Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0606 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 6, 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 Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. 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, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the May 16, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the May 16, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 25, 2000 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS r,,,, None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 s g VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-07 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the south lot line of Lot 16 to include the entire sewer easement onto one lot on Silver Canyon Lane. B. Case No. PMW - 00-08 - JACK BANOCZI, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for Lots 63 and 64 of Tract 4018 to add to Lot 63, 38-430 Zanzibar Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. 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. VAR 00-01 - DAVID AND ROSALINA REYES, Applicants (Continued from May 2, 2000) Request for approval of a variance to the required front setback from 14 feet to 3 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-290 Indiana Avenue, APN 637-243-002. Mr. Drell explained that this item was continued pending a referral to the Palm Desert Country Club Association. They reviewed it and recommended that the variance not be approved. Staff's position was that the required findings could not be met and recommended denial. Commissioner asked Mr. Alvarez to ask Mr. Reyes if he would be interested in having a one-car carport with the side entry driveway instead. Mr. Alvarez noted that he and Commissioner Campbell discussed earlier in the day the possibility of reducing the depth of the carport and trying to create a greater 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 r.. setback and possibly providing a single car with a circular or side entry access. He pointed out that it would still require a variance because in order to meet the required setback of 14 feet, the carport would have to be reduced 11 feet and that would leave only 4 feet of coverage or carport structure. He suggested asking the applicant if he would be willing to do that. Mr. Drell concurred that the variance would not be as severe and would have a little better chance of approval. Chairperson Beaty indicated that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the commission. (Mr. Alvarez interpreted for the applicant.) MR. DAVID REYES, 77-290 Indiana Avenue, saia he would basically not prefer to do a side entry with only one car. His intent was to cover two cars as required by the ordinance. He said that his carport was similar to one at 77-310 Wyoming and it had the exact same setback. Mr. Alvarez informed the applicant that staff didn't know if that property location received a permit to build that structure. The applicant said he wanted to make the commission aware of that situation. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION on this item. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move to follow staff's recommendation. She felt it was very important that the Homeowners' Association basically have the lead role since their role was to protect the property values and to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. That was the whole purpose of the CC&R's and she believed they were filling their fiduciary responsibility and she would not want to be in conflict with the wishes of the homeowners in the area. She would move that the variance be denied. Commissioner Campbell also concurred with staff's recommendation of denial, but she thought that Mr. Reyes was in a predicament because everything was approved by the city twice and only the third time was it shown that it was not properly done. Now he would have to tear everything down. He did the construction himself, so he didn't have to pay anyone for labor, but in some way he should be compensated. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification from staff that the applicant followed proper procedure in constructing the structure or if it was possible that he followed proper procedure. Mr. Drell explained that the problem stemmed perhaps from a communication problem when he drew up his plans in terms of describing the distance between the property line and the edge of the carport. The planner that approved the plan was under the impression that there was adequate setback and noted on the plan what the setback should have been from the curb to the carport. Unfortunately the applicant didn't fully understand what was required or what those notations on his approval meant based on the assumption that there was 41 feet between the curb and the building. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would reluctantly concur with comments from his fellow commissioners and he would be in agreement with the staff report and staff conclusion. He said reluctantly for two reasons. He felt there was some miscommunication and he would urge the city to investigate the possibility that there was some responsibility on the city's part for the miscommunication and in that event he hoped they would rectify any financial inequity. The second reason was there was a situation in Palm Desert Country Club where some, and possibly including the structure on Wyoming, had been constructed without due process so there were some inconsistencies out there and he would very much like to see the Homeowners Association address that issue. They have a situation where development came in under the County so technically the houses didn't meet zoning standards which requires a two-car garage, so there was a situation there that with some planning this wouldn't have to happen again. Commissioner Lopez also concurred. He said that in driving around the neighborhood, there seemed to be a lot of inconsistencies pertaining to structures in front of the house or on the side of homes and he thought it was the responsibility of the homeowners association to become much more actively involved in what was going on in the area. He didn't think it was the Planning Commission's mission to go against what was currently part of the CC&R's relating to the variance and he would support staff's recommendation. Chairperson Beaty said he was in concurrence with the other commissioners and suggested that the commission direct staff and the Homeowners Association to investigate the Wyoming structure. He also requested that Mr. Alvarez relate to Mr. Reyes that everyone would like to have shaded parking this time of year. He said he has a similar problem so he planted two trees, which required some care, but he did receive shade except for about one hour per day. He asked for a motion. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Alvarez explained to the applicant the comments and action by the commission. Mr. Alvarez informed the commission that Mr. Reyes said he understood, but he would like to potentially pursue this matter to see if he could get compensated for some of the costs of the materials and investment he put into the house. Mr. Alvarez said he told Mr. Reyes to contact staff the next day or later in the week. Mr. Drell stated that Mr. Reyes was also entitled to appeal the decision to the City Council. Mr. Alvarez explained the appeal process to the applicant. Mr. Alvarez asked if Mr. Reyes should contact staff or the City Attorney. Mr. Drell explained that Mr. Reyes had to file an appeal to exhaust his entire administrative process. Mr. Alvarez explained those comments to Mr. Reyes. Mr. Reyes indicated that he understood. Chairperson Beaty asked Mr. Alvarez to make an appointment with Mr. Reyes for the next day to more fully explain and walk him through the process. Commissioner Campbell suggested that Mr. Reyes also reconsider changing the variance in some way. Mr. Alvarez asked the applicant to contact him the next day to discuss the process. Mr. Reyes said concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1991 , denying Case No. VAR 00-01 . Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 00-06 - ROBERT RICCIARDI for JOHN OATEY AND MARY OATEY, Applicants (Continued from May 2, 2000) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan to construct a 7,430 square foot medical office building located at 10 Village Court. Mr. Drell explained that this item was continued because the applicant wasn't present and there were some questions about the architecture. Subsequent to that as a result of going through the Architectural Commission, some carports had to be added to comply with the city's parking lot shading requirement. The applicant's architect had proposed that carports be constructed in front of the building which would have been on the west elevation. As it turned out, that addition had not been approved by the 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 Association for that commercial center and the commission had a letter from Mr. Schmid, who was the representative of the Village Court Landscape Committee, requesting that the carports be relocated to the sides of the building which would be the south and north elevations and that was acceptable to staff. The Association also requested that the applicant construct three triangular landscape islands in the parking lot immediately west of the building. Mr. Drell noted that the revised plan that staff had didn't show those planters (Mr. Ricciardi concurred) and staff's conclusion was that because the canopy of the overhang of the building came right out to the edge of the parking lot/parking spaces, there physically wasn't any room to put in a tree. Even if they put a triangle out into the parking a tree was still typically planted in the middle of a planter and that point would still be under the overhang of the building. Shrubs and small plants could be planted under the overhand with no problem so staff would be amenable after actually seeing a reasonable design for a planter in that location. From the rest of the letter, although it wasn't explicit, they appeared to be approving the plan with the addition of the carports on the north and south sides. Mr. Drell explained that staff had recommended a continuance based on the uncertainty of the position of the Landscape Committee. With these clarifications, Mr. Drell believed that the project could be approved. The commission received a copy of the original resolution of approval. Based on this revision, staff recommended approval. Chairperson Beaty indicated the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB RICCIARDI noted that the owner's representative was present, Mr. La Tourette. MR. PETER LA TOURETTE, 72-445 Desert Flower Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he was on the Landscape Architectural Committee for Village Court and he verified what Mr. Drell said. He said that yes, they definitely would not like to see carports along the west property line, which was Village Court. They wanted to maintain a continuous landscaped area all along that line and keep the carports to the north, south or east of the property. Mr. Drell asked if in other respects the committee had approved the plans as submitted. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 a� Mr. La Tourette said that was correct, as submitted except for the carports along the west side. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. La Tourette if the issues that were brought up earlier about the "sameness" of aesthetics, the quality of construction, etc., had been resolved. Mr. La Tourette concurred. Mr. Ricciardi said that he hoped that the application would be approved tonight. What they had here were two planning commissions: the city and the homeowners association. The homeowners association, even though it said in the staff report that they would welcome different types of architecture or a variety, the variety had to have the same motif. That was why this building and the one the commission approved at a previous meeting (the Franklin Loan Center) had the same motif. That meant the same type of arches, the same type of roof, and therefore while this homeowners association liked variety, they wanted the same detailing. They could change where the overhang comes out, change the length or width of the arches, but they had to be arches and they had to have the same detailing around the arches, around the windows and around the roof. Even though they talked about variety, it was like talking about roses. They had to be roses rather than some other type of plant. They were in agreement with staff and he felt they had worked everything out now. He suggested working with staff at the staff level regarding the planters. The homeowners association would like to see some planters on the west side which they could do. He didn't think the planters would be able to accommodate a tree, but at least they could work out with staff on where they could place the planters on the west side so they could plant something low like Mexican fan palms and a little variety of species rather than just something that grows lower and becomes a hedge. He wanted the ability to work that out with staff and if part of the conditions of approval were to put in these planters on the west side so they could do something nice for the homeowners association that would be great. He said they would be putting in the carports on the north and south side which would take care of the shading problem for parking and would make it nicer. He thought the city was encouraging developers to use as many shade structures as possible. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 a Commissioner Campbell asked if the carports would have solid roofs or a trellis type of roof. Mr. Ricciardi said that what was in the surrounding area, and Mr. Schmid was the developer of the building next door, were metal carports. What they would do is put on a special Styrofoam trim that has detailing that matched the detailing on the top of the roof parapet, but it would be metal. He felt that metal had really proven to be the best and lasted a long time. Wood carports after a while deteriorated and needed a lot of maintenance and in time they had to be replaced because they didn't hold up. He noted that some cities wouldn't allow the metal carports, but Palm Desert did and he felt they worked the best over the long run and provided the best shade because they were solid. Commissioner Finerty noted that in the past there was a problem in the city when trees were planted in too small of an area and the trees died. Mr. Drell said that was correct and that was why staff was not suggesting that these planters be expected to accommodate trees. These would be large shrub planters or dwarf palms; something like that. Commissioner Finerty indicated that the homeowners association letter said that surely there were any number of tree types that could safely fit into this much smaller area. Mr. Drell stated that hadn't been staff's experience. Certain very hardy desert varieties would. In this particular situation the complication was a roof structure that would prevent a tree with any canopy to grow up past it. There were a number of constraints that would prevent trees being planted on that side of the building. He felt that Palm Desert's and Indian Wells' experience had both been that a lot of the trees survived, but they were generally dwarfed in those small planters. Commissioner Finerty said she knew that the city was working with some shopping centers to try and get ordinance compliance because the trees that had gone in there had not been the proper type and therefore were more dwarfed and were not meeting the shade requirement that the city was hoping for and wondered if this would present the same type of problem. Mr. Drell said no. Here all of the planters with trees in them met city standards. What the association was asking for was to continue to allow the small planters and the city said that if there wasn't room to plant a tree adequately, they would rather not plant trees there at all. Mr. Ricciardi stated that they were basically meeting all the ordinance requirements for shading with the carports. Putting the planters on the 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 west side was to allow some planting for the developer or homeowners association. Chairperson Beaty asked staff if the final recommendation was for approval. Mr. Drell recommended approval with the wording added onto Condition No. 10 that additional shrub planters be included on the west side of the building. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan felt that Mr. Ricciardi had put together a good product and that all other earlier concerns had been addressed and he was prepared to move for approval. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would second that. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner tam Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1992 approving PP 00-06, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 99-13 - SPRINT, PCS, Applicant (Continued from May 16, 2000) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to install a 65- foot high wireless communication tower located within the Palm Desert Country Club Homeowners Association recreation facility at 77-800 California Drive. Mr. Alvarez noted that on May 16, 2000 this public hearing was continued to allow the applicant to consider some of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Those recommendations included reducing the height of the tower, using an artificial palm tree design and providing material samples. Those three items had been addressed. There was a photograph on display of an artificial palm tree which the applicant had chosen to utilize. The proposed tower would have an antenna height of 68 feet. The palm tree fronds would extend five to 10 feet above that as would a normal palm tree. The trunk would be round and would simulate artificial bark. The applicant r.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 would provide the material samples as requested by the commission. The location of the site was the same. Two existing 45-foot palm trees in the general area would be relocated near the artificial palm tree. In terms of the ordinance requirements, Mr. Alvarez indicated that the project met all the communication tower zoning ordinance requirements. Condition 9 was added requiring the construction of an eight-foot block wall around the perimeter of the site to screen all associated mechanical equipment. Staff believed that the applicant had addressed the commission's concerns regarding height and type of tree and recommended approval subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution. Chairperson Beaty noted that the request was for 65 feet and the proposal said 68 feet plus an additional 10 which totaled 78. Mr. Alvarez explained that the top of centerline was 65 feet, the top of the antenna was 68 feet and then the palm fronds would extend above that. Chairperson Beaty asked if the definition of a 65 foot high palm tree was where the trunk stopped. Mr. Alvarez said they were measuring the tower, which was at 68. Chairperson Beaty said it looked like they were looking at a 78-foot tree. Mr. Drell said that to disguise it that was correct. Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was still open and asked the Ind applicant to address the commission. MR. ADAN MADRID, the applicant, thanked the commission for the opportunity to address them. As indicated by staff, he had material samples he wanted to share with the commission. He showed the commission two different types of bark that were available and which could be used interchangeably and a sample of a palm frond. He said it would be a solid structure extending beyond 68 feet with fronds that stick up sporadically. He said he spoke to the vendors about this product and there was a pretty good warrantee on the product. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification as to what constituted a pretty good warrantee. Mr. Madrid said it meant they would warrantee it for about five years. Anything beyond that was the owner's responsibility. He assumed the commission would want this to look good for however many years it was out there and they were more than willing to accept that. He noted that there was some concern regarding the height. He said the 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 antenna centerline would be at 65 feet as indicated by staff. Each panel antenna was about six feet in length which meant the tops of the antennas would extend an additional three feet beyond that centerline which brought it up to 68 feet. The tops of the antennas were really the only element of the design that they could truly control. They couldn't really control where the palm fronds would ultimately bend and hang exactly. Looking at the drawings he submitted, he pointed out that the palm fronds that extend up above the antennas wouldn't really give it the appearance of being a very tall structure. What it did was make it look more natural. The centerline was 65 feet tall and the top of the antenna was at 68 feet. When talking about a structure in the 60-foot range, he thought an additional two or three feet was really minor and shouldn't have an impact on its appearance. As indicated by staff, the pole was round and unlike a lot of the palm trees he had seen out there, this particular vendor provided a growth pod (or pineapple) which gave it more of a realistic king palm look. He said he discussed with staff some minor modifications he would like to see to the conditions of approval. Not necessarily to the intent of the conditions, but to provide consistency since they had progressed from a pine tree to a palm tree. On condition number four, it read prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval the applicant shall first obtain permits or clearance from the Architectural Review Commission. He wasn't sure how they needed to handle that since they had already received approval for the pine tree. He hoped he wouldn't have to go back since ARC had seen these types of installations in the past. He thought the overall consensus was that they didn't have to go back, but that needed to be addressed in the resolution. Condition number five basically stipulated that they would allow for co-location. They were willing to do that with the pine tree, but for practical reasons they couldn't do that with a palm tree. He suggested that the conditions be stricken. He said the other conditions were acceptable to them and asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked if the palm trees shown in the diagram on exhibit A-3 were to scale with the height of the antenna. Mr. Madrid said he hoped that the architects would have done that, but he couldn't tell them for sure that they were. In visiting the site, he thought the existing palm trees appeared to be about right. On the LS-1 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 4 survey it said they were about 47 feet tall. He thought the architects did them an injustice by not drawing them a little bit taller. Mr. Drell agreed that they looked more like half instead of two-thirds of the height and he pointed out that the advantage of the living trees was they would grow. He noted that there were palm trees in Palm Desert that were more than 100 feet tall. Mr. Madrid thought that the commission would really like this vendor. He showed a photograph of what the trees would actually look like. He said that since 1995 these types of installations had improved and gotten better. As an industry, they appreciated that the vendors have gone to the effort of making these things better because it made their lives a lot easier. He felt that this vendor had a very good product. Chairperson Beaty asked Mr. Alvarez about the existing tree height. Mr. Alvarez said that just by looking at the survey, there were 47 foot palm trees in the general vicinity. Chairperson Beaty noted that there was a clump of three trees in front of the building, one of which was extremely high. Mr. Alvarez said the one in front he measured at 39 feet. The one immediately to the west was 50 feet and the palm trees in the cluster were 45-47 feet high. Mr. Madrid said that the trees that Chairperson Beaty was talking about were not surveyed and were very tall, but as a reference point he said that to the far west on the golf course there was a cluster of pine trees and those trees were 70 feet tall. 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. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Drell for his opinion on eliminating condition number 4. Mr. Alvarez noted that ARC had previously approved other palm trees at similar heights. Mr. Drell pointed out that ARC approved a 60-foot high palm tree at this site and since ARC had approved a palm tree design at this site, the Planning Commission was approving a slightly taller one and in that case it would not have to go back. Commissioner Jonathan felt that Planning Commission's job was to have a second look at a project, they made their changes and if necessary the council took a third look and made changes. He did not feel it was necessary for the applicant to go back to ARC every i time changes were made. Mr. Drell agreed. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 r.. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was very pleased with the revisions. He thought they were getting a far superior product compared to what was first presented. He felt that it looked so good he hoped it would serve as the model for future antennas. He had no problem with deleting condition numbers four and five of the Department of Community Development conditions and would move for approval at the appropriate time. Commissioner Finerty felt they were moving in the right direction and she certainly liked the round base, the pineapple feature, and definitely preferred the palm tree design and thought that the samples provided were adequate. She was still concerned with the height ranging from 68 to 78 feet tall. She mentioned before that this would be going to the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee on June 14 and it seemed like they were up to almost 80 feet high again and in her opinion that was too high. They had other wireless towers in the city ranging from 45 to 60 feet which apparently did the job so she would like to see the cap at 60 feet. For that reason she would be opposed, but she did appreciate the effort made by the applicant in taking the commission's comments to heart. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She felt the material samples were excellent and she would also be in favor of this project. Commissioner Lopez also felt that it was a great looking product and that it would fit well into that area. He also liked the design of the fronds. He said he would also be in favor of approval and would make that motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1993, approving Case No. CUP 99-13, subject to conditions as amended deleting Condition Nos. 4 and 5. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). `.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 D. Case No. PP/CUP 98-16 Amendment #1 - AMERICAN INVESTMENT GROUP/PALM DESERT LLC, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to an approved precise plan of design for the remodel of the Palms to Pines East center, the project between Highway 111 and El Paseo east of Plaza Way and west of Columbia Center, more particularly described as 72-81 1 Highway 1 1 1 . The amendment is to revise the parking lot layout to increase the number of parking spaces from 359 to 410 spaces and increase the allowable building area from 83,476 square feet to 92,733 square feet. Mr. Drell said that basically these amendments were being generated because the end building was going to be a Rite Aid, which had a drive-thru pharmacy. The new perspective tenant was Staples and Rite Aid would stay at its current location. Staples didn't need a drive-thru pharmacy, but they did need more square footage. Secondly, on the other end in the old Sprouse Ritz building, the applicant was negotiating with a tenant who also needed additional space. When this project was originally proposed to the city, the applicant proposed a separate small retail space for a restaurant and at the time staff recommended that it not be approved since it would result in the parking ratio decreasing from the existing ratio, so as a result the applicant redesigned the parking lot and actually increased the parking ratio by adding extra spaces. Therefore, staff's feeling was that the goal had been achieved and hoped that with these two new tenants on either side of the development this project would be able to proceed and the remodel could be accomplished. He recommended approval. Commissioner Campbell asked how many square feet would be used for the easterly building. The applicant spoke from the audience indicating that it would be between 14,000 to 18,000. As a comment to staff, Commissioner Jonathan stated that the drawing of the Staples building to him was illustrative of the situation where they had a fairly good idea of what would go up, but what actually went up could look very different from what the commission's idea was from the blueprint drawing. He pointed out that this was a very vital center that gets a lot of traffic and is highly visible and that this was the kind of application where he would far prefer to have a colored rendering, maybe even a 3-D artist rendering that would give them a better idea of what would be constructed. He wasn't 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 suggesting that the commission deny this application, but felt this was a good illustration of what he had been talking about before. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Drell if staff knew who the tenant would be for the old Staples building and if this fell into the anti-raiding provision. Mr. Drell said it didn't fall into the anti-raiding provision because it was technically the same center. They were just going into a much larger space than they're in now. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they were vacating an existing space to go to another. Mr. Drell said that typically where the existing space couldn't physically accommodate them it did apply and depending on how the applicant negotiated with the Redevelopment Agency for some assistance to do this project, the concern was when they have one project getting city assistance it could give it a competitive advantage over another existing project. In this case it was a shift within the same project and if the project got assistance, all the property owners within the project would get the same assistance, so this was just an example of a successful business needing a bigger space and being able to move there. The other complication in the center was that the applicant only owned half the center. He was proposing to remodel the entire center and he had to convince the other property owner to voluntarily participate to make it a more economically viable center. it Commissioner Finerty noted that at the Architectural Review meeting of May 9 their action was with the condition that a six-foot wall be added to provide further screening of delivery trucks. But when she looked at the conditions of approval on page three of the draft resolution, she didn't see that condition and asked for clarification. Mr. Drell said the fact that it was an Architectural Commission condition, it had the same legal status as one of the Planning Commission's. If they wanted to add it to the resolution to reinforce it, they could. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ALEC GLASSER, the principal of the Limited Liability Company which owned about half the parcels in the shopping center, addressed the commission. He felt the staff report did a good job of summarizing all the circumstances. They were requesting an increase in the gross leasable area, but at the same time were increasing the number of parking spaces so that the parking ratio actually increased from 4.3 to 4.4+ . In terms of the size of the buildings and the need for it, they came back to commission because they have specific needs from 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 specific tenants, so it wasn't a speculative request, it was driven by the tenants that would actually occupy the facility. He felt it would be a plus for the center which needed help. He said that everything else was covered in the staff report. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Glasser said he already had a tenant for the easterly building. Mr. Glasser said they have only exchanged letters of intent and it was a national credit tenant but no lease had been signed. Chairperson Beaty asked what business would occupy the vacated Staples building. Mr. Glasser explained that as part of the arrangement with Staples, they were signing to Mr. Glasser's company their remaining leasehold interest in their space which was about half of that building (14,000 of about 26,000 square feet). He was negotiating with several replacement tenants who were not already in the center. Commissioner Lopez noted that this facility had a high visibility and an impact on the entrance to that part of town and he was having a difficult time envisioning what this would look like when it was completed. There were two buildings on each side and then the middle. He asked which businesses were there now. Commission listed Big 5, Rite Aid and Staples. Mr. Glasser stated that Mr. Drell was putting on display the elevations that were previously approved by the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Drell pointed out that the colors were going to be more muted than the ones displayed. The revised colored elevations were done, at least a portion was. He pointed out the changes that had been made to the pyramid location, but indicated it was basically the same Frank Urrutia/Dave Press style using strong horizontal and pyramid elements. He said that the architecture would now differentiate between the new tenant and the Big 5 tenant, as well as the permanent Rite Aid space. Mr. Glasser said that what the commission was seeing would be substantially similar to the final product with the refinements to reflect 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 the storefronts for the needs for the different tenants, but the theme was the same and the configuration was substantially the same. He indicated that as it evolved through ARC, the colors got a bit more muted and if it wasn't in the file, he could supply the city with the final color scheme. He also noted that the site plan the commission received with their staff report wasn't the final one and didn't show the curb cut off of Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell noted that the commission received a full sized copy of the most current revised site plan. Chairperson Beaty noted that no one was presented to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Campbell stated that this was a beautiful project and because of the current deteriorated condition, she looked forward to the remodel. She stated that she would move for approval. Commissioner Finerty concurred and stated that she was anxious to see the ,., project get underway and would second the motion. Commissioner Jonathan also concurred and hoped to see some activity soon since it was a blighted area. He hoped the applicant would be able to proceed quickly. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1994, approving Case No. PP/CUP 98-16 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (May 17, 2000) Commissioner Campbell stated that the committee discussed the median sculpture for the Monterey/1-10 overpass area. That was reviewed by Will Nettleship and Spencer Knight. At one time they were proposing a structure with a lot of glass in it, but Public Works was not in favor of that for safety reasons. Mr. Nettleship was now proposing to erect "S" shaped walls along that area with different heights and different colored blocks. The earthly colors would pick up the colors of the mountains and desert. The committee also suggested that glass windows be included to allow some light to shine through it and there would be desert landscape in between the "S" shaped walls. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS 1 . Chairperson Beaty asked if the commission was going to meet on July 4, 2000. Mr. Drell said they wouldn't meet on July 4 and explained that staff had not provided anyone with the expectation that there would be a hearing in the vicinity of July 4. He felt the meeting should be canceled. Commission concurred. 2. Commissioner Lopez noted that he might be out of town on June 20. Commissioner Jonathan said he would not be present July 18. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 r.. Chairperson Beaty indicated he would miss the first meeting in August (August 1 ). 3. Chairperson Beaty stated that someone asked him about parking space width standards and noted that in Rancho Mirage they recently reduced their parking space width. Chairperson Beaty said he called Palm Desert planning staff and was informed that nine feet was our standard and asked if Mr. Drell had any history on Rancho Mirage. Mr. Drell noted that they haven't built very many projects in the last 20 years. Chairperson Beaty said he personally liked the wider parking spaces. Mr. Drell felt that nine feet was a nice, wide space. That was why when they have granted exceptions for "compact" spaces, they let people make the spaces a little bit shorter but kept the nine-foot width because the width was what really determined how easily a car could maneuver into a space and have room to open the doors. The 20-foot space was actually based on the average car size in 1973. As an example, the spaces in President's Plaza were 18'/2 foot spaces. Typically the average car size, even with the exception of suburban and double cab full size pickups, average car size was between 14 and 15 tow feet. Commissioner Jonathan noted that between six to nine months ago the Desert Sun did that exact survey. He knew there were some cities like Palm Springs with eight and a half foot widths and there were at least two cities (maybe Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage) with 10 feet. He thought Palm Desert was in the high part of the middle. 4. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the two-story building in front of L.G.'s Steakhouse was under construction and he was reminded again, and he felt he personally blew it because he voted in favor of that project, and he felt the building was just to close to the street. When he saw it, it reminded him to ask Mr. Drell where in the process the proposal was to change the zoning ordinance to look at the 1 :1 ratio for front setbacks. Mr. Drell said it was discussed for the O.P. zone and the building he was talking about was in a C-1 zone. He didn't believe that it was ever contemplated for the C-1 zone to have a building setback 25 to 30 feet. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that perhaps they should consider that. When a building went up that close to a major artery, he didn't feel it was appropriate. He asked where they were in the process of reviewing the zoning ordinance with regard to setbacks. Commissioner Finerty said she thought the commission was told that both the 1 :1 ratio with regard to setbacks and the wireless 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 communication towers would both have to wait until ZORC's next meeting which was June 14. Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure that issue was on the agenda. Commissioner Finerty noted that they had been asking about this for a couple of months. Mr. Drell indicated that in connection with the city's general plan update, the consultant would be doing in a more comprehensive fashion revision of the zoning ordinance as well. But again, in the C-1 zone, unless they treated certain parts of the C-1 zone differently, he didn't think that on El Paseo they had ever contemplated changing the setback from five feet to 30 feet. It was physically impossible. What they talked about was the O.P. zone. Commissioner Finerty said she thought that what they talked about was on major arterials they wanted to revisit the issue of the setbacks and gave the Shah building as an example of what they didn't want repeated and asked how they could prevent that from reoccurring. As a result of that discussion, Commissioner Jonathan mentioned the 1 :1 ratio after consulting with some ARC commissioners and then the Planning Commission was told by staff that it would go to ZORC and they haven't had any results. Commissioner Campbell noted that it hadn't been to ZORC yet. Commissioner Jonathan asked when it could be placed before ZORC specifically if it wasn't on their June 14 agenda. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was too late to go on their June 14 agenda. Commissioner Campbell said she hadn't seen an agenda yet. Mr. Drell said that it could always be added, but indicated there were already some significant items on that agenda. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that making more mistakes like the Shah building and the one on Highway 111 at El Paseo was pretty significant also. Commissioner Campbell noted that the building at Highway 111 and El Paseo was not in the Office Professional zone. Mr. Drell said that it obviously could be examined. There the issue was the fact that they were used to seeing buildings behind the frontage road. On those corner projects where they vacate the frontage road as part of the redesign of those intersections, those buildings were the same height as the ones on El Paseo or other buildings on Highway 111 . The difference was that they didn't have the frontage road in front of them which inherently created a greater setback from drivers on Highway 111 . They have greater setbacks on the buildings than all the other ones on Highway 111 because of the fact that the frontage road was gone and most of the vacated frontage roads turned into landscaping. He said that staff would get it on the ZORC agenda. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was better to get it on the June 14 agenda if their 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 next meeting wasn't going to be until the latter part of July. Mr. Drell said he was sure their next meeting wouldn't be until July. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the June 14 agenda was that full. Mr. Drell said it had three or four items on it. Commissioner Campbell noted that sometimes they couldn't even cover the items on the agenda. Commissioner Finerty asked if this would be appropriate to send to ARC in the meantime. Commissioner Jonathan asked procedurally how the zoning ordinance got changed. If it originated at ZORC and then came to Planning Commission. Mr. Drell said yes, it originated at ZORC, then went to Planning Commission. If it was an issue that involved changing a design standard then staff would run it through the Architectural Commission for a recommendation. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this would need to be reviewed by ARC. Mr. Drell said that it would. Commissioner Jonathan specifically requested that this item be placed on ZORC's first meeting agenda in July and then also get it scheduled on ARC. Mr. Drell concurred. He pointed out that the building at Highway 111 and El Paseo received a lot of scrutiny. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and said that he agreed that he made a mistake and was only realizing it now. Mr. Drell said that there were other buildings on Highway 111 in similar circumstances. Commissioner Campbell asked for the height of the building at Portola. Mr. Drell thought it was 30 feet, but indicated that the second story was stepped back. The building at Highway 111 and El Paseo was two stories without stepping back. Commissioner Finerty recalled that she voted against the building on Highway 111/El Paseo, but noted that there was a previous deal. Mr. Drell said there was no deal. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was a previous approval for some offices there. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that it would be before ZORC in July, ARC after that, and then to Planning Commission shortly after that. Mr. Drell said that it would depend on what ZORC could decide upon. He thought that what they were dealing with here was when they vacate the frontage road there was an exchange. The applicant typically dedicated some land on one side and the city gives them land in the front. Chairperson Beaty felt that what the commission was telling staff was that they didn't like it and didn't want to see any more like it. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that it wasn't just this one building, it was the Shah building, the art gallery, etc. The commission felt this needed to be worked out. Mr. Drell concurred and said that staff would schedule it before ZORC. �Ww 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2000 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 22