Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0605 �1•�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JU NE 5, 2001 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER r,. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. if. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Dave Tschopp too Members Absent: Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for consideration of the May 15, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschop p, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the May 15, 2001 minutes by minute motion. Motion carried 2-0-1 (Chairperson Lopez abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION +�• Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 24, 2001 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 p VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-09 - DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES SUPPORT FOUNDATION, INC. Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two lots at 44-830 San Benito. B. Case No. PMW 01-14 - RUSSELL & CHERYLE CLARK and AVONDALE GOLF CLUB, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to remove a pie-shaped piece from the rear of Lot 49 of Tract 4018 and add a pie-shaped piece to the easterly side of Lot 49 on Tandika Trail in Avondale Country Club. C. Case No. PMW 01-17 - DR. FRANK KERRIGAN, Applicant Request for approval to consolidate two existing parcels into one parcel in conjunction with the expansion of an existing medical facility including construction of a new building on Parcel 3 and a new parking lot on Parcel 2 at 42-575 Washington (Case No. CUP 00-02) . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. Vill. 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. .ri 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 A. Case No. CUP 01-04 - TELECOM WIRELESS SOLUTIONS for SPRINT PCS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 65-foot high wireless communication tower on property located at 74-735 Hovley Lane East. Mr. Drell explained that the request was for a stealth tower to be located at the Palm Desert Soccer Park. It would basically be located in the northwest corner of the site up against the well site and it would be surrounded by ten live palm trees. He thought that in addition to getting a lot of good landscaping in the park, they would be negotiating a contract with the applicant for a portion of the revenue. He felt this was a good proposal and recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan noted that some of the renderings were labeled obsolete in their packets and he asked if there were any significant changes that the commission needed to be aware of. Mr. Drell said he didn't know why the commission had been given plans that said obsolete. The applicant addressed the commission and explained that the original drawings only showed two trees and after comments from the Architectural Review Commission, they added eight more trees for a total of ten. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received confirmation that the location of the proposed tower on the site plan they received hadn't changed. Mr. Drell said that the tree would be Robusta and Filifera varieties. He also distributed palm frond and bark samples. Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a reference in the staff report to a condition of approval regarding these trees but he didn't see it in the resolution. Mr. Drell said that the submitted plan showed the ten trees. Chairperson Lopez stated that it should be added to the conditions of approval. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked how this differed from the request from a month or so ago. Mr. Drell said that the other ones were date palms. Since there were no other date palms in the park, the Landscape Manager felt it was more appropriate to have palms that are similar to all the others in the park. Commissioner Tschopp noted that there was a specific request for one near Washington and 1-10. He indicated that one was not well received. Mr. Drell explained that the one at Washington %NW 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 and 1-10 had a four-foot dish on it. Council ended up reducing it to two feet, the same width as the pole (trunk), and it would be painted the same color as the pole and positioned to face the freeway. He said that this request didn't include a dish and it was his understanding that there was a phone line right around the corner at the pumping station that they could access. Therefore, they didn't need a microwave dish. Commissioner Tschopp noted that this request is by Telecom Wireless and he knew there were a lot of other wireless competitors out there and asked if we should expect a lot of other requests. Mr. Drell said yes. He stated that the City was precluded from denying them but could influence their design. The City couldn't restrict them so that they couldn't provide service to the community. That was part of the Federal Communications Act that encouraged competition in this industry. Commissioner Jonathan said they could ensure that each one meets the stealth standards which was a problem with that prior application because it was quite visible. Mr. Drell concurred. MR. JOSHUA KRZANAK, 1823 E. 17th Street, Suite 205 in Santa Ana, addressed the commission . He explained that Telecom Wireless Solutions was merely a consultant to Sprint PCS, who would actually be the carrier for the site. Commissioner Jonathan asked how far the actual panels would extend from the pole itself. Mr. Krzanak said he didn't know, but that would be on the drawings. He believed they were four feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Krzanak's company would be the installer. Mr. Krzanak said no, Iger Communications was the actual construction management firm that would be taking over the building. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Krzanak knew if the tree material was fairly hearty and asked if he was fa miliar with them or if they have had maintenance experience with them in terms of their longevity particular in the hot, dry weather out here. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 Mr. Krzanak said that these were long term. They are costly and for return on investment, etc., the materials were ten to 20 year materials as far as the longevity was concerned. Mr. Drell commented that they would probably outlast the technology. 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 Jonathan asked if staff knew how far the palms extended. This one looked like it worked and he just wanted to know the distance. If it wasn't readily available, it could be addressed at a later time. Mr. Drell said that to a certain degree they get a smaller head with this Robusta variety, but the Landscape Manager didn't want to see one date palm out there by itself. Commissioner Jonathan said that this request looked good. It was a good location, good material, apparently met the stealth standards and he moved for approval. Commissioner Tschopp was also in favor. Chairperson Lopez also agreed as long as a condition was included that solidified the number of clustered trees. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2072, approving CUP 01-04, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-0. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 B. Case No. CUP 01 -08 - VERIZON; 02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 50-foot high wireless communication tower, camouflaged as a flagpole located at 74-535 Highway 74. Mr. Drell explained that this is another type of camouflage proposed in front of the church on Highway 74. He received confirmation that the commission received photographs in their packets. He said that the tower would be camouflaged as a flag pole. It was at 50 feet instead of the maximum 65 feet height. It would have a six foot by ten foot American flag on top. There were palm trees around it as well and an existing flag pole at the location. Staff felt this was worth experimenting with. It would be set 40 feet away from the highway and up against the building and staff felt it would be appropriate. The one condition the Architectural Commission recommended was that they felt that a regular galvanized steel pole would be somewhat less obtrusive and the one in the picture was a bright white. They felt the gray color would tend to disappear into the background better than the bright white. Staff moo recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the picture that was provided the size of the flag seemed out of scale. Mr. Drell agreed that it was too small. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was a condition of approval that the City would have the ability to pass judgement on the size of the flag. Mr. Drell concurred. He said that the size of the flag in the picture wasn't six by ten, it was more of a four by six. That was a condition of the disguise. That it has to look like a reasonable flag on a flagpole. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Condition Number 9 indicates that the size would be a minimum of six feet by ten feet consistent with the plans on file. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked who determined if the design was a flag or a palm tree. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant submits a proposal and it was up to the commission to determine if it was appropriate in a particular location. It was the first time a flagpole design had been requested and staff felt this was an appropriate location and a worthy first look at this design. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 Commissioner Jonathan said that in both of these cases staff was recommending an exception to the residential separation requirement of 300 feet. He asked if that was a coincidence or if the Zoning Ordinance was inadequate. Mr. Drell said that based on the stealth characteristics, staff recommended the exception. He recalled that when the City first adopted the ordinance, they were looking at 85 foot poles and that height was required because of the restrictions against residential and there were so few locations within the City that met those geographic descriptions that they were not getting good coverage and 85-foot poles. They amended the code which allowed an exception if they were convinced that the aesthetics are appropriate. At the same time they lowered the height limit to 65 feet. They decided to allow more disguised poles at a lesser height as opposed to the taller ones in fewer locations. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BILL HARRIS, Parish Administrator for St. Margaret's Church, 40-640 Ventana Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Harris was the applicant. Mr. Harris said yes, he was requesting this through the company. He had a question about flag size. Instead of one six by ten flag, he requested two eight feet by ten feet flags: the Episcopal flag presently there and the U.S. flag above that one. Mr. Drell said that six by ten was the minimum size. He noted that eight by ten was almost square and asked if he was sure that was the size. Mr. Harris said he thought that was what they were flying and was what they ordered. If it just had to meet the minimum standard that was fine. MR. HANK HOWENSTEIN , 9090 Calle Escorial in Desert Hot Springs, stated that he was representing Verizon and 02 Wireless. With him at the meeting was Ed Krugman from 02 Wireless. He said they were requesting approval of this stealth tower which would be at approximately 50 feet. There would be another ball 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 on top of that so the overall height would probably be 51 feet and it would replace the existing flagpole that was currently a much shorter flagpole at the entrance to the church. The actual location of the two flagpoles would be exactly the same even though the height of their stealth facility would be nearly double that. As pointed out by Mr. Drell, there were other features at this site that would have a tendency to diminish the starkness of the overall height of the flagpole in the sense that there are palm trees adjacent to this that are approximately 55 feet. The shortest ones were probably 32 feet and go up to about 55 feet. The deciduous tree is about 28 or 29 feet high. The pole would be directly opposite the centerline of Haystack as it dead ends into Highway 74. There was one thing he said he needed to discuss with the Commission tonight and he apologized for it not having occurred earlier, and that was that the diameter of the pole would be 26 inches and not 16 inches as was reported. They checked with the manufacturers and that size was no longer available to them. So the diameter of the pole would be 26 inches and they didn't think it would necessarily destroy the aesthetics of the plan. The a flagpole seen in the pictures was a 26-inch base flagpole. He said he would be happy to respond to any questions. There would be two arrays of antennae within a sleeve which fits over the top of the pole so that the entire pole is uniform in length from the top to the bottom. He noted that Mr. Harris appeared tonight to offer his support from the church. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Howenstein why the 16-inch pole was no longer available. Mr. Howenstein said he wasn't privy to that other than they might be having difficulty with wind torque and other issues in terms of adequate strength for these devices. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Howenstein was saying it wasn't available. Mr. Howenstein said it wasn't available to them. He didn't know if it wasn't available. The other thing they needed to deal with was that as the flag goes up, they didn't want it to blossom out with a wider ring at the top where the antennae are covered. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 They needed to have that uniformity and if they looked at the design, fundamentally the design is uniform in size from top to bottom. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood that was the case with 16 inches. Mr. Howenstein said it was the case with 26 inches. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it wasn't the case 16 inches which was what was presented to staff and to the commission prior to Mr. Howenstein's testirnony. Mr. Howenstein said they haven't testified in front of this commission before. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the application was processed on the basis of a uniform diameter of 16 inches. Mr. Howenstein said that the drawing which commission received �` showed a wider diameter at the top then at the bottom. Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn't understand that from the staff report and recalled reading otherwise. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff was learning of the change from 16 inches to 26 inches for the first time tonight. Mr. Drell said yes, unless Mr. Alvarez was aware of it and he wasn't present. Mr. Howenstein said that Mr. Alvarez wasn't aware of the change. Mr. Drell said that in the diagram it did look like it widened out where the ray is. Reading from the staff report, Commissioner Jonathan said that the cover would be painted to match the pole and would carry the same diameter as the pole. The diameter of the pole is 16 inches and is carried throughout the entire pole. Mr. Drell noted that Mr. Howenstein said that the photographs show it as 26. Mr. Howenstein said yes. %OW 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 Mr. Drell asked if it was all of the photographs because some of them seemed skinnier. Mr. Howenstein said it was the same flagpole taken from four or five different views. Mr. Drell asked for confirmation that the photos showed a 26-inch pole. Mr. Howenstein concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff formed its recommendation based on the 16-inch pole straight all the way up and down in diameter. He didn't know if staff required more time to address this change or had formed an opinion already. Mr. Drell said that what the Architectural Commission saw were these pictures. Commissioner Jonathan said that the staff report said that these pictures were at 16 inches and the application was for 16 inches. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was not comfortable with this kind of a change at the last minute. Chairperson Lopez asked Mr. Howenstein to elaborate a little bit on how this piece of equipment was attached to the ground. This was a relatively wide pole with a couple of flags on it with the wind blowing. He asked how it was attached to the ground area because it looked like it was pretty much standing out alone. Mr. Howenstein stated that these towers have approximately a 12-foot casing in depth and long bolts are dropped into that cement casing and then they come up out of the cement and then on top of that is dropped the support mechanism which is bolted down to the flange located on top of the cement and then on top of that the pole goes up on top of that. If they looked at some of the street lighting fixtures and things of that sort that was how these were attached to the ground and then the pole goes up in diameter because it had to contain the wiring that goes up to the antenna and if there were change outs that needed to be made there had to be room for additional pulling of the wiring up through the casing. When they got to the top, the pole got more slender so that the antenna could attach to the inner pole and then the plastic casing could drop down over the top of that so that there was a completed looking cylinder. When they looked at these in 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 %"' the field, they had a great deal of difficulty discerning where the seam was between the plastic sleeve that covers the antenna and the actual pole itself. Chairperson Lopez noted that all that was mentioned in the staff report was for a minimum flag size six feet by ten feet. There was now conversation for perhaps two flags, one six by ten and one eight by ten. He asked if the number of flags on the structure caused any concern. Mr. Howenstein said that the torque, the wind sheer factor, is calculated in excess of the wind sheer capability here in the desert and they would present this to the technical people, but he didn't believe it would create a problem for the additional strain on the pole. Commissioner Tschopp asked if technology limited them to a choice between a 50-foot flagpole and a 65-foot palm tree. He asked if the palm had to be taller than a flagpole. Mr. Howenstein said that it was his understanding that in this situation, they needed a device that is 50 feet in the air and he thought it was the church who looked at the option of a flagpole and being able to replace their existing flagpole with this technology which would enable them to fly two flags from it. There were a number of different stealth options available and this was the one the church selec-ted. Mr. Drell asked if the width of the flagpole is similar to the width of a mono palm pole. Mr. Howenstein said that was correct. 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 Tschopp said that he was hoping that the flagpole would be more slender than what was shown in the picture. Given the use of the flag that currently exists there and replacing it, knowing that St. r.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 Margaret's has a beautiful facility and had given this a lot of thought also, he thought it would fit in as well as disguised palm trees and he would be in favor. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was generally in favor, too, but he was uncomfortable that the Architectural Review Commission approved something that they thought was 16 inches in diameter and now it was a 26-inch diameter which represents a 60% increase in size. He was also uncomfortable that the presentation from staff and the applicant has been for a single flag with a minimum size of six by ten and now they were talking about two flags each eight feet by ten feet. Aesthetically he thought this was very different from what ARC reviewed. He was generally in favor but he felt it should be referred back to ARC for another review because he thought it was different enough from what they saw and they may or may not have issues. Chairperson Lopez stated that he agreed with Commissioner Jonathan. He was a little concerned about the ten additional inches on the pole. He said it was difficult to look at these photographs to try to determine whether the pole is in fact 16 or 26 inches. He agreed that ARC needed to look at it and the application needed to reflect what was going to be there. He was also concerned about the number of flags, the wind factor and what happens all around that flagpole with children in the area and so forth. He suggested a continuance to allow for additional information and ARC review. Mr. Drell noted that ARC would meet on June 12 and the commission could refer it back to ARC and continue it for two weeks for their comments. Commissioner Jonathan said his recommendation would be to refer it back to ARC. He said that the applicant was hopefully hearing that there weren't conceptual objections from what he could discern, but did think it needed to be referred back to ARC for their feedback. Chairperson Lopez reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, continuing Case No. CUP 01-08 to June 19, 2001 . Motion carried 3-0. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 C. Case Nos. C/Z 01-02 and PP 01-02 - ROBERT ORR, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a Change of Zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five units per acre) to O.P. (office professional), and a precise plan of design for two buildings (an office and a bank) on a 2.33 acre site on the north side of Country Club Drive 450 feet east of Portola, 74-150 Country Club Drive. The proposed zone change also includes the 2.33 acre lot immediately to the west. Mr. Smith explained that there was a proposal on this property before the commission in April which was not approved. Prior to the commission adopting a resolution of denial, the applicant withdrew that previous application. He came back with a significantly revised application. He stated that if approved, both parcels would be zoned from Planned Residential five units per acre to Office Professional. The property to the east was the location of the proposed bank and office building. The reason for the commission's intent to deny the previous application were outlined in the staff report. He indicated that the applicant made �. significant changes. First, the bank was now a one-story building. They eliminated the parking out front and the parking was now located to the north. The drive-through for the bank was located on the north side. It was formerly on the west. The applicant has deleted the medical office building from the center of the property and in its place had shown an open space park-like area. The northerly office building was now a partial two-story building, so it was a mix of one and two stories with a maximum height of 25 feet. Previously it was 32 feet which was considerably in excess of the 25-foot permitted maximum height. With the reduction in building floor area, the applicant has been able to achieve 100% of parking onsite. Previously he was attempting to use a shared parking arrangement with the church to the east. The revised architecture was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission on April 24, 2001 . Essentially the applicant took out all of the negative aspects of the previous proposal. Mr. Smith said he spoke with Pastor Blue today of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. They now support the application. They were shown the revised plans and very much liked the idea of the open space which was opposite the entrance to their sanctuary. At this time staff was recommending that the commission recommend certification of the Negative Declaration of r.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 Environmental Impact and approval of the precise plan of design and change of zone to the City Council. Commissioner Jonathan asked to see the renderings. He reminded staff of his extreme desire to get these kinds of colored renderings into the commission's packets whenever possible. He thought all they had were blueline elevations and that didn't give them a very clear idea of how it would look. He asked if the left side of the two-story building was the view facing south and if that was the front. Mr. Drell said he thought the front was the one story elevation. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT ORR, 77-734 Country Club Drive, in Palm Desert, said that they have a very difficult site to work with because of its shape but they had done everything they could to adapt it to the site and the concerns of planning. As mentioned, the church had a lot of concerns when they started and now they had no t objections. To his knowledge, Silver Sands Racquet Club to the south was in favor. He said he would defer any questions on the design criteria to his architect. He said he was present to answer any questions for the owner. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A in Palm Desert, stated that on the site plan they met with staff and tried to mitigate the problems mentioned last time. A big thing was to have a big setback of 40 plus feet from the curb, all landscaped and a one story bank building only 22 feet high and then tried to create a park-like setting where they would have a fountain in the middle and meditation type of garden and palm trees all around it so that it would really be a park-like area. People from the bank could have lunch there. It would be the focal point of the design. They removed some covered parking so that it was all open and nothing obstructs the park-like setting. They put the office building in the back closer to the golf course so that it wouldn't be seen from the street. When coming up and down the road now, it would be fairly well hidden. The church would hide it on one side and eventually it would be hidden from the other side when the vacant parcel developed. On the 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 architecture, the south elevation would be the main elevation from the street. He showed the other elevations. He said that what didn't show on the elevation was some of the landscaping which would hide the plainness of the north elevation - the back of the bank. For the two-story building in the back, the south elevation would be facing the street so that would be the prominent elevation. Then it stepped up to the two-story portion. There was car parking underneath the structure and on top would be an outside deck area for the second floor people. They tried to do everything in the way of site design, architecture that the staff thought was the best architecture, and the Architectural Review Board was very much in favor of the project. There wasn't one negative vote. They were in conformance and agreed with all the conditions of approval and he hoped the Planning Commission would agree with both ARC and staff. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the bank would be a full service bank on the bottom floor. Mr. Ricciardi concurred. Commissioner Tschopp said that there were five parking spaces to the east adjacent to the building and he assumed probably two would be ADA designated. Mr. Ricciardi concurred. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that would only leave three for other customers. Mr. Ricciardi said that one had to be ADA, but that would leave four for the basic in and out customers. Staff and others would park in the back. This wasn't the type of bank that would have huge payrolls and those kinds of problems. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Ricciardi, the architect, had a problem with most of the customers in excess of four walking across the drive-up area. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 Mr. Ricciardi said no, they had a similar situation in the new bank they just did on El Paseo which they have been told was a very successful remodel. They have a similar situation with First Community Bank in Indian Wells where most of the parking for that bank is behind the drive-up window, so it wasn't uncommon to have it that way, so architecturally it has worked. The drive-up window was more for people using the ATM for small cash withdrawals. Several banks have done away with their drive-up windows because not a lot of people use them. There wasn't a big demand for drive-up windows except in the summer time when people don't want to get out of their cars. So that worked well here. In the summer time the drive-up window would get a lot of use. He thought it would work fine and the bank liked the design. Chairperson Lopez asked for clarification on the vehicle circulation at the drive-up window. He asked where the cars go after leaving the drive-up window. Mr. Ricciardi explained cars would make a U turn. He said there i was a lot of stacking area there. Chairperson Lopez asked if this was a full service window. Mr. Ricciardi said yes and it was his understanding that they would be renting space in the building in the back because the two-story element they had before would be rental space. They tried to get the park so that it lined up with the church so that when the church came in it didn't have buildings growing over it and were off to the side. Chairperson Lopez asked if it was feasible that when the lot next door develops that the access exiting the bank window could make a left turn and out or if that would be a driveway. Mr. Ricciardi said that in the last design they had laid that space out for the applicant, but the present landowner was not interested in developing the property, he was just interested in holding onto it. The City could require them to make their parking lots work together. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 Mr. Drell thought that site would have a shared exit back to Country Club with the Homme project. Mr. Ricciardi said that was correct. Mr. Drell said that someone could circulate to the next parcel and get to the Homme driveway and back to Country Club. He said that circulation would work much better after the vacant parcel developed. Mr. Smith stated that the Fire Marshal was requiring that the driveway go in now to connect across there so they would have it when this property develops. Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that there would be a driveway now going across the Homme property to the west. Mr. Smith said it wasn't the Homme property, but the property immediately to the west. The Fire Department wanted a second access and that seemed to be the most logical way to achieve that and so that was the way they phrased their condition. Mr. Ricciardi said they would be putting in a 24-foot wide temporary driveway there. 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 Jonathan stated that last time he was one of the more vocal critics and this time he hoped to be one of the more vocal supporters. This was wonderful. He applauded the applicant, Canyon National Bank, the contractor, the Orrs, and the architect. He thought they had done a wonderful job here and he was very pleased. He especially liked the one-story element in the front with ample setback from Country Club and sufficient parking. The deletion of the center building made a big difference. The center park-like area was awesome. The partial step two-story building in the rear with the reduced height absolutely worked here and the architecture was very attractive. He said it was very aesthetically creative and appealing. He couldn't find anything wrong with it and liked it very much. He said it was a shame that the property owner to the west wasn't interested in participating in 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 the design, but he would expect that he would be hemmed in in terms of what is on either side of him and the limitations he would face. He stated that this project stands alone and is a perfect use of the land. It was a difficult parcel to work with and he applauded the applicant on the project. Commissioner Tschopp thought that was well said. He also complimented the architect on the building design and coming back with two buildings that actually fit that narrow piece of land versus the three that were previously proposed. The parking meets the requirements and he thought it was a very good plan considering the property they had to work with. Chairperson Lopez concurred. He congratulated all parties involved. He thought they had done an outstanding job in incorporating a difficult piece of property with some nice buildings, the layout, and he thought they had "raised the bar" for those individuals who develop the property next door. He asked for a motion. Action: t It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2073, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 01-02 and PP 01-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. D. Case No. PP 01-12 - RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 9,007 square foot restaurant on a 69,829 square foot site at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Village Court, 74-740 Highway 111 . Mr. Smith distributed colored copies of the building elevations. Mr. Smith explained that essentially they were looking at a 9,000 square foot restaurant on a 70,000 square foot lot. The property is located at Village Court and Village Center so they were at the easterly city boundary. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5 2001 Immediately to the east was the city of Indian Wells' city limit. To the north and west were offices and to the south Vacation Inn. The site has access from Village Court. Village Court runs northerly off of Highway 111 . The access to Village Court is limited to right in and right out only so persons traveling easterly or coming from the west would go to the first signal to the east which is in Indian Wells, make a left and come back on Village Center Drive. There would be two access points to Village Court. There would be a third access off of Village Center Drive. The site plan provided for 95 onsite parking spaces. A restaurant of this size has a requirement for 120 parking spaces. When staff wrote the report last week, the applicant had a preliminary agreement with property owners to the west and north for the use of parking spaces after 5:15 p.m. on weekdays and in total at that point had access to 54 offsite spaces. This evening he was advised that one of the agreements didn't come to fruition so they have agreement with the property owner to the north which provides for 20 offsite parking spaces. The second plan handed out just before the meeting showed a reduced building area of 8,550 square feet versus the 9,000 square feet previously which reduced the amount of parking required so that the 20 spaces offsite were adequate to meet the parking requirement and in fact created with the change in the site plan an additional two parking spaces or two over the minimum required. Basically staff would prefer to give them an either or scenario. If they could make agreement with the property owner to the west, then allow them to go to the bigger size and if they couldn't make that agreement, then approve the reduced sized restaurant at 8,550. He said that minutes from ARC were given to the commission. He commented that this is a very contemporary looking building with quirky block-like angles on the building which created an interesting architectural effect and it also served to screen roof-mounted equipment. They also had the major dome statement in the center of the roof and on the west side was the porte cachere creating a weather protected drop off area. The preliminary drawings were given approval by ARC at its May 8 meeting. The site plan has a ten-foot east side yard. Code would require 15 feet. Given the circumstances, the depth of the lot, the relatively minor depth of the building and the existing situation to the east at more than 50 feet of landscaped setback, a row of parking, a double aisle and then landscaping against the buildings. The Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to recommend a modification in those types of circumstances and staff felt it was warranted. Mr. Smith stated that code allows for an up to 50% shared parking situation. In this instance r.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 s where there was a restaurant use which was evening related in an office park which is day time activity, it seemed to make a good blend of uses or dual use. They wouldn't have any conflicting use for the parking spaces. Staff's hope was that they still get the 9 7 onsite parking spaces and then get enough parking to meet the code minimum. They had been hoping to achieve more, but code was code and if they could meet it staff felt it would be adequate. Another reason for going along with a shared parking arrangement was because the development immediately to the east is an example where they kept the property all as one, they came in with a unified parking area and then created pads around it. In this instance they went in with a parcel map procedure to create the lots on Village Court and broke it up. Now they were effectively looking at methods to combine uses which go together. Staff felt in this instance a shared parking arrangement for 20 spaces and a smaller building or 54 offsite spaces and a larger building would be acceptable. He stated that the findings for approval of the precise plan were in the staff report. Relative to the CEQA review, the matter was reviewed at the time of the parcel map consideration whereby they created Village Court Office Park. Commercial uses were evaluated for the southerly most lots. No further environmental review was necessary. Staff recommended approval with the amendment relative to giving the applicant an either or relative to the ..� size of the building which would be based on whether or not they could reach agreement for a shared parking arrangement with the property to the west. If they couldn't, they would go ahead with the smaller building. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff was recommending modification of Condition Number 12 which requires a minimum of 25 offsite parking spaces based on the either or scenario. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that the 25 would stand if they stick with 9,045 square feet but with the lower size that would be changed to 20. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked why Village Court/Village Center was coming before the commission separately without a shared parking easement. He asked for the history there and if there were separate owners. He asked why it wasn't master planned with pads. Mr. Smith said it was master planned with pads and they had been sold to individuals. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was why they didn't have a reciprocal parking easement for the entire project. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan said that when this first came to them as a site plan with planned pads, there 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 weren't reciprocal parking easements as part of the application. Mr. Smith said that was correct and each lot was having to provide 100% of its own required parking because everything else in the center were office uses with similar hours of use. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was a planning lesson for the future to maybe facilitate better usage and better efficiency of the parking situation. Mr. Smith said if they had it to do all over again, they might not have acted so quickly on the parcel map. Chairperson Lopez noted that the request was for a 9,007 square foot restaurant and then there was the number 9,045 used and he asked which one was right. Mr. Smith said that 9,007 came off of the early plans and if it had grown by 38 square feet that was okay. Chairperson Lopez said that if they go with the smaller building size of 8,550 square feet, parking required would be brought down to 113 total spaces with two extra spaces provided. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Lopez asked if the reduction in size would impact the setback of the 15 feet versus the ten feet. Mr. Smith said it wouldn't make it any worse and might make it six inches better. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. DESIREE DOERFLER, 21 Queen Street East, 8th Floor, in Brampton, Ontario, Canada, addressed the commission. She said that Ruth's Chris as a corporate entity acquired the California rights and Arizona rights from a franchisee. They came to be left with this site here in Palm Desert. Understandably there was a large parking problem at the current location so they wanted to alleviate that. In so doing, they wanted to be a bit environmentally conscious and obviously energy conscious. Prior to some of the problems currently being experienced in California what they had done was design a building which would hopefully meet the client's criteria. They are a large chain with 77 locations. They liked to develop a building and get it done efficiently and have the costs remain somewhat under control. They went with a fairly square building. They wanted to also deal with passive solar constraints and concerns with the envelope of the building. That was why there was a square building with projections coming forward to shield the windows from the sun. On various energy 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 levels they had been dealing with Edison in trying to become more efficient with their lighting use. A restaurant has equipment, but the reason for the dome was to get some indirect sunlight into the building, try to eliminate all lighting in the main dining area because all they do during the day is clean. So they needed sunlight but if they could eliminate lighting in the main dining area, put a clerestory in the back for the kitchen to embrace energy efficiency to its greatest extent without implementing a lot of costs. With landscaping they were trying to shade the pavement and incorporate pavers for aesthetic use as well as to avoid using too much dark pavement and eliminate the heat around the building. She said they might even put up a roof garden but weren't sure at this time. The heat load attracted to the roof of a building builds up to about 175 degrees and what is worse, the heat goes back into the atmosphere and affects the ozone layer. By putting some soil up there and planting some ground cover of sorts that might help with some energy savings. This was in the experimental stage and hadn't been accomplished in many locations although she knew California in existing buildings was trying to implement this to reduce environmental impacts. That was a history of the building. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Ms. Doerfler's firm designed the building. Ms. Doerfler said they were the project coordinator's. They started from the search for the property and did the due diligence for the property and would see it through to construction. She said they worked with an architect out of Dallas. Commissioner Jonathan asked if any of the other Ruth's Chris locations serve lunch. Ms. Doerfler said some do like in Manhattan where they had the lunch trade. The problem for them was that in order to staff a restaurant fully and if they have 220 or 230 seats, they really needed to turn their tables one and a half times and that was a lot of people for lunch and usually didn't work. In a market like Manhattan, some of the franchise locations open, but Corporate 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 did not use that as a rule. She confirmed that Palm Desert would be Corporate owned. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that lunch would never be served at this location. Ms. Doerfler said that the only time they would consider it would be before Christmas, the month of December because a lot of people tend to use that time to go out for lunch. Commissioner Jonathan asked if she understood that there were constraints in the conditions of approval which would prohibit that based on the parking shortage. Ms. Doerfler said yes. Chairperson Lopez asked what kind of material would be used on the dome to allow light through it. Ms. Doerfler said that it would probably be made out of a fiber glass mold and there were just penetrations in the sides of it with an overhang that would shield the windows and probably on the southern exposure they would use a sun shade of some sort. Chairperson Lopez noted that in the heat of summer with the sun going into that room, it could create some real problems for them. Talking about environmentally cooling down that room by the time dinner time comes around. He was a little concerned about it because it has been a problem for other locations. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. DICK SCHMID, 45-890 Pawnee Drive in Indian Wells, said that he is the developer of the property to the east, the multi office buildings, First Community Bank, etc. He, with Mr. Debonne, actually developed the Village Court project and they developed a joint parking arrangement for the project in Indian Wells because they were originally one piece of property owned by the family and consequently they needed to make sure they had 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 joint parking available for the different buildings on the property. With respect to the buildings and property developed in Palm Desert, the intent was that each property would stand on its own for parking requirements since they were planning on selling parcels to individuals. They didn't feel it would be proper to tie them to a parking arrangement that they possibly couldn't live with. He thought they had done the right thing in both cases. He didn't think the commission needed to reconsider what they have done, although in this case they had a retail use which was not consistent with the rest of the development_ Basically Ruth's Chris was doing the right thing in acquiring additional parking as they need it. He said they have no problem with the ten-foot setback on the east side of the property. When this property was developed, one of the requirements was to provide signalized access for the Debonne property to Highway 1 11 which they did with the City of Indian Wells as well. They actually owned this property and sold it to Ruth's Chris two years ago hoping they would build sooner than they have. However, they were happy that they were building at this time. i Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Tschopp said that overall this would be a good addition and was aware of the existing parking problems. He felt a little bit challenged because he didn't have quite the architectural art background that maybe some of the individuals on the Architectural Review Commission had or the other Planning Commissioners, but he didn't know if it was the spike heeled columns in the front or what, but the architecture didn't seem to carry through very well across the building. Whether that was enough to turn down a project at this time he wasn't sure, but everything else looked like they could be worked out especially given the conditions on the parking. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he liked the architecture. He was a little leering of it because (a certain art gallery on Highway 74 came to mind) sometimes they approve something and think it's going to look great and then reality sets in and they wonder how it could ever have been approved. But he was optimistic about this proposal. It seemed to be contemporary, yet retro, and yet deserty. That was how he felt about 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 it. It was different and a little bit of difference as they develop in the desert isn't bad if it is done tastefully. He liked it and didn't have a problem with the architecture. He stated that Ruth's Chris had to move because of a severe parking problem. He was a little bit saddened and chastened to see that they were moving out of one parking problem situation into one that he thought they had adequately resolved, so he wasn't going to object to it, but he wished they had found a place that had way more parking than they needed because it is a very successful operation and they were having to move because of a parking situation. They were kind of moving out of one parking problem situation into another parking problem situation that hopefully had been adequately resolved. That was yet to be seen. They certainly didn't have residential neighbors that would suffer the ill consequences that they heard about several times. At least that was good. In light of that the staff report indicated that the applicant intends to operate for dinner only and that if the applicant had any possible intention of being open for lunch, they should acquire a site within 300 feet and develop it into at least 25 parking spaces. The office projects didn't have available parking to share during office hours. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with staff's opinion and he wanted to put some teeth into that opinion in the form of an added condition, Number 14, which would specify that if the applicant ever did open for lunch, among other possible requirements the applicant would have to acquire a site within 300 feet and develop it into at least 25 parking spaces. Other than that it looked good to him. Chairperson Lopez also commended what he thought was really unique architecture. At first he was a little skeptical, but the more he looked at it and from the renderings he has seen, it grew on him. He thought there was a combination of items that fit with the desert and that area could use something a little unique. He thought it was well done. He also echoed the comments regarding parking. He knew that Ruth's Chris was moving from an area which created a lot of hardships for the residents around that area, problems which have grown over time because of the success of the restaurant itself. He anticipated that they would have tremendous success in the new location. The layout of the restaurant was such that they could have several fairly good-sized parties in the restaurant as well as individual patrons so they could have several groups or several organizations that would tax the parking. In prime season when everyone wanted to be in the desert, he thought it would be very successful, but he believed there was an opportunity to mitigate those 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 I parking problems and at least take away what has existed previously. ar� Again, it was only because of the success of the restaurant. He thought that overall it looked good and asked for a motion. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would move for approval with the addition of the condition as stated earlier. Commissioner Tschopp asked him to clarify that condition because it might have been a little too restrictive. If they wanted to open for lunch, they needed to have an adequate number of parking spaces available whether or not it was within 300 feet or if it was in agreement with another property owner. He asked if that was more of what Commissioner Jonathan meant. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the conditions already limited operation to dinner only and he was in agreement with that. Staff expressed their concern that if for any reason the applicant ever did open for I unch, they would need to acquire 25 more parking spaces within 300 feet, not a shared use of other spaces. Mr. Drell noted that if they were to ever open for lunch, they would have to come back to the Planning Commission and depending on 9 how the rest of the center has built out and whether they could acquire more offsite usage. Staff would have an idea at that time of the real usage. Typically if this was a retail center developed as one project, they have the 20% rule: when a restaurant shared the same parking lot with either offices or retail, typically at lunch people were at lunch. They would either be at the restaurant eating lunch or they would be elsewhere eating lunch. Commissioner Jonathan said that this was reminiscent of how they were persuaded to allow Ruth's Chris to operate in their current location. Mr. Drell said that he was saying that they would have to come back before the commission. They would have to justify, one way or another, that they have adequate parking if they open for lunch. Commissioner Jonathan said that was right and he respected the opinion, but he felt very strongly about avoiding a potential parking situation. If they wanted to serve lunch, he wanted them to come in and persuade the future Planning Commission to waive that condition as opposed to going the other way. He thought it was a preventive measure they could adopt today to help enhance the prospects of avoiding a parking problem. He wasn't suggesting that they allow lunch and he would be opposed to that. They have a condition that restricts it to dinner only. He was just suggesting the addition of another condition of approval that would indicate that should the applicant ever 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5 2001 "' seek to be open for lunch, as a condition of opening amongst other potential requirements and having to come back through the Planning Commission, etc., as an additional condition the applicant must acquire a separate site within 300 feet that could be developed into 25 additional parking spaces that do not exist right now. Chairperson Lopez said that would be incorporated into the existing conditions and asked for a second to the motion. Ac ion: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2074, approving PP 01-12, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-0. E. Case No. ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1) - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant ... Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance amending Sections 25.25.016, 25.28.060, 25.30.220, 25.30.230, 25.30.240, 25.30.250, and 25.30.270 of the Municipal Code, the setback requirements in the OP (Office Professional), C-1 (General Commercial) and PC (Planned Commercial) districts. Mr. Smith indicated that last September the Planning Commission directed staff to process an amendment to setbacks in the O.P. zone. October 17, 2000, Commission recommended approval to City Council. The amendment would add a minimum setback from the curb equal to one foot of setback for each foot of building height. That was in the O.P. district. The matter went to City Council at its November 9 meeting and the matter was continued several times. The City Council formed a subcommittee and through the subcommittee the scope of the amendment had expanded to include the C-1 and the PC zones. At this time the main thrust of the revised amendment is creating a "daylight triangle" requirement on the corner lots in the three zones which would ensure greater open space on the corners. On corner lots buildings would be required to be setback a minimum of two feet for every foot of 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 building height and not encroach into the daylight triangle. This setback requirement would be measured from the ultimate curb location which is the location of the curb when the street is constructed to its ultimate width as shown in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Staff showed an example of the daylight triangle. He said that what this would have done was push the building at Highway 1 1 1 and El Paseo back further from the corner. The revised ordinance also provides that in the PC and OP zones the setbacks on the interior lots would be the greater of the existing setback provisions or one foot of setback for every foot of building height. The ordinance also provides that where the City vacates property, buildings shall not encroach into the vacated property and should be setback as if the former property lines were still in existence. That was a request through the council subcommittee. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Smith for further clarification on that point. As an example, Mr. Smith said that the building on the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Portola, the AG Edward's building, formerly had a frontage road in front of it. Part of the redesign involved moving the access to the west side of the building and connecting into the parking lot and getting rid of the frontage road. In that exchange there was some trade off on building area that allowed the building to creep out, although it didn't actually go into the area that was vacated, it didn't meet the five-foot setback that we would have otherwise had there. There was a significant feeling that shouldn't be repeated. If we need to, the City should acquire those properties and not trade development rights. Mr. Drell added that as it relates to two-story buildings that are terraced it specifically allowed that daylight triangle to be measured to the height of each terrace of the building, so it did allow the first floor to encroach into the daylight triangle. There were two separate base lines on the triangle. Mr. Smith said that staff recommended that Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff said the new provisions would be prospective in nature and applied to buildings constructed after enactment of the amendment. That was a little confusing because they approved something tonight. If it didn't get constructed prior to enactment of the amendment, they were subject to the new requirements. Mr. Smith said that they didn't have any problem with the amendment. Commissioner Jonathan said there could be approved projects out there that the commission has granted extensions for which 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5 2001 would not meet this amendment. He asked if staff had thought through the effective date and if so, when that would be. Mr. Smith said it would be 30 days after the City Council gives the matter second reading. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would apply to previously approved projects that hadn't been built yet. He asked if those projects would have to come in and alter their plans. Mr. Smith said that was conceivable and that was why they had been bringing it to the attention of applicants for several months. Mr. Drell explained that a precise plan approval granted a vested right for one year. When they came in with a time extension request, the commission could deny it based on non compliance with the current ordinance. He wasn't sure there were any buildings that were in non compliance and didn't recall any on corners. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that it wasn't just the corners, it was also the 1 :1 setback. Mr. Drell said that all of the buildings with the exception of one have always met the 1 :1 setback. That was because of the lack of a parkway on a portion of the Shah building. The building about to be constructed on San Pablo and Highway 111 , the Norwalk Furniture building, met this requirement as well and probably exceeded it. Commissioner Jonathan said that the initial granting of the precise plan would probably protect that. Mr. Drell concurred and noted that the ` commission wouldn't be compelled to extend it. Commissioner Tschopp said he wasn't familiar with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, but at the same time greater open space on corners was important to him. Given some of the problems existing today on streets they didn't think would get that wide, he asked if the General Plan Circulation Element took that into consideration. Mr. Drell said that right now all arterials were planned out at six lanes. Mr. Greenwood stated that generally the Circulation Element tried to predict future conditions although the city wasn't always successful. They were currently doing the General Plan update process and he knew that the committee would look at the Circulation Element very closely with an eye on very rapid growth so that we don't suffer these kinds of problems that we currently find ourselves in. Generally he thought the Circulation Element was going to point to a lot of six-lane roads where we now think they are going to be four lanes. As soon as the Circulation Element is updated, it wouldn't be an issue because we will have identified all of those streets that would be extra wide. low 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 C Commissioner Jonathan noted that when we increase the standard like in the way proposed, it had the impact of reducing the buildable area on a lot. He asked the City Attorney if there was a precedent and authority for cities doing that and it wasn't considered the taking of property in any way. Mr. Hargreaves explained that it would become a taking if it they conditioned development in such a way that development of the property became uneconomical. If they couldn't make a profitable use of the property because of the stringent conditions, then there was a potential taking. He didn't believe they were getting any where close with this kind of requirement. Chairperson Lopez ol2ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Tschopp moved for approval. Commissioner Jonathan said he would second the motion and expressed his gratitude to staff. He brought this up a while back and it took a little longer to get done than he expected, but it was worth the wai-t. Part of his concern is and has been the elimination of view corridors throughout the city. It ri impacted the quality of life and this measure would be an effective way to combat that situation. He thanked staff for putting this through. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2075, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 00-09 (Revision No. 1), subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PP/CUP 00-27 - LAMB ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for reaffirmation and adding conditions to its previous action in the matter of Case No. PP/CUP 00-27 t 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5 2001 recommending to City Council approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, master plan of development for 5.4 acres located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive west of Cook Street and a precise plan/conditional use permit for a three-story, 88-room Hampton Inn hotel to be constructed on 2.4 acres on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive approximately 200 feet west of Cook Street, 74-900 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Smith said that this matter was before commission on April 17. At that time the commission recommended approval to City Council with a 5-0 vote. The matter went to council at its May 10 meeting. At that point the council voted 5-0 to deny the project without prejudice and referred the matter back to Planning Commission for consideration of certain items. The seven or eight items were outlined in the staff report. The applicant had taken the list of concerns from council and responded to each of them. In the end what they came up with were three additional conditions to address the concerns. He said the first concern related to landscaping and there was concern that we weren't getting much landscaping in the first phase. The applicant now confirmed that all perimeter landscaping would be completed with the Hampton Inn and if the other pads to the east and west were not underway at that point in time, then those pads would be seeded with wildflowers and irrigated accordingly. They added a condition that would assure that. Regarding over flow parking, council expressed concern that there was a need for over flow parking for the hotel. At that point the applicant had on the plan 97 parking spaces which was the code requirement. They now had a better defined master plan which showed the 60 parking spaces for the restaurant and 50 for the gas station and convenience store. This gave them 100% parking plus an additional 15 over the total site. In other hotel/restaurant developments it has been typical for the City to waive certain parking requirements because of the offset in parking between the two uses. They weren't being asked to do that in this instance and the project was providing more than 100% of the required parking. The issue of quality of Hampton Inn, they indicated their room rates would run between $129 and $189 in season and $109 and $139 in low season. Rates would be higher on weekends and during special events. Hampton Inn was connected with Hilton. Hilton provided an information packet which defined Hampton Inn's ranking within a range of hotels. He understood that the Hilton representatives were in attendance if tow 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUN E 5. 2001 additional information was needed. Relative to a bus stop, there was a question of whether it was needed or not. The applicant met with Sunline on May 17 and at that time Sunline clarified that it requires bus stops on the north and south sides of Gerald Ford west of Cook Street. There was a letter from Sunline dated May 18. The applicant amended his plan to provide a bus stop. The architecture of the shelter would complement the architecture of the project and an appropriate condition had been added. The former bus stop they thought was going in on the northeast corner had been deleted by City Council for the Mobil Station. Sunline had no desire to have a bus stop on that side. At the council meeting the applicant's representative was unable to give council an indication of what the other uses on the site might be. The applicant advised that the gas station and convenience store operator would be Arco and they hoped to be open by January 2002. The restaurant on the west end would be a high quality locally owned Chinese restaurant. They hoped to have the restaurant under construction by the end of the year. There was a concern with the amount of U turns exiting the site. Part of the overall master plan called for the creation of a future street. That was part of the parcel map which was approved several weeks ago. What staff was suggesting at this point in time was construction of the road to the access point as part of the first phase. They already had a condition requiring that they place signs for people exiting the hotel. Eventually it would be signalized and people would be able to make a left turn onto Gerald Ford. That was how they attempted to address that. The project complied with the basic height limit. Per City policy the council must approve tower elements in excess of 35 feet. Council expressed concern with approving projects in areas where the General Plan Advisory Committee is considering significant land use changes. They felt this one fell into a separate category in that this whole area of Cook Street and the freeway and Gerald Ford was covered by a development agreement per Ordinance No. 837. The development agreement conveys certain property rights to the property owner. In talking with the City Attorney, he indicated that a moratorium would not affect properties where the development agreement is in place in that the vested right through the development agreement is there unless there was a problem with utilities being unable to service the area and that wasn't the case here. Basically staff felt the changes the applicant made and the clarifications made have allowed a better review of the project. Staff's recommendation was that the Planning Commission reaffirm its 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 previous recommendation of approval and add the three additional conditions. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the number of bus shelters being required. Mr. Smith explained that there would be one on the north side only. Commissioner rschopp asked if there was any agreement or condition on Sunline to provide buses if they had to build a shelter. Mr. Smith said the applicant met with Sunline and perhaps they had some definitive date as to when service would commence. Mr. Drell said that typically in this situation they would be required to install the turn out but they would not actually put in the shelter until there was service. They didn't want to make people believe there was service and have them sit there and wait for a bus_ Chairperson Lopez asked why City Council felt it was necessary to have over flow parking. Mr. Drell said that at that meeting one Councilman, who has taken this position other times, felt that somehow meeting the minimum requirements of the code wasn't good enough. In other instances we've had shared uses between hotels and restaurants in one project but in this case everyone was providing 100%. Maybe it was because only a part of the project was being built at first. In this case each use stood on its own in terms of parking requirements. He said his typical response is that if they don't feel the minimum standard is adequate they should raise the minimum standard. His experience with Residence Inn and Courtyard is that our minimum standard is adequate and that was why it was established. Chairperson Lopez said he was curious and was sure that over flow parking is needed when there was major meeting space and major events going on and additional parking needed on top of actual guests in the hotel, but he didn't believe that Hampton Inn was in that category although it is a nice facility. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the process. He noted that this item was not under public hearings, but was placed under Miscellaneous. He asked if that was appropriate. Mr. Drell said yes, the council just referred it back to the commission for their comments relative to these issues they raised. It would go back to council as a public hearing. Commissioner Jonathan's second question was, if Planning Commission approved it and the Council had problems with it, why they wanted Planning Commission to look at it. If they were the ones having the problem, he asked if they should be the ones to look at the resolution of 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 those problems. Mr. Drell said he had no comment. Commissioner Jonathan commented that he was just trying to understand this. Mr. Smith noted that the applicant was present if the commission wished to hear from therm. Chairperson Lopez said he appreciated them being here and didn't think they had any questions. He felt good about the project and stood by what they voted before. Commissioner Jonathan said that was his feeling. He thought it was fine and if there was an issue of phase development and how it would happen, that was fine. He was usually one to be very concerned about parking but he agreed with earlier staff comments. There is adequate parking here and he didn't believe the code was inadequate. Therefore, since this meets code there is adequate parking in his opinion and he saw that as a non issue. He wasn't at all comfortable with the bus stop, to follow up on Commissioner Tschopp's comments. He thought that when they as a Planning Commission condition a project on a bus stop, it should be as a result of a comprehensive analysis that Sunline has conducted and that they have made a determination that there is an absolute need there. He didn't think that has happened here. He wasn't sure it was fair or appropriate to place the burden of a bus shelter on one developer when it was something that served the entire desert community. It seemed haphazard to place this condition on this particular project. Otherwise, he was fine with it before and fine with it now. MR. BOB MAINIERO, of Mainiero, Smith and Associates, said he met with Sunline and they told him that they were developing an express service throughout the valley. There would be just a few stops along the way and they have designated these points as stops for this express service. He got the impression it was something coming within the next year. Chairperson Lopez said he thought it was probably as part of the Mid Valley Parkway. Mr. Drell said that to a certain degree it is. Also, what he was anticipating coming out of the General Plan is that this corridor from the college to Monterey was going to be a highly developed mixed use both residential and commercial corridors which will ultimately 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 probably be one of the better served transit routes in the city because of the type of development that is going to occur at both ends. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't question the need for more bus stops and the conversion of bus stops to bus shelters. One reason he asked for a representative of that committee to appear before the commission was because he felt they were lacking a comprehensive needs analysis with a resulting determination of exactly where those stops and shelters should be located because sometimes half a block, a block or a couple of blocks made all the difference in the world. He wasn't sure Sunline was tapped into what staff is doing in a planning capacity or what the Planning Commission is doing in a planning capacity and what projects are online when they just kind of throw a recommendation out there for a condition to build a bus shelter. At least he hadn't seen that kind of an analysis. The other issue was one of financial burden which wouldn't be an issue with this application. That's where he was coming from. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the applicant met with Sunline on May 17 which is after the Planning Commission meeting. He thought it was only fair to applicants that we know who we are going to refer in the future to Sunline. He asked if it was everyone who comes in front of them. He thought it would be great to have Sunline in the planning process sooner rather than later. Other than that, he thought that Hampton Inn was a good quality hotel and he believed the comments at the previous meeting with changes stated here should apply. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2076, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP/CUP 00-27 with three additional conditions. Motion carried 3-0. B. Case Nos. GPA 01-03, C/Z 01-04, PP 01-11 and TPM 30193 - Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency/Palm Desert Development Co., Applicants 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 Mr. Drell said that this was an update on the hearing held at the last meeting. He apologized on behalf of the City and the Housing Authority on putting the Planning Commission in the box they were put in two weeks ago where late at night they were forced to make a decision where they would probably rather have had some leisure time and more information on and under normal circumstances would have recommended a continuance. Unfortunately for various reasons relative to the financing of the project through tax credits, continuance would have prevented the Housing Authority from applying to the developer for tax credits and there were some $ 14 million at stake. Also, there were certain pressures being put on the Agency relative to compliance with a legal judgement entered into with the Western Center of Law and Poverty about ten years ago to pursue a housing program and our diligence in pursuing it affects the Agency's ability to issue bonds. All of those things conspired for whatever reason to not give the commission enough time to properly consider the various questions and concerns they had. Staff scheduled the case to go to City Council on June 14. Staff basically heard back from the Council members that they wanted more input from this commission in terms of making their decision if they were going to make a decision. Therefore, staff provided the draft staff report to the City Council where staff attempted to address the issues that the commission had concerns with at the last meeting. One of the concerns raised was an issue by Mr. McCarty relative to the appropriateness of the site in general for housing. Staff checked with the Fire Marshal because there has been a residential project next to the service industrial area for the life of both. They both date back over 35 years. Staff inquired if there was any history that they were aware of, of any hazardous materials problems that existed and they responded that there was no history of hazardous materials problems in the area or any perceived negative impact on the existing adjacent residential project. It was hard to prove the non existence of a negative, but there was no evidence that this is a problem. By virtue of the fact that on Portola they have residential use, on Cook Street there is industrial use and somewhere in the middle they would have to meet. In this case next to the City Yard, the City has control over the quality of operations in the City Yard to minimize such problems. Regarding collection of hazardous waste, they have on a quarterly basis collected household hazardous waste at the Waste Management facility and sometimes at our own City Yard. People brought in their paint and batteries and it wasn't an everyday appearance and was immediately taken out. Again, there was no evidence 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5 2001 historically of a hazardous waste problem there. The second issue was density. They were a little more explicit in describing the density of the project and it actually comes out to 7.4 units per acre. When combined with single family and multi family, it was slightly more dense than Desert Rose. One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas are 21 and 22 units per acre. In comparison with other projects it was not dense and he didn't think anyone would consider Desert Rose dense and if they drive there it wasn't crowded and didn't create congestion. Desert Rose only has one access for the 161 units onto an arterial and hasn't generated any traffic congestion or problems during its operation. Through traffic circulation was an issue. In the discussion staff was a little more explicit in describing it. Often traffic reports were fairly technical and staff better summarized to the council the findings of the traffic report and on pages 7 and 8 where staff summarized the traffic study. Very simply they looked at the intersections first most directly adjacent to the project. Those included Hovley, Corporate Way, 42nd and Cook, and Sheryl and Cook. The conclusion was that all of these intersections are operating at B or C which are all acceptable levels of service currently. With the additional traffic they will continue to operate at B and C. There was no significant impact. Typically when they find the most proximate intersections at no impact they didn't have to go to the more distant ones because when they went farther away from a project the traffic was more dispersed and the traffic impact lessened. As Mr. McCarty suggested they did look at Cook and Hovley and Portola and Hovley and the conclusions were again that both key intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of C or better. Project traffic will increase peak hour delays by as much as a half a second and add one percent to the evening peak hour volume to capacity ratio. It did confirm that the further they get from the project, the impacts were dispersed and became even less significant. When they talked about similar projects, San Tropez has 512 units and although they have three driveways, they all access one street - Cook Street. Desert Rose is 161 units and operates with one access and that operates successfully. This project would end up with three accesses to signalized intersections which is an unusually high level of access. They would be able to go to Corporate Way, 42nd and Cook, and Sheryl and Cook, each of which was a signalized intersection that would have outstanding and convenient access compared to most other projects that are significantly larger. Regarding pedestrian access and safety, this project has an unusual quality of pedestrian access. There was a fear that children would have ti.. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 to walk through the industrial area to get to schools and parks when in fact they could walk directly north. The project itself would have sidewalks. Those sidewalks lead north to the soccer fields, which would get them to Hovley, which would get them to both the soccer fields and Carter School without ever having to walk through the industrial zone. They could walk to the high school by going south to Sheryl and Merle. Sidewalks on Cook Street take them to the high school. There are a bike path and sidewalk that take them to the middle and elementary schools. He noted that the commission approved a Jensen's convenience market on 42nd and Cook and currently there weren't sidewalks down 42nd so staff was recommending that sidewalks be installed on 42nd to allow for pedestrians to get to Cook Street directly and to that convenience shopping center that is being developed at 42nd and Cook. Commissioner Jonathan asked about Corporate. Mr. Drell said that unless they were going to the post office, there was no requirement for pedestrians to go down Corporate. If they wanted to go down to Hovley, they could walk through the soccer fields. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was access from the project to Corporate. Mr. Drell said it was offset. They could choose to walk down Corporate, but there was no compelling need. To get to Hovley they would walk through the soccer fields which are directly across from the project. Phasing was another issue. As proposed the access down to Merle was not being developed with the first phase and the residents on Merle were concerned that they had no assurance that the single family which they were in favor of would be developed in a timely manner or developed at all and staff added a condition increasing the level of commitment to the single family. Staff was recommending that the road be built as part of phase one and creating that access down to Merle, that the Agency proceed with all haste to develop the tract map for the single family and have it recorded by the time that the multifamily project is completed and that they commence construction of the single family tract within one year of the completion of the multifamily project. There would be a commitment on record from the applicant, the Housing Authority, to proceed with the single family product. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a copy of conditions. Mr. Drell said there was a resolution and staff could get a copy to the commission. Mr. Drell said the condition was as described in the report. Property maintenance was also an issue. He said that one reason they were dealing with this developer is because this developer has a long and very strong tract record of maintaining property of this type. Staff suggested that through the DDIA that the Housing Authority 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 be given the authority to inspect the property and require correction of any maintenance deficiencies that don't comply with the City's maintenance ordinance. In addition to all the other problems the developer would run into if this property falls into disrepair relative to compliance with the investors' requirements and state requirements, failure to respond to the Housing Authority would in essence put them in default of the agreement with the Housing Authority as well and all the ramifications that would entail. Lastly, one of the commissioners had a problem with the integration. The developers attempted to integrate the single family far greater than most large projects are in that they tried to erase the distinction of boundaries to the greatest extent possible by creating the common street frontage and the open units on the street. The suggestion was that the individual units be spread throughout the single family. There were two practical problems. One was that the tax credit program would not allow them to do that. It required that all the buildings be on a contiguous single site. In essence they would have to apply for 16 different tax credit applications which would be procedurally impossible. Secondly, the City still has a concern of proximity and compatibility of large multifamily buildings and two story multifamily buildings adjacent to single family. While in some communities it is accepted, in this community it hasn't been so they attempted to transition at the edges and maybe in their subsequent projects they might look at a fully integrated plan with multifamily and single family together and that might be desirable. Procedurally it wasn't possible to do in this project. That summarized staff's response. It was an unusual circumstance in that Planning Commission's recommendation of denial is done and they weren't in a position to reverse that. What staff was looking for here was individually they could forward comments through the minutes to the Council that upon reflection and reading the report whether they have additional thoughts. Chairperson Lopez noted that he was not in attendance at that meeting and would abstain. He read the minutes but did not listen to the tape. He believed that the standing rule is that he must listen to the tape to be qualified to participate. He noted that this wasn't a public hearing and he didn't know if that was different. Mr. Hargreaves thought that was the distinction here. If what they were being asked to do was take an official action based on the whole record that would be true. He would be required to listen to the tapes, look at the exhibits, read the minutes and go back over the whole record. He believed now all the commission low 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2001 was being asked to do is offer up additional comments in light of the additional information and to the extent that they feel they have the information based on which he needed to make those comments, he should feel free to do so. Mr. Hargreaves didn't know that the action taken tonight had any official ramifications. It came to them in a rather bazaar format. Mr. Drell thought that part of the saving grace is the fact that the action is a recommendation to the Council and Planning Commission isn't the approving body. There would be a hearing at the Council and the Council would be making the actual decision. Commissioner Jonathan commented that this was an interesting evening. With all due respect, he didn't know why Mr. Drell was apologizing. The applicant was given an opportunity for a continuance and that appeared to be the eminent direction the commission was taking when the applicant said they preferred to have the application denied, so he for one would not accept the apology. It wasn't necessary. Mr. Drell said that the problem with the continuance was that it would not have allowed the case to have gotten to the Council. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood. He didn't think there was a news flash that these credits expire June 15, so they were going to Council on June 14. That was beyond his perceived function as a planning commissioner. The commission took action and he didn't know why it was back here. He continued to have the same concerns. He thought staff's discussion was very good and from his standpoint it was up to the Council to: A) determine whether they share the commission's concerns; and B) whether they feel they have been properly mitigated. He didn't think it mattered what the commission felt about that and whether they have been properly mitigated or not. Furthermore, he didn't feel equipped to determine if they have been properly mitigated because some of the conditions of approval that Mr. Drell was suggesting weren't given to the commission to review and he wasn't sure they had teeth. There were some pivotal issues to him and he thought staff had agreed. Mr. Drell said that they would have to trust staff that those conditions were recommended. Commissioner Jonathan said he did, but he didn't feel qualified and was kind of disoriented on what their role is supposed to be. He agreed with staff's observation that the density of the project, the integrity and compatibility of the project depended to a large degree on the construction of the single family lots. That to him was very pivotal in this application and he would rather see the whole thing come before the commission as one application. The conditions staff placed 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5 2001 may work, but on the other hand, what if the apartments are up and a year later construction had not begun on the single family homes, what happened then? He didn't know. They have seen things like that happen. Council knows the commission's concerns and Council needed to evaluate whether they share those concerns, whether they have other concerns and whether they feel the concerns have been properly ameliorated. That was his take on the situation. Chairperson Lopez said that he read the minutes, he read through the materials, he read the comments the commission made and the vote. In reading through the Council staff report, there was only one thing that seemed different that popped out and that was the condition regarding the timing of the single family homes and perhaps the conditions than rely on that because that would have been a big concern of his. He thought perhaps that was the only thing that really jumped out at him. He stated that he would have to agree with Commissioner Jonathan that he didn't know what they were supposed to do with this other than perhaps give their opinion on what was presented. But he really thought it was now in the Council's hands to say either yes, the issues have been addressed to the degree they feel this warrants approval. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was unfortunate that the other two commissioners weren't present. He thought that staff has taken a look at some of the comments and concerns that the commission had at the last meeting and consistent with his last statements, he didn't think that the density was a problem, the concept is good and they have taken additional steps to try and mitigate some of the commission's concerns. He thought it would have been nice to have the other two commissioners present to offer comments also. The sidewalks, the phasing, the interior connection to Merle and different things of that nature, he thought that if they had had the ability to continue it but couldn't because of the timing, he thought that some of the issues that they had and some of the issues the commission still has may have been resolved. There had been some lessons learned and he thought that staff had done a good job in taking the right steps given the commission's comments at the last meeting and being consistent, he felt the project had potential. Action: None. tow 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 DDERLY AND ASSOCIATES C. Case No. CUP 96 4 FE Applicant On May 1 , 2001 , the Planning Commission continued this matter to June 5. Staff will be scheduling the matter for public hearing on June 19, 2001 . Action: None. D. Discussion of the City's Bus Shelter Program On May 15, 2001 , the Planning Commission requested that this matter be placed on the next agenda. The City's Management Analyst was not available to attend this meeting. The item will be placed on the June 19, 2001 agenda. Commissioner Jonathan mentioned that he would not be at the June 19, 2001 meeting and requested that it be discussed on another date. Commission concurred. Staff asked if commission would also like someone from Sunline at that meeting. Commissioner Jonathan said yes. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (May 16, 2001) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (May 29, 2001) Mr. Drell said that basically there was continued discussion about the wall that would be on Fred Waring and landscaping. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5. 2001 r.. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Mr. Greenwood informed Commission that he was promoted within the Department and he introduced Mr. Mark Diercks who would be representing the Public Works Department at future Planning Commission meetings. Chairperson Lopez thanked Mr. Greenwood for all of his time, effort and guidance and welcomed Mr. Diercks. XII. ADJOURNMENT 11 was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. i P ILIP DRE , Attest: LOPE 11�airperson a Dese P nning Commission /tm low 43