Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0501 CITY OF PALM DESERT ����� PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � MINUTES ` � � , . MAY 1, 2001 .� * � * .� � � � * � .� � � �- * * * � .� � * ,� * � � � * * * � �. «. .� �. �. � � � � .� I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. Iil. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan � Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Ha�greaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the April 17, 2001 meeting minutes Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the April 17, 2001 minutes. Motion carried 5-0. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION � .�i Mr. Drell summarized pertinent April 26, 2001 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 00-05, C/Z 00-08 and PP 00-19 - THE MATINEE TRUST, Applicant (Continued from April 7, 2001) � ; +.�� Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment from medium density residential to high density residential, and a precise pian of design for a 21-unit single story residential project at 44-680 San Carlos and 73-690 De Anza. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was requesting an indefinite continuance. If he comes back with a new plan, it will be as a new public hearing and would be readvertised. Chairperson Lopei said that the public hearing would remain open. He noted that people would be renotified when the item came back. He said he would open the mic. for anyone who wished to speak. Mr. Smith noted that a series of letters were received and were included in the commission packets. 2 � .� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or ;� OPPOSITION. MR. ERIK BALTZAR, 44-750 San Pascual, stated that the commission gave the builder adequate time to contact them and he never did. They were still against the change in zoning. They wanted the units to be habitable by families which were more than 1 ,000 square feet. The area right now was 2,500 square feet. They weren't pleased with the increase in traffic coming in and out on De Anza. It was a relatively narrow street that bends in that area. He said he didn't have his notes with him, but he wanted to go on record. If the applicant does come back, they wanted the opportunity to address this with more adequate preparation, they wanted it to comply with existing zoning and they were against a change of zone. MR. GERRY MORROW, 44-532 San Pascual, informed commission that he and his wife moved to San Pascual about three years ago. They were relative newcomers to that area, but they moved there looking for a house that was in a peaceful, quiet neighborhood. That was one of the top things on their agenda. They found this ,,,,,, house on San Pascual and his wife considered it her dream house. The neighborhood was populated mainly by elderly people and he said they could take a census and he believed that was what they would find out. He said he sees people walking baby carriages down San Pascual and there were joggers and old folks from the Joslyn Senior Center who take their constitutionals down that street. His opinion was that if the City allowed the apartment complex to go up on the corner, at the very least it would turn San Pascual into a thoroughfare. That was the bottom line. That street would be as busy as De Anza. If they got uniucky, they would have 21 new neighbors. He said that some of his neighbors did have problems and there were some people up there that didn't know how to live with themselves and they inflicted their conflict on their neighbors. He wasn't saying it was a perfect neighborhood, but it was a nice neighborhood and it was a quiet neighborhood. If the commission allowed the project to go through, it would change the neighborhood. He said he took the trouble to look up the word environment because early on someone told him the whole crux of this issue was whether or not 3 r.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 putting that complex up would change the environment of that neighborhood. He looked up the word in Webster's and it said, "conditions, circumstances and surroundings." He said he looked it up in his Roget's Thesaurus and it said, "conditions, circumstances and surroundings, scene, background, setting, habitat, situation." He said they could take either of those books and take any definition out of them and they were going to change the environment of that neighborhood if they put that building in. There was some talk about readdressing the issue at some time in the future. He said that Palm Desert had something in that neighborhood and it grew that way all by itself and felt the commission should look at it was a unique setting and let it be. MR. CHARLES IMBILLI, 44-555 San Pascual, said that he has lived there 20 years. They are in an R-1 zoning and he felt that was ideal. It was R-1 from Catalina to the highway. They enjoy that location and would not like to see any zone change at that corner to go to R-2. They liked it the way it is. He strongly, emphatically stated that they were opposed to any idea of putting in 21 apartment units on that corner of San Pascual. He said he has been a building contractor in Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert for 38 years and he would never try to impose a zone change that was so negative as to try to force the community to accept 21 units, apartments, in an R-1 zone. He would never, never even try to do such a thing to the neighborhood. He said he wrote a letter for the last meeting on April 7 and they all had a copy of it. He stated that he was emphatically opposed to this particular plan. He noted that the applicant verbally withdrew the request and he wanted to know if that meant he could come back at a later date and reapply or if there was anything in writing that stated that it was out of the picture. He asked for clarification. Mr. Drell stated that an applicant could always come back and reapply. What he was asking for in writing was a letter saying that he was requesting an indefinite continuance. Mr. Drell noted that even if this project were denied, the applicant could come back with a new application. But if this project went back on the agenda, the residents would be renotified. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was something strange about �,,,, an indefinite continuance. He asked if there was any advantage to simply denying or withd�awing the application. He asked for staff's opinion. Mr. Drell said that staff was okay with the request. It had the effect of a withdrawal since any new development would require renoticing. This is what the applicant was requesting. He said they could give him a period of time to withdraw or come in with an amended proposal. If he doesn't, they could act to deny it. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Mr. Drell said that if the commission didn't want this use in this location, they could deny it. Commissioner Jonathan indicated they could continue it for 30 or 60 days and if the applicant didn't come in with a new application, they could deny it. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said he was a little more comfortable with that, but was open to fu�ther discussion. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She was uncomfortable with an indefinite continuance. It said in the staff report that the applicant would file a letter of withdrawal and she was more comfortable with a continuance of 60 days. Commissioner Jonathan said he would also be comfortable with that. r., Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case Nos. GPA 00-05, C/Z 00-08 and PP 00-19 60 days to July 3, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 01-05 - STUART HILL, Applicant Request for approval of a 5,576 square foot industrial warehouse at the northwest corner of Beacon Hill and Mayfair Drive, 75-180 Mayfair Drive. Mr. Smith explained that the request is for approval of a single story, 24- foot high industrial building. There were 12 parking spaces on the west side of the property taking access from Mayfair. The building consisted of tilt up concrete panels, recessed windows and detailing. The building met the required setbacks for the industrial zone. The architecture was reviewed by ARC and approved on a 6-0 motion on April 10. Findings for approval were on pages two and three of the staff report. The project �... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISS{ON MAY 1, 2001 was considered a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. � Staff recommended approval of the application, sub�ect to the conditions � noted in the report. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any colored renderings or elevations. Mr. Smith said no, but had some material samples. Commissioner Jonathan said that they had been rather fortunate of late, but he would reiterate his strong preference to have actual renderings. He could make pretty good sense of the blueline drawings, but it was much clearer when there was a color elevation and he stated he would appreciate it if staff would get those from applicants in the future. Chairperson Lopez ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. STUART HILL, 83 Durango Circle in Rancho Mirage, stated that he owns the Yankee Woodshop on Joni Drive. The purpose of his building is to expand his business and utilize around 2,000 square feet as rental. He said he designed his building similar to the current building that the Orr Builders put up on Beacon Hill. They have rounded corners and in his opinion it was a very attractive building for a warehouse and warehouse type area. Commissioner Campbell asked what he did. Mr. Hill said that the Yankee Woodshop made upscale furniture, including entertainment centers, bedroom sets and dining room sets. Those kinds of things. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Commissioner Campbell noted that ARC approved the design 6-0 and she was in favor and would move for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner ;,,�, Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2066, approving PP 01-05, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 01-07 - MIKE KOCOUR, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 1 ,760 square foot 18-foot high detached accessory building in the rear yard of the property located at 77-640 Robin Road. Mr. Alvarez noted that the request was for a rear yard detached structure. The property is zoned RE 40,000. He said these were residential estate lots off of Warner Trail. Minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet and the average was about an acre. The applicant was allowed to ask for a conditional use permit to allow a detached accessory in the required rear yard as shown on the exhibit. There was a 50-foot setback multiplied by the width of the Iot which was 158 feet. The building required a one foot setback for each foot of building height. The building would be 18 feet and there would be an 18-foot setback on the `, rear and on the side yard. In terms of architecture, the building was designed to incorporate some of the design features and elements found on the existing structures which included a single family residence and detached accessory structure (ocated in the left upper corner. In terms of coverage in the ordinance, the proposed structure couldn't occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard. In this case the required rear yard is 7,900 square feet and 25% of that would be 1 ,975 square feet. The two existing buildings totaled 1 ,905 square feet. The required allowable would be 1 ,975, so the request met the coverage requirement. On March 27, 2001 , the applicant came in with his first submittal which was a box-shaped detached structure which didn't have any design features to it. ARC recommended that he go back and incorporate some design elements to break up the overall mass of the box and incorporate some of the design elements found on the existing structures. The applicant came back on April 10 and received approval of the revised plans. There were photographs of the site. He said the building would match the existing color and roof tile found on the existing structures. He said they sent out notices to property owners within 300 feet. No objections had been received. He stated that the project is a Class 3 �..� 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and the project would comply with all the provisions of the new detached accessory building ordinance. Staff recommended approval. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE KOCOUR, 77-640 Robin Road, stated that he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked the applicant what he used the existing detached structure for. Mr. Kocour indicated it was a garage and for storage. He has a boat at another storage yard at the river and he wanted to bring it home. Commissioner Campbell noted that he has a two-car garage for his cars and the other structures would be for the boat and other storage. Mr. Kocour concurred. He also noted that he has a motor home that sits outside. Commissioner Campbell indicated that it wasn't noticeable from the street. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell reiterated that it was difficult to see the existing building, she did not see the motor home and was in favor of the proposal. She moved for approval. Commissioner Tschopp said he would second the motion. Chairperson Lopez stated that the proposal looked like it would be a great addition and called for the vote. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 Action: ,`,,,, It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, 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. 2067, approving CUP 01-07, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. CUP 94-4 Amendment #2 - ST. MARGARET'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to an existing conditional use permit to allow the addition of two (2) new buildings (an early childhood education building and an education center building) to the existing church campus at 47-535 Highway 74. Mr. Smith said they were looking at two additional buildings and an amendment to the existing conditional use permit. The early childhood i,.. education building would be a one-story structure about 3,900 square feet. It would provide two classrooms, associated administrative and building support spaces. Secondly, there was a two-story building for housing the seventh and eighth g�ades, approximately 3,800 square feet on each floor. The four classrooms would be on the upper level. On the lower level there were multi use spaces for three rooms, bathrooms, administrative offices and storage areas. The request also includes a minor addition to the existing Lee Hall to provide a science lab which would account for approximately 140 square feet. Expansion of these buildings would allow the applicant to increase enrollment from 250 to 300 students. Approval would also serve to increase the student load. Mr. Smith said that typically parking was a major concern. They had been looking at this application all along in that this was not the first amendment. The school even in its enlarged condition would have a requirement for 1 17 parking spaces. There were 314 parking spaces for the existing facility and a drop off area. The available parking was more than adequate to accommodate the school expansion. Public Works was satisfied with the existing drop off area and the traffic signal at the parking lot entrance and feel it will continue to be adequate. ARC �... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 reviewed this matter at several meetings and initially expressed concern � with the height of the two-story building on the west side of the � property. The height of the structure when viewed from the west varies in height from 28 feet to 32 feet. The difference in height is a result of the change in the grade proceeding from south to north. If they look at the building sections, they weren't talking about excessively high ceiling heights. Effectively they would be left with nine foot ceilings. On the lower level once they opened the three multipurpose rooms they were looking at a room 40 by 80 so a nine-foot ceiling wouldn't be excessive in a space that large. In the Public zone height wasn't limited. In this instance there was a change in grade and the design standards requirement for the structure combined to increase the height of the building. In response to height concerns raised by ARC, the applicant revised the plans to add a vine-covered trellis to the west side which extends out about six feet from the wall. The revised plans were given preliminary approval by ARC on April 10. He also noted that once these buildings are constructed, the church school site would be built out. There was no more room on this site. The proposed expansion is a Class 1 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and no further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions. � .� Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the parking calculations and methodology. When the church was first approved, it was determined based on the size of the sanctuary. He asked if the number of spaces required were the 314 that were there. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan said that regardless of whatever other improvements take place, the parking calculation was still based on the size of the sanctuary. Mr. Smith said that staff looked at the school and its proposed expansion to make sure that it didn't exceed the requirement for the sanctuary. Had it been highe�, then they would have said it needed more. Since the timing of the two uses didn't coincide, they went with the higher. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it wasn't the required assumption that when they look at the church sanctuary use and then the ancillary church use and say they have the same parking lot and same physical parking spaces to meet each of those needs, he asked if staff was making the basic intrinsic assumption that both of those activities would not be going on at the same time. Mr. Smith answered yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff felt it would be helpful, necessary or advisable to in some way state that in the conditions of � 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 approval. He asked if there was a possibility that there might be a r,.,� wedding or some other event at the same time as school when 431 spaces were needed but there were only 314 provided. He asked if that was a possibility. Mr. Smith thought it was unlikely. Mr. Drell said that theoretically there could be events on Sundays when they would be using both facilities. Weddings were usually on Saturdays or in the evening. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't really thinking about Sunday events, but as an example the Crystal Cathedral was used for concerts during the week. A wedding was just an example. He just drove by the church on the way to the meeting and the parking lot was full, so there must have been some event there. He didn't know that it was a problem, he was just wondering since they were making basic assumption that parking was adequate as Iong as there weren't dual uses (i.e., at the sanctua�y and the schoo(►, he was wondering if that needed to be addressed in some formal manner. Mr. Drell said they could add a condition that simultaneous events generating excessive parking demand shall not be planned. They could put something in there to put them on notice if they had a problem. Scheduling events should not be done to exceed the available parking. In reality they didn't have enough parking for the sanctuary, but staff didn't feel it would be exacerbated by the school. The good news was that both churches were going to get `.► together to try and build a parking deck. They were aware of their parking problem and it was as much of a hassle for them as anyone. Chairperson Lopez asked if the addition of the number of students that would be arriving and leaving every day for school, if access would be from the stop light at Haystack. He had not been up there during school hours to see how it operates. He asked if there was a police officer up there or if they just used the light. Mr. Drell said that he goes by there every morning. They used the signal and four or five cars would enter or exit. He didn't think there was a real jam up there. Commissioner Tschopp didn't think parking was a problem during school hours. He also shared a concern with the added number of day trips, students' access, and the church facility. He noted that a lot of people didn't use the light. He thought at some point in time that needed to be looked at. Mr. Drell asked if they were using one of the driveways to go left that weren't signalized. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. They were basically going left and right leaving the driveways and weren't using the signals and it was just because of the number of people ..�. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 attending services at both churches and it was at times a dangerous situation on Sunday mornings. He didn't think the school was going to create any more of a traffic problem than exists and that there would be adequate parking, but there was a problem with the way people access the church from Highway 74. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BILL HARRIS, the Parish Administrator for St. Margaret's Episcopal Church, 40-640 Ventana Court in Palm Desert, said he was present to answer questions. Regarding parking, they had been in contact with the Presbyterians and they had asked them and their own parishioners to use the traffic signal. He showed commission on a map the access route that is used during school hours. They kept the traffic flowing in one direction using cones and signage for the children. Safety was their biggest concern. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Harris envisioned events that would utiliie the sanctuary at the same time as when the school was operating. Mr. Harris said that the only event that utilizes the sanctuary was a school event. They host their Chapel Service and the parents would come to that. They host their honor's awards there also. Non school events they tried to keep separate. Occasionally there was a funeral, but nothing of any magnitude that would take up all the parking. Because it was a school, they didn't want a lot of wandering on the campus so they tried to keep uses segregated. They scheduled outside events for after school hours. Tonight was a Boy Scout event. They did use the church and all the buildings for community uses as much as possible. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he would have any objection to a condition of approval that the church would make an attempt not to schedule events at the same time as school which could create a parking problem. Mr. Ha�ris said that would be more than adequate for them to agree to and they would be able to honor that. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISStON MAY 1, 2001 Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or ,,,,., OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jonathan thought the application was wonderful. It was a good use and he felt the applicant did a great work in the community. He liked the architecture and he didn't have a problem with the two-story element. It was set in the rear and was very far from any residential uses. He thought that aesthetically it was acceptable. His only concern was with the potential for dual use of the sanctuary and school and that concern had been alleviated, but he would be more comfortable with a condition that at least addressed the issue that the applicant shall attempt to not schedule events that would utilize the sanctuary at the same time the school is in operation. Commissioner Tschopp commented that the concern was with parking and not concurrent events, so he didn't think they wanted to make the parking too restrictive. He thought they would want to state it more that they didn't want concurrent events to exceed the available parking. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Commissioner Tschopp said that he also concurred with Commissioner Jonathan's other comments on the application. Chairperson Lopez agreed that they could incorporate that condition. r.. Commissioner Campbell stated that she also concurred. She thought it was a pleasure to see what has been done and the addition wouldn't detract from the area or be a problem for the neighbors. Chairperson Lopez agreed. He thought it was a great addition. His only concern in that area has been with traffic and the access from the driveways, especially on Sundays. He used to live in that area and it was a concern. He was in favor of the addition and asked for a motion. 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 Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2068, approving CUP 94-4 Amendment #2, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 IX. MISCELLANEOUS � � � A. Discussion of issues raised in a letter by Casa Larrea Resort relative to Case Nos. PP 01-06 and CUP 96-4 Mr. Drell noted that the commission had a staff report by Mr. Alvarez. They discovered that the original approval for the conversion was supposed to be brought back for review. They were following up on the specific complaints, but it would also be scheduled for hearing to review the situation and see if there needed to be any adjustments. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that the agenda said the recommendation was to continue the matter to May 15, but the staff report said to June 5. She asked which one was correct. Staff said the June 5 date was correct. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move to continue the matter to June 5. Chairperson Lopez noted that condition of approval number 13 required review of the conditional use permit on March 30, 1999. He asked if this was just an oversight or if it was something that should be of concern. Mr. Drell said that this was a fairly unusual condition and they � needed some sort of program in the computer to pop up three years in � the future. The important thing was that it provided them with an automatic opportunity to review it if it was brought to our attention, which it now had been. Chairperson Lopez commented that they have had issues which said that something would be reviewed in a year. Mr. Drell said that typically it was within six months. Three years was a long time in the future. He said that perhaps the computer techs could create something that would provide an alert that far into the future. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing this matter to June 5, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Report on Parks and Recreation Commission direction relative to Cahuilla Hills Park Improvements Mr. Drell said that the commission looked at it and directed staff to look at upgrading the picnic tables and come up with the animal proof � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 substantial trash cans as seen in national parks. They determined that ,�„� they reaily didn`t want to see any more development out there at this time. There was a discussion of whether they should have cooled water and typically water coolers weren't particularly durable outside. People would have to tough it out and drink water at air temperature. The commission also didn't feel there was a need for restrooms at this time. Staff also initiated a discussion with CVWD relative to the issues of access, control of their road and the issue of the city using their right-of- way for parking. They were generally amenable to those things, but they wanted them all worked out at once, so staff was going to be formulating a proposal to them of what we would like them to do and what we would do. He noted that it would be back before the commission at the next meeting during the hearing. Commissioner Campbell commented from the staff report that the issue of adding a restroom was also discussed. With the current level of usage and the lack of request for a restroom at this site by park users, the commission decided not to direct staff to pursue installation of a restroom at this time. She said that was fine, if the bathroom was not there and they weren't going to ask for it, she asked why they needed a bathroom at the other park. It wasn't there now and she thought �,.. people would want one more if they were playing tennis. If people didn't ask for one, they didn't need to put one in the new park. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the commission discussed that since there hadn't been a request or perceived need for a restroom at the existing park. He asked if that had any implications on the proposed park. Mr. Drell said that they could choose not to put in a restroom at the proposed park and see if there is a need for it. It all depended on what the level of usage might be. The level of usage at the existing pa�k was pretty much limited to a couple of tennis players once in a while. He noted that the right now the trails that exist there are rather inforrnal. They were just created by people over the years. There were no signs and it hadn't been promoted in any way. What they would be doing hopefully once both parks got developed was building a formal trail that would link the two parks through the mountains and that trail would conceivably be one of the primary alternatives to the closure of the other trails because of the bighorn sheep. They were also in discussions with Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Services about their desire for the city to close the area around the BLM Visitors Center to dogs. If they � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 wanted it closed there, staff would like this area open to allow people to � hike with their dogs. If those two things happened, as part of the � bighorn sheep recovery plan a lot of trails would get closed in this valley from January through the end of June. This area might become a lot more popular with hikers. That was the anticipation, that the potential at this park and especially Homme Park which was a much more open expansive area might be a whole lot more attractive to a lot more fo(ks and get a lot more use than the current tennis courts get. Commissioner Campbell said that they could put some parking spaces over there and do away with the picnic areas and away with the restrooms. If they aren't there, people would not use them. Mr. Drell noted that the reason we build parks is because we want people to use them. Ac ion: None At the request of the Director of Community Development, it was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to add an emergency item to the agenda relative to a request for determination for general and medical office uses in the Service Industrial District. Motion carried 5-0 to add the item to the � agenda. C. Discussion of adoption of a resolution determining that general and medical offices are permitted uses in the Service Industrial District Mr. Drell explained that the S.I. Ordinance allows the Planning Commission by resolution to allow uses that were similar to and no more objectionable than those allowed in the zone and some of the buildings had been expressly approved in a resolution allowing offices, and many were not. They have an example of one of the first ones built at the southwest corner of Hovley and Cook Street where it was built with 80% of the office parking and it has been historically used as substantially office, yet there was nothing documented that it could be used as an office. As a result of an impending sale which was threatened if the office use couldn't be justified, he proposed a resolution for the commission to adopt to get these projects in the clear with a recommendation that ultimately staff amend the S.I. zone to list as a conditional use office buildings so that this ambiguity didn't exist in the � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 future. They have been approving these buildings for the past 15 years `„ and need to recognize it in the ordinance ultimately. Commissioner Jonathan said he could see no problem with the resolution, but he was wondering about the future in terms of amending the Zoning Ordinance. He asked if it would be more effective to amend the S.I. zoning ordinance or simply to include a change of zone request when someone comes into an S.I. area and wants to put up an office building. Mr. Drell explained that there couldn't be spot zones and they couldn't change individual lots within a zone. The fact that they have been doing it for 15 years meant it was okay. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Mr. Drell thought they should set up the specific procedures and standards and put it in the code. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that allowing it under S.I. would help them avoid spot zoning when they receive a request for a higher and better use. Mr. Drell concurred, and indicated it included requests that had already been determined by practice to be a compatible use with all the other uses in the zone. Commissioner Tschopp asked about parking requirements for S.I. versus a medical office. Mr. Drell said that S.I. is two parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet, medical office now is six per 1,000. Some of the medical ... offices went in there when it was 5/1 ,000. General office is 4/1 ,000. Commissioner Jonathan said that in S.I. it is 2/1 ,000 as long as office and ancillary uses don't exceed 20%. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Tschopp stated that his personal feeling was that a lot of the medical office facilities are under parked and it wasn't just a problem in Palm Desert. He asked if there was a way to facilitate this without having just a blanket approval in the future. He asked if they could grandfather in some of those because he didn't know if down the road they wanted to have medical office parking less than 6/1 ,000. Mr. Drell said they would only be allowed to the extent that they meet the code. Where medical offices exist or want to go in, they will use more of the allotment for offices. The complication was that basically they ended up with a lot of hybrid projects where they have to very carefully monitor every single time they get a business license for an office in one of these buildings to see what the percentage of occupancy is and to go out and see if there is a parking problem. That was why ultimately the solution is to establish and do it by conditional use permit which would allow ihem to look at each request individually and put on special conditions as necessary. The ultimate solution is to amend the code and put in a �... 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 specific requirement in the code that tells the property/building owner what they can do with their building based on the amount of parking they have. They have had less problems with medical uses in these large mixed use complexes. The big problem with medical uses have been with the buildings approved for 100% medical usage. Typically in these larger complexes there is a range of different uses, some with a higher than expected demand and usually some with a lower expected demand. When they have that mix it usually works out. The single use medical buildings with 5/1,000 are where they are having problems, which is why they recently increased the parking requirement to 6/1 ,000 for those buildings. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood that what they were doing with the emergency resolution and where staff was heading toward amending the Zoning Ordinance. They were seeking to allow office use and medical use assuming that the project meets the parking requirement under the office zoning, which is 4/1 ,000 or 6/1,000. Mr. Drell said that he referenced the parking ordinance, Section 25.58.310, which lists all the various uses. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the other restrictions which apply to office and medical uses such as setbacks, ; height limitations, landscape coverage, etc. He asked if they were different. Mr. Drell said no, their assumption was that they would be subject to the same development standards as the other buildings in the Service Industrial zone. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that conceivably they could be lowering not the parking standards, but other standards that wou(d normally apply to office or medical use. Mr. Dreli didn't really think so. He thought the architectural requirements in the Service Industrial zone had been pretty similar. Commissioner Jonathan said he was speaking specifically to setbacks, height and landscaping_ Mr. Drell thought they were similar and indicated there was a higher setback in the Service Industrial zone with 20 feet as opposed to the 15 feet in the Office Professional. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in some cases the setback was zero. Mr. Drell said that in the office zone in the side yard they allow zero. He thought the standards were fairly similar. The requirement for landscaping is identical. Commissioner Jonathan asked about height. Mr. Drell said they allow taller buildings in the Service Industrial zone. They allow 30 feet instead of 25 feet. He thought that was still appropriate. He noted that the O.P, zone was designed and principally exists as a buffer zone adjacent to R-1 and that was why they were hypersensitive in the O.P., while these S.I. zones � 1$ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 were pretty much segregated from impacting residential uses. He `., couldn't see a justification for saying that if an office use was in the S.I. that it had to be shorter than if it was an industrial use. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't expressing an opinion on the matter, he was trying to understand because they were tying the office and medical use into strictly the parking requirement and he was trying to understand if there were other restrictions that would apply to the normal office and medical use that as a result of this resolution would not apply to office and medical use in the Service Industrial zone. Mr. Drell said he couldn't think of any that would be relevant - any restrictions that would be �elevant or based on what he would call government interest or any objective we might have in regulating those buildings or that land use. Commissioner Jonathan said that specifically in terms of setbacks, height, and landscape coverage the only difference that came to his mind was the height limitation. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the parking itself. He asked if Mr. Drell was saying that it would then be the use that would dictate the number of parking spaces. Mr. Drell said it would be no different from the way they regulate a mixed use office building. Often office buildings were buitt with something between medical at 6/1 ,000 �.... and general office at 4/1,000. Some people build at 5/1 ,000 and based on that they are allowed 50% of the building for medical use. Commissioner Tschopp asked if as tenants change over time if staff was continually monitoring that. Mr. Drell said they try to. Every business license requires a Certificate of Use to be filled out. Every time staff receives a request for an office use in the S.I. zone it triggers a review by staff. Staff's assumption is that it can't go there, unless they determine there is sufficient parking. The automatic assumption is that as a matter of right it is not permitted. The exceptions are the buildings built with the additional parking. Staff looks at whether or not the use is going into a building built and expressly approved for office. If it was in the ones that are hybrids, they often go out and visit the site to see if there is a parking problem. If there is, staff typically asks the owner of the building for a list of tenants to determine if they are exceeding their allotment. Commissioner Tschopp asked if by this resolution they would be stating that medical is similar to S.I. and that as long as it meets the requirements for the tenant, it is okay. Mr. Drell said that at that point in time as long as the building meets the parking requirement for the mix of uses. Commissioner Tschopp said that it seemed like this would be � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 creating a lot of monitoring problems. Mr. Drell said it wasn't creating one, it had already been created. This has been going on for 15 years. Commissioner Tschopp said that was the reason for his comment. Perhaps they would want to state that this has been done in the past, but going forward, take a different approach to it so they didn't have these continuing probtems. Mr. Drell noted there were a lot of office buildings and partial office buildings in there and they have been doing this for 15 years. By and large the office buildings weren't the ones creating the parking problems. The parking problems were more created by unusual industrial uses that have either a storage problem or an unusually high number of employees that often work offsite. He thought it was true that the office buildings were not the ones with the parking problem. Commissioner Jonathan disagreed. In his personal opinion the parking problem in the Cook Street area was a result primarily two things. One, projects that came in under County approvals that have basically no parking. And projects that were approved as service industrial warehouse type uses but over the years if they looked inside they have been subdivided into little offices and essentially were now office buildings that have parking at 2/1 ,000. They as a commission asked staff to look at that two or three years ago and he thought it was -, a very difficult situation unless they went in with a police force to go in and change it. There might be a better solution for the long term in � terms of increasing regular inspections, but it was a problem. They knew what the problem was, but it wasn't easy to do away with. Mr. Drell said the point he was making was that the buildings that anticipate being offices and put in the extra parking weren't the ones they were having a problem with. To a certain degree what this had done was provide the incentive for buildings to put in extra parking in anticipation of unusual demand and if they hadn't done that they probably have all the buildings at 2/1 ,000 and would have as severe problems if they hadn't acknowledged the people who are up front about it. Without a change in the code or something like this, technically there wasn't a provision for it. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that basically they were codifying the fact that office use requires 4/1,000 square feet, medical use requires 6/1,000 and that should apply in the S.I. zone as well. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Lopez noted that they had to enforce it when there was a change of tenants in that area. Mr. Drell said the resolution wouldn't really change the way staff has been doing business. They have always been operating under this assumption. What had happened here was that there was a lender here who had said that this a 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 is the way they know it exists out there, but there wasn't anything in ,,r writing that said this building could actually have these offices. After no further comments, Chairperson Lopez asked for action on the proposed Resolution No. 2069. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2069. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (April 18, 2001 ) Commissioner Campbell notified the commission that the dedication of the Mother and Child sculpture would be on Thursday at 4:30 p.m. They had a presentation by Pat Conlon regarding improving the President's Plaza parking lot which would provide more parking spaces. The committee also had their first ,,�, view of the Council Chamber atrium design concept. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No' m�etiri�) '�- D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (May 1 , 2001) Commissioner Finerty said they discussed in depth the type of wall that would be placed on Fred Waring where the widening would take place, which was basically east of San Pascual, both on the north and south sides. They made a recommendation and were � waiting until the next meeting to see what would happen. Commissioner Campbell said that the Art in Public Places Committee also looked at that design. r� F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting► 21 �... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1, 2001 :� G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE � CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. PHILIP DREL Secretary ATTEST: / I ;u•' i f��• �,`__ '�. � / / �`�T t' �`� /� ��� ` ` �( CYNTHIA FINERTY, Vice Chai erson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm :� 22