Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0516 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 16, 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 7:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pfedge of allegiance. I11. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan � Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrat�ve Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the May'2, g000-meeting minut��. tion: It was moved by Commissi6ner Ca�npbell, seconded by Commissioner�inerty, approving the May 2, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5- 0. V. =Sl)MMARY OF COUNCIL ACT10N Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 1 1 , 2000 city council actions. V. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 � VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS � None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-04 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LP, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a tot line adjustment to accommodate a wall within Bighorn. B. Case No. PMW 00-06 - SIXTH STREET PARTNERS I, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to accommodate a revised site plan for Desert Country Plaza. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and �eceived clarification that Item B was a lot line adjustment. Action: ; It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, �, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he 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 99-13 - SPRINT, PCS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to install an 85- foot high wireless communication tower, camouflaged as an artificial pine tree. The site is located within the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association recreation facility at 77- 800 California Drive. �� Mr. Alvarez noted that plans and photographs were on display. The subject project at 77-800 California Drive was zoned open space and was currently owned by the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association and was .rr� 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 �.,, used as part of their rose garden. He indicated the site was adjacent to the neighborhood park approved by commission in 1999. The applicant, Sprint PCS, was requesting approval to install an 85-foot high wireless communication tower camouflaged as an artificial pine tree. The pine tree would have 12 antennas 77 feet above the base of the pole. The site would allow for co-location. Photographs of an actual one were on display as well as a photo simulation of the proposed 85 foot pine tree. The site would be a 13 by 60 foot area in the northwesterly corner of the rose garden. The lease area was currently enclosed with a six-foot chain link fence. The ordinance required a solid screen and ARC approved an eight-foot slump stone wall. For background, Mr. Alvarez indicated that on 1 1/9/99 this item was before ARC at which time it was proposed as an 85-foot artificial palm tree. At that time ARC voted 4-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet dissenting to approve a modified height at 60 feet. Subsequently on May 9 the applicant was before ARC with a revised proposal which included the 85-foot pine tree. The purpose of the pine tree was to allow for co-location and for a greater coverage in that area. ARC voted 4-3 to approve the tower, with Commissioners Van Vliet, Connor and O'Donnell dissenting. Members of the homeowners association were present and were in support of the application as proposed. They had circulated information in their newspaper regarding the proposal. In terms of r... zoning ordinance requirements, the pine tree met all the ordinance requirements. The maximum height allowed by the current ordinance was 85 feet. Fencing would be required at a minimum eight feet high in the form of a solid block wall. While the separation requirements could be met, including the 300 feet from residential properties, the issue which staff identified on page three of the staff report was the height of the tower. Staff worked with the applicant and homeowners association to come up with what he believed would be an acceptable project, not only for the neighborhood, but the city as a whole. In terms of the height staff felt that the 85 feet could be justified for the four reasons outlined in the staff report. 1) The 85-foot tower camouflaged as a pine tree would allow Sprint the necessary coverage for this area and would also eliminate a future site in the I-10/Country Club area. 2► The height of the tower would allow co-location. The intent of the ordinance had been to encourage co-location and further reduce an additional site within the city's boundaries. 3) The proposed pine tree blended in with the existing mature landscaping in the area. Finally, the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association was in support of the application. There was a letter with the staff report indicating support. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the applicant would give a presentation which would illustrate current coverage. Maps of the a�ea would compare coverage with a 65-foot pole versus an 85- foot pole. Staff believed that the 85-foot height could be justified based on ... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMiSSION MAY 16, 2000 � � the above. The design of the pine tree camouflaged the antennas and the � ability to co-locate would reduce additional sites in the city. ARC granted approval on May 9. Staff concurred and felt the findings of approval could be made. Mr. Alvarez indicated that if approved tonight, condition no. 9 should be modified to read that the applicant shall construct a minimum eight-foot slump stone block wall around the perimeter of the lease area as required by the ordinance and ARC. For CEQA purposes, Mr. Alvarez indicated that the project was a Class 3 categorical exemption and no further documentation was needed. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if the view of California Drive was a realistic picture. Mr. Alvarez indicated that was what the applicant indicated to staff. The picture was a photo simulation of the actual height and location. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a material sample available. Mr. Alvarez said no. He deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff and/or ARC had seen material samples or if they hadn't been provided yet. Mr. Alvarez stated that they had not been provided. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. � MR. ADAN MADRID, representing Spring PCS, thanked staff for the comprehensive staff report which covered a lot of the issues. He informed commission that he had an exhibit he wanted to show. He noted that there weren't a lot of tall buildings in Palm Desert which limited opportunities to locate cell sites successfully without being extremely creative. He said they were given the task by virtue of them having a license to establish cell sites throughout their licensed area, so they were given a high task to accomplish. Unfortunately, unlike other types of land uses such as commercial strip centers or residential which could be geographically be dztermined depending upon land use compatibility, with cell sites they needed to go everywhere. Wherever broad coverage was needed, a cell site was needed in the general vicinity. He showed the commission a coverage map prepared by Sprint's radio frequency engineers using drive test data. They would go out and hoist up an antenna with a truck and they would generate data. After getting that data they would input it into a computer modeling system software that produced what the projected coverage would be once the site was constructed. The map showed the amount of coverage they expected. He pointed out the location of future and � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 ti.,,, existing sites and the various signal strengths which ranged from aliowing building penetration to the lowest acceptable strength. He explained that their objective was to blanket Palm Desert with coverage. This particular site would provide coverage for its surrounding area, the northern part of Palm Desert. As indicated by staff, a question came up at the architectural review committee as to why they were requesting that specific height. Mr. Madrid explained that the antenna centerline was 77 feet on the proposed project, which put the antennas at a top height of 80 feet and because they were proposing a pine tree, the foliage needed to extend up a little more, so it would go up to 85 feet. If they were to lower the antennas to 60 feet, there would be a gap in the coverage they expected based on their data. Chairperson Beaty asked Mr. Madrid to identify Washington Street since it appeared that they were covering some of Bermuda Dunes. Mr. Alvarez did so. Mr. Madrid also pointed out the coverage that would be accomplished if they were restricted to 60 feet. He said that the data was telling him that they wouid need another site in that vicinity because the coverage ir..r gap would still be there and a portion of the I-10 freeway would not be covered. TF�ey knew they would have to come back and propose another site. That concerned them a little bit. In talking to Mr. Drell, they didn't know if they were going to be able to find a property owner that was willing to lease them a space on their property to put up another tower and they didn't know if that same property owner was going to have the type of property that would be conducive to another cell site. Those were big variables for them and worried him as a planner and worried their client. He explained the coverage patterns and indicated that they were not static, they were constantly expanding and contracting based on how many calls were on the system, kind of like a sprinkler system. He said that if the commission was familiar with sprinkler systems, if they put too many sprinkler heads on that one siphon valve, all of a sudden they didn't have enough water pressure so those sprinkler heads would not spray as much water as they used to because the pressure would be down. The same phenomenon takes place with cel! phone sites. If they had too many people making phone . calls on a particular cell site, it would shrink. When they shrink, the overlap between the cell sites would separate. One of the things that their engineers endeavored to do was to make sure that each of the cell sites had enough coverage so that if they did begin to shrink, they •.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 � � wouldn't disconnect and they could assure their customers have � continuous coverage. In looking at the coverage overlap between the subject site and the adjacent sites, it wouldn't be sufficient to maintain adequate overlap when the system was loaded. Mr. Madrid showed the commission the difference in coverage for a height of 77 feet, the height that was requested. They saw it as providing complete coverage along a portion of the 10 freeway and further increasing the overlap with adjacent sites. As an applicant, they wanted to request that the commission approve 77 feet so that they could accomplish a lot more and they had residents in support of the project, which was rare to come by these days and they were delighted to get their support. He said that there were a lot of trees on the property. They had the property surveyed and the existing trees ranged in height from 50 to 70 feet on the property and on the adjacent golf course. They felt this property was conducive to this type of design and that this was a quality product. He showed a photograph of an existing artificial pine tree that was provided to them by the vendor who would be building the cell site. He felt that this pine tree from this vendor was a good product and they were proud of that. He asked for approval. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Madrid how many of these pine trees he had done. Mr. Madrid indicated that there was one in Mission Viejo and one in Yorba Linda. Commissioner Campbell asked if the picture was of one of those sites. Mr. Madrid explained that the photo was provided by the company that produces the pine trees. Commissioner Campbell thought it was very realistic. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Madrid knew the height of the one in Yorba Linda. Mr. Madrid thought that one was 65 or 70 feet. Commissioner .lonathan noted that given this is the desert, and ARC b�ought up at one point a preference for palm trees, he asked why Mr. Madrid would elect to go with a pine tree as opposed to a date or palm tree. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 �„ Mr. Madrid said that they have no objection to a palm tree. The main reason they went from a palm tree initially to a pine tree was to foster co-location. They felt that if it had been this challenging for them to find a piece of property that would be conducive to a cell site, they could only suspect that their competitors would also find it very challenging. If they were going to build a structure that tall and spend that much money making it stealth, it would make sense to allow for the opportunity of another carrier to come in and co-locate. At the time they were processing the application, Nextel expressed an interest. They might or might not use the pole. If they don't, he was sure another carrier would be interested. They were willing to go either way. Mr. Drell noted that vertical separation had to be at (east ten feet apart (Mr. Madrid concurred) and if it was a palm tree, they would end up with a two- headed palm tree. The alternative was to have two palm trees. He noted that it was also a lot more expensive to build two palm trees versus one. Commissioner Jonathan asked the applicant if he had been provided with material samples from the manufacturer. ,r.,, Mr. Madrid said that was available and they could get that. They've had similar requests in the past. He didn't have one for this particular vendor but was sure they could get that and provide it to staff. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the proposed tree was the same as the ones he had previous experience with or if there had been a change in technology since then. Mr. Madrid stated that the one tree in Yorba Linda he believed was from the same vendor. The tree in Mission Viejo was from a different vendor. Commissioner Jonathan said what he was getting at was what the experience was with maintenance and the staying power and Mr. Madrid had seen the wind out here today and that wasn't unusual. He asked if perhaps Mr. Madrid had also experienced the heat and wanted to know how versatile these were and how long they would last. He also wanted to know the maintenance schedule. Mr. Madrid said that the trees they have had in the past hadn't been up that long but they had come to the point where they begin to ` 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 � � deteriorate or discoior, but what a {ot of other jurisdictions do was � condition the project requiring that they maintain it to certain standards and they had yet to reach the point where a jurisdiction told them to redo the branches. That hadn't happened yet. He acknowledged that those jurisdictions weren't in the desert and that time might come a little sooner out here, but other jurisdictions just conditioned them. He said they were more than happy to accept something like that. Commissioner Lopez asked with a structure this high at 85 feet with the design of the limbs, if the company had provided the applicant data as to how much wind pressure it could take. Mr. Madrid said that just like any other structure, these types of stealth structures did have to go through structural ca�culations and the Building Department would look at them to make sure they are structurally sound. It would go through the same type of process. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the diameter of the antennas would be. � Mr. Madrid said the antennas for Sprint would be at one elevation above � ground. The antenna center lines were 77 feet and it was a three-sided � configuration and on each side there were four panel antennas. If he wasn't mistaken, the outer antennas were about 13 feet apart, so it would be a 13-foot equal lateral triangle. Commissioner Jonathan asked how far they extended from the center point from the trunk of the tree. Mr. Madrid consulted the plans and then informed the commission it was about six feet from the center of the pole out to the antenna for that particular sector where it became perpendicular. Chairpe�son Beaty asked how many cellular carriers there were. He knew of at least four. Mr. Madrid said there were five. Chairperson Beaty asked how many sets of antennas they were going to have and if the city had to allow complete coverage for everyone. Mr. Drell said it : was a license, so yes. The city could regulate in terms of aesthetics, but not so as to deny them the ability to provide service. 7 rf 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 `.. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address in the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. MARILYN HAMLET, President of the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association, 42-600 lowa Street in Palm Desert, informed commission that they had been putting this in their newspaper for almost two years. They have had no comments whatsoever. Everyone just wanted to know when it was going to go in. They polled people and she e-mailed everyone last night to inform them of the public hearing tonight to see if anyone had a problem or if they wanted to come down to help, so everyone was notified and everyone was happy with it. Chairperson Beaty stated that he assumed that there was a financial benefit to the Homeowners Association. Ms. Hamlet concurred. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. �.. Commissioner Campbell stated that she woufd move for approval. Commissioner Finerty informed commission that because she was concerned about the height and the type of tree, a pine tree which wasn't in the city's landscape pallet, she brought this issue before the landscape committee at their meeting. The Landscape Committee unanimously thought that the ordinance needed to be referred back to ZORC with direction from the Planning Commission regarding the height issue (they felt that 85 feet in height was excessive), associated landscaping 1perhaps the cluster effect or other ideas), if it should have a round or square base, the type of tree (preferably in the city's pallet), the location (right now the ordinance al�owed these types of towers in open space and they wanted that issue revisited), setbacks (perhaps looking at language regarding removal from the public right-of-way), and they recommended that the Ptanning Commission hold off processing any further applications until this ordinance was reviewed. Commissioner Jonathan thought that made sense. He wasn't opposed to cell tower construction, but he had a severe problem with a height of 85 feet. That was an eight-story structure. That was way beyond anything in the desert. He pointed out that technology was so amazing and if all the cities in �.. all the states across the country said they weren't going to allow over 60 feet, 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 � he had to believe that these technology-oriented companies would find a way to make it work, so he thought it was incumbent upon cities, and it started with them, to draw the line somewhere and the line had been drawn at 85, but he had a problem with that height. He thought it was inappropriate. He also thought the tree type was backwards. A pine tree starts off broad on the bottom and goes up to a point so it was the thinnest where they wanted it to be the widest, so a palm tree made more sense than a pine tree. In addition, he wasn't aware of any 85 foot pine trees in the desert. He felt it would stick out like a sore thumb. At the last meeting when he saw the material sample board he was reassured that he knew what they were allowing. With this, he had no idea. He could not feel comfortable approving this without looking at material samples so that he knew what they were approving. He wasn't opposed to cell towers and understood the need, but he wasn't prepared to give this particular one approval. Commissioner Lopez said that he also struggled with the height issue. He was trying to equate the 85 feet and the only thing he could compare it to was the Marriott Desert Springs lobby, which he thought was about 85 feet from the water to the roof top. He believed it was over a 100 from the roof to the k water, so it was somewhere along those lines. He also looked at the 70 foot palm trees and pictured the proposal 15 feet higher than that. He reviewed � the ordinance and the requirements and kept asking why 85 feet was picked. He felt it was very high. Mr. Drell said that height was chosen mainly from reading the requi�ements of the technology and between 60 and 85 feet was what they required. The commission saw from the applicant's exhibits why they wanted 85 feet and the difference in coverage between 85 feet and 60 feet in the analysis. It was significant. Mr. Alvarez said it was to also allow for co-location. Mr. Drell agreed that there were two issues. Wherever they had two people using a pole there had to be vertical distance between them and one at 50-60 feet was about the minimum that was required. He said it was a trade off between having more poles or fewer poles. Commissioner Lopez said he would like to look at our desert as having multiple palm trees that looked very nice than having an 85 foot high pine tree. He was having trouble with the height. Commissioner Campbell referred to the pictures and asked how high the palm trees were. Mr. Alvarez indicated that because of the perspective they looked higher. Mr. Alvarez thought those were actually 40-50 feet high. Mr. Drell thought the trees next to Arco were over 100 feet, but the issue became the impact of a palm tree as opposed to the impact of a pine tree and whether this � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 r,,, location was unique. As an older style golf course there was pine trees in it. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they weren't 85 feet high. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that economics were very much a factor for the applicant and he respected that, but he thought that one reason they were looking at a very tall pole was because it meant the applicant only had to put up one site instead of two which was far cheaper, and it enabled him to bring on a subtenant/sublessee to share the costs, so it was to the applicant's financial benefit to put up one very tall pole. He didn't want the city to pay the price for that in the form of aesthetics that weren't appropriate. He would think that it would be much nicer to look at to have two palm trees, one at 65 feet and one at 45 or 50 feet. They didn't seem to have a problem with 50 foot poles and had approved those before. His suggestion was for all of the above reasons to continue this matter and give the a�pplicant an opportunity to: A) obtain material samples, B) reexamine the possibility of doing palm trees and at least present that to the commission as an option as opposed to the pine tree; and C) to see what the alternatives were to bring down the 85-foot height to something closer to 50 and perhaps it could only be 60 or 65 but to see what options might exist. He would be in favor of a continuance to allow the applicant to review those issues. � Chairperson Beaty asked if Commissioner Jonathan would also like the Landscape Committee to have time to address their questions. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was a valid issue, but he was concerned about holding up pending applications. The Landscaping Committee had brought up some very valid issues with regards to the ordinance itself and he felt it needed to be reviewed, the city needed to look at the whole area and maybe select some sites which might be acceptable. He noted that they could end up with five different carriers within a three square block and then have none in other areas. He thought they needed to do some land use planning in this regard and independently review the technology out there to determine if this ordinance at 85 feet was still appropriate since it was penned two years ago and technology was rapidly improving. He didn't know if 85 feet was still a valid number. He did feel this was a valid issue, but the timing concerned him. Chairperson Beaty asked when the next Landscape Committee meeting would be. Commissioner Finerty noted that they meet the third Tuesday of each month; however, their direction was to refer the ordinance back to ZORC with the ideas she mentioned to see what ZORC would bring forward. After ZORC's recommendation, it would come back to the Planning Commission and the Landscape Committee. Chairperson Beaty asked how often ZORC met. Mr. Drell thought they were meeting more regularly now since they were ` 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 dealing with the issue of accessory buildings as well. Cammissioner Campbell � informed commission that the next ZORC meeting would be June 14. Mr. � Drell said that based on the information the applicant showed the commission, and he showed the commission a 60-foot tower and asked if there were available sites in the gaps where they could locate additional poles. It was as simple as that. The commission had the information and almost comprehensively he agreed they could go out with a consultant and the city could pro actively go out and find those property owners and convince them to find other spots on their property where they could go. Putting in a land use designation on a map didn't make a decision for a property owner to agree to do these things. It was really a matter of going out with a diagram and seeing where they could find a spot to fill that gap. Once they did that they fulfilled their obligation. As long as the city could identify doable sites where there was a willing property owner, then they have fulfilled their technological obligation to provide service. Chairperson Beaty didn't see that being a big probfem. If the financial incentive was there, there were sites available he was sure. Commissioner Campbell noted that with other applications the applicants were required to add five palm trees right next to the artificial one. She asked if it � would be appropriate for additional pine trees or more palm trees next to the � pine tree. Chairperson Beaty felt that was something else the Landscape Committee could review. He asked for a motion. Commissioner Jonathan recommended a continuance to give the applicant an opportunity to review the concerns raised tonight to see if there was something that the applicant could come back with that would meet the concerns. He agreed that ZORC needed to look at it, so he would suggest a continuance to the first meeting in July. Chairperson Beaty noted that was the 4th of July. Mr. Drell said that was something they would have to talk about later--whether the commission wanted to reschedule that meeting. Mr. Alvarez noted that the applicant and ARC both considered a palm tree versus a pine tree. If the commission wanted to give the applicant an opportunity to come back in two weeks with a different presentation with a lower height, they could take it back to ARC and have them look at it and return it back to the commission. Commissione� Campbell noted that way the applicant wouldn't have to wait for almost two months. Mr. Alvarez agreed and indicated that ZORC could still take up the issue of the ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan stated that a two-week continuance would be acceptable to him. Mr. Madrid stated that he would prefer two weeks and noted that they � had been working on this for over two years and they were interested � � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 r,,,, in moving forward as quickly as possible. He concurred that the question came up at ARC as to whether or not ARC would entertain two palm trees versus one pine tree, so if they could come back to the Planning Commission without going back to ARC, that was probably the route they would like to go if the Planning Commission was okay with that. Mr. Drell stated that ARC actually approved a 60-foot palm tree previously, so they had already expressed preferences for lower palm trees. He noted that it would be three weeks before the next Planning Commission meeting. He said that the applicant could come back with alternatives. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would prefer that it have the opportunity of going back to both ARC and the Landscape Committee if it didn't have the opportunity to go back before ZORC. Chairperson Beaty explained that the option they were giving the applicant, and the commission has approved plenty of 60 foot palm trees done correctly and that was an option. That didn't mean that the issue still couldn't go for a future use. Commissioner Finerty noted that there was also concern with the base. Some thoughts were that a round base would be similar to a palm tree, but that the date palm top hides the antennas better than Washingtonia Robusta. The Washingtonia Robusta comes with a round ir,,,, base and the date palms come with a square base so the Landscape Committee felt that ideally they would like to have a round base with a date pafm top. Mr. Madrid said that the vendors they worked with had a very nice product. The trunks were round and looked almost realistic and he was pretty certain that they could accommodate both the date palm and a king palm that they make. He would look into that and didn't think it would be an issue. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would make a motion to continue the matter to the first meeting in June, June 6. He said that for him personally, if the applicant came back with a palm tree, particularly if he had a material sample available and if the height was 60 feet, he would be very open to that kind of application. He noted that he has never seen a square tree and would prefer a round one. Mr. Drell noted that the one off of Cook Street was actually squa�e. Chairperson Beaty didn't think it was noticeable from a distance. Chairperson Beaty noted that if the applicant wished to pursue the pine tree design and wait to go though the necessary procedures that was an option too and they could continue it again at the June 6 meeting. �... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 � Commissioner Lopez stated that he would second the motion. Chairperson � Beaty noted that the public hearing would remain o�en. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, continuing Case No. CUP 99-13 to June 6, 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Drell if staff would move this forward to ZORC. Mr. Drell said yes and noted that they still had to examine the fundamental issues. When they adopted the ordinance, the goal was to have as few sites as possible. Naw, based upon the stealth technology they might be wanting to have more sites and a lower level. Chairperson Beaty informed commission that he was in Imperial Valley today and they didn't seem to care about stealth technology and the towers weren't attractive. They really stuck out when they weren't camouflaged at all. B. Case No. CUP 00-06 - NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Applicant � Request for approval of a conditional use permit to install a 65- � foot high wireless communication tower camouflaged as an artificial palm tree at 77-880 Country Club Drive. Mr. Alvarez explained that the site had a 20-acre commercial/industrial master plan for it which was approved by Planning Commission in December of 1998. The property was zoned Regional Planned Commercial and was bordered by I-10 on the north and other commercial/industrial properties to the east and west and a commercial property directly to the south. The proposal was for a 65-foot high wireless communication tower camouflaged as an artificial palm tree. The site would be located at the northeast corner of the commercial center in the rear adjacent to a required retention basin. The applicant would lease a 22' x 40' area adjacent to a CVWD well site. The site would have a 10' x 20' concrete equipment shelter with a maximum height of 10 feet. The tower would have 12 antennas mounted at 63 feet high and the antennas, similar to the project approved at Cook and Merle in the industrial zone, would be camouflaged as an artificial date palm with artificial date palm fronds. The pole surface would simulate a live palm tree trunk but was square, similar to a 60-foot square palm tree at Cook and Mer1e. ARC on Apri1 25 voted 6-0 with Commissioner Lingle absent to approve the project with the following j conditions. The applicant shall provide two live palm trees the heights of 40 ; � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 �,,,, and 45 feet adjacent to the artificial palm tree to create a cluster effect. The applicant shall add three to five additional live palm trees ranging from 40-45 feet around the lip of the retention basin and the applicant shall construct a minimum eight foot high slump stone block wall around the perimeter lease area. In terms of ordinance requirements, the project met the separation requirements and would meet the fencing requirements as required by ARC and the ordinance in the form of an eight-foot block wall. The height would be 65 feet maximum. The only issue staff had with the application would be the shape of the pole. The applicant was proposing a square pole and staff believed a round pole should be utilized to further enhance the simulation as a live palm tree. ARC's position was that at this location this far back behind buildings the shape of the pole would not be noticed and it was setback 410 feet from Country Club Drive. Staff's position has been and remains that a round pole should be utilized. The applicant would address that issue, but their preference was to use a round pole but the manufacturer of what they belief has the best artificial palm tree currently only provides a square pole. Washingtonia Robusta provided a round pole and commission approved one at the Palms to Pines shopping center with a height of 50 feet. Staff's position would be that Planning Commission approve the location of the tower at 65 � feet and that the applicant utilize a round pole. The project was a Class 3 ��., categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and no further documentation was necessary. Mr. Alvarez recommended approval, subject to the attached conditions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that M�. Alvarez's staff report indicated that staff added a condition requiring a round pole and asked him to point out which one it was. Mr. Alvarez reviewed the conditions and apologized that it wasn't there. He indicated that it would be added as condition 12. Chairperson Beaty o..�e� ned the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. BARBARA SIDELL, representing Nextel Communications, 310 Commerce in lrvine, addressed the commission and stated that she would like to give the commission a little bit of history. They had also been working on finding a candidate for approximately two years. They also went over to the area of the golf course and they went on the golf course at hole 13 which is right behind the homeowners association and they were also considering an 80-90 foot pole, but based on conversations with staff they decided not to go that route. She thought it was pretty obvious why they decided not to. They had to redesign i.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 3 tl their project and in conjunction with this facility they were planning on � another site in the Indian Wells area to provide the necessary coverage. Presuming they received approval tonight, they would continue with those plans. Should they not receive approval, they would probably see if they could co-locate on Sprint's pole. If it wasn't approved at the taller height, it would not be available for co-location or wouldn't meet their height needs and they would have to put in another pole some place else. She indicated that they were approved at ARC. She had a couple of handouts to give the commission. She wanted to discuss their proposed and existing coverage. The first set of handouts showed their existing coverage and the coverage they needed. It also showed two existing sites they have in the city of Palm Desert. One was located at Cook and Merle in a triangular shape. The other was a full circle in the EI Paseo area on a roof top. The next exhibit was the future coverage based on their proposed site. She explained that what they were trying to do with this site was twofold. There was a need for coverage in the area as indicated, but they also had a site on Indian Hill and since it was a tall site it did provide a lot of coverage. However, while it provided coverage, there were a finite number of users that could use the site at one time, even with the digital there was still a finite number. What happened was that the calls started to get blocked. They got busy signals, dropped calls and as Mr. Madrid explained before, the amount of absolute coverage started to shrink and didn't provide the necessary coverage. One of their objectives was to reduce the overall coverage of that tall site and one way to provide that extra coverage was to provide more sites down in the valley area. Additionally, when they have a tall site like that Nextel had a finite number of frequencies they could use. The way cellular radios operated was by using multiple frequencies and they could reuse those frequencies about every seven sites so if they put these in a row, at every seventh site they could use the same frequencies again. If they used them more often than that, their cell sites would start to cause interference with each other. There was no easy explanation why they do the things they do. They had a whole department that just sits down to figure out what they're trying to do and the most efficient way to do it. The efficiency included the frequencies, the number of sites, the heights of the sites, the location of the sites and a myriad of other things that were more technical in nature. For this site in particular, she indicated that Mr. Alvarez included a couple of photographs of a Washingtonia Robusta mono palm and their infamous square mono palm � at Cook Street. She said she had another photograph to show the � � � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 `,�, commission of a site in the Santa Margarita area in the County of Orange. It wasn't actually in the incorporated area. One of these trees existed and one was proposed. The owner of the property indicated they wanted them to use the exact same tree, so that was what the commission would see. This was a date palm with a round trunk and it was made out of steel like a mono pole and it had kind of a rubberized bark that simulated an authentic palm tree. Should the commission decide they wanted a round trunk, she would suggest this particular date palm be utilized. It was a little more symmetrical in its shape and it did have a tendency to hide the antennas a little better than the Washingtonia Robusta though her favorite was still the square palm because it had more fronds and gave some background to the antennas so they weren't absolutely seeing through the trees if they do it right. She noted that one of the conditions of approval was to add two trees to cluster with the mono palm and that was not a problem. On their photo simulation there were a couple of trees added. The other condition was to add three to five more palms and she showed the commission a couple of exhibits. The first one was a portion of the landscape plan that the developer was utilizing. She pointed out the retention basin and pointed out where the poie wouid be located. She �„ noted that there were a lot of trees along there, some Acacias, some Chilean Mesquites, and a palo verde. She got out her Sunset Garden Book and some of these trees grow 40 and 50 feet tall so there was quite a bit of foliage along there of varying heights. She asked that they not be required to add the additional palm trees. Most of the palms in the project were near the front of the project as they drive through the streets. The access to this area was just on a single street, there was a cul-de-sac and then there was a smaller street that went back there which was mostly utilized by delivery trucks. She felt it would not be a frequently used right-of-way by any means. Additionally, she indicated there was another 60-foot tower that was to the west of their facility. There was another industrial/commercial complex that had been built and she took some photographs from Country Club Drive back toward that area. She thought the development there was similar in scale and she noted that the facility could not be seen from Country Club Drive based on the perspective. She requested that since there was lush vegetation being installed back at the retention basin, an additional three to five palms wouldn't really add any value to the project so she would like to be relieved of that condition. If it suited the commission's purpose to have a round pole, she suggested that they be approved subject to using that date palm r�.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 $ with the two tive palms. She didn't believe the Washingtonia Robusta � screened the antennas as well. Chairperson Beaty asked how many antennas Ms. Sidell thought they would ultimately need to have to give the Coachella Valley complete coverage. Ms. Sidell said that was impossible for her to answer. The Southern California market, which included the eight counties not including San Diego and Imperial Valley, had 1 ,000 sites. There were all varieties and they had to service very urban areas like Los Angeles and very non- urban outlying areas like I-15 and I-10 toward Ariiona. Chairperson Beaty asked if the number of sites was dictated by the number of ' customers. Ms. Sidell said it was based somewhat on their number of customers. The customers travel and that was the whole point of having mobile phones. Nextel not only provided cellular coverage but they also provided dispatch. That was utilized by a lot of companies and a lot of small businesses just in their daily business. It was utilized by people � going into neighborhoods for deliveries, plumbers and trucking � companies. Chairperson Beaty asked what type of antenna was used for the two-way radio communication. Ms. Sidell said it was the same set of antennas. The stations that they installed, the wireless facilities like the proposal, did both the cellular type of communication and the dispatch, as wetl as data transmission and paging. It was all grouped into one and they had one instrument, or one phone that was used instead of several instruments. Chairperson Beaty pointed out that there was a problem with Nextel right now. While the two-way communication was excellent, the celt communication was very spotty and weak. Ms. Sidell said that was what they were trying to improve. She said they weren't at the bottom of the line and they ranked very high nationwide for their coverage, but in the Coachella Valley it was tough. Different carriers when they started their projects looked at a way of � evolving their projects differently, AT&T and Verizon, started 10 or 12 � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 ,,,�,,, years ago so their systems were a lot more mature than the other three companies, Nextel, Sprint and PacBell Wireless Services. When they first started about seven years ago, Nextel's main objective was to cover the well-traveled highways like I-10. They had a mandate from the Federal Government to provide coverage through their entire coverage area so it may have been sporadic, but it covered a wide area. As time has gone on, they had been adding sites to not only fill in the holes, but to add capacity because they were gaining a lot of customers. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Alvarez about the size of the landscaping around the basin and if they were going to be 24" boxes or 10 gallon containers. Mr. Alvarez said that all the trees would be a minimum of 24" box in the retention basin area. Commissioner Campbell noted that they would take a while to grow and she could see where ARC would want to go ahead and put some extra palm trees there. Mr. Alvarez said that the intent of the ARC was to create clustering effects in that back area. He thought the trees would take 2-5 years to get up to 40 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked about the height of the buildings that would be adjacent to the basin. Mr. Alvarez said that the maximum height in the zone was 35 feet, but didn't `„ recall the height that was approved. Commissioner Campbell said that if ARC requested that these palm trees be placed there and they would only be about 40-45 feet high, again as Mr. Drell was saying the only thing they would see is the top of the trees and nothing else. Mr. Alvarez pointed out that a car wash would be locating at the northeast corner of the site back along Desert Country Circle, so customers visiting that site could potentially see that site since it was directly in back of it. From Country Club they wouldn't be able to see them. Commissioner Campbell said that otherwise, it wouldn't be necessary to ask the applicant for any additional trees besides having the two trees right next to the mono pole. Commissioner Finerty added that at the ARC meeting on April 25 it was Commissioner Conner who noted that the landscape plan for this commercial center had no palm trees at afi in this area and it was suggested that some other palm trees be incorporated in the center's landscape plan so that these palms weren't the only palms in the area and she believed that was why the additional 3-5 live date palms were to be planted around the retention basin. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be other palm trees in the project. Mr. Alvarez said there were quite a few along the entrance to the project coming in from Country Club. Commissioner Lopez asked as a point of clarification if in the line of site from Country Club to the palm trees if they would be able to see them from Country � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 i � Club Drive with the buildings there. Mr. Alvarez said the distance from + Country Club to the site was 410 feet. At that line of site with structures 30 � feet high they wouldn't be able to see it from Country Club. Commissioner Lopez said they would be able to see them from the road behind the buildings. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Mr. Drell said what they would see would be the tops of them which was why ARC didn't think that the shape of the pole was that important since most of the pole would be obscured by the buildings. Commissioner Campbell said she didn't notice that this other pole was square, but she did notice that they untied the live palm tree. Ms. Sidell said that the trees were planted tied and they were supposed to naturally break and about 10% of the trees didn't do that so they tried to give them as much time as possible to do that. Unfortunately she thought 10% was a high number and they had been cutting a lot of them. Commissioner Lopez noted that the tower at Cook was 60 feet and asked why the applicant would need 65 feet for this particular pole. Ms. Sidell answered that it was because there was a row of eucalyptus r between the site and the freeway and they were just trying to top over � those trees. She said it wouldn't be seen from the freeway because of the perspective. Commissioner Campbell said that with all the pictures the commission had been looking at which one Ms. Sidell would recommend to be the best to camouflage the antenna. Ms. Sidell said it would be the one they used on Cook Street, which was the square one; however, it was up to the commission. Mr. Drell indicated that in one of the pictures, the chamfered one had a little bit of a softer edge than the precision square one. He asked if she was proposing the chamfered edge. Ms. Sidell said she could. Commissioner Finerty asked if that came with the square base. ; i � 2� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 �,,., Ms. Sidell said yes, it had to do with the structural integrity of the tree. It was a laminated wood not just a log they cored the middle out of; it was laminated the who(e way. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would be able to see if it was square or round. Ms. Sidell said that from a distance, the average passerby would see it, but if they could tell the difference they had better eyes than she does. Commissioner Lopez asked which top she would suggest. Ms. Sidell said that she likes the fronds at the top of the square tree. They kind of went hand in hand. They couldn't just take one top and use a different trunk. The Washingtonia Robusta was on a round steel mono pole and it had a painted exterior. It wasn't a solid color. The other one in the photo had the simulated bark on it. Regarding the longevity and life of this product, a lot of these were used in Las Vegas and they had been used on the casinos and have had a very good life cycle. Again, they would take a condition regarding maintenance if �.. there appeared to be a problem with the appearance of the tree. 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 comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan felt that staff hit it right on and he was in concurrence with all the recommendations including the round pole. He felt the best fake • tree the commission has seen so far was the material sample provided at the last meeting and the applicant indicated that they have access to that or something similar, which would produce something similar to what was in the photo, which had fake tree fronds that provided the best shielding. As well the round pole had a material that was very real looking. He was in concurrence with all of staff's recommendations including the round pole, the bunching of two tive palm trees and the 3-5 additional trees around the retention basin. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissione� Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no1. She explained that it was because of the �... 21 MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 1 height. The commission has approved 50 feet and 60 feet poles and she � wouid like 60 feet to be the maximum►. J It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1989, approving Case No. CUP 00-06, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no1. C. Case No. PP 00-04 - L.V. INVESTMENTS, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Dec(aration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design to allow the construction of two industrial buildings totaling 12,766 and 4,900 square feet on four parcels. The properties are zoned Service Industrial and total 43,500 square feet. The properties are located on the east side of Beacon Hill, 500 feet south of Hovley Lane East. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the project was located in the Service Industrial District at 42-100 Beacon Hill. It consisted of four lots that back up to the Coachella Valley Water District waste water treatment facility to the east. He � noted that plans were on display. He said the property was currently vacant � and undeveloped. The precise plan request was for the construction of two industrial buildings. Building 1 was located on the southerly three lots and totaled 12,766 square feet. This building had both single and two story elements. Maximum height was 26 feet. The applicant was Napa Auto Parts. Seventy percent of the building consisted of wholesale delivery of auto parts to auto repair facilities and 30% was for walk-in clientele. The business had 12 employees and six delivery vehicles. The building would be a tilt up concrete structure, have recessed windows and detailing and the building would meet the required setbacks for the Industrial zone. ARC granted preliminary approval for Building 1 on April 11, 2000. The motion carried 6-1 with Commissioner Conner dissenting. Preliminary approval was subject to comments by the Landscape Manager regarding some modification to the landscaping. Building 2 was located on the northern parcel and would be on a single parcel. The building would total 4,766 square feet with a maximum height of 20 feet. The building would be a tilt up concrete panel structure. The building would have 20% ancillary office use and 80% warehouse use. ARC reviewed this building on April 11 and continued it to allow the applicant to address the issue of architectural detailing. The application was revised and brought before the commission on May 9. Changes made included adding � some pop outs on the front elevations. ARC stated that they were looking for ; � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 `,,, a little bit more detailing than just the pop outs. After discussion Chairperson Gregory moved to grant preliminary approval subject to reducing the height of the entry or corner of the building, increasing the massing of the pop outs on the front elevation. That motion failed 3-4. Commissioners Conner, Lingle, O'Donnell and Van Vliet dissenting. Commissioner O'Donnell subsequently indicated that he would like to see the plans return to the commission with the requested changes before approval was granted. There were suggestions and even some sketches produced by the commission indicating the direction they would like to see the building go. The applicant had no problems with that. He just had to go back with those revised modifications. The motion to continue Building 2 was passed 7-0, Regarding access and parking, Mr. Alvarez explained that the subject properties were located off of Beacon Hill. Building 1 , Napa Auto Parts, would have two ingress/egress points off of Beacon Hill. The northern parking lot would primarily serve walk-in clientele. The southerly parking lot would be the service delivery truck area and employee parking. There was a concern about truck turn arounds. Staff spoke with the applicant and the applicant indicated that primarily all of their auto parts were delivered UPS or Federal Express. A percentage was picked up, but the trucks did not exceed those types of sizes. Also, the southern parking lot did have turn around ability. That was the area they would �., primarily use. In.terms of parking, Building 2 was parked adequately to meet the general industrial parking requirement of two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. With a 20% ancillary office use maximum, Building 2 had adequate parking. Building 1 totaled 7,766 square feet and was entitled to the 15% reduction for nonusable space, which was for restrooms, storage, utilities, stairwells and common areas. With that reduction the building was left with 10,851 square feet. He noted that Napa Auto Parts was 70% wholesale delivery and 30% retail. When using the strictly retail parking requirement of four spaces per 1 ,000 the building would require 43 offstreet parking spaces. The site provided for a total of 41 offstreet parking spaces which translated to a 3.8/1,000 parking ratio. Again, with the mix of the use at 70% wholesale delivery as illustrated on the plans and in the floor plans staff felt that was adequate to meet the needs of this user and in the future if a strictly industrial use were put in, staff would limit it to 20% ancillary office use and then work backwards to achieve the parking requirement for the warehouse area. He believed that using a higher standard than just the two per 1,000 at 3.8 would be adequate to meet the needs of this structure. Both buildings met the requirements for setbacks and development standards for the Service Industrial zone. Staff's recommendation was approval of the land use for both buildings with Building 2 being returned to ARC for preliminary approval and if Planning Commission wanted to see it back, staff would bring � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 a � it back at that time. For purposes of CEQA, a Negative Declaration of � Environmental Impact was prepared and staff recommended approval, subject to the attached conditions. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the project did not have preliminary approval from ARC at this point on Building 1 , Napa Auto Parts, the larger building. Mr. Alvarez said it was Building 2, the smaller building, that didn't have approval. Commissioner Campbell noted that they didn't know what business was going to locate in Building 2. Mr. Alvarez said there was no tenant proposed. It would be a general warehouse user. Commissioner Campbell reiterated that Napa Auto Parts has 12 employees so they would be there daily and then there were six delivery vehicles that would go in and out. Mr. Alvarez said that was correct. Chairperson Beaty o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT H. RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place in Suite A, Palm ' Desert, stated that the Napa Auto Parts building was a tremendous plus � to Palm Desert. The building they were in now is on St. Charles Place a couple of doors down from his office, which was a very small building. He said they had done a really nice job here and way over car parked it. The applicant bought a lot more property than he needed to and so he was really doing a nice thing for the community in that area. He wasn't trying to get away with anything. He basically had a straightforward structure and they basically took parts in and sent them out on the wholesale vehicles. His vehicle yard was way over car parked and the people that come and buy parts were only there a short time. They came for a battery or something for their cars and then were gone. At the present location on St. Charles Place he had never seen the parking lot filled and they have half the cars there. He thought it was a good project. They tried to make it nice looking and varied it a little bit with the colors rather than just having one color and using the tilt up panels. The back part was the tilt up and the front part would be done out of stucco. The single story building would be stucco similar ! to one on Melanie Place. That way they could make the project work � and work well. By having the single story up front and the two stories � in the back, there was a nice stepping arrangement on Building 1 . Building 2, the upper one, was actually going to be developed by a man " � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 ,�„ named Brian Orr. He would become the owner of that building in time. With the ARC, they for some reason decided they didn't want to see tilt up buildings where there was a normal 20-22 foot high building facing the street. They wanted to see a little architectural detailing or articulation. In this particular case they had been in a kind of drag out knock out with them because they wanted to see something that blended with the first building, so they added the pop outs to blend with the pop outs on the first building. At the last meeting they wanted to see a little more articulation. As an architect, he didn't think it would make the building better looking. It would make it strange looking. They had a whole bunch of these buildings that were done in the past over in the Country Club Business Park. In fact, they just had one approved by Planning Commission and ARC and that was the J.D. Mechanical Building, which was very similar to this. It had no overhangs on it and it was approved by ARC and Planning Commission. Regarding the Architectural Review Board, it has changed and has three new members and had gone from five members to seven. Ron Gregory was an alternate and was made a permanent member. They were talking about tilt up buildings and warehouses. He felt they went hand in hand. They do concrete block or tilt up. Lately because they had �,,., been doing some smaller single story buildings only 16 feet high, they had been using the wood stud and plaster look and used color. He noted that AIA gave an award to a firm in Mexico because of their use of colors. They used bold, splashing buildings with color, similar to one done by Guy Evans near the freeway. He felt the proposed project was appropriate for the area and requested approval of the project with the condition that Building 2 go back to the Architectural Review Commission for approval. He said that both Building 1 and Building 2 were the same color and same building design and didn't compete with one another. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. FLOYD VALE, the owner of Napa Auto Parts and L.V. Investments, LLC, addressed the commission. He informed commission that he owns five stores in the valley. The store on St. Charles Place had 16 or 17 parking spaces. He said they over built this project and even if they were to leave it would still be usable for anyone else. He indicated that each store services a certain radius. He didn't feel there would be any negative impact on the parking. He felt the building would be adequate �r... 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 � for the next 20 to 40 years of future growth. He noted that population � and demographics would change with the addition of another store. He said this building was one of the most expensive. A lot of money was spent because of the location and inventory he keeps in stock and he was very proud of the building and felt it was one of the nicer looking buildings there. Commissioner Campbell asked for and received clarification that.there would be sidewalks. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments and/or action. Commissioner Campbell suggested approving Building 1 and waiting on Building 2 until it went back through the architectural commission. Chairperson Beaty indicated that he personally was not worried about it coming back after ARC approval. He felt that a condition requiring architectural commission's approval would be fine and he didn't need to see it. Commissioner Campbell said that would be okay with her, also. � Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't have a problem with the parking � issue and concurred with staff that there was adequate offstreet parking. He � said that he was concerned about the quality of the subsmittals and what staff was using to base their recommendations on. Regarding this specific project, he was very concerned with the aesthetics. He felt the plans were bland and uninspired and stated that it didn't take a lot of money to make it look more interesting. He personally wanted to see what changes the Architectural Commission was going to require so that he knew what the buildings would look like when the project was built. He pointed out that this was one project and didn't feel it was appropriate to separate the two buildings. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She felt that this was a case of them having the cart before the horse. A project was supposed to receive Architectural Commission approval prior to going before the Planning Commission. Problems occurred every time there was a deviation. She was in favor of a continuance. Chairperson Beaty reopened the public hearing before entertaining a motion for continuance. _ � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 +`,. Commissioner Jonathan explained that he was in favor of continuing both buildings because this was one project and the changes related to the design of both Buildings 1 and 2. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to continue PP 00-04 to June 6, 2000 to allow the applicant to obtain Architectural Commission approval. Motion failed on a 2-3 vote. Chairperson Beaty, Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Campbell voting no. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked if there was a motion for approval of both buildings. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Finerty and Jonathan voted no1. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1990, approving Case No. PP �r.. 00-04, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Finerty and Jonathan voted no1. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No rr�eeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMtTTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (May 16, 2000) Commissioner Finerty indicated that the committee's discussion items had been brought up earlier tonight. � 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 ', E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (May 15, 2000) � Discussion involved the regional park and it was noted that the neighborhood park at Palm Desert Country Club was underway. F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (May 10, 2000) Commissioner Campbell indicated that the moratorium on accessory structures was discussed. XI. COMMENTS 1 . Mr. Drell informed commission that a committee was being formed to interview consultants who would complete a general plan update and a Planning Commissioner was being requested to participate on the committee. Commissioner Jonathan volunteered to serve on the ' committee. � 2. Commissioner Jonathan requested that staff place on a future agenda a discussion item to discuss the quality and consistency of architectural plans and renderings that the commission receives in their packets. He felt that they were receiving inadequate renderings and because of that they didn't know what the projects would look like that were receiving approval. He stated that he always wanted the Architectural Commission to review projects before the coming to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Finerty concurred. She pointed out that applicants knew when the Planning Commission meetings were held and could schedule their projects accordingly. She felt it should be placed on an agenda to discuss a specific policy. ; .rrl 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 2000 '`" XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: � a,u.c_ PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm �.n �ro 29