Applicant .4 Request for approval of a fourth one-year time extension for a ""r 296-1ot single family subdivision north of Gerald Ford Drive, 700 feet east of Monterey and 680 feet west of Portola. Commissioner Beaty noticed that this was a request for a fourth one-year time extension. Mr. Smith stated that the tentative tract was still subject to all the current policies and requirements, so it wasn't like they were gaining any benefit by having the extension of time. He indicated that Mr. Mainiero was in the audience if the commission wished to hear from him as to the reason for the long delay and perhaps he could respond to that. Commissioner Beaty stated that he just wanted to bring it to the commission's attention. Chairperson Jonathan noted that at one point two one-year extensions were the limit of what commission would approve and then that policy got dropped. He agreed that at some point the commission should readdress the whole request because what was right four or five years ago wasn't necessarily right any more in light of whatever has happened since that time. Commissioner Campbell asked how many one-year time extensions an applicant could have if this was the fourth or if it was indefinite. Mr. Smith said it wasn't indefinite. There was a maximum under the Map Act and this application was : ; still within the total length of time they could be approved for. Commissioner � Campbell asked how many years that was. Mr. Smith said there were certain 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 �... provisions in state law back in 1994, 1995 and 1996 that basically gave them those years free. On this tract in particular, he couldn't tell the commission how long it was good for, but it was subject to the terms of the Map Act. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the consequences would be of denial. He asked if the applicant had a right to appeal. Mr. Smith said the applicant had the right to appeal. Assuming the appeal was not granted, they would have the right to file the same map over again. Commissioner Campbell asked if the commission could ask Mr. Mainiero why he needed another year extension. Mr. Smith said yes. MR. BOB MAINIERO of Mainiero, Smith & Associates, representing American Realty Trust--the current owner of the property, informed commission that the primary reason for the delay in moving forward had been the economy. The marketplace. The owner was basically waiting for a buyer to come along that would want to move forward with the development. As mentioned by Mr. Smith, the Map Act provided for seven years and he wasn't sure how that would be affected by the extensions. He knew they were well within that. +�.. Commissioner Beaty indicated that if the commission asked Mr. Mainiero to bring it back to the commission, the paperwork was already done, and asked if it would be a big hardship. He noted that the commission probably had at ieast three members who had never seen the project. Commissioner Campbell suggested allowing the extension this time, but if it came back for a fifth request, then they would look at it again. Commissioner Beaty said he just wanted to raise the issue of the four years. Commissioner Campbell said that was fine with her. Chairperson Jonathan agreed with Commissioner Beaty and said he didn't see granting a fourth one-year time extension. Not that he would be opposed to the project necessarily, but after four or five years it was time to look at it again before it became reality. He said it was an excellent point that some members of the commission hadn't even seen it and others might not recall the details, so an opportunity to look at it again to see if it was still right for the area he felt was reasonable. In his opinion he didn't feel it was a� onerous burden to ask the applicant to resubmit. Mr. Smith suggested that the commission continue the case for two weeks and staff would come back with copies of the map for the commissioners that hadn't seen it and if they have some concerns with it ai that point, then the commission could not approve it and if there were no concerns, the commission could just grant the one-year extension. Chairperson Jonathan 'r said he personally wasn't comfortable with that. If they were going to 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMlSS10N FEBRUARY 1, 2000 ' consider it, it needed to go through the public hearing process again. They didn't really know what was out there and he didn't want to pick on this one, but almost as a precedent they needed to draw the line somewhere and say enough is enough. When something was a little "stale" they needed to go through the process again. Speaking personally, he would rather not go through a reevaluation of the project without going through the public hearing process. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would move to deny the request. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, denying Consent Calendar Item B, Case No. TT 27055, 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 or 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. Case No. CUP 99-15 - COLUMBIA PAR CAR CORP., Applicant (Continued from December 21 , 1999) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor golf cart display located at 73-168 Highway 1 1 1 . Chairperson Jonathan noted that the applicant was requesting an extension. Mr. Smith concurred and noted that commission had a copy of a letter that was received. Essentially the applicant was at an Architectural Review Commission meeting a week ago today and they decided to take some of the suggestions from ARC to heart and as the letter indicated, they engaged an architect and landscape architect to come up with some plans. They expected to have them ready so they could be back at ARC next Tuesday, hence the request for the continuance to February 15. Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 �.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing CUP 99-15 to February 15, 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PM 24255 Revision No. 1 - THOMAS S. NOBLE, Applicant Request for approval of revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 24255 for 173 ± acres located east of Monterey Avenue and south of Dinah Shore Drive, 34-100 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith indicated the map was on display and the commission received copies of the parcel map in iheir packets. The site was approximately 173 acres. The current parcel map would provide for 100 commercial and industrial lots (46 commercial and 54 industrial). The proposal before the commission didn't change the land use, but it changed the size of the parcels. ' The current request would reduce the number of parcels from 100 down to � 35. Staff included in the commission packets a reduced map showing which streets would be deleted. He said none of them were essential and none of them were on the circulation plan. Staff felt the revised plan would provide for much more workable parcels, especially in the area of the industrial lots where all the extremely small lots stayed similar to the Joni Drive area. So the revised map would result in much larger parcels to work from. Staff was recommending approval of Revision No. 1 to the map. Environmentally the matter was approved originally by the County. Before they approved the map back in 1992, they adopted an Environmental Impact Report No. 166 and commission would be adopting that by reference and imposing the conditions that were imposed in the EIR. All the future developments on these parcels would come through this commission as precise plan applications. He noted that this wasn't the commission's only look at it. This was just how the property would lay out. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if access became a problem to some of these lots when a precise plan came in, if the roads could be added back in or reconfigured and designed. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. .... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 � � MR. TOM NOBLE, 8 Hillcrest Drive in Palm Desert, said he had some comments on the conditions that they were inheriting from 1992, the prior County action. He said there were several that were not applicable any longer and in the Public Works recommendation for conditions, it said that all applicable provisions, conditions, and mitigation measures shall be considered conditions of approval for this map. There were several that Mr. Noble felt did not apply any more and some he wasn't clear on. They inherited this and he thought there were some contradictions and some weren`t clear. He asked the City Attorney as to when conditions could be modified. He asked if it could be done at Planning Commission or if they would have to petition the council for a change in conditions. Mr. Hargreaves said that if the approval was originally given by the Planning Commission, the conditions could be modified by them. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that it probably wouldn't happen today because the commission didn't have the conditions before them. He asked if that would happen with the precise plan application. Mr. Smith clarified that it was staff's intent that only the applicable conditions would still apply, but they did want the protection of the Environmental Impact Report that was done previously on it. They didn't want to have to redo that to resolve those issues. He said that when it comes back for the individual developments, then they would assess it at that point. The other factor that entered into this was the development agreement which had another couple of years which had certain conditions specified in it also which the commission couldn't undo at this point. Chairperson Jonathan informed Mr. Noble that he would have an opportunity to address the conditions of approval when he came in with a precise plan. He assumed that if that was too late for Mr. Noble, he could come in specifically for a modification because there was an existing approval on this project, and the development agreement as well. Mr. Noble stated that the conditions of approval to the map, which was what he was concerned with now, would have to be met to record the map which would have to happen before the streets and utilities could be done. Then they would start seeing applications for particular buildings and development within the boundaries of the property. His concern now was the conditions that needed to be fulfilled prior to map recordation. There were a number of those that he thought didn't apply f any more, but were still in there. A couple of them were very onerous. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 �.. Chairperson Jonathan explained that the Planning Commission was not prepared to enter into a discussion of those conditions because they had not seen them, so if Mr. Noble did have concerns and did want them to be addressed as part of this application, then his option would be a continuance so that staff could prepare a revised report which would include those conditions of approval. Mr. Noble asked if he was correct when he said that they wouldn't be waiving any rights to petition for a change to conditions at a later date regarding the map, specifically if they went ahead and had this configuration approved tonight. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct. Mr. Noble stated that in that case, he would take that route and would be happy to answer any questions on how they arrived at the configuration of the map and looked forward to going a head with it. � There were no questions for the applicant and Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. (t was moved by Commissioner Campbeli, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1969, approving PM 24255 Revision No. 1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. PP 99-20 and C/Z 99-12 - NIALL F. SAUNDERS, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-3 to O.P. (Office Professionall and a precise plan of design for a two story, 12,027 square foot medical office building and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto on the property at the northeast corner of Alessandro and San Jacinto, � APN 627-183-016, 73-950 Alessandro Drive. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Mr. Smith explained that plans were on display. He distributed a material sample board to commission. He noted that this item was before the commission on November 16, 1999. At that time commission did not proceed with the application. There were concerns relative to height, it's lack of compatibility with the neighbo�hood, its building mass, the building size relative to the amount of parking and landscaping, and there were neighborhood concerns over the walls. Effectively the applicant withdrew that request and staff received revised plans in the month of December and further revised plans which the commission received in January. The project was revised slightly since the commission saw it in November in that it now included a proposed change of zone from R-3 to Office Professional. Building height in the R-3 zone versus O.P. was a discussion topic. The new proposal was for two stories, 24 feet in height with certain roof elements that would extend up to 25 feet. The building would have a total of 12,027 square feet. For parking purposes, staff looked at the entire building as a medical office facility. The site plan, access, parking and landscaping were basically unchanged. On the site plan which the commission received in their packets, the applicant had sketched in the location of the future street improvements + on San Jacinto to the west. He noted that it was presently barricaded off with � a wooden barrier and Public Works in the future would do a cul-de-sac there. The cul-de-sac size was such that it would impact on the west end of the parking lot for this project. That was what was depicted on the site plan. On the change of zone from R-3 to O.P., the Palma Village Specific Plan dual designated this property Office Professional and/or High Density Residential, so it was consistent with the General Plan to change the zone to Office Professional. He outlined the code requirements in chart from on page 3 of the staff report. He pointed out that parking came out a third of a space under, which equated to approximately 55 square feet. Staff didn't feei that was an issue, especially considering that for staff's purposes they could only allow the applicant the 15% reduction for non usable area and in fact there was considerabty more than 15% �on usable ir► the building. He noted that the architecture had changed considerably. This would be a two-story building with the second floor level having natural slate as shown on the material sample board. The rest of the building would be stucco with copper treatments on the canopy edges. Architectural Review Commission gave preliminary approval to these revised plans at its January 25 meeting. At that time ARC also recommended that when the matter got to the City Council that they seriously look at waiving the �equirement for a sidewalk on the east side of the cul-de-sac. They felt it would be put to better use as landscaping. The current plan provided for a proposed six-foot wall along the north and east 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 �.. property lines and a four-foot wall extending from the northeast corner of the site southerly a distance of 85 feet to the beginning of the cul-de-sac. Around the cul-de-sac the applicant hadn't come up with a concept there, but the space was extremely constrained there so it might be wrought iron or some other fence treatment in there. Depending upon which way the council voted on the sidewalk waiver, if the sidewalk was in there, they would be very constrained in that area. If the sidewalk wasn't required, then they had a little more room. Commission received in their packets a letter from three of the area residents, who were the same people that spoke at the last hearing in November. In the letter of January 27, 2000, they brought up similar issues as last November. On January 31 staff received a supplemental letter from the neighbors. They stated that they were satisfied with the size and design of the building and ag�eed with most of its content. They requested that the proposed six-foot concrete block wall along San Jacinto be extended to follow the radius of the cul-de-sac to the corner of Alessandro. They also requested that it be constructed at the same time as the northerly boundary wall was erected. He said it might be necessary for the commission to readdress condition no. 11 which had the watl requirement. Before staff took a position, ,` Mr. Smith wanted to hear from all parties. He concluded, noting that staff was recommending approval of the project and approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification as to which side was the front of the building. Mr'. Smith said it was on the Alessandro frontage. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that was how he read it too, but the setback requirements indicated that the front setback requirement was 15 feet and the project has 65 feet, but for code purposes the front setback said it was taken from San Jacinto and the street side yard was along Alessandro. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Code allowed an applicant to in effect choose which would be the front and which would be the side in that the setbacks were different for each. Chairperson Jonathan asked if an applicant could in essence choose where he put his building closest to the street and in this case, even though the front of the building was on Alessandro, he could utilize the side yard code requirement. Mr. Smith clarified that yes it was the street side yard, which is different from a regular side yard. In this instance it was rather important that they not have the building jammed up on San Jacinto, otherwise, it would extend in front of those homes to the north. It was more important that they have the setback there than on Alessandro. Chairperson Jonathan said they could have a smaller building, or one story, and there were all sorts of options. � Mr. Smith agreed that there were lots of other options, but in that regard he 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 i ..i felt that for the setback from San Jacinto, they wouldn't want to see the building in front of those homes. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. NIALL SAUNDERS, 250 Newport Center Drive in Newport Beach, stated that he represented a local client who was based in Palm Desert. He said he would address the building, then the site and the issues around the perimeter of the site. First, the building previously had some taller elements which they were using to break up the line of the roof and to make it more pleasing to look at. It was felt that those were making the building too tall. There was also some question about the size of the building. They addressed those in a pretty radical way and took quite a sizable chunk of square footage out of the floor area and they reduced the building down to 24 feet in height. They did keep a couple of projections on the corners to extend up a foot higher to 25 feet to try and maintain the break in the roof line which he thought was � rather pleasing. Albeit some buildings cap off at that height, they � wanted to make sure they gave it some variation and some appearance "'� of setback both in terms of frontage and height. The building was also set back at the rear on the second level. It was set back some three feet on the second level so that they were creating less of an impact on the rear neighbors and also on that rear elevation they reduced the size of the corridor windows. The window-sill height was five feet. To not create an overlooking problem they made them even smaller to just let in a little bit of light so they have tried very diligently to insure that this building has a good appearance from the front and a low impact from the rear. Regarding the issues of the perimeter of the site, the front of the building would be Alessandro Drive, which was where it needed to be. It was setback in accordance with the city requirements for front yard setbacks with an average of 15 feet and it might even be set back a little more than that. The wall at the back and to the side we�e currently shown as six feet and four feet. He said they were asked to do that by staff. He said they had no objection whatsoever to increasing the heights of those walls if that was deemed the right thing to do. He knew the neighbors would like them to make it slightly taller and they would be quite happy to do that. When they reached the area � at the cul-de-sac, it was more restricted there and they would like to � � put in some kind of open metal railing which they could grow things ,��j 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 a. against (if it was necessary). Regarding the sidewalk, they would be happy to put one in or leave it out, whichever was deemed the right thing to do by the City Council. He thought from the standpoint of the neighbors, they would prefer not to see the sidewalk go in because there wasn't one along the rest of the street, so it would be inconsistent with the look of the rest of the street and they felt they would prefer to see the landscaping extend out to the curb. He agreed with that and thought it would look better. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Saunders said that he reduced the size of the building in the foyer. She asked by how much it was reduced. Mr. Saunders said it was reduced 2,200 to 2,300 square feet. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was still quite concerned with the size of the building being compatible with the neighborhood. She was wondering if there was a possibility of having the surgery center one story and eliminating the doctors' offices on top of that and then having the othe� wing two story. � She asked if that would be an option. Mr. Saunders, speaking for his client, said that there were economics to consider, the cost of the site, and in this particular neighborhood, he believed that although the houses were single story, they were allowed to be two-story and could well become two story in the future. Everything else around there was quite tall in height and two story. His client felt that anything less in size would not be economically viable. Therefore, he would abandon the project. Commissioner Finerty indicated that the houses were to the north and the west and as discussed last time, they were 9 to 11 feet in height. She commended M�. Saunders' client for wanting to upgrade the neighborhood, but she thought it would be better to consider a gradual transition in height rather than such a drastic difference. Another option would be to maybe reduce the length of the building so that it wouldn't be such a tight fit there. As evidenced by the difficulty of having the sidewalk and the landscaping. It didn't appear that there was room for both. Mr. Saunders said there was room for both, it was just that it was tight. �.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 � Commissioner Finerty said that if they were to reduce the length of the building, it might be a nicer fit; as well, it might be more compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Saunders said that they worked pretty hard to make this building a lot smaller to make it compatible with what was around it. To the west was an open parking lot. That probably would get developed in the future. As far as their choice of uses, Mr. Smith pointed out earlier that this area was zoned either for office professional or high density residential and as such, they picked one of the lowest impact office uses, possibly one of the lowest impact uses of all, which was medical. Because of the increased parking requirement, they had to put a much smaller building onto the same site because of the extra parking. The physical impact on the site was actually a much smaller building than if they had come in with a straight commercial office building and possibly even high density residential apartments. He thought apartments would be contrary to what their neighbors would like to see go in there. He felt the area was a transitional zone in more ways than � just its zoning and if it was turned back into high density residential, it � would tend to be lower in rental value than one would hope. He didn't think their neighbors wanted to see that. If it developed into high density residential apartments, it was more than likely to be a two-story deve{opment. He didn't think two story was inconsistent with this area and he didn't think the neighbors felt they were being unduly impacted and they were at the meeting to share their feelings with the commission. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was aware that the neighbors supported the project, but she was trying to look at the compatibility with the neighborhood and trying to make a more gradual transition. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Saunders knew the height of the Kinko's building, or all those buildings along there. Mr. Saunders indicated that Commissioner Finerty had that data last time. Commissioner Finerty indicated that the Metsovas building (with SubKing and Kinko's) is 24 feet, AM/PM 18 to 22 feet. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMtSS10N FEBRUARY 1, 2000 �.. Commissioner Campbell asked what the height of the proposed building would be. Mr. Saunders replied 24 feet. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. GEORGE METSOVAS, 72-650 Sun Valley Lane in Palm Desert, asked if it was correct that they would be closing forever San Jacinto Street--that they would be putting in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Greenwood said the current proposal was to cul-de-sac it, yes. Mr. Metsovas said that going east on Alessandro, a left could not be made. In order to go around, a person had to go back to Highway 1 1 1 , take 1 11 east and use the first street to go left again. He asked why they barricaded that street. �r... Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Metsovas was asking about San Jacinto. Mr. Metsovas said yes. Mr. Greenwood explained that that occurred before he joined the city, but it was his understanding that it was at the request of residents of San Jacinto due to traffic diverting onto San Jacinto in their attempts to have access onto Portola. He noted that the next street to the west of San Jacinto, Commissioner Campbell said it was San Jose, Mr. Greenwood said that although they have received some comments from residents on San Jose, there was access to Portola from that street. If a person was on Alessandro, they could take San Jose to De Anza and then turn on Portola so it wasn't necessary to use Highway 1 1 1, although in the end that might be the fastest way. Mr. Metsovas said that if they barricaded it, they could later change their minds, but if they put in a cul-de-sac they wouldn't be able to change it. He said he liked to go north sometimes and didn't know which way to go. �.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Metsovas if his concern with regards to this application was the cul-de-saccing of San Jacinto. Mr. Metsovas concurred. Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Metsovas for his comments and asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. MR. ROBERT KING addressed the commission and said that he and his wife reside at 44-841 San Jacinto, which was directly across the street from the proposed two story building. He thanked Mr. Smith and the developers for addressing all of their concerns. He only requested that the proposed partial six foot high wall along San Jacinto be continued following the radius of the proposed cul-de-sac to Alessandro. If this could be accomplished, they would support this project. He thanked everyone for their time and efforts. MR. CHARLES CLARY addressed the commission and indicated he and ' his wife live on the west side of the proposed structure at 44-855 San Jacinto. He stated that they would like to support the applicant's efforts. They met with him at their home along with the Kings and Mrs. Zakarian. They were pleased to see the revisions that were made and fett that this would serve to finally give them a buffer zone between the new business community that was created to the south immediately by their property, so they were very excited to have this continue and would like to see that it was finished. He heard that the applicant might withdraw his efforts entirely if this wasn't approved. He couldn't determine if that was true or not, but speaking for himself and the rest of the residents, they were very excited to actually contain their area from the business district and there was an awful lot of foot traffic and vehicle traffic which was just addressed by the barricade issue. He asked that the commission consider approving this and they were strongly in support of it. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Clary was aware that if this building didn't go in, that it was zoned for multifamily residential, which meant apartments. Mr. Clary said yes, they were very aware of that. He stressed that they would love to see this building go up and they were quite happy with 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 r.. what they had done. They also didn't feel that the height was an issue for them because of the Kinko's building, which was owned by Mr. Metsovas and his son, and if the height there was 24 feet, that was certainly going to be taller than the 24-foot building proposed because there was a gradual grade going down, so it would be less than what they were looking at now over their wall. Again, they were pleased to be receiving the barricade and quite a few years ago they were promised that there would be a buffer zone in there so they would be ecstatic to actually have approval for this project. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she didn't have any problems with the height before and had even less now. That was why she wanted to verify the height of the Kinko's building which is 24 feet and with this across the street, it would be even lower. It would spruce up Alessandro and there was commercial on the corner. She noted there was six-foot wall there now frorr� � the new building that was built on Portola and since the neighbors were in favor of having a six-foot high wall along there for the time being, unless they have some problem and then they could go ahead and extend the height of the wall to eight. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Smith said perhaps if they designed the wall to an eight-foot standard and stopped at six feet it would be okay, but he wasn't sure the reverse was true. If they designed a six-foot wall, he thought they would have problems going to eight feet. Condition Number 1 1 was basically done in response to the neighbors' letter of January 27 and staff called for an eight-foot wall along the north property line. Commissioner Campbell stated that in regard to the cul-de-saccing of San Jacinto, she would be in favor of not having a sidewalk right there on the cul- de-sac. It would be fine to have it in front of Alessandro, but since there was no sidewafk on the residential part, she didn't think it would be needed there and the neighbors could have a good buffer. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez said he would also maintain his previous observations and was delighted that the applicant and neighbors had worked out an agreement to the various issues that were before commission previously. He thought the cul-de-sac would be an improvement on the existing situation. He also thought that aesthetically it would make sense not to have the sidewalk there and somehow they could tie the wall into the landscaping. He thought that ••• would work and would maintain his observations and vote for approval. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISStON FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Commissioner Finerty stated that she felt the building was still over built for the lot and she knew this would go to the city council for the change of zone, therefore, she would like to address the following options. To consider reducing the length of the building by ten feet so it wouldn't be such a tight fit and possibly removing a few of the parking spaces at the San Jacinto corner. As Mr. Smith mentioned, there was probably more than 15% non usable space. This would maybe help to accommodate both a sidewalk and the additional landscaping that ARC recommended. She would be in favor of a sidewaik because if they were going to upgrade the neighborhood, which she was certainly in favor of, she thought that part of the upgrade should include sidewalk. She also asked that they consider making the surgery center one story and efiminating the doctors' offices on the second floor and moving them so that there was a two-story wing on the east portion. Her overall concern was that when the commission approved this, they only get one chance to follow the General Plan Land Use and Palma Village Specific Plan concept, and she agreed with putting in an office professional use there, but they only got one chance to do it and wanted it done in the right way. She felt that by lowering the height of the entire building so that they could ease into the � transition and by making the building not as massive, it would probably be a � nicer fit. For those reasons she would be opposed to it, but would request that the applicant take into conside�ation those options. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would echo the comments made by Commissioner Lopez and moved for approval. Ac i n: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Carnpbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Speaking to the motion, Chairperson Jonathan felt this was a really terrific project in almost every way and he really resonated with the desire of the residents to see this go up and create a buffer. The only problem he had with the application was its lack of adequate setback on Alessandro. Even Iooking at the sketch before them, the building would be "in their face" and he had become increasingly sensitive to that issue as a result of two projects in particular that he had referred to before: the Shah building on Fred Waring and Imago Gallery on Highway 74. He said he felt responsible for an error in judgement with regards to those two buildings and he didn't want to see that trend continue. He felt there was a danger that instead of having a wide view as they drive along and being able to see mountains and open landscaping and trees and so forth, they would end up going through kind of restrictive, confining corridors of concrete. He 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 �... thought this building had the potential of having that effect. He said he consulted with the experts at ARC and generally they liked to follow a 1 :1 ratio and he heard some regrets expressed that they didn't stick to that here. A � :1 ratio in this case would create a 24 or 25 foot setback requirement and he felt that would be appropriate. Because of the lack of adequate setback on Alessandro and for that reason alone, he would not be in favor. He called for the vote. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioner Finerty voted no1. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1970, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 99-12, PP 99-20 subject to conditions, and certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioner Finerty voted no). THE NEXT TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE CONDUCTED SIMULTANEOUSLY. � D. Case No. ZOA 97-7 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code adding the Planned Office Professional Park District. E. Case Nos. PP/CUP 97-14 and C/Z 00-1 - MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a change of zone from O.P. (office professional) to POP (planned office park district) and a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for a 37,980 square foot mixed use office commercial complex, including a 3,528 square foot restaurant on 3.78 acres at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. Chairperson Jonathan noted that staff's recommendation was to continue the matter to March 7, 2000. Mr. Smith concurred that that would ultimately be staff's recommendation. He noted that there was a site plan and an artist's rendering of the project on display. As well, there were building elevations and ••• the color material sample board. He indicated that the goal of the city was to 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 try and come up with a new zoning district which would create applicable development standards for office parks/complexes. The existing office professional zone currently in effect in the city was established to create a buffer or transition between arterial streets and residential developments. 1t had special setback requirements, special height calculations in it for buildings in excess of 18 feet, and generally it was designed for lots like along Fred Waring and Monterey Avenue (former residential lots that were no longer appropriate for residential purposesl. At the time the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee IZORC) was looking at this back in 1998, they had several large office businesses that were looking at various sites in the city. They felt it necessary to come up with zoning standards for parcels and set a minimum size of two acres. They must also be on a major thoroughfare or an arterial street in order to qualify for this. The goal was to create developments in a "park-like" setting used in the purpose of the draft ordinance. Other than that, staff basically extended the permitted uses or the conditionally permitted uses to include some ancillary commercial uses and the plan before the commission by Mr. Homme included a request for a conditional use permit to use the southeasterly most building for restaurant purposes, not fast food. The draft of the POP ordinance came out of several meetings of the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee. They then sat on the ordinance waiting until a project requested its usage. Staff got that from Mr. Homme and were now proceeding with it. The district as presently proposed was reasonably flexible. It prescribed a basic height of 30 feet--2 stories and would allow 3 stories of up to 45 feet high if it was tiered and if the setbacks were increased by an additional foot for each foot of building height above 30 feet. It also allowed setback averaging. He said they would get into the setback issue with the Homme project. The question posed in the staff report was whether the commission would want to consider if a "park-tike" setting could be achieved with less than 32 feet of average setback when there was an entire single story complex. The plan as submitted by Mr. Homme for the most part met the basic setbacks (i.e., 15 feet along Portola and 20 feet along Country Club) but it didn't meet the averaging requirement which said that the average setback from both those streets would be 32 feet. As noted on the bottom of page one, commission was basically simultaneously evaluating the proposed design standards and the project to determine how well each of them were achieving the objectives. If the project was inconsistent with the standards but appeared to achieve those goals, then the standards should be modified. If the project met the standards but didn't appear to meet the objectives, then both should be modified. He explained that the project as designed proposed an access point from Country Club and two from Portola. In the Public Works 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 � Department comments, they stipulated that they would prefer a single access onto Portola. They had some concerns with the northerly access and how it could impact on the property to the north, which was also zoned office professional. He noted that the applicant was assuming the full 15% reduction for non usable space. At this point staff didn't have anything to confirm that, but thought that through the architectural review process that they could assure that. The architecture indicated a single .story project entirely at 18 feet in height. The architecture was somewhat similar, but not the same, to the Homme building at Fred Waring and Monterey. ARC granted preliminary architectural approval. They had some concerns with the roof pitches and the applicant indicated that when he came back betore them he would have some revised roof studies to show them. The change of zone to POP, if the city established the POP district, then the standard somewhat consistent with what was before them and the applicant would qualify for the zone change in that the parcel is greater than two acres and is on an arterial street. The POP district standards were mo�e flexible and more appropriate in staff's opinion than the office professional, which it is currently zoned. Therefore, staff would recommend approval of the change to POP if they � created the district. Staff had no problem with the proposed restaurant at the southeast corner. Mr. Smith didn't know exactly which restaurant it would be, but knew it wouldn't be fast food and if approved, they would have design input into the building itself when it came through architectural review. In formalizing the POP district standards, commission needed to determine the appropriateness of the setbacks that were prescribed in it. He said there were different standards of setbacks for two story and three story buildings, but they didn't create anything special for single story buildings. Basically that was what staff was asking commission. Should they create a third category of setback requirements for a totally single story complex or should it meet the 32-foot average. If they were going to create this averaging, he had some questions as to how to determine the average setback when they had a series of buildings, like how much credit should be given to the areas between buildings. Would they include the area that was the total depth of the building, would they include 12 feet back, or any openings? Would they require a certain minimum width in order to be included? Those were not issues that were discussed at ZORC because they didn't have a proposal in front of them when they did this and they were questions raised when they got into the "nuts and bolts" of an actual application. He asked for any questions. Staff's recommendation was that these items be continued to March 7 to send it back to ZORC, with the commission's direction, but he �... 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 � � knew that Mr. Homme had some things to add and the commission's decision to continue might be impacted by his comments. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission wanted to address both D and E at this time or if they should formally set aside item D and get into E, or if it mattered. Mr. Smith noted that what they did with D might impact E. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission was free to ask questions about both the POP district and the proposal. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Campbell asked what the setback were of the church right next door and Manor Care. Mr. Smith said it was considerable. Probably 60 or 70 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked where the entrance to the project was from Country Club--if it was after the last building. Mr. Smith pointed it out. Commissioner Campbell asked what the distance was between the corner of Country Club and Portola and the entrance at Portola. Mr. Smith said that the Public Works comments indicated that it was around 420 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be an additional right turn lane for that entrance. Mr. Smith concurred that there would be a decele�ation lane. � Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Smith could be more descriptive as to � what a coffee shop/convenience type user and lunch/dinner oriented user was. Mr. Smith deferred that question to Mr. Homme since he used that language in a letter that was included in the packet. Chairperson Jonathan asked if POP had a different parking requirement than OP. Mr. Smith said no. Staff assigned the medical office portion at 6/1,000, the general office at four, and the restaurant at ten. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that on page two the staff report said that the required parking for the project was 197 spaces, but on page three the code requirements in chart form indicated that the POP code requirement was only 167. Mr. Smith clarified that was with the assumed 15% reduction. Chairperson Jonathan reiterated that the 167 was with the full 15% reduction for which they didn't have floor plans yet. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the POP zone provided for a higher height limit to 30 feet, but as high as 45 feet. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked for the maximum height in the OP zone. Mr. Smith said it was 25 feet. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the POP zone would possibly allow three stories as opposed to the two stories maximum under OP. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan noted that it would end up with lower setback � requirements compared to OP. He asked if that was correct with the averaging. Mr. Smith said that the minimum in the OP zone was 12 feet with 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 �... an average of 15. The minimum here varied on the street, but on an arterial it was 20 feet with an average of 32 and on a major thoroughfare like Portola, 15 feet with an average of 32. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he was trying to understand what ZORC was after in terms of creating a "park-like setting." He asked how that objective was furthered by allowing a height limitation going from 25 feet to 45 feet and going from two stories to three stories? He asked how that accommodated a park-like setting. Mr. Smith said that section 250 on page five increased the required landscaping. As the height of the building increased, the landscape requirement also increased, so when any building exceeded the 30-foot height limit, the landscaping was increased to 35% of the site area. The standard for shorter buildings was 30%. Chairperson Jonathan asked if going from 30% to 35% was how they accomplished a "park-like setting." Mr. Smith said they also increased setbacks and were on a 1 :1 ratio at that point. Commissioner Campbell asked what the setback was between Desert Willow . on Frank Sinatra approximately to the fence. Mr. Smith said he would guess 20 feet. Mr. Greenwood said he would also estimate 20 feet. Commissioner � Campbell asked if it would be the same setback as Desert Willow. Mr. Smith said it was fairly consistent. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Hargreaves how he should proceed. If he should open the public hearing on one, the other, or both. Mr. Hargreaves said that he could open the public hearings on both items. Chairperson Jonathan said that he just didn't want to create a hazard of litigation for the city. Mr. Hargreaves said he wasn't concerned and they should do whatever was the most expedient in terms of getting the matters addressed. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearings on both public hearing items D and E. He asked Mr. Homme to address the commission as the applicant for item E. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily, addressed the commission and indicated that Mr. AI Cook, his architect, was also present. He indicated that a few years ago when he and Mr. Smith first talked about this property and the office park zone, what interested him was that in the office park zone they could have other uses and not just offices. That really made office park development more of a complete project where people could go and get a copy made at a Kinko's or get lunch, 'r or to a coffee shop for a cup of coffee and they didn't have to leave the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 � � property. That was not allowable in the office professional zone and that was what kind of interested him with this office park zone. Also, those uses really allowed them to minimize rather than trying to put in as much square footage on a piece of property as possible. 1t would allow them to minimize the square footage because some of those uses could pay a little more rent than just an office user. This project was designed to minimize square footage and minimize height. He indicated the big problem with the office park zone was that it kind of rewarded someone for going to the middle or back of a piece of property and doing something really high, but leaving a large space with cars in the front. He said his project had nice architecture on a pretty street with a lot of green area, open corners, space in between buildings and those kinds of things that in his estimation was what an office park was all about. He thought it was interesting that the setbacks were really in excess of what would be required by an office professional use and because they couldn`t count the driveway and the spaces in between, they didn't get the 32-foot average, but if they could go back where there wasn't a building and figure that area, they would meet the average. He didn't think there was a good definition of that term which � made it confusing. He said that he had been working and waiting to do this for about a year and a half so he was getting a little bit more anxious as time went along because it had been a long time to try and work this out in this particular zone. He pointed out that the buildings would only cover about 22% of the site. There were all kinds of landscaping and the parking, even though it used the 15% requirement, it was set up so that a certain percentage of the building could be medical, a certain percentage could be office, and a certain percentage could be a restaurant type of a use. If they asked him if a specific building was going to be a restaurant, he wasn't sure. All he could say was that if there was a 3,500 square foot restaurant type of a user, there was adequate parking for that user. He thought projects like this developed as they went along. The same way with trying to figure out a floor plan, they find a user that was appropriate for the space, as long as it didn't go over the square footage and the use was in line with the uses approved by the city. And the Architectural Review Board would look at them each time. In terms of the access, the Engineering Department wanted the road there because there was another vacant � piece of property that needed access to Country Club Drive, so that had to be a shared use. The idea of the other exit was more for emergency purposes because fire trucks didn't want to be trapped back into that 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 � corner. They wanted to have a way in and out. Since the traffic only moved in one direction and they couldn't cross over, it seemed like a relatively smart thing to do. He said the point he was trying to make was that the whole idea was to minimize things, like the building they were just talking about that was a big, tall building in the middle of a parking lot. This was trying not to do that. Even the covered parking helped to tie together the architecture of the area so they weren't looking at an ocean of parking. That was the intention and he thought Mr. Cook had accomplished that and had done a great job. He said it would be nice to go ahead and go on and if there were little details to work out, perhaps they could be worked out during the process of going to the next public hearing. He said he wanted to be patient because he thought that would make for a nicer project for Palm Desert and that was important to him. MR. ALFRED COOK, the project architect, addressed the commission. He said that the ordinance said that on Portola they could have a setback of as little as 15 feet. All of the setbacks didn't excesd more than 20 feet. Even along Portola where it was allowable to have 15 � feet, they were still sitting back a minimum of 20 feet from the property line. On that streetscape they met the average. It was on Country Club that they needed to accept the fact that the area was more of a setback and he pointed out which areas had to be counted and then they got to the average of 32 again. He said it would be easy if this was a single building on a site because then they could just take the average along the front of the building and the street and they would have it. Here they had several buildings with spaces between and different setbacks. They had tried to make what the ordinance catled a park-like setting and that was to really make parks occur between buildings and along the street frontage instead of looking at a 15 or 20-foot strip of landscaping and then a building sitting in the middte of parking. They tried to make it a campus feel on the street frontage rather than setting it back in a parking lot. Even the one building that sits back in the parking area had a sizeable patio in front of it with landscaping, so he thought they met the requirements of the proposed ordinance and were very happy with the way the plan came out. Also, all of the structures were residential in scale. They were not commercial in scale. They were all smaller buildings, low profile, and the materials were stone, poured in place concrete, plaster, metal roof, and glass. He asked for any questions. �r.. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNtNG COMM{SSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Commissioner Beaty noted that the ARC report referred to U.S. Filter and asked if they were a potential tenant for the site. Mr. Homme said that Mr. Heckman, the CEO, was one of his partners in the property. He thought they would look for a much bigger building on a much bigger piece of property. He thought this was more for the office user in Palm Desert, a person who wanted 1 ,500 to 3,000 square feet, his own building, in a nice area. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Homme had a specific tenant. Mr. Homme said no, it was really to be built as speculation and be done in phases. He said they were planning to do four of the buildings to start out with and would be putting in all of the parking/covered parking, all the landscaping and fountains. He said he just finished a similar project with different architecture in Rancho Mirage across from the post office. He said it was a different architecture, so it wasn't really the same thing. He said that project had been ve�y successful � and he thought this was a lot less coverage, it was more open and more � park like. Commissioner Campbell stated that was a beautiful project. She asked if Mr. Homme could tell commission which four buildings he would construct first. Mr. Homme pointed them out on the map. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Homme to explain what restaurant usage meant. Mr. Homme said that it was hard to define what the restaurant really was, but the prime thing was that it wouldn't be a fast food restaurant. What came to mind was a coffee place like Starbucks, a Tully's or maybe a lunch-dinner kind of a place. Commissioner Beaty asked if would be like a Coco's or Denny's. Mr. Homme thought it would be something like that. That was really nice in an office like setting because people could stay there on the � property, enjoy the property and it was something the office professional zone really lacked. Office professional was great for little 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 � strips of property and had made a big difference in Palm Desert as a buffer for residential, but people had to get in their cars to go everywhere and when they had something a little bigger like that, it was kind of a shame to have to do that when they could make it part of the use and it let them not be concerned with trying to get more square footage because it was a better payer than an office user. The economics had to work, too. Commissioner Campbell felt a restaurant there would be a very good use for all the neighbors around there. She noted that the Marriott was near, but this would be nice. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the problem was with a restaurant in the O.P. zone and if it could be allowed with a CUP. Mr. Homme said restaurants just weren't allowed. He indicated it would be easier to just say this was office professional and then the setbacks would more than meet every requirement. � Chairperson Jonathan asked about the O.P. zone saying that for projects over two acres a restaurant use shall be allowed in an amount not to exceed 50%. Mr. Homme also suggested ancillary uses. Chairperson Jonathan asked if something like that would meet Mr. Homme's needs for this particular proposal. Mr. Homme said it would. He had a lot of conversations with Mr. Smith about this office park use and he thought what they were really trying to accomplish were bigger green areas because the percentage of landscape area got much larger than in the office professional zone. Again, he was just working on this piece of property and staff had a bigger scope than he did. Commissioner Campbell asked what the distance was between buildings. Mr. Homme said they varied from ten feet and greater. Mr. Cook confirmed that the minimum was ten feet. He also noted that � the exit only parking was intended to be the ideal place for nurses and 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 medical assistants, etc., that would not be taking up parking spaces in the general parking for the tenants, so it would be for parking all day and not through traffic. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the side yard issue and thought they were talking about a difference of three feet, or the front setback on Country Club. He said the POP code requires a 20-foot minimum, they were providing 17 and then they got into the whole discussion of averaging. Mr. Cook said that the 17 feet would be 20. It worked out to move the building three feet forward to 20 feet and it was actually 30 inches, not three feet. Chairperson Jonathan noted that they were meeting the minimum, but it was the average that was the issue. Mr. Cook said that was the discussion on how to count the average. He asked if they could count the space between the buildings. He said ' that in some cases they were counting that space in the average, but not the area along Portola. It wasn't needed on Portola, just Country Club. Chairperson Jonathan asked what portion of the space between the buildings was being counted. Mr. Cook said that if they looked at the way the code was written now, they want an average of 32 feet, but they coutd go as close as 20. That was a 12-foot difference. If they took 12 feet behind the 32 that was the space they used between the buildings; 12 feet behind the 32 and averaging off the 12 feet in front. Chairperson Jonathan requested that Mr. Cook to point out what he meant on the plans. Mr. Cook showed commission the 20-foot line, and then showed the 32 plus 12. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that Mr. Cook was taking 32 feet into the project from the 32-foot line and adding that into the calculation for the average. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMtSSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 ... Mr. Cook said it was 32 plus 12 because they were giving him 12 feet in front of 32, so between buildings he should be giving them back 12 feet behind 32. He said the space he was counting was from the 32 foot setback, and the 12 feet they were allowing him to go toward the street in relation to the 12 feet he gave them behind the 32 feet between the buildings. He said it was very difficult on where to draw the line on what was available as a tradeoff. He said another question was if he could count the whole distance, or just up to the curb with the 12 feet. Chairperson Jonathan asked about ZORC not anticipating all of that in defining the calculations. Mr. Cook said he didn't think that ZORC thought about a business park as a campus of buildings. When reading the ordinance, they were talking about larger buildings, taller buildings, and setbacks. That wasn't the way they approached it. They were trying to keep it on a residential scale and make the park-like portions of the buildings more � accessible rather than putting landscaping out in parking Iots. The ordinance only wanted 30% landscaping and that could be accomplished in a parking lot. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he really liked Mr. Homme's project but had a problem with the POP ordinance, if Mr. Homme cared if the commission found another way to approve the project. Mr. Homme said he was trying to accomplish something and he had been working with Mr. Smith for a year and a half trying to accomplish that. He felt there was a real need to have mixed uses in an office park. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he concurred with that and iiked the whole concept of a self-contained business park. Mr. Homme said that right now the only way to do that was with a general commercial zone and that probably wouldn't be permitted at the proposed location. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission found another way, Mr. Homme wouldn't particularly care what the zoning or what mechanism they � used. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 ' Mr. Homme said not really. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She thought the POP zone needed to be better thought out. She liked Mr. Homme's project and certainly liked the idea of having a restaurant, but as Mr. Smith explained, if they were to just leave it at O.P., then they couldn't have the restaurant. She noted that Mr. Smith also said that Mr. Homme was in somewhat of a hurry and would like to get started by June or July and she didn't know how quickly this ordinance could come together, but her concern was three stories up to 45 feet high. They could have a building like the Dr. Shah building on all the city's major arterials. They could be totally boxed in and she thought they really needed to look at the big picture and questioned what they would like their city to look like. She noticed that ZORC in their minutes got an ordinance from Newport Beach and she knew the section they were referring to which was an office park and she asked if that was real{y what they wanted Palm Desert to look like. She asked if this POP ordinance, by allowing higher and larger tall office buildings, was consistent and compatible with their image of a resort destination. She had a lot of questions about that. She stated that she �eally liked single story, which was probably why she liked Mr. Homme's project so much. Two story � would be okay. She loved the idea of a park-like setting and certainly liked the idea of a restaurant where people wouldn't have to drive. They would save on the emissions and traffic and people could walk and that was great. She thought this was such a major decision to allow this POP district and thought it needed a lot more study, but didn't want to hold Mr. Homme up. She said that if Chairperson Jonathan knew of a way to allow this restaurant that would be great. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for additional commission comments. Chairperson Jonathan thought that there were quicker ways if it was the desire of the commission to approve the project but not deal with the POP issue, which he thought was a "hornet's nest." He asked Mr. Smith if there was a mechanism that would allow the commission to approve a restaurant use at this juncture and change the zone for that part of the project when the actual restaurant site was determined. In other words, if they approved the project with up to 5,000 square feet of restaurant use subject to a change of s zone once that specific site was identified. He noted that Ruth's Chris was in an office complex but didn't know it's zoning and thought there must be some mechanism that would allow a restaurant next to an office. Mr. Smith noted 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 �.. that Ruth's Chris was in a general commercial zone. Chairperson Jonathan suggested changing just that one building pad, once it was identified, to general commercial, but vote tonight to allow that change of zone once the specific pad was identified. He said if there were other mechanisms that would work better, that would be fine. He thought there must be a way for the commission to say, yes, this is good and if there was a restaurant the commission was okay with that. Mr. Smith stated that he wouldn't suggest that the commission indicate that they were going to change the zone at some future time because that wasn't what the legal notice identified and they would have to go back through that process. He deferred to the City Attorney. Mr. Cook asked if there was a way to approve the project as it stands with the POP district and with recommendation to further study the POP. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would be opposed to doing anything with the POP ordinance. He thought it was a problem. If it was the commission's desire to approve the project with a restaurant use of up to 4,000 or 5,000 square feet, he asked how they could do that tonight. Mr. Hargreaves said he wasn't sure the commission could. Whatever they did � tonight would not be effective until they went back and changed to zone to � permit what they had already done. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they could just state that the zoning would be changed as necessary to accommodate the restaurant usage once it was specifically identified. Mr. Hargreaves said they could go ahead and approve it and it would be an anomaly and he didn't recommend that they do that. They could go ahead and give it conceptual approval and direct staff to come back with an amendment to the O.P. zone as suggested to allow restaurant uses for projects with more than two acres and they could have that ready for the meeting after next and then they would have a complete package at that point and then they could take it onto council, which would probably be the quickest way to do that. Whatever they did, they would have to fix the zoning before they had the restaurant in there. Chairpe�son Jonathan said that he would like, if the time frame allowed it, regardless of what they ultimately did with POP, he thought Office Professional should allow the possibility of restaurant and/or ancillary office uses for projects that were large enough and he would define that as over two acres. They were dealing with almost 90,000 square feet of land at that point so building size would be nearly 30,000. He would be in favor of modifying the O.P. ordinance to allow a restaurant and other ancillary business uses. If that process of amending the O.P. zone didn't take too long for the applicant, then maybe they could do that hand in hand. He thought it would ultimately be a quicker process than dealing with POP, which he could see as getting � hung up in ZORC for more months, at Planning Commission and then at 29 ' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Council. Mr. Hargreaves said another consideration here was that whatever happened needed to go to City Council and they might have a totally different idea and if they ended up holding this up at this point to go back and do that, it would probably put it back a month and then if it went on to council at that time, they might have different ideas. He said that what the commission could do at this meeting was basically approve it conceptually to get it in front of council and at the same time go back and start the ordinance amendment. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they could simultaneously recommend to council that the O.P. zone be amended to allow restaurant and ancillary business uses for O.P. projects over two acres. He asked if they could make that recommendation concurrently with recommending approval of this project. He said he wanted to find a way, if it was the commission's desire, to make this work. Mr. Homme said he went through this conversation in the past and city council didn't want to impact existing office professional uses. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was even if the commission stipulated over two acres. Mr. Homme suggested that maybe the thing to do would be to change his application for the office professional zone and with some effort maybe they could get the office professional ordinance changed. Chairperson � Jonathan said that was what they were suggesting. That the proposed project go forward under the O.P. zone, but concurrently--and it would have to go to council because restaurants weren't allowed in O.P.--so the commission would be making a recommendation to council to begin the process of amending the O.P. zone to accommodate the restaurant usage, not just in this project obviously but in all projects over two acres. Mr. Homme stated that his experience has been that the city of Palm Desert was a good place to be and he would like to take the chance to see if this could go through in O.P. and maybe council would see the need for that and it would be better. Commissioner Beaty said that he thought Mr. Homme was hearing from the commission that they really, really liked this concept and would do what they could to get this approved. Commissioner Campbell asked if the setbacks would also be d'+fferent for the O.P. zone. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Homme had any plans to change the ones on the plan. Mr. Homme said no. He thought the proposed plan was really exceptional and he believed that they didn't have to build high rise two story buildings. Commissioner Lopez agreed that this was a beautiful project and thought it should be the model to design the POP around. He said they were almost going two directions. They would take this plan that they would put in the middle of open space and then build huge things, which would look even 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 +�.. bigger sitting in the middle out in the open. He thought they went against each other. In this case, where it was all single story in a very park-like atmosphere and they had the opportunity to do the restaurant, this should be the model of where they should go. He noted that Mr. Homme would be willing to amend his application. He indicated that they could approve the building, but it wouldn't be a restaurant now, but they could develop the program and move ahead and use this as a model and then develop the POP with this as a guideline. He didn't want to hold up this project. Chairperson Jonathan suggested that they entertain a motion to that effect, to approve this under the O.P. zone with a recommendation to council that the O.P. zone be revised and amended to allow restaurant use and ancillary office uses for O.P, projects of over two acres in size. Mr. Hargreaves said he thought there was a conceptual problem if they approved it as an O.P. use when it was noticed as something else, but on the other hand, if they approved it as an O.P. use the project wouldn't have to go to council. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that the restaurant use would have to go to council. Mr. Hargreaves explained that they couldn't send it on until there was ` a public hearing. They would have to back up and do something on the zoning side to accommodate the restaurant and it would have to go to ZORC and Planning Commission and then City Council. It would be nice if they were going to go ahead and do it concurrently and get it up to the City Council. He felt that it was appropriate to at least look at it so that they didn't end up wasting a lot of time doing something that they wouldn't be happy with. Commissioner Finerty asked if they even needed to look at POP if they were to just (as suggested by Chairperson Jonathan) modify O.P. to look like (as Commissioner Lopez said) Mr. Homme's project. Mr. Smith said that he didn't think they wanted to get into amending O.P. because it has worked quite we(I for the city for infill situations and thought it was more than appropriate for the smaller lots where they had done hundreds of developments. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that they were talking about amending it for the larger projects. Commissioner Finerty concurred and said it was for the two acres and more in size, which was basically what the POP concept was. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they could just approve the project under O.P. Mr. Smith said the applicant wouldn't be able to finance the restaurant if they couldn't find it in the zoning. Mr. Hargreaves said what they would essentially have was a conditional approval until they went back and modified the zoning. If that didn't happen, he would be without the restaurant. Chairperson Jonathan suggested doing that and at the same time recommend that the `• zoning needed to be adjusted. Mr. Smith suggested that the commission 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 � � approve the project as submitted tonight with the modification that Building H would be a general office building. As a second portion of the commission's action, they could direct staff to come back at the soonest possible time, which would be March 7, 2000, with an amendment to the O.P. standards to accommodate restaurants in O.P. projects in excess of two acres and on a major arterial street. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the first part of the approval would be under O.P. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty asked if they wanted to approve this under POP. Mr. Smith said no, the commission wouid just table POP and approve the office park concept without a restaurant at this point. The applicant had heard very substantial support from the commission for the restaurant use and then staff would come back with the two pieces. The O.P. revisions and the restaurant request on March 7, 2000. Commissioner Beaty said he would put that in the form of a motion. Commissioner Campbell said she would second that motion. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that they would table Item D, which was the POP ordinance, and approve Item E without a specific restaurant use at this time. Commissioner Beaty clarified as amended by Mr. Smith. Commissioner Campbell concurred. � Action: � It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by �ommissioner Campbell, tabling ZOA 97-7 and approving PP/CUP 97-14 excluding the restaurant use at this time and directing staff to process a revision to the Office Professional zone and return with the restaurant request and OP revision on March 7, 2000. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Jonathan said they probably needed a resolution of approval. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1971, approving PP/CUP 97-14. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Beaty asked if they had a resolution or if staff would create one. Mr. Smith said yes, staff would create one. It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, recommending to City Council modification of the O.P. zone to enable restaurant and ancillary business uses in O.P. projects over two acres in size. � Motion carried 5-0. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 �... The recording secretary asked for clarification on the adoption of Resolution 1971 since there wasn't one before the commission at this time. Mr. Smith explained that staff would come up with a resolution and conditions and get it to the applicant and if there were any unresolved issues, the commission could discuss that on March 7, 2000. Commission concurred. ,' IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE LIAISONS A. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissione� Beaty, � electing Paul Beaty as Chairperson and electing Jim Lopez as Vice Chairperson by minute motion. Chairperson Jonathan said he was a little confused about the normal protocol. He knew that Commissioner Finerty had been on the commission longer, but asked the commission's pleasure. Commissioner Finerty said it would be okay. Chairperson Jonathan said he wanted to make sure that everyone continued taking their turns so that they didn't politicize the process. He noted that it was just a matter of who kept the meeting rolling along and hopefully every chairperson would keep that in mind. Commissioner Campbell asked if Commissioner Lopez wanted to be Vice Chair, noting that in the past she waived her turn in favor of Jim Ferguson, even though he was on the commission a lesse� time. Commissioner Lopez said he would be delighted. Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. B. Appointment of an Art in Public Places Representative, a Civic Center Steering Committee Representative, Appointment of a Desert Willow Committee Representative, Appointment of a Project Area 4 Committee Representative, Appointment of a Representative to the Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage Monterey Avenue Corridor Planning Work Group, and Appointment of a Zoning Ordinance Review Committee Representative. �... 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 ' , � Chairperson Jonathan asked if everyone wished to keep their same committees. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion appointing Sonia Campbell as the Art in Public Places representative, Paul Beaty as the Civic Center Steering Committee representative, Cindy Finerty as the Desert Willow Committee representative and Jim Lopez as the alternate, appointing Cindy Finerty as the Project Area 4 Committee representative and Sabby Jonathan as the alternate, appointing Sabby Jonathan as the Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage Monterey Avenue Corridor Planning Work Group representative, and appointing Sonia Campbell as the ZORC representative and Cindy Finerty as the alternate. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was tu�ned over to the new Chairperson. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES ; A. ART IN PUBUC PLACES - (January 19, 2000) � ..r Commissioner Campbell indicated that Caroline Miller got in touch with a few of the local artists because Palm Desert's sister city was Gisborne and they had a botanical garden. Palm Desert, Japan and Australia had park-like settings and each one had their own theme except for Palm Desert, so they picked two artists and they would come before the committee in March to see if they would be interested. One would be an artist in residence in Gisborne and the artist would be there for approximately a month or six weeks and they would onfy use the materials from New Zealand. They wouldn't be importing anything to take there, but would make their own evaluation and construct something from the materials that they find there. Also, they discussed the signage at the park. An artist came before them with a lot of different signage but council wasn't happy with it. She said they would be getting signage for the baseball fields, the date groves and the rose garden. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) � � 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2000 r.. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (January 24, 2000) Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was informational only. Commissioner Campbe{{ felt that the Hovley wall looked fabulous. Commission concurred. E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Beaty commended Sabby Jonathan for his good job as chairperson. The commission concurred. �..► XI1. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. __ ��l-=����� �?�r.r � , � STEPHEN R. SMITH, Acting Secretary ATTEST: �� � . PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperso Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm �.�. 35