Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0507 ����� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ,- TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2002 ,r„ � 7:00 P.M. - CiVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER -. , . . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � � .� .� �- * � � �. � ,� � �. .� � * * � � � � � � � � .� � � * � � * �. �. � .� � � * «. � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. il. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan ' Jim Lopez �r.. Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: � Consideration of the April 16, 2002 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the April 16, 2002 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. (Commissioner Campbell arrived after approval of the minutes.) w.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 � > � � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent April 25, 2002 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. � A. Case Nos. CUP 02-08 and TT 30608 - WESTVEST, Applicant .� Request for approval of a conditional use permit and tentative tract map to convert a three-unit apartment building into three condominiums located on the southwest corner of Sunset Lane and Abronia Trail. Mr. Bagato explained that the property is located at the southwest corner of Sunset Lane and Abronia Trail. He said the project was approved in August of 2001 as a two-story triplex and is currently under construction. Now the applicant was requesting approval to subdivide the property to create three condominiums which could be sold individually. Mr. Bagato explained that condominium projects are allowed in the R-3 zone with approval of a conditional use permit. The tentative tract map was being filed along with the conditional use permit to meet the condominium �equirements. He stated that the proposed project meets all the requirements for a condominium in the R-3 zone. Under CEQA the project is Class 3 categorical exemption and no further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution approving the conditional use permit and tentative tract, subject to conditions. � 2 a'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 � Chairperson Finerty o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY DEPHRATES, 3730 Gold in Costa Mesa addressed the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if he had any additional information to add to the staff report. Mr. Dephrates said no. He indicated that there was a similar project across the street. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner �"'' Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2125 approving CUP 02-08 and TT 30608, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP OZ-09 - GREGG K. BALIS, DDS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 900 +/- square foot expansion of an existing dental office located at 73-121 Fred Waring Drive, #102. Mr. Drell stated that the proposed expansion was going into a space that is currently vacant. Staff's concern with medical uses is parking. When they first went out there the parking lot seemed quite full. They went out there again and it had a lot of empty spaces. What happened was a medical clinic closed down and moved out. Staff evaluated this 900-foot space. He said that typically when looking at the floor plan it rang alarm •n. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 � bells. When they looked at it more carefully, if this space was rented out to another tenant, it would probably generate more parking demand than if it were just an expansion of this existing medical use because they would immediately get another secretary, a proprietor, etc. The fact that the recent vacant space if it came back as a medical use would have to come back to us again and be reviewed, staff felt the use of this 900 feet as an expansion was the most efficient use of the space as opposed to a new tenant. Therefore, staff recommended approval with conditions relating to limiting the number of dentists that they can take on so that the use will not become excessive. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that the expansion was taking place in the same building and they would just be taking extra space. Mr. Drell said yes, they would be using adjacent space. Commissioner Jonathan said he saw the drawings and drove bjr a couple of times and asked if there was enough room there for an addition to the west side. Mr. Drell explained that there was no physical construction. It was an addition to an existing business to expand into an existing space. Commissioner Jonathan said that it was a conversion from what was authorized as office professional to medical use. Mr. Drell said that was correct. It was expansion of a use, not of the building. Relative to compliance in the future, Commissioner Tschopp asked how the City would measure no additional staff, office personnel or an increase in customers. He asked if staff would take a count of what exists today. Mr. Drell said that the applicant gave staff an assessment of what exists today. If they don't experience any parking problems on the property, then we probably wouldn't care. If there is a problem that we become aware of, then we'll go back and find out how many dentists he has and if it turns out that he has five and he's only supposed to have two, then we can say that's the cause of the problem. He said there was a little alarm bell that goes off if there is a problem. This gives us the hammer to rein him back if it generates a problem. Commissioner Tschopp asked if he took a count today. Mr. Drell said yes. In the applicant's statement he describes how many dentists he has and his explanation is that he needs this to satisfy OSHA and he really isn't going to generate any more business. Commissioner Tschopp said that was his - point. He wanted to know if staff had taken a count of dentists, staff and ` 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 �.. patient visits. Mr. Drell said that patient visits to a certain degree was a function of the operatories and he has more of them. Despite the applicant's comment that this will generate more parking demand, staff's feeling was that it wouldn't generate any more than it would if this was rented to a typical office use. Because of it being an expansion,�it will not generate any more than would normally be generated from any lease of that space and probably less. At least we know what we have here and have some control over it. He felt there would be greater control with the releasing of this clinic that has moved out. His understanding was that it was being leased out to a construction office. A much greater space was converting to general office use and that explained why when staff went back there was plenty of extra parking. Commissioner Campbell noted that she was in the dental field for 20 years and she informed commission that it takes quite a while to clean an operatory. So she could see why the doctor needed the extra ones because he needs a patient in there while the other is being cleaned up. She thought it made sense. � Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that it is a 10,500 square foot building. The normal parking requirement before any reduction would be 42 spaces for office professional use. If they say 2,100 for medical, following the ordinance that would require four additional spaces for medical use. So the normal code requirement would be 46 spaces. There are 35 provided, so they are talking about a shortage of 1 1 spaces. He asked if that was correct. He noted that staff talked about parking spaces, but not for the entire building. Mr. Drell said that the way they judge, when they have a mixed use building, typically parking hasn't been a problem because they have higher uses and lower uses. They evaluate what the real use of the building is based on the real world experience. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't necessarily in disag�eement with that conclusion and could see where staff was coming from, he just wanted to get the numbers straight. If he was calculating it right, instead of the normal 42 spaces, when they factor in the medical they would be up to 46 required. He thought there were 35 provided so there was a shortage of 11 . Mr. Drell said there was a deduction from the gross 4,200 square foot building. Commissioner Jonathan said he made note of the reduction for common area spaces. Mr. Drell said that his �... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 assumption was that when the building was built that the 35 spaces were an adequate number. Chairperson Finerty o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. DR. GREGG BALIS, 38 Belmonte Drive in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he read the report and it seemed very accurate. He noted that he put a letter in explaining his position. He thought that everyone was concerned with over use of the parking lot. The Sunlife building set a lot of people off and made them overly aware of parking. He said if they looked at the facility he was in, they don't have any peripheral streets. He thought they should also take that into consideration. There was no spill over capacity. If he doesn't take care of his parking, his patients will go eisewhere so he was very aware of what is going on and was very careful about managing the parking. They have been for five years and they haven't outgrown their four parking spaces in their existing suite. If they haven't done that in five years, he didn't think they would see any problem. Commissioner Lopez noted that there is assigned parking for his customers and for the use next door. He asked how those were assigned. Dr. Balis said that it is a component of the lease. Commissioner Lopez said that when the other tenant leaves, he asked if there would be a reassigning of those parking spaces. Dr. Balis said that truthfully, the assigned parking spaces weren't monitored. There was one particular tenant who was very adamant about his parking, but the rest of the tenants agreed that it didn't matter too much so that if one was busier than another on a certain day they share. But it was based on square footage of the leased space and the building was divided into several suites and it was proportionate. Mr. Drell informed him that staff generally frowns on that sort of arrangement. Commissioner Lopez said he also tended to agree. Mr. Drell 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 �.. explained that it significantly decreased the efficiency of the lot and didn't allow overlapping usage. Part of the way a mixed building works is that there are some periods where there is more demand for one business or the other and they can share their spaces. There was more of a likelihood of a problem created by assigned spaces. He said he wouldn't object to a condition that gives the City the ability to regulate that aspect of the lot if it becomes a problem. Commissioner Lopez said he would like to have that added. When they look at 35 parking spaces as being for the use of that mixed use building, if they take those and suddenly assign them, at the discretion of whomever the tenant is of the lease, to assign them to either tenant, the perception is not to park there or they might get towed. He thought they should condition it so that there are no assigned parking places along there, unless the applicant wanted to have his assigned place. Dr. Balis said that for his patients it gave them some guidance on where they could or could not park. It had never become a real question with other tenants in the building except on an occasional � rainy day when everyone wants to park immediately in front of the door. They are prepared and understand how many patients per day come into their office and could identify them. He said they weren't going to exceed that because they have alternate places to park. His staff is prepared to park across the street when it gets paved. They didn't need the entire parking lot. They were looking five years down the road. He didn't think there was any way they could fill eight. He said they have plenty of space. Commissioner Campbell asked Dr. Balis if aN of the spaces were assigned to individuals or if he just had his assigned spaces and if the rest were not assigned. Dr. Balis said that they were identified by the names on the concrete blocks, which wasn't very visible. More often than not people park any where. There was one tenant who identified his spaces more clearly than others. He thought the remaining would all agree that it wasn't such a big deal. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. �... 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 MR. GARY LUTES, 51-260 Avenida Diaz in La Quinta, addressed the commission. He stated that he is the owner of the building. They have assigned the parking and he has written the leases since the day he opened the building because parking is a problem. They didn't want to park out on the street when they could park on the street. The City then came in three or four years ago and redlined it and they were no longer allowed to park there. He said it was dange�ous to cross and indicated that he has had vacancies for up to two years because he won't rent to insurance agents or others because parking is a problem. When Dr. Balis approached him they had a long one-year negotiation about how many dentists, how many employees and the leases called for that. It was because he was very protective of his parking. He occupies the top floor which is approximately 4,000 square feet. He has four employees. He said he is an accountant and has clients that come and go. The designated spaces for his office were 12 and they use four, so there is overflow. The assigned spaces are underneath the covered parking. He said on the side there were nine spaces plus two handicapped that were unassigned. What they found with the covered parking is that people just load them up. He felt the best use for the space to avoid vacancies would be to have Dr. Balis expand over. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Chairperson Finerty asked if commission wanted to add a condition as Mr. Drell indicated with regard to regulating parking. � Commissioner Jonathan said he had a question about that. He understood the wisdom and efficiency of not designating spaces, but he thought it was a very prevalent practice for owners to build that kind of a condition or provision into lease agreements and if they have a legal right to do so, he wondered if by posing a restriction that contradicts that � kind of a legal agreement and if they would be creating a problem. If they weren't prohibited from doing so and have done so, perhaps they have the right to do it. Mr. Hargreaves said that depending on the lease they 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 � could be creating a problem. That didn't mean the commission didn't have a right to do it. It would be a condition of the particular application. Then the owner or tenant would have the option of complying with the condition if they wanted to move forward with the project. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he could see that if this was a new application, but where they have an existing property that already has lease agreements in place, he wasn't sure the City was in a position to impose a restriction that contradicts a preexisting legal agreement. Mr. Hargreaves said the City has preexisting standards in the ordinances thai would require in this case more parking than exists. He said he wasn't recommending that the commission do this, he was just explaining. They are coming forward with an application that requires in a sense a waiver of a variance of the existing parking standards and the commission could deny that without even an explanation or they could grant it with a condition, which could be to modify the lease agreements. He said it could be possible that the owner doesn't have the ability at this point to modify those lease agreements. They could be long-term leases and he might not have that ability. ``� Commissioner Campbell thought that if they haven't had any problems in the past, they didn't need to create something else. If it becomes a problem, the commission would hear about it. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with that. He thought it might be a technique they should consider using in future applications when it is a new project, but thought they might be stirring the pot when it is a preexisting building. He was interested to hear Mr. Lutes say that parking is an issue. He knew that it was and that the urgent care facility down the street has had overflow parking on various streets. That reassured him that when they pay attention to parking and when staff pays attention, it is a well-founded concern. Nevertheless, he thought the expansion into the additional 900 square feet by this particular applicant, he was convinced by staff's analysis that it will not overall increase the parking demand compared to an expanded office use. He concurred with the motion. Commissioner Lopez stated that he also concurred. Obviously when parking spaces are assigned they are assigned because at one time there was a problem with enough parking for all the tenants. In this case it ` 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 � � � was an internal expansion of an existing space and if it became a problem, they could revisit it. Chairperson Finerty concurred and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. . It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2126 approving CUP 02-09, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Consideration of adequacy of fulfillment of Planning Commission k Condition of Approval relative to privacy screening. Case No. PP � 01-13. Mr. Drell explained that when this project was originally approved there was testimony expressing concern about the impact of the use and the parking at the northeast corner of the site on the residents across the street. To address that Condition No. 11 was added, "Applicant shall enhance the landscaping at the northeast corner of the site where the northerly driveway has been eliminated per Public Works Condition No. 4 to reduce view impacts to the greatest extent possible." He� indicated that we now have far more enhanced technical review of landscape plans relative to design and irrigation, etc. He said they got used to relying on that expertise. Unfortunately when that analysis was done, there was not necessarily the greatest attention paid to the fulfillment of ihat condition. He stated that there were basically three acacia trees. He thought they were app�oximately 20 to 25 feet apart. Over time they would grow, but initially or for some time they would probably not fulfill the expectation of the resident across the street relative to mitigating the impact to the greatest extent possible. Upon learning of the design, the resident/appellant Mr. Stein suggested an alternative which was given to the commission in their packets. There were a couple of them, so Mr. � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 ... Stein could probabiy explain them. One alternative was to go from three trees to four trees. The common element was the installation of a masonry wall of five feet to block the car headlights as they drive down that parking lot aisle. He said they got the applicant and the resident together to see if they could come to an accommodation and encourage the developer and applicant to address the problem to the greatest extent possible. He thought that our minimum requirement would require at least a three-foot wall screening the parking area. The purpose of the meeting today would be to assess whether the commission thinks there is sufficient evidence to indicate a non-conforming situation with regard to that condition. If they believe that is the case, the commission should direct staff to schedule a public hearing. The alternative to that would be to encourage the appellant and developer to find an accommodation without that hearing. He recommended that they hear from both parties and then make a decision on whether a hearing is warranted. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Drell was suggesting from his observation that the minimum requirement would be a three-foot wall. Mr. Drell stated that the minimum requirement should be a three-foot `r wall. He said there were certain situations when landscaping and berms have been used to fulfill that requirement and a combination of landscaping can substitute. In this particular situation, they couldn't rely on newly planted landscaping fulfilling the function for some time. So in situations where the issue isn't so critical, like on Highway 1 1 1 when there are lights and traffic and things like that it isn't as important. Normally that would be evaluated. When they want instant results, they require a wall. Chairperson Finerty asked if commission was to direct staff to schedule this for a public hearing, if this would go back to ARC with Condition No. 11 so they could determine what might be the best solution for the greatest extent possible screening. Mr. Drell said yes. He indicated that staff could schedule it for the ARC meeting next Tuesday. Regarding a public hearing, that would require a ten-day notice. Possible public hearing dates were discussed. Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure what stage Mr. Voce was at with his building relative to when he was .expecting completion. Mr. Drell indicated that this was probably the last thing that would get done on the building. Usually they are putting in the landscaping as staff is trying to do the inspection. So a delay would not i... 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 � � necessary delay the construction. He thought Mr. Voce could discuss the timing issue. Mr. Drell suggested taking testimony from both parties. Chairperson Finerty asked for the appellant to address the commission. MR. GORDON STEIN, 44-858 San Juan, said this was directly across the street from Mr. Voce's project. He thanked the commission for letting him speak. He noted that the commission received the information he submitted to staff and said he would just give a recap. His concern was that he has a residence directly across from a commercial project. The way the project was designed, San Juan is essentially a residential street. He knew when he purchased his property that that property would be a comme�cial project. But he kind of assumed that it would access onto Alessandro which is reaily the commercial thoroughfare there. Instead, they had all the exposure of the parking lot direct to a residential situation. He said that while they have done a nice job on the project and he was very appreciative of that, he has a full exposure to the parking lot and with that they have some lighted parking stalls that pretty much throw light down, but he wanted to watch out for that. He preferred not to look at a lot of cars and during the winter season when it gets dark by 5:00 p.m. as cars swing around in the parking lots they would have those headl ight beams coming directly across the street into their house. That could be pretty annoying. With some background he has from sitting in on Architectural Commission meetings, etc., and through experience he said he knew that plant material was not necessarily a reliable means of guaranteeing that they wouldn't have those problems. He said they met out there so that they could do some berming and put some plants in, but a combination of things could happen. Plants don't get maintained and things die. It just wasn't a permanent solution. He stated that he appreciated Mr. Drell's suggestion on a three-foot wall, but he thought five. He distributed some pictures of projects that were recently finished nearby where five-foot walls were installed against residential areas. He said he was looking for a similar solution. A three-foot wall might not be enough because of headlights on SUV's and vehicles that are up high. He wanted to make sure they knock that out if they could. y While he wasn't a fan of block walls, obviously they would need 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 �.. to soften it with good landscape material so that it would look good from both Mr. Voce's side and their side. His intent was to try and maintain some sense of a residential setting. He distributed the photos and indicated that to the east at San Jacinto and Alessandro the block wall was directly across the street in a similar situation. He also had a photo of the landscaping from the Alessandro side. He thought the project's landscaping near him was pretty minimal and the applicant might do more landscaping on his side, but he didn't feel like that was going to cut it. (Mr. Voce asked to see a copy of the photos.) He felt that even if the problem is suggested to be solved with plant material, it was not a reliable permanent means. He expected growth over time of the material and understood how that works, but he would suggest as a compromise at least a four-foot wall to knock out most taller vehicles and kind of mitigate the view of this whole parking lot. He requested the commission's consideration of his concerns. Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Voce to address the commission. �.. MR. CARL VOCE, 545 Via Media in Palos Verdes Estates, stated that he frankly didn't know why he was here. They have an approval and they were marching pretty rapidly to finish the project. Part of the area they were talking about was already bermed and had sprinklers on it. He stated that he was against the wall. He didn't think it was needed and said he would give them some reasons. He said he only had one picture, but he wanted the commission to see it. He said it was taken from the center. It was completely screened. There was one window and then the lot facing west. He said that he has been discussing this with Mr. Stein and he was trying to come up with a compromise. He believed that they could put two more trees in between the three others and build the berms a little higher. He said he discussed this with the landscaper today. He thought that with a little higher berms and having three trees on the berms and two in the lower area ihat would provide a tremendous screening. He �said they could also add more bushes and he was willing to do that. He thought that the wall was unnecessary. The project is an office building with an 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. working condition. He didn't think that Mr. Stein was going to get that many lights. He �.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 distributed another picture and explained that was what Mr. Stein has been looking at for 1 1 years. He said that every year he had to go clean up the lot because people would throw garbage on it and trees and trimmings. For 1 1 years he has been watching this dirt. Now Mr. Voce said he was building a beautiful project. Mr. Voce also had a picture of what the project would look like. He said they also considered that there was an economical problem, too. This project has been hit with setbacks, height of buildings and all kinds of things had been thrown at him, even this landscaping had been a tremendous test. They had to put a sprinkler on every tree and bush. He wanted the commission to also consider that. He said he appreciated the commission's consideration. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. She asked if they wanted to send it back for a public hearing and back to ARC with regard to having them address Condition No. 1 1 where it clearly stated to the greatest extent possible. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the commission had the ability to rule on the matter at this meeting or if it had to be a public hearing. He asked what the purpose was of this discussion. Mr. Drell explained it was to determine noncompliance with the resolution. To order an action took a hearing. The purpose is to determine if the commission felt there were grounds for a hearing and to encourage the parties to come to an accommodation without one. This was an attempt to expedite the solution without going to the extent of a hearing. The commission could express some opinions. Mr. Hargreaves agreed that the commission could comment, but it was with the understanding that the comments they make at this point did not prejudice one way or the other the ability to reach different conclusions upon hearing all the evidence and further considering the item. The informal process going on tonight is an attempt to reach an informa( resolution and it was possibie their comments could facilitate that, but if that was not sufficient, they would want to take it through a full legal process because there were property owner rights at stake. Mr. Drell said that one thing they could do was refer it to the Architectural Review Commission. They could put it on the agenda for next Tuesday. If as a result of that there is not a resolution, then they would schedule it for hearing. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 � Mr. Drell asked Mr. Voce when he anticipated completing that building and doing that work to the landscaping. Mr. Voce said he could have it done next week. Mr. Drell asked if he meant the whole building. Mr. Voce said no, this part. Mr. Drell asked if this part of the project he would normally be doing next week in terms of the landscaping. Mr. Voce said they already put in sprinklers and put in the berms. He said they could add trees or ten more bushes to add more screening. Mr. Drell explained that the problem with not achieving an informal resolution is that their schedule might be delayed by this hearing. `" Mr. Voce stated that he has a S4 million project and he objected to any delay to his project. He said he would like to ask the City Attorney about the wording of Public Works Condition Number 4 which said to reduce view impact to the greatest extent possible. That was the wording. It has been analyzed. He said this area has been redesigned. It was addressed and was considered that it would do the job. Now they were saying it isn't good enough. It was stamped and approved. He could not be delayed. He has people working every day and he was trying to push this thing to get it through. He questioned the wording and asked how they interpreted it. He asked what the impact to the greatest extent possible was. Somebody already said it was okay. Now they were listening to someone say it is not okay. He said there was no impact on what the neighbor sees from his house. It is already screened completely. There were no problems with lights. He thought if they believed that they should go look at it. Chairperson Finerty explained that Condition Number 1 1 says that the applicant shall enhance the landscaping to deal with this. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 Mr. Voce said they did. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Voce was saying that three trees enhanced the landscaping. Mr. Voce said he didn't put them there. This was approved. Chairperson Finerty said it was his landscape architect who designed the plans based on Condition Number 11 that says that particular area would be enhanced. She wanted to understand if it was Mr. Voce's opinion that three trees were enhancing. Mr. Voce said it wasn't just three trees, there were many bushes, berms and rocks. Chairperson Finerty asked for the height of the berm. Mr. Voce said the berm could be over three feet high. Chairperson Finerty asked how high it was planned to be. Mr. Voce said the berms would be three feet. Three of them. Then he would be adding two more trees to cover that particular area. Plus more bushes. He was committing to spend money, but he was against a wall. He didn't want another Berlin wall over there. He didn't think that was right. The plants were much better. It would look good from inside and outside. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that there has been enough of an indication of a possible noncompliance and he thought it would make sense to schedule a hearing. He noted that Mr. Voce indicated it was a S4 million project. A wall is a significant item to the surrounding neighbors. His feeling in general was that when commercial use abuts residential, the burden is on the commercial property to take every step possible not to intrude into the quality of life of the surrounding residents. That was the intent of Condition Number 1 1 . What he perceived was a strong possibility of noncompliance. Enough of an indication that he thought it warranted a hearing. Short of that, his hope would be that the applicant and concerned residents could work something out. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 v Commissioner �opez agreed with Commissioner Jonathan's comments. He thought the burden was on the commercial development. Short of giving their personal opinions and comments, he thought it warranted a hearing. Commissioners Campbell and Tschopp concurred. Chairperson Finerty stated that she concurred, but she wanted it to go to ARC next Tuesday to see if there could be an agreement there. If not there, then schedule it for a public hearing. Commission concurred. Ac ion: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Cornmissioner Campbell, for the matter to proceed to the Architectural Review Commission. If the matter is not resolved at ARC, that it progress to a formal hearing with regards to the possible noncompliance. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Hargreaves cautioned Mr. Voce that if he goes forward with the �""' landscaping currently planned given the process that is in place at this point, he does so at his own risk. He does so at the risk of a subsequent determination of the Planning Commission that that plan does not comply with the condition and that he would be required to take out what he has done and must do something else. He advised Mr. Voce to take that into consideration as he moves forward. B. Consideration of a possible car wash within the Albertson's Center on Washington Street Mr. Drell explained that this is a miscellaneous item. The proponent of the car wash wanted to make a presentation to the commission to get some indication as to whether it was worthwhile to proceed with a formal application. MR. HUGH JORGENSEN, 8743 Warren Vista in Yucca Valley, addressed the commission. He said they have a project and he was trying to get a determination as to whether they should go ahead with the project or not. He thought the commissioners all �... 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 received a presentation list. He explained that they talked with the Chevron people at the corner and have their approval. At one time they decided to put in a car wash themselves, but it didn't work. He said they talked with First Bank and they are in favor of this project. They talked to HOMA Group and he and the tenants were in favor of the project. He said a letter from HOMA was part of the commission's packet of information. Mr. Jorgensen noted that on the site there was a Chevron on the corner on the south part, the proposed site, the bank, Albertson's and Sav-On. What they were trying to do is mitigate the traffic problem. He indicated it came up with another project recently. They came to the conclusion that they should try to isolate this site with the minimum amount of traffic coming into the site itself. They could come off of Washington, come into the site, they could go out of the project, then go onto Washington again. If people wanted to go to the south or the north, they could do that. But they were trying to keep it as a satellite area and not have as much traffic congestion that could be there with another type of building. He said at one time they proposed a 6,600 square foot building. They.could put in a 9,800 square foot building. If they put a restaurant or another office building, there could be long time parking congestion. With a car wash of this type, they would have about 1 10 cars per day going through maximum. By doing that the proposal made sense to their clients. They can make money off of this project with that amount of customers. He said what they were really pushing right now is the satellite condition they have. They were trying to mitigate all the traffic problems. He said they studied it and came in with a Scheme No. 1 and they were concepts because at this point. They were just dealing with the issue of if it would work on this site. He showed where traffic would come in, there were nine stacked vehicles, they go through the car wash and have 12. He said it was easier to come in then to go out because of the drying time involved. He said they had ample parking with six spaces. There was another area with another optional three spaces. That would give them nine. The requirement for a car wash is only four. So at this point they are over parked. They have a detail area, � main area for the offices, the area where they come in, see the � cashier, go out and there was a patio location where customers could wait for their cars. He thought the scheme worked very well. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 � The proposed colors would be the same as the existing project. They were using the same colors and same tile to keep it in conformity with the rest of the project. He showed the elevation. He noted that it might look a little contemporary. He said that when he talked to Mr. Drell, Mr. Drell told him to make it spectacular. He said he was trying to come up with something low profile, not a high building that would block the view of the rest of the tenants in the center. He thought there was conformity and that it had a complete feeling of integrity. He showed drawings of the south and north views, pointed out the standing rib roof which he said picked up the same colors. He said they have the letter from HOMA LLC and if they wished, he could provide letters from the bank and Chevron. He noted that the overall design is contemporary. It wasn't the same, but he felt this type of thing would be an asset with identity. He pointed out what Mr. Vuksic had done at San Pablo and Highway 111 to create a different feeling. He said he was doing some other projects with Mr. Vuksic and they were getting into the same type of feel. So that is what was happening. He said the project would be about 4,000 square �"" feet altogether with the car wash, tunnel and the sales areas. It is a hand wash type of car wash, which is a little different from American Car Wash where they just run you right through. He thought they had a very good, high class project. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked how high the building would be at the highest point. Mr. Jorgensen said 18 feet. That was at the start of the car wash. In the forward area there was a maximum height of 16 feet. They were starting very low, bringing it up and then dropping it down. Then they had an overalt height of 15 feet. They were trying to keep a profile that would allow people to see the shopping center itseif. Commissioner Campbell stated that she liked the architecture very much. Chairperson Finerty also stated that she liked the architecture. She said she appreciated the fact that Mr. Jorgensen took the commission's ... 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 � comments from the last meeting into consideration and addressed the flow of traffic and tried to mitigate it the best way. Originally she wasn't very thrilled with a car wash, but she could see that it didn't look much like a car wash and liked the idea better. She stated that in case Mr. Jorgensen was looking at other developments and other properties, she would suggest a Mother's Market, a Wild Oats or Bristol Farms would be something our valley is lacking. Mr. Jorgensen said with that type of project, he would have to talk to the other tenants and owners of the property. He felt the car wash should be there because they were near the gas station, they have a Jiffy Lube and a car wash and were tying that all together at that point at the south end of the property. They weren't trying to integrate into the other area. Their main factor was to create that traffic flow and that was their biggest problem before. Chairperson Finerty said it looked like he did a good job. But she meant if there were other projects throughout the Coachella Valley that he was looking to get into. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any other comments. Commissioner Jonathan said that he met with the applicant at the applicant's request. He thought the use itself was appropriate for the center and that the design looked wonderful. He was optimistic that this kind of a project would enhance the center. The concerns that he would have and would be focusing on would be ingress and egress, internal circulation, the stacking issues they have faced with other car washes which can create problems, and then the overall appearance, particularly from Washington Street. He said it looked like Mr. Jorgensen has paid attention to all of that. Mr. Jorgensen said they tried to do all of that and thought it had to be addressed with Mr. Diercks to verify traffic. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he wanted some feedback, so that was his. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 �.. Mr. Jorgensen said he appreciated it. Commissioner Campbell compared the proposed project with the American Car Wash and the proposal with 12 cars, but said that if this is organized the way it appears on paper, it will work. Mr. Jorgensen thought the American Car Wash only had nine spaces. Then they take them over into the adjoining parking area. Commissioner Campbell thought it was very impressive. Mr. Jorgensen thanked her. Action: None. C. Discussion of Case No. ZOA 02-01 Exhibit "A" wording on Planning Commission Resolution No. 2124. � Mr. Drell indicated that although the commission approved this, before sending it onto City Council staff wanted the commission to review the language. He simplified the language a little bit to, "The colors or textures of an existing building, structure, sign, wall, fence, or other improvements to real property that are visible from public right-of-way shall not be significantly changed unless reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission by appeal. This shall be a no fee process." He thought it was fairly clear. He asked if this met with commission's direction. If it did, then it would be sent to City Council. Commissioner Campbell asked if this language would cover what they discussed before about just repainting with the same color, which would be the same as maintenance. Mr. Drell said yes. The other good thing about talking about "significantly changed," this would apply to all buildings in the city regardless of when they were built or how they were approved. If they are changing it significantly, then it will be rega�dless of whether or not it was approved in the county 50 years ago, it would apply. ..�.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � MAY 7, 2002 Commissioner Tschopp said that was a question he had about the wording "shall not be significantly changed." If they have a building they weren't happy with right now and the owner decides to continue that look, they would not be dragged in by this revision. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a way to add in something that would state that it could not be significantly changed from the originally approved colors or something to that effect that would bring in people who have, since they have been approved, changed the colors and/or structure, etc. Mr. Drell said they could add "significantly changed from the original approval." Assuming the original approval is one we liked. Commissioner Tschopp said he was thinking about a couple of buildings. Mr. Drell noted that was what they were going back and forth with. On some of the older buildings, they wouldn't know what the original approval was, but in those cases they could fall back on "significantly changed" from what they were. As an example, he indicated that the green building at the southeast corner of Fred Waring and Monterey had an approved color which a lot of people didn't like either. What they hoped was ihat this ordinance would make people sufficiently nervous to ask before doing a repainting. He said it was now up to the commission. He could only think of one or two buildings that have been a problem. He didn't know if they wanted to trigger a whole process to address one or two buildings. Commissioner Jonathan said that he assumed that if the commission passes an ordinance now or at some time in the future, it couldn't be implemented retroactively. If there is a building that was repainted three years ago with a different color than originally approved, he assumed by passing an ordinance today they couldn't go to that property owner and tell them they are not in compliance. Mr. Drell said we wouldn't do that, but he thought Commissioner Tschopp's position was if they came in to repaint it 20 years from now, we would say they had to go back to the original color. The way this is written, they wouldn't do that. By virtue of the fact that someone painted and the city didn't stop them, that is the new approved color if there was no ordinance to force someone to do something differently. Commissioner Jonathan said it wouldn't hurt then to say "from the original approval" after the word "changed." It was an added option if they ever wanted to invoke it. Mr. Drell said it would if ihey were able to figure out what the original approval was. Commissioner Jonathan said that if they couldn't, they were no worse 22 M(NUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 �... off. Commissioner Jonathan recommended adding in after significantly changed "from the original approval." Commissioner Tschopp said he liked the intent of this, but it would be a lot of work. Commissioner Campbell said staff would be busy. Chairperson Finerty stated that if the City cares what color someone is painting their building when they build it, then they certainly would care what color they use to repaint. So ihere was clearly a need to have this ordinance. They might not have the wording perfect, but they would work through it as circumstances present themselves. Mr. Drell asked if they wanted him to make that change. Commissioner Jonathan said it wouldn't hurt and could only help if they wanted to use it. He said he would be in favor of the wording presented with the addition of ihe wording "from the original approval" inserted after the word changed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion inserting "from the original approval" after `' the word changed. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES � A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (April 17, 2002) Commissioner Campbell said they we�e introduced to the new curator, Mr. John Nagus whom everyone knew, for the exhibition on EI Paseo. They also met the new art director for the City. Everything else was informational. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (May 2, 2002) Chairperson Finerty said the discussion was basically about land use with regard to the Palma Village area and the Highway 111 corridor and �... 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 looking at what would be the best use for the northeast corner of Monterey and Country Club. Staff and the consultant were going to come back with some ideas and it was continued. Commissioner Jonathan asked what they were addressing in the Palma Village area. Mr. Drell explained that we have a longstanding program on the Alessandro Alley between Las Palmas and Monterey. They were going to encourage commercial redevelopment and allow them to put parking in the back. Unfortunately our lack of aggressively implementing the plan has left those property owners kind of in limbo. So the question was if we should aggressively implement it or think of something else which allows them to maintain the residential quality of their homes. They had left it up to commercial demand to kind of determine and it had been kind of slow and spotty. He clarified that this is the south side adjacent to north Highway 1 1 1 . He said they were looking at the possibility of paring back the parking plan to allow for a shallow residential zone which would still allow some houses and maybe less parking, but still maintain houses along those circles. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 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 Chairperson Finerty asked for and received confirmation that if.Mr. Voce and the residents could not reach agreement at the Architectural Review Commission, the public hearing would not be scheduled until June 4, 2002, so the meeting of May 21 , 2002 was canceled. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2002 �. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. PHIL DRELL, cre y ATTEST: �� CINDY FIN TY, Chairperso Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � �.�. 25