Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0215 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 15, 2000 � 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * � �. * � � �. .� � �. �. .� � .� � * � � .� � � � � � � � �. � � � .� * -� � .� � � .� * * * � � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. iil. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez i.. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the February 1 , 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the February 1, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated there were no pertinent February 10, 2000 city council �"' actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 � �f .r/ VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 99-15 - COLUMBIA PAR CAR CORP., Applicant (Continued from December 21 , 1999 and February 1 , 2000) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow an �,rj outdoor golf cart display located at 73-168 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell informed commission that staff was recommending that this matter be continued to March 7, 2000. Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left �en and Chairperson Beaty asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing CUP 99-15 to March 7, 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0. B. Case Nos. GPA 00-1 and C/Z 00-2 - MEMBERS OF IRONWOOD, INC., AND SR CONSULTANTS, INC., Applicants Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a general plan = � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 �r.. amendment and prezoning to facilitate future annexation to the city of Palm Desert of 156.01 acres located in the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E (the area south of Ironwood Country Club). Said property to be designated very low density residential (1 -3 dwelling units per acre) in the General Plan and prezoned PR-3 (planned residential 3 units per acre maximum�. Mr. Smith noted that there would be a revised recommendation from the one commission received with their staff report. He distributed a photo copy of the USGS map of the area with the property superimposed on it. He pointed out that about two-thirds of the way down the property there was a dike that protected the area to the north. The area to the south was not protected. Additionally, he indicated the location of the existing golf course on that portion of the property. For the area south of the dike, the unprotected area, staff was suggesting it be zoned open space. The area north of the dike the applicant indicated that in the future they would process maps for from 40 to 60 dwelling units on that entire area, which was some 100 acres. Staff was going to suggest that this area, the area north of the dike, be zoned PR-1, +r which would allow up to 100 units assuming 100 acres in that the PR zoned allowed density on the gross acreage. The area south of the dike would be designated open space. Chairperson Beaty o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LEONARD CHARNOWSKI, SR Consultants, the engineers for Ironwood Country Club, stated that they had no problems with the change that staff was recommending for the southern portion south of the dike being designated as open space. The only question he had was on the report staff was recommending zoning of three units per acre rather than one and asked for clarification. He said they requested three units per acre. Mr. Smith said that the last information he had was that they were interested in building 40 to 60 units in that area. The area north of the dike was approximately 100 acres gross including the golf course area. Hence it would seem that one unit per acre would get them to that point. He asked if there was perhaps something he was missing. � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 � , .nil Mr. Charnowski replied no, as long as they could transfer some density and didn't have to have lots that were averaging one acre in size. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Drell explained that unfike the County, the City designated country clubs with golf courses per gross acre. They didn't separate out the golf course so the PR-1 was being applied over the entire area, including the golf course. Mr. Charnowski asked if that was everything north of the dike. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Smith noted that PR-1 referred to one unit per acre, not one acre lots. Mr. Charnowski said that as long as everyone understood that, that was fine with them. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. � Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval. Commissioner Finerty said she would second the motion if they could limit the total number of homes to 60 as requested by the applicant. Mr. Drell said that theoretically they could make it PR.06. Chairperson Beaty asked how many of the 100 acres were occupied by the golf course. Mr. Drell thought it was about half. He said there was an aerial photograph that actually showed the golf course and the area. They had estimated about 45 or 50 developable acres, which ultimately did limit it given the market they were aiming at. They would be high end big lots with big houses. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a zoning designation of less than one unit per acre. Mr. Drell stated that the zoning ordinance for ihe PR designation called for a range of one to 18 units per acre. It seemed to say that they couldn't go less than one. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was possible to designate it PR-1 but in the preannexation agreement it would be delineated that there would be a maximum of 60 homes. Mr. Drell said they could do that. The alternative to that would be to designate the golf course , open space. Regarding the preannexation agreement, based on some other desires of the city apart from development, there would probably be a 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 �.. preannexation agreement requested by the city relative to a public easement that would go through that open space area south of the dike for a potential trail. They were hoping that if and when the sheep population improved enough to allow human use of the mountains again, that there would be a trail alignment there. So there would probably be some form of a preannexation agreement. Commissioner Jonathan asked if before there was any development there, it would come back to the commission with a precise plan. Mr. Drell said that when the commission approves a map and the map designated a certain number of units possible they would have to have very strong findings to approve less than what the zoning entitlement would be. If in fact it was the commission's wish to only allow 60 units, the way would be through a preannexation agreement limiting the units to 60 or designate only the 50 acres of developable land as a PR zone and calculate that as one point whatever needed to get to the 60 units. They might have to do some recalculation to do that precisely and asked if the commission wished to continue the item. Chairperson Beaty asked what Commissioner Finerty's concern was with the 60 units. Commissioner Finerty noted that the applicant was requesting 40 to 60 units. She was concerned about development in and r. around our mountains and if the applicant was only requesting 60 for the type of home that was planning to be built, then that would be fine. Her concern would be if down the road this developer sold to someone else and they wanted to put in more homes, or the market could change, she didn't know the future or how soon they were going to build, but it would be the prudent thing to leave it at 60. Commissioner Campbell pointed out if 40 acres was already golf course, then that left only 60 remaining acres that were buildable. Mr. Smith said there might not even be that many. Mr. Smith informed commission that the applicant did request PR-3. Subsequent to a request from LAFCO, staff was asking them to waive certain requirements. LAFCO asked for additional information and staff got the 40 to 60 number of units, but the request was for PR-3. The rest of Ironwood was zoned PR-7. Commissioner Jonathan said there was motion on the floor for PR-1 zoning and he would second the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). `�.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 r./1 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1972, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 00-1 and C/Z 00-2. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). C. Case No. PP 99-25 - ROBERT RICCIARDI for KERRY MEIER, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design to construct a 14,832 square foot industrial/warehouse building located at 75-200 Merle Drive. Mr. Alvarez stated that the site plan and elevations were on display. The site plan included a 14,832 square foot industrial building. The property fronted on Merle Drive in the Service Industrial District. The elevations featured a combination two-story and single story building. The two story structure fronting along Merle would provide office, storage and display areas at a maximum height of 26 feet. The single story portion located along the rear of ' the building had a height of 22 feet and would be used strictly for storage- � warehouse area. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the elevations and granted preliminary approval subject to a list of conditions outlined in the staff report on page two. Of those conditions all had been met except one, which would be addressed in the final working drawings and that was the modification of the exterior for the loading dock section which would have a stucco finish to match the remainder of the project along the Merle Drive frontage. The project would have two access points on Merle Drive. One at the western end and one at the eastern end. The western access would primarily serve the loading dock. The applicant had a pipe and supply company which would use the loading dock for large trucks off loading materials which would be stored in the back portion of the warehouse. The eastern driveway would serve not only the rear warehouse, but employees and customers. The building totaled 14,832 square feet. Of that square footage the building in this district was entitled to a 20% ancillary office use without being subject to the office professional parking standard. Of that 14,832 square feet, 20% would equal 2,966 square feet so that portion of the building required 25 offstreet parking spaces. The portion which exceeded the 20% office use was parked at 4/1 ,000, which was the office standard and , that portion as indicated in the staff report was 2,506 square feet. That portion required 10 parking spaces. The project as a whole required 35 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 �.. parking spaces and the applicant provided 35 to meet the standard. In the report staff addressed a special request by the applicant. If the precise plan was approved, the applicant wished to store some material onsite temporarily to meet some of his current demands for storage area. Once the building was complete, the storage needs would be met and the temporary storage demand would go away. In the packets Mr. Alvarez said he provided a plan showing the designated area. It was a portion of the eastern end of the property from Merle Drive to the rear. The storage area would be for 12 months. On� of the issues staff had included the timing or length of the temporary use. Staff's response was that a 12-month period was acceptable and the project could be compieted in that 12-month period. Normally in that 12 month period they would see storage of materials onsite, so this wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary. He said thai staff did want to address the fact that the materials would be temporary enclosed with a chain link fence with slats in it to obscure the material from public view. Also in a temporary fashion, it was not uncommon to see a chain link fence constructed during the 12-month construction period. As far as the future use of the parking lot and the storage : area, staff explicitly put a condition on the property that upon issuance of a +i... Certificate of Occupancy or final approval of the project, the parking lot area will be used strictly for vehicle parking. No outdoor storage of materials or supplies would be allowed. With that staff felt that the temporary use was acceptable and recommended approval if the precise plan received approval as well. For purposes of CEQA, the project would not have a significant negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration had been prepared. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Alvarez was able to find out if there were other businesses in the city that have a loading dock in the front. Mr. Alvarez said he wasn't able to. If that was still an issue, he would follow up on that. Mr. Drell pointed out that the applicant's existing building had a toading dock in front. Commissioner Jonathan stated that it was his understanding or misunderstanding that the norm was to require office space at 4/1 ,000. The exception only existed when an office was part of an overall warehouse project and represented less than 20% of its space and only then an exception would be granted. tn this case there was office space that accounted for about 40% of the project so he thought that would exclude the office space from being allowed 2/1,000 for any portion of the office space. Mr. Alvarez stated that the industrial district was geared toward industrial, warehouse and r.. manufacturing uses and staff has always allowed for ancillary office use and 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 � as long as the office use didn't exceed 20%, they would allow parking at two spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. In this instance the 20% was exceeded and that portion was parked at 4/1 ,000. Mr. Drell said that this was an opportunity to clarify the parking ordinance. Sections on wholesale establishments and warehouses were parked at one space per 3,000 square feet of gross floor area, warehouses depending upon number of employees were one space per 1 ,000. People have said they were a warehouse and wanted to park at one space per 1 ,000 and staff has said no, since there would be some office use there. They were using the "industrial uses of all types" section, which was 2/1 ,000. In essence they didn't allow people to ask for warehouse. In this case that was principally what this business was. There wasn't a lot of manufacturing and most was warehouse. Staff used this higher standard which they interpreted to mean that it was twice the standard of a warehouse to assume a good portion of the use in that building to be office because it was twice what the warehouse standard was and then as a matter of policy set it at 20%. If it was one foot over 20%, it wouldn't suddenly create a greater parking demand so staff's feeling was that 20% was inherent and that ancillary office usage was inherent in the 2/1 ,000 standard and therefore was included in the 2/1 ,000. That portion over the 20% was what was extraordinary to the 2/1 ,000 and it was assessed as regular office. The conclusion might be that the standard was too low and that the 2/1 ,000 itself was too low of a requirement, but given the consistency of the ordinance they have in essence taken the highest standard for any sort of industrial use and applied it to everyone, even if they were warehouse. That was why staff felt the ancillary office use could be justified. Anything over 20% was above and beyond that. Commissioner Jonathan said his own interpretation came from experience and staff was out there seeing different things, so he agreed that this was an opportunity to clarify policy. He also asked that staff point out the actual zoning language that talked about the 20%. He clarified that his own understanding has been, both as a commissioner and developer, that when office rep�esented less than 20% of a warehouse project, the entire project was parked at 2/1,000. When the office portion exceeded 20% then they bifurcated warehouse at 2/1 ,000 and office at 4/1 ,000. Mr. Drell said that the zoning ordinance, once they bifurcated the uses, set warehouse at 1/1,000. That was why they didn't bifurcate the office from the warehouse because if they bifurcated the warehouse, then other standards siarted being applied to warehouse which ended up with far less parking being required. , Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that they did, even with Mr. Drell's interp�etation. They were taking office use in excess of 20% and saying that 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 �r.. had a different parking standard at 4/1 ,000, so they were bifurcating. Mr. Drell clarified that staff wasn't calling that "warehouse." They were calling it "industrial uses" and they had to somehow define at what point since they knew that all industrial operations had some office uses associated with them. They had a pure warehouse category which in his view excluded all office use. That was the 1/3,000. Their assumption was in the industrial category since all industrial operations have offices associated with them and weren't exclusively warehouse, they knew some percentage of office had to be included there because it was twice the parking demand that a warehouse was. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't in disagreement with that. He was only asking what happened when the office use exceeded the 20%. Mr. Drell said the 20% figure was purely policy. Commissioner Jonathan asked where that came from. Mr. Drell said they knew there was some office there. Because the parking requi�ement was twice in that category. Commissioner Jonathan asked where the section was in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Drell said it wasn't defined, but there was no question that this was an industrial use. Commissioner Jonathan felt there was a question because the office portion was 5,400 square feet compared to 9,300. Mr. Drel! said that was right, b�t � as part of staff's experience in looking at many buildings they have seen that the typical industrial use has something around 20% as office use. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this one had 40%. The question was, when something exceeded 20%, what the treatment was. In the past staff has said that the entire office portion would be parked at 4/1 ,000. This was the first time he had seen an interpretation that said the 20% would be 2/1 ,000 and the excess over 20% would be 4/1 ,000. That was a new interpretation that he was seeing. He asked where the original interpretation came from and he thought that what Mr. Drell was saying was that it wasn't in the code, it wasn't in the zoning ordinance, it was something that staff had informally adopted. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Because there was no guidance in the code. He disagreed in that it had been his understanding that this was the interpretation that staff had been using all along. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that it had been misrepresented to him and he has had experience where a project was reconfigured to come in under 20% for that very reason. He was saying that somewhere out there between intent and reality there were different things going on. Mr. Drell explained that there have been some uses where people said they wanted freedom to fill up half a building with just offices, unrelated to the industrial use. In those cases they blended the 2/1 ,000. In this particular case, he believed that the vast majority �.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 � � ..ri of office use was related to the industrial use. That was a question that could be addressed to the applicant. Chairperson Beaty o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said they agreed with staff and all the conditions imposed by staff and the Architectural Review Board. They were ready to proceed and go ahead. Chairperson Beaty asked how many employees they would typically have on site. Mr. Ricciardi said eight. Chairperson Beaty noted that he used this business and he felt that 35 spaces in this particular instance was perhaps even excessive, but that was okay. He also didn't believe that the business had a large volume of walk in traffic at � .� any one time. Mr. Ricciardi addressed Commissioner Finerty's earlier question about businesses with front loading docks. He said that he did a building for the Los Angeles Times and it faced the street. When they came in for approval no one thought twice about it. Commissioner Finerty thanked Mr. Ricciardi for the information. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on the type of supplies that would be stored. Mr. Ricciardi said that he understood that it would basically be pipes. Pipes come in, the applicant cuts them to size and then he ships them out to various plumbers. That was why the loading dock was located there. Commissioner Lopez indicated that he was just thinking about the temporary storage space that they applicant would be using. � ; � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 i.. Mr. Ricciardi said they woutd be putting up a gate in front of the loading dock so that during the day when the gate was closed they wouldn't see the loading dock. On weekends when the applicant wasn't there it would all be closed. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he believed that this applicant might not need 35 spaces, but he has been here 20 years and there were a lot of buildings that have been here longer and there were very few tenants that were the same as the ones that were there 20 years ago. He didn't think they could afford to look at a building in terms of who would occupy it next week or next year. They had to look ahead at the possibilities in 10 years, 20 years and more. They were aware of a severe problem in this area. The commission would be getting a staff report later tonight and this was exactly the type of situation that created a parking problem, when the ordinance wasn't followed. r,.. This to him was not strictly a warehouse project. There would be 5,400 square feet of office use which was bigger than many if not most office buildings in the city. Very easily it could be a separate warehouse user and they could have a loan center in there tomorrow. There was nothing to prevent that. So he felt very strongly that basically it should be 2/1 ,000 on the warehouse and 4/1 ,000 on the office and that came out to 42 parking spaces. He saw no need to have a roll up door in the front or a loading dock in the front. The building was laid out so nicely with full access to the warehouse building that there was no need for it. There were very few buildings with roll up doors in the front and loading docks. They are ugly and they came into the city through annexation from the county. They had an opportunity now to improve on the aesthetics of the city, not go backwards. He was opposed to the project on that basis as well. Finally, a business's inability to plan properly shouldn't impact adversely on a community. If this applicant needed storage space, he should figure out how to do that. He couldn't see letting them put up temporary storage with a chain link fence. That created additional ugliness. He was against that. Commissioner Finerty stated that she wholeheartedly concurred with Commissioner Jonathan's comments. ��.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 ` Commissioner Campbell said she looked at the property and she didn't have any opposition to having the sto�age area for the warehouse in the front and as far as the parking, they could go ahead and as Commissioner Jonathan said, 20 years from now they wouldn't know what would be there and this might not be standing any more, and it might be torn down, and it would be before them for something else. They really couldn't deprive someone right now because of what would be there 20 years from now. The city didn't think they were going to have as many residents here in the city and it was happening. They couldn't stop it. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez said the one concern he had was the location of the loading dock. The temporary use was fine and he would consider it okay as long as it was for one year and one year only. If there was an extension required, they would have to come before the commission for it. He did have a concern with the loading dock area. The parking was okay. He said he wasn't sure if he understood how the area in front would treated. Mr. Ricciardi readdressed the commission and explained that this was an industrial zone. He had his office in that zone and all day long there were trucks parked in all those driveways. All day long trucks were coming and going. Therefore, if they saw a truck in a loading dock, that was no different than seeing a truck in a driveway. It was all the exact same thing. That was what an industrial zone was--it was where trucks went. Regarding having a loading dock in front, the precedent had already been set. There were two projects within a mile of each other than had loading docks facing the street. Therefore, they just couldn't all of a sudden approve one and deny another. That wasn't right or fair. Also, this applicant would put a gate in front of it so when there wasn't a truck there, which they woutd see any way in most of these driveways, he would have it closed off so they wouldn't see anything on the loading dock. He thought that the people who were against this hadn't considered the zone. That bothe�ed him. He noted that Commissioner Jonathan was developing a project very close to this one and felt he had a conflict of interest and should step down. Chairperson Beaty thanked Mr. Ricciardi for his comments. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 t.. Mr. Ricciardi felt the City Attorney should address that and said that the commission must realize that this is an industrial zone and hoped Commissioner Lopez would �econsider. Chairperson Beaty stated that he was in favor of the project. Given the zoning, he didn't have a problem with the application. There were other similar buildings in the area and he would go along with ARC's approval. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Finerty and Jonathan voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1973, approving PP 99-25, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Finerty and Jonathan voted no). �r.. D. Case No. PP 99-24 - ROBERT RICCIARDI for MAX BRIGGS/DAVID NEtL, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise ptan of design to construct a 4,706 square foot professional office building located at 2 Village Court. Mr. Alvarez noted that the elevations and site plan were on display and stated that this property was located in a newly created office subdivision off of Highway 1 1 1 and Village Court. Village Court runs south and meets Highway 1 1 1 , and Village Center Drive continued on into the city of Indian Wells and runs back into Highway 111 . This parcel was one of 16 lots approved in 1997. The property is located at the corner of Village Court and Village Center Drive. It totaled 18,796 square feet. The applicant, Franklin Loan Center, was requesting approval to construct a 4,706 square foot professional office building. There were two sets of elevations and two sets of site plans. He explained that the original site plan was submitted to the Planning Department and reviewed by ARC, along with elevations. The original elevations received •.. preliminary approval by ARC. In further discussions with the applicant and 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 further discussions with the property owners association, the applicant revised the site plan and elevations. Mr. Alvarez explained that the building was pushed toward the south to allow for a greater area for landscaping and a future mutual access driveway easement with the properties to the north. The site plan was a far superior layout and allowed a reduction in drive aisle space and further landscaping treatment in front of the building and along its other three sides. The elevations were also revised. Staff believed the new plans were far superior to the original plans. Major differences included architectural detailing further enhancing the elevations. There was also architectural relief in adding columns along the front of the building and showing arches along the elevations. The old elevations were a simple design that just added architectural pop outs along the doors and windows. Basically the revised project met the office professional development standards. In terms of parking, he wanted to make a correction to the table on page two of the staff report. The parking requirement for a 4,700 square foot office is 19 spaces. That was four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. In terms of the allowance, the project created 20 offstreet parking spaces. He noted that there were a couple of issues addressed in the staff report. He believed two of them had been addressed. One was the site plan that had been revised to include a much better design. The elevations were improved and staff would recommend that if approved, the elevations return to ARC for review. In terms of the intensity of the floor plan, in the commission packets commission received a copy of the floor plan which potentially showed a parking demand of 22 or 23 spaces. That was with 19 offices or employee work areas and potentially three or four customers. This was an issue staff wanted to bring up to the commission, although there was no mechanism for staff to regulate in terms of number of offices in the use. In terms of the parking requirement, it met the current office professional standards and exceeded it by one. In the letter attached to the report, the applicant kind of addressed this issue by indicating that his current use has 13 employees, five of which were loan officers that we�e in and out of the office. They indicated that customer traffic was minimal. They saw one to two clients in their office per day and most of their work was done via fax, e-mail and couriers. As mentioned, this was something staff wanted to bring up to the commission, but in terms of the parking ordinance, it met the requirements. In terms of CEQA, staff determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. He recommended approval, subject to conditions including the elevations being revisited by ARC. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 w If commission wouid like to see them again, staff could bring them back. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if the height of the towers were still 23 feet. Mr. Alvarez said that was correct. Chairperson Beaty o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI addressed the commission. He said he believed that the commission had copies of a letter from the homeowners or property owners association's architectural committee. They approved the project and Mr. Ricciardi said he worked very closely with them. The committee had a lot of comments and he felt he met all those issues. He said they were parked one space over according to the ordinance. When the property to the north develops, which should be relatively soon, they were presently working on a project two lots away, on one across from here on the Payne Webber site also, so this .. area would be developing over the next four or five years and should be ail done because of the strong demand for office space in the city of Palm Desert, basically because the city of Indian Wells didn't allow offices in their city because it lowered their image. He said they agreed with staff comments. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell stated that she liked the looks of this development and the changes that had been made. She noted that there was quite a bit of building going on there ans was in favor of this project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. !t was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1974, approving PP 99-24, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 ; � � IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos. PP/CUP 97-14 and C/Z 00-1 - MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request for a minute motion to table Case No. C/Z 00-1 . Mr. Smith explained that staff would be coming back March 7 with the proposed amendments to the O.P. district and another noticed public hearing on the proposed restaurant use at the office complex at Country Club and Portola. As such, they could then close out C/Z 00-1 and he suggested that the commission table it. As part of the report for tonight, staff included a copy of Resolution No. 1971 which the commission adopted at the last meeting. He understood that Mr. Homme might wish to address one of the conditions that were included. He asked for any questions. There were none. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Homme would like to address the commission. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily in Palm Desert, stated that he � had a question about two of the conditions of approval. Regarding No. � 10, his thought was that if for some reason the change to the O.P. zone to allow parcels over two acres to have some kind of ancillary use didn't pass, it would be nice to have the option to apply the additional parking that was provided for a restaurant space to more medical office space. So the 10,728 would have the ability to be a little bigger if the ordinance didn't change. The other condition was No. 21 which provided for reciprocal easements between the subject property and the property to the north. He was just curious if those easements required parking spaces to be lost by this property, if the lost parking spaces would be made up by the adjoining property if there was a driveway they had to connect to and they took out parking spaces. He noted that parking was a bigger and bigger issue and if for some reason in providing reciprocal easements to the property to the north, if it required the elimination of some parking to have the drive through, if the property to the north would have to make up for the lost spaces. Mr. Drell noted that he wasn't looking at the site plan to see how it would be impacted, but thought that the applicant would lose at least three spaces. He thought the other property might be losing three spaces as well on their site � plan and the question became if the advantage of having more parking 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ` FEBRUARY 15, 2000 �... accessible since they would have two projects with parking and the advantage of having limited driveways on Portola was worth that lose. If at some point in time it was determined that the parking should be saved over the convenience of access and limiting driveways on Portola, then they wouldn't do it. He said that was something they would assess when the project came in. Mr. Homme asked for clarification that if those spaces were lost, it wouldn't count against this project. Mr. Drell said no. That was a decision that would have to be made and they would weigh the benefits with the burdens. Typically when they have parking problems, it didn't hinge on two or three spaces. It was something that if and when that project came in, Mr. Homme should probably show up and give some input on the advantages and disadvantages given the various options. Regarding condition 10, he could see it being modified. Commissioner Jonathan suggested working it backwards so that medical office woutd be allowed to the extent that parking spaces were available per code. Mr, Drell r•• concurred. If the amendment didn't get approved that number would go up and then it would get recalculated. Mr. Drell said they would include a note to that effect. Mr. Homme thanked everyone. Chairperson Beaty asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, tabling Case No. C/Z 00-1 by minute motion and modifying Condition No. 10 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1971 to add, "If the restaurant use is not approved, then additional medical office use shall be permitted in accordance with the parking standards for medical office use." Motion carried 5-0. B. DISCUSSION OF A REPORT ON OUTDOOR STORAGE IN PARKING SPACES. Mr. Drell noted that the commission received the report. He felt he should have given Code Enforcement more extensive instructions to actually count r.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 how many spaces were occupied because one of the problems that might exist would be where the business might not be using parking spaces for storage, but the way they manage their employee parking might be a problem. What they did see in the report were three or four egregious violators which should be cited. Commissioner Campbell said especially the one that had 16 spaces and 8 were used for storage. Mr. Drell noted that there was a worse one where they had 24 spaces and all 24 were used for storage. On Mediterranean an entire complex was used for storage. He wasn't sure about the one on Mayfair where it said there was no public parking. He questioned how it could have been approved without public parking or if they just obliterated it some how. That was another potential violation. Mr. Smith said it might be the Gas Company property where everything was sealed off. Mr. Drell thought that perhaps staff just wasn't able to get into the facility. He hoped that they weren't pushing all of their employees out onto the street. Commissioner Campbell asked how staff could go about correcting this. Mr. Drell said that the ones that were aggregious, staff would go after them. He said they could go after everyone that was showing to be in violation. It y would probably be good to nip it in the bud because what might start out as a little bit of storage sometimes grew into a lot of storage if it wasn't stopped. � Commissioner Finerty asked if they could ask Code to go back and tell the commission about the parking. She noted that that was the point of their going out there. Mr. Drell said yes and indicated that while they were out there they could just as easily have counted how many were occupied and how many were vacant. He thought that they could determine if in some way the problem was with the way the spaces were being managed or if they were just overly successful businesses. The problem was that a lot of industrial uses, even pure industrial uses, had an extreme range in parking demand. That was a dilemma like the pipe supply which was pretty simple and then there were the ones that were industrial uses, but like a plumbing place that has 20 plumbers showing up and take out the company trucks and were gone all day. He wondered if they should somehow refine the parking requirements to differentiate the users. He noted one example was the Cold Call Cowboy business that they ran into that was a 4/1 ,000 pure office project, but had many cubicles. He suggested a mechanism that has a definition of a standard demand and then defining the higher and lower demands. If the higher demands went into a building that was only parked for standard demand, they could say no. He indicated that when a business came into the office for a , Certificate of Use for a business license, staff could say no based on what was defined as a standard industrial use. Commissioner Jonathan said that was his 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 .� main disappointment with the report. It addressed only one aspect of the parking problem, which was parking spaces no longer available. He thought that the more aggregious abuse out there was space that was approved as warehouse but was being used as offices. Mr. Drell indicated that to a certain degree, that was hard to check without physically entering the property. He thought that one reason why Code did this was they did the same study at the old Valley Industrial Park and found far more of the problem caused by this storage problem. Commissioner Jonathan said that the two different sides of Cook Street were very distinguishable. On that side there were a lot of automobile repair kinds of businesses and they tended to use the parking lot for uses other than parking. Mr. Orell said that staff would instruct Code to do a more general parking study. He noted that in the Joni Industrial Park all the parking was full. It might have all been full here and that might have been why they didn't count it. The impact of taking 58 cars off the street and back into the parking lots has had some significant impact, but again, the long term solution he thought was a better refinement of the parking ordinance as it related to these uses. Chairperson Beaty stated that he had a question about the moving company on Beacon Hill. He asked if that business was in +�.. compliance. He noted that there were five or six large moving trucks parked there every day on the street. Mr. Drell agreed that was another issue. In other areas a lot of businesses were parking their commercial vehicles on the street. Chairperson Beaty asked if the moving company was approved to do that. Since that business has been there they marked diagonal lines for the parking spaces and one of the those trucks took five spaces. Mr. Smith noted that those were private streets in there and that was why the stripes were the way they were and ihe association controlled the streets and they couldn't seem to do anything about that business. Mr. Drell noted that there was a problem on Joni Drive where a concrete truck would park in the middle street for a few hours. Mr. Smith thought this business just did it for the advertising. Chairperson Beaty noted that the warehouse was fuil of storage materiais. Mr. Drell said that the dilemma was not to penalize the low parking generators and force them to buy more expensive space. That was why they needed to differentiate the wholesale pipe operator with four or five employees and a big warehouse full of pipe and ten customers a day with these high employee generating service industrial users. A big problem was where they have these businesses that do a lot of delivery and offsite work and have a lot of employees parking their cars there and going off in a company car and their cars were parked there all day. The other problem in that area was the career ... college and that was a use that was originally on EI Paseo and was creating 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 � problems there. Mr. Drell said that staff would try to get more information to the commission. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Finerty noted that at the joint meeting with the council at the Marriott last summer it was suggested that maybe a member of the Planning Commission and/or Architectural Review join the landscape committee. She informed the commission that she joined the landscape committee and she didn't know if the commission would like to receive reports or not. Chairperson Beaty said yes, if there was pertinent information. Commissioner Finerty stated that they approved landscape maintenance agreements. One of the thoughts after reviewing the Desert Crossing center and the fack of plants after being promised that it would be abundantly planted, the planter beds were basically empty, the trees were improperly trimmed and city staff would be working with Desert Crossing to correct the problem. One of the things that came up as a result of this was that they might look at requiring an arborist if there were trees in the parking lots or on the property so that they could be assured through the landscape maintenance agreement that the trees would be given proper treatment. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were thinking about using the arborist that the city has or if Desert Crossing would have to provide their own. Commissioner Finerty said that if a center, whether it be Desert Crossing or the mall, had to maintain their landscaping, they would be required to have an arborist on that company's staff. Mr. Drell said they 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 � were considering trying to work with the College of the Desert to create a Coachella Valley plant material specific curriculum. The problem when talking about arborists is that the place to get the test for the arborist license is in Arizona and they were really interested in very specialized knowledge about the sort of trees and problems we have. They would be working to create a curriculum to help people get certified. Chairperson Beaty said there were a number of people in the valley that were certified arborists, especially in the golf course industry. He thought that maybe the management company, if they didn't have an arborist, could have a consultant. Commissioner Finerty noted that they needed that before they started work on the trees because there were some unusual designs out there. Mr. Drell said they would have to come in with a pruning plan. Unfortunately a lot of the problems were structural in nature. People planted trees that the staff has since learned were inappropriate in planters that were too small and we have gone through the same process ourselves in our parking lots. Part of the problem would be how to remediate those problems. Chairperson Beaty asked for confirmation that the city has an arborist on staff. Mr. Drell concurred. He indicated that part of the problem was when a new plant or tree first comes out and looks great, r,,,,, it grows like crazy and think they found the perfect tree, then suddenly there's a wind storm and they all end up on the ground or the branches break off, or they get aphids and drip honey dew. They were trying to grow orchards in an extremely hostile environment. Commissioner Campbell said they didn't want oleanders as trees. Mr. Drell said that so far, in President's Plaza the goal there was to try and create an example of a successful lot. Commissioner Campbell stated that those rosewood trees were beautiful. Mr. Drell said that they haven't figured out exactly what those trees were, but in general, those were the nicest and that was the best landscaped parking lot in the city. Chairperson Beaty indicated another landscape issue was that the cell phone towers that were being installed that looked like fake palm trees with landscaping around them, and there was one on Dinah Shore, they weren't watering them and the trees around them were dying. There was also one just off of Cook Street by the storage complex and they haven't untied the trees and he wondered if those trees were being watered. Mr. Drell said that was a good question. He pointed out that they had to realize that they weren't just in the tower business any more, but were also in the landscape maintenance business. Chairperson Beaty pointed out that palm trees were pretty tough, but they did have to be watered. Commissioner Campbell said those trees have been there about a year and needed to be untied. Mr. Drell concurred and said staff would look into it. r.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2000 X11. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:1 1 p.m. � PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: ��`L-'C �- ��� PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 22