Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0520 ��T�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � . TUESDAY - MAY 20, 2003 � � � � .� � � � .� � .� .� � � * * �. * � � � .� � � � � � � �- � � .� * -� * � � .� .� � �- I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty `, Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Tech. Mark Diercks, Transpo�tation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MfNUTES: Consideration of the May 6, 2003 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the May 6, 2003 minutes by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20. 2003 � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 8, 2003 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Vtl. 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 currespondence delivered to the Plann�ng Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. i � A. Case No. CUP 03-04 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant � (Continued from April 15, 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow Bighorn Development to operate an abandoned public utility well site for private water irrigation located at 47-600 Chia Drive. Chairperson Campbel! opened the public hearing which was continued from April 15, 2003. She noted that staff was requesting a continuance to June 3, 2003. She asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There being none, Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. Commissioner Finerty moved to continue this case to June 3. Commissioner Jonathan said he would second the motion, but he wanted to comment on staff's written staff report in which Mr. Bagato indicated that Planning Commission directed staff to study the potential cost of undergrounding or partially undergrounding the well heads so that no i � � 9 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20. 2003 �... equipment or structures would be seen above the six-foot wall. He thought he was part of that initiative and clarified that it was not his intent to study the cost. The cost wasn't a factor in his mind, although it might be in the developer's or owner's. He was hoping that staff would study possible standards that they could use for this application, as well as future applications. Standards in terms of the height of the wall, the possibility that nothing would be visible above the wall, setbacks, and whatever standards staff thought might be appropriate to address, but cost was not an issue in his mind, the standards were. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, by minute motion continuing CUP 03-04 to June 3, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. �., B. Case No. CUP 03-03 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant (Continued from April 15, 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow Bighorn Deveiopment to operate an abandoned public utility well site for private water irrigation located at 73-375 Shadow Mountain Drive. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing was o�en and that this request was continued from the April 15 meeting. Staff was requesting a continuance to June 3, 2003. She asked if anyone was present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, by minute motion continuing CUP 03-03 to June 3, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. �" 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 + C. Case No. PP 03-07 - PREST / VUKSIC ARCHITECTS FOR SUN WEST HOMES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct a 4,225 square foot professional office building located at 73-081 Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Bagato explained that the subject property was a 14,560 square foot lot located on the south side of Fred Waring Drive, approximately 400 feet east of Monterey, directly across from ihe McCallum Theater. He described the surrounding uses. He also indicated that the property is zoned Office Professional. He explained that the proposed precise plan of design would allow a two- story 4,225 square foot general office building with 17 parking spaces, eight of which would be covered. The first floor was 3,348 square feet and the second floor was 777 square feet. The project would share an , ingress/egress driveway with Dr. R::ed's property through a mutual � access agreement. The architectural design would be desert � contemporary, the building height 23'6" with a three-foot tall chimney. The front of the building would be setback 14 feet to 16 feet with an average of 15. The building had several architectural columns that popped out two to three feet from the building. The rear setback would vary between 49 feet and 59'6" to comply with the height to setback standard in the office zone. April 22, 2003 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project and granted preliminary approval. He said the precise plan met all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and staff felt the use was compatible with the adjacent properties. He indicated it was a Class 2 Categorical Exemption for CEQA purposes for infill development and recommended approval, subject to the conditions. He stated that a letter was received from the adjacent neighbor to the south, a single family homeowner. She had three questions. One had to do with the height in the rear and requested an eight-foot high wall for privacy. The second was about hours of construction and the third was , about dirt from the construction site. He noted that typically with new 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 w... development a six-foot high block was required. They would also be required to comply with construction hours, 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during summer. For dust control, the project would have to comply with the standards of AQMD and Code Enforcement would regulate that. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked what staff's response was to the eight- foot tall wall issue. He asked if staff was continuing to recommend six feet. Mr. Bagato said staff would recommend six feet, although some projects were allowed at seven feet, but staff felt that eight feet was too high. Commissioner Lopez asked if it was six feet from the highest of the two lots. Mr. Drell said yes, but on commercial / residential boundaries they have sometimes gone to seven. Mr. Bagato noted that in this case there was no grade change. Chairperson Campbell pointed out that on the south side of the building i,.. there were stairs going up and windows on the top. She asked if those windows were frosted, or clear, or blocks, because they usually didn't allow any visibiliiy from a second story. M►. Bagato deferred the question to the applicant. Chairperson Campbell said she could understand why the adjacent property owner would have a problem with windows that high. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the setbacks met code. Mr. Bagato said yes. Chairperson Campbell ooened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, of Prest-Vuksic Architects, 73-030 Caliandra in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. In response to a couple of the concerns, he said he hadn't thought about the glass. He said they could take the same opening for glass and make the bottom portion of it glass block with some clear glass up higher to a height that would be acceptable to mitigate the concern about looking into the yard. �" 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20. 2003 ; As far as the wall height, he didn't have any strong feelings about that and if it should be a little higher than six feet, that was okay. He asked for any other questions. Mr. Drell said that for windows they typically used a height of about 5'8", which was about the eye level of a six-foot person as the standard for what someone could see over. Chairperson Campbell asked if they were going to have covered parking in the back by the fence. Mr. Bagato said yes. Chairperson Campbell asked how high the covered parking would be. Mr. Drell said it was usually about eight feet. Mr. Vuksic stated that the bottom of the overhead structure would be eight feet high. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant was willing to go to seven feet on the wall. � Mr. Vuksic said yes, but he would prefer to keep it lower because � it would be more open. If it would be more satisfactory, seven feet would be okay. Chairperson Campbell asked how far away from the wall the carport roof would be and if it would be five feet from the wall. Mr. Vuksic said it was approximately four feet. Mr. Drell said that in this case the higher the carport was, the more screening that was generally occurring. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. JOE GONZALES, 73-090 Santa Rosa Way, stated that he was directly behind the construction area. He said he only had one concern regarding the construction and that was also the height of the fence. He has three daughters and the current height of the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 `.. fence is five feet. He said he was concerned about the privacy of their backyard. He said seven feet would be acceptable as opposed to eight feet. That and the block windows were his only concerns. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the wall was currently five feet high. Mr. Gonzales said yes, he measured it himself. He thought they were probably not done and it looked like it was missing a cap on the top. He could look directly over it and he was 5'10.5". Commissioner Jonathan noted that sometimes going higher than six feet was oppressive and felt like a prison wall or something. He asked if Mr. Gonzales thought six feet was adequate or if he would prefer seven. Mr. Gonzales said he would prefer seven feet, also for security purposes. There would be a parking lot area behind an office %,,,,., building. Someone wouldn't be able to look directly over the wall. They would have to climb and look. He was concerned about his daughters in their backyard and having privacy. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty thought it would be a fine addition to the area. She liked the architecture and location. It would enhance that section of Fred Waring. She agreed that the wall should be seven feet with adequate glass blocks to protect privacy. She moved for approval. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion and also thought it would be a nice addition to the area. He commented that it was well designed and should work compatibly with the neighborhood. Commissioner Lopez also concurred. He thought a seven-foot wall and glass block should be required. He also thought this would be a great addition to the area. �... 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 ; � .■� Commissioner Jonathan stated that he concurred with his fellow commissioners. Chairperson Campbell also concurred and congratulated Mr. Vuksic on the architecture, as well as the architecture of the building under construction on EI Paseo and San Pablo. She noted that they also wanted to add to the conditions the requirement for a seven-foot wall and at least half block on the windows. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that rather than specifying glass block, maybe they should require some kind of non-transparent material and give the architect a little bit of flexibility. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. Motion carried 5-0. � It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner "'� Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2201 approving PP 03-07, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Lopez asked if they addressed the concerns of the person who submitted the letter. Mr. Drell said that they would inform her of the decision relative to the wall and the construction times and provisions for dust control. D. Case No. CUP 03-05 - DR. WENDY ROBERTS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a massage room as part of a 2,500 square foot skin and body boutique retail establishment in an existing multi-tenant commercial building at 77-920 Country Club Drive, Suites 606 and 607. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20 2003 ti.. Mr. Urbina addressed the commission and explained that the applicant was proposing a business called Skin and Body Boutique within a 2,500 square foot area in the Desert Country Plaza. The purpose of the conditional use permit was to seek approval to have a 100 square foot room for massages as part of the establishment. Other uses that would occur at this site would be a vertical tanning booth and the retail sales of skin care products. He explained that at the Desert Country Plaza, there was 81 ,000 square feet of building area and 393 parking spaces. That was a ratio of one parking space for each 206 square feet of floor area. Based on that standard, this skin and body boutique business would be allocated 12 parking spaces. From information provided to staff by the applicant, there would be a maximum of three employees at the business at any one time, another customer using the tanning booth, another receiving a massage, another customer waiting to use the tanning booth and one waiting for a massage. Based on the highest projected occupancy of the business, there would be a demand for eight parking spaces and 12 were ,�,,,, allocated. Mr. Urbina indicated that the applicant called him yesterday to object to the Building & Safety Department's recommended condition to require installation of a shower as part of the tenant improvement plans. Building & Safety staff thought that a massage person would need a State license and it was their understanding that the State required a shower for such businesses. Mr. Urbina explained that he called the Department of Consumer Affairs and asked them if a person needed a State license to do massages and they said no. Therefore, when he communicated that to the Building & Safety Department, they said their condition could be deleted. Staff's recommendation was that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution, subject to the conditions with the removal of the Building & Safety Department condition requiring a shower. Chairperson Campbell asked if the retail establishment was now in operation. Mr. Urbina said no, not yet. �... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20. 2003 � � � Chairperson Campbell opened the pubfic hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. PATRICIA STANFORD, 72-632 Raven Road #1 in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. She confirmed that there would be three employees and possibly four or five customers, so eight to nine people at one time. She said they were willing to put in a shower if necessary, but they also found out it wasn't mandatory. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they operated the spa and body boutique. Ms. Stanford said she didn't, the doctor she worked for did. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was in existence right now. Ms. Stanford said the building is there, but the business wasn't s open yet. � Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that the massage facility would be located within it. Ms. Stanford said it would be located within the building. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Ms. Stanford represented Dr. Wendy Roberts. Ms. Stanford said yes. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was the same Dr. Wendy Roberts who has an office on the Eisenhower campus. Ms. Stanford clarified that it was off the Eisenhower campus at Hope Square. Commissioner Lopez asked if Ms. Stanford knew the hours of operation. � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20. 2003 t�r.. Ms. Stanford thought it would be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. She wasn't sure. She thought they would be normal business hours. She knew the gym opened early in the morning. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There being none, Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2202 approving CUP 03-05, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS r.. None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (May 7, 2003) Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was informational. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (May 19, 2003) Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was informational. E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) �"' 1 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 ; � � ..� XI. COMMENTS A. Commissioner Tschopp said he had a comment. He thought this had probably come up many times in the past, and he wasn't making a recommendation, but he wondered if it would be the commission's pleasure to look at the time the meetings start. If the commission thought there was a time more beneficial to them, he wondered if the commission wanted to discuss that. Commissioner Lopez asked for his thoughts on it. Commissioner Tschopp said he wasn't prepared to make a recommendation, but it seemed to him that a lot of times starting at 7:00 p.m., they had a lot of professionals in the audience and the issues were such that he believed members of the community could still attend the meetings conveniently if the meetings started sooner. By starting sooner the commission could end the meetings sooner. And if it was a benefit for staff, because staff could end up putting in some pretty long hours also. Commissioner Finerty noted that when the meetings got to 10:00 � p.m. or 11 :00 p.m., it was hard for her to keep going. Commissioner Tschopp also thought they might not be as mentally astute as they would have been earlier in the evening. Chairperson Campbell noted that she is in retail and her store closes at 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. was stretching it for her to be at the meeting on time sometimes. She preferred 7:00 p.m. and pushing it would be 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Lopez asked what the bylaws said. Mr. Drell said they specified 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Tschopp said he would like to hear staff's input also, because if that created problems for them or didn't work for them, he didn't think they would want to change it. Chairperson Campbell indicated that City Hall closed at 5:00 p.m. and thought that some of the staff probably went out to eat and got back by 7:00 p.m. Putting their personal schedules aside for a minute, Commissioner Jonathan said that a 4:00 p.m. starting time could make sense in ° 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 � that often the meetings woufd end prior to dinner time, that being approximately 6:00 p.m., and when it didn't they could break and continue somewhat refreshed for those long meetings. If they were going to think about changing the time, they should deliberate very carefully because they wouldn't want to change the time every year. Four o'clock had its advantages. Chairperson Campbell indicated that Council started at 4:00 p.m., but their public hearings were at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Drell said that had been changed and public hearings were now noticed at 4:00 p.m. Three-quarters of the time it worked. Sometimes it was disastrous, like when they started a public hearing at 5:45 p.m. and it was going to 6:30 and council was getting hungry. But it has worked fairly well and was less of a problem than he expected. Most of the time they got out by 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Finerty asked Chairperson Campbell if it was a huge inconvenience to start at 4:00 p.m. twice a month. Chairperson Campbell said yes, especially during the season. That was why `,., she hadn't been able to attend the council meetings. She said she would consider 6:00 p.m., but they owed it to the audience because people work until 5:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. and if they had to come in for a public hearing, they had to leave work. A lot of the other commissioners were retired and not working, but some of them worked. Mr. Drell suggested they think about it and talk about it again at the next meeting. B. Mr. Drell noted that a flyer regarding a conference in San Diego was distributed. He informed commission that this was a good conference. It was a relatively entertaining, practical discussion of what smart growth was and they could have a nice couple of days in San Diego. He thought ihis was a worthwhile conference to attend. The dates were June 27 and 28. He also indicated that there was money in the budget for the commission to attend if they wanted and the conference was relatively inexpensive. C. Commissioner Lopez asked what other items were going to be on the June 3, 2003 agenda besides the two items that were just continued. Mr. Drell said the assisted living project was coming �`"' 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 2003 � � back. After some further discussion, Mr. Drell thought that applicant would be asking for a three-month continuance. Chairperson Campbell noted that everyone on Hovley Lane received a notice from a realtor about that project. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at��,� �—��_�_"���/� i PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: � � '• .�..2� ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson � City of Palm Desert, California /tm � 14