Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0406 ��'--� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '""' � TUESDAY - APRIL 6, 2004 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER ' � 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � * � � � �. � .� �. �- �. � � � � � �. � * .� .� � �. � �. � � � � � .� � � � .� � * .� �. �. � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance, III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell �, Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated there were no pertinent March 25, 2004 City Council items. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS �r.. None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 ; � VII. CONSENT CALENDAR "'r A. Case No. PMW 04-03 - LAURENCE AND DEBORAH PREBLE AND WINMAR PALM DESERT, LLC (BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC), Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for property located in Bighorn, more specifically identified as APN's 771-221-014 and 032. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. 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 No. CUP 04-03 - PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS FOR KLAFF REALTY, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 3,415 square foot restaurant with approval to have onsite sales and consumption of alcohol in the C-1 general commercial zone on the north side of EI Paseo at 73-412 EI Paseo. Mr. Drell explained that this is a restaurant going into the newly remodeled end space next to the driveway going into Office Max on EI Paseo. When the remodel and addition was added, they put a condition on the project requiring that leases include a requirement that employees of the businesses park in the Gardens at EI Paseo and the applicant submitted a parking management plan which accomplishes that, so it would appiy to this project as weli. � � I � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 `.. The common parking lot also serves three other restaurants, Coco's, Kentucky Fried Chicken and a donut shop. They currently total 13% of the shopping center. The center is basically parked at our 4/1 ,000 rate and siightly over if they count the use of the Gardens parking lot and their history on EI Paseo and that center can accommodate up to 20% restaurants with the 4/1 ,000 parking. He thought this center was especially suited in that the existing restaurants are located off Highway 1 1 1 separated by Office Max in the middle. Office Max, although it was hard to tell now there's so much construction, but he thought Office Max was going to go out of business because he never saw any cars parked there. Apparently based on their numbers they are doing okay. Those office warehouses do a bulk of their business through the internet or ordering and they deliver. So a large percentage of their business does not rely on walk-in traffic. Their use is closer to an industrial warehouse then they are a retail store. They are the major tenant and in the middle of the center, so they don't have the competition between the restaurants for spaces during their peak hours as seen at CPK and Palomino where all the restaurants are concentrated � together. The parking had plenty of parking, but the location of the restaurants created a localized shortage. In this case the restaurants are dispersed throughout the perimeter of the project with a surplus of spaces being created by the low intensity of the Office Max. With this project they were still under the 20% and with the low intensity of Office Max, they felt this was an appropriate project and were recommending approval. Regarding the condition that required employee parking, Commissioner Lopez noted that the way it is worded is "if there is a problem with parking" so they were assuming they were going to go in it without the need for them to park there and then if there is a problem, they would enforce it. Mr. Drell said the reason is, for the retail stores they are basically a 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. proposition. This is going to a restaurant and open late at night. Late at night there was certainly not going to be a problem, but it was a little more problematically then having employees at 1 1 :00 p.m. walking to the top of the Gardens to pick up their cars. They didn't anticipate a problem, but they were providing for the ability to enforce that condition if necessary. �r.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � � � Commissioner Campbell asked if this restaurant was going to be open for `� lunch and dinner both. Mr. Drell said yes. The restaurant that was initially identified apparently had pulled the pug so it was now a generic restaurant. He thought it would be a great place for breakfast. He noted that it was not necessarily going to be an Italian restaurant. Chairperson Jonathan noted that staff prepared a parking chart and it indicates there are 291 parking spaces demanded by the use. Mr. Drell said if they looked at them all as stand alone uses. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was the standard approach for this type of center. Mr. Drell said no, there is not a single center on EI Paseo that approach applies to. Chairperson Jonathan asked what our policy is. Mr. Drell said in staff's experience all the centers on EI Paseo: EI Paseo Village, San Luis Rey Village, the Gardens, and basically all those lots are parked at 4/1 ,000. And they have approved up to 20% restaurant usage in each one of those centers. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was the zoning standard. Mr. Drell said no, that is a standard that has been applied through the conditional ; use permit process. Chairperson Jonathan explained that he was trying � to understand the table. He asked if it was based on the zoning standard � rather than our practice of 4/1 ,000. Mr. Drell said yes, it was really in response to Chairperson Jonathan's request at the last meeting to see the actual numbers and see them compared. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that if they took that one step further and made it really clean and didn't play with Office Max, there would be an additional demand of 41 spaces. Mr. Drell said no, they either do it as a generic center or as individual businesses. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that per the zoning standard, Office Max requires 4/1 ,000. Mr. Drell said no, Office Max requires 2/1 ,000. Chairperson Jonathan said he has had experience with a shoe store that has substantially less traffic then even Office Max and was told that requires 4/1 ,000. Mr. Drell stated that a general retail use requires 4/1 ,000. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that Mr. Drell didn't consider Office Max as general retail. Mr. Drell said no. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was something in the zoning standard that defines Office Max as something other than 4/1 ,000. Mr. Drell said it was more along the lines of a furniture store. Furniture stores require 2/1 ,000. They are selling a lot of big, bulky items. But in the same vein, they are looking at restaurants as 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6. 2004 � a specific use and giving it its peculiar standard. Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't discussing yet if he has a problem with the parking or not. He was just trying to understand what the standard is. Mr. Drell said he could argue with staff's interpretation, but staff's interpretation of the nature of the Office Max use is closer to a furnitu�e store or industrial warehouse than it is to a retail store. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was a change to the original approvaf. Mr. Drell said no. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they initially required 4/1 ,000 for Office Max. Mr. Drell said no. They didn't require anything for it. It went into an existing space and he didn't believe it came to the Planning Commission at all. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the project did and the redesign of the project did and parking was a major issue in the entire redesign. Mr. Drell clarified that what came to the commission was the addition of the new buildings on EI Paseo. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that involved the redesign of the parking lot, taking into consideration all of the uses in the common shared parking lot. Mr. Drell said that Office Max was already a tenant. Office Max reoccupied that building long befiore those additional buildings. As long a business does i�.. not require more than 4/1 ,000 it can occupy any space on EI Paseo. Chairperson Jonathan said he would let it go for now, but they could talk about it later. He had a problem with a moving target and the subjectivity involved in determining whether a retail operation is 2/1 ,000 or 4/1 ,000. Without a specific list, they could have other types of office stores that would be conditioned on 4/1 ,000. So he did have an issue just with the process. Leaving things to subjectivity created all sorts of problems. Chairperson Jonathan asked about Diagram B which was enclosed in their packets that indicates a restaurant of 3,415 square feet. But there was also a chart of outdoor seating of 602 square feet which he thought added nine tables at four per table approximately, maybe some outdoor bar area. As he understood it, that was not taken into the consideration of the calculation of the parking demand and the 17%. Mr. Drell said that historically they have sometimes taken into account outdoor seating and sometimes they haven't in that they typically in the season are sometimes used. They generally can't reserve seats outdoors. Chairperson Jonathan clarified he was talking about the calculation that staff presented. Mr. Drell said that apparently Mr. Bagato didn't have that in there, but it was still under the 20%. Chairperson Jonathan noted that in this particular instance, there is about as much seating outside and �... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 , . . . . � there is inside if he was looking at it right. After further study he said that might be wrong because the exterior tables are within the closed doors. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there were still potentially 36 more customers which would not place a demand of 36 parking spaces, but some amount. Mr. Drell said maybe eight or nine. Chairperson Jonathan noted it could perhaps be 18 if there were two people per car. There were no other questions and Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, with Prest Vuksic Architects, was also present representing the owner. He commented that using the 20% allowable restaurant, even at 4/1 ,000 for Office Max, they were easily within the limits that are typically used. He thought the fact that the restaurants on the site are at polar opposites on the site was important as well. So there wasn't a concentration of parking at one end. Finally, he also wanted to point out that even though it used in the calculations, the reality is that there are 23 � spaces also along EI Paseo and Lupine where people do park. He � asked if there were any questions. There were none. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp indicated he had a question for staff. Prior to Office Max it was a Safeway (grocery storel. If Office Max was to move out and another store moved in in the same category, he asked if it would come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell noted that it was a Smith's Food King and then a Lucky's. Unfortunately, there is an existing deed restriction on the property that prevents it being reoccupied by another supermarket for the next 19 years. He said Whole Foods wanted to go in there one time and couldn't. The answer is no, as long as it's 4/1 ,000. He explained that the calculation on the 20% is based on it being a regular retail store. The table was trying to show what the really functional demand is based on each individual business apart from the generalized use. But as long as it is a retail store that doesn't demand more than 4/1 ,000, it would not have to come back to the Planning � Commission. � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 r... Since this is the same owner on the same complex, Commissioner Tschopp asked if they could condition it to say that if the use of Office Max changed creating a parking, that it would also need to be included in a parking agreement. Mr. Dreli explained that if and when that lease became available for modification, the answer is yes. But unfortunately that lease was 19 years, so it's probably 15 years now and that lease is controlled by a different party. It isn't controlled by the owner of the property, it is controlled by Louis Strausz who took over the lease from Lucky's. But to say if and when that lease became available or a new lease, in essence any new lease on ihe property which would include this property if and when a new lease was negotiated. If he was reading Commissioner Tschopp correctly, Chairperson Jonathan said essentially the concern is if Office Max moved out and a higher intensity user occupied that space, he asked if what Mr. Drell was describing would give the commission the opportunity to look at the parking aspect. Mr. Drell said no. Higher intensity means higher intensity than Office Max, but if it is less than 4/1 ,000 there is an ordinance ihat says less that 4/1,000 can reoccupy a space. Staff's experience with �.. Office Max before the construction was that parking lot looked empty and he was sure they were going out of business. So as long as Office Max is there there is a huge surplus. He wasn't sure what they would do with a new tenant going into that space because it is parked 4/1,000 and if it is a 4/1,000 business, normally they would let them go in. Requiring that new leases require parking at the Gardens substantially addresses any of those problems since most businesses sometimes a third of the long-term parking demand are employees. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Drell knew how long the Office Max lease runs for. Mr. Drell said when it went in it was 19 years. They took over the remaining period of the Lucky's lease. He thought it had been there four or five years. Commissioner Lopez asked about the new buildings that were added on along EI Paseo. The conditions included that if there was a parking problem, all of those employees park in the Gardens. Mr. Drell said that the new buildings that were added on say whether or not there's a parking problem they are supposed to park in the Gardens. Commissioner Lopez noted that Coco's and KFC don't. Mr. Drell concurred and said it � was because they are not new leases. Commissioner Lopez said it 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6. 2004 i , ; seemed like everything was riding on the back of Office Max's not using � very much parking space. Mr. Drell said no, the 20% assumed a full 4/1 ,000 user. So the fact that it is Office Max makes it even a stronger case, but staff's assumption is the occupant of Office Max is a 4/1 ,000 user if they use the same standard they've used every where else on EI Paseo. Commissioner Lopez said they were also looking at it as 2/1 ,000 because that is the nature of the business. Mr. Drell said they were talking about two different things, the dynamics of a parking lot and how restaurant lunch use interacts with general use. He indicated there are two reasons why it works, not only on EI Paseo but almost every where they've used it. A large percentage of the shopping public at lunch are eating lunch, not shopping. Therefore, it is the same customer. He asked Commissioner Campbell if between 12:00 p.m. and 1 :00 p.m. if things slowed down a little bit. Commissioner Campbell said yes, they know when people are eating lunch. Mr. Drell said that the reason those customers are not there is because they are eating lunch. There is really no conflict. Secondly, this related why all successful streets have a lot of restaurants ! is what they want to do is keep their customer there on the street at � lunch time. They don't want them going off to the River or to somewhere `� else. If they show up at 1 1 :00 a.m. to go shopping, they want to them to eat lunch on the street so that they shop on the street after lunch. That is why there's this necessary relationship of balance of restaurant use. That's why the Gardens is about 20% restaurant use as well. It's actually necessary for the success of the retailers to have the food attractions that keep customers there in the middle of the day. And they don't compete with the retailers since they are eating lunch. They have to eat lunch somewhere and they would rather have them eating lunch on the street than somewhere else. Chairperson Jonathan said it wouldn't surprise him if Office Max's activity actually picks up during the lunch hour because of various office people that will use that opportunity to pick up the stuff they need. They might buck the trend. Mr. Drell agreed. But for a 25,000 square foot business compared to what Lucky's used to do, but even when Lucky's was there the parking lot would rarely ever fill and they did great business. a . � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANN(NG COMMISSION APRtL 6, 2004 +�.. Commissioner Campbell said that being on EI Paseo in retail for 16 years, she hoped that one of these years they would really like to see a parking problem during the day and in the evening. Most of the stores close at 5:00 p.m., 5:30 p.m, or 6:00 p.m. The Gardens stays open until 9:00 p.m. during the season and they have the restaurants. The restaurants are busy, but the other restaurants that are on fhe streets, there is ample parking for all of them, especially where this restaurant is going. She frequents Office Max during the day and in the evening. She goes there at 7:00 p.m. and the place is empty. The parking lot is just empty. She thought it was dying on the vine, so she was happy to learn how they do their business there. But also, there's the gallery that John has next to this proposed restaurant. If it doesn't have the restaurant, no one would frequent that art gallery and it is a gorgeous art gallery. People wouldn't see it with a retail store in front of it and they won't know there's anything else behind it. She thought John has done a wonderful job on those buiidings and hoped he would come down to her end of the street so they could tear all of that down and redo it. But being on the street for 16 years, being President of the EI Paseo Business Association for eight years, she has seen many changes on the street and they do like to have ti. more restaurants, more outside patios to that the people who do shop don't have to park in the specific area where the restaurant is, they can park down at one end, walk the street, stop for lunch and go back to their cars. Just because that restaurant will be there, that doesn't mean that people will be taking their car to that specific place. She was all in favor of the restaurant. Commissioner Finerty concurred and added that as Mr. Vuksic pointed out, the restaurants are at different ends of the site. She is an internet shopper, so she doesn't have a need to go to Office Max. It works out great; they deliver right to the front door. She was always pleased to have a project that John Vuksic is involved with because she knew it would be a quality project. She thought this restaurant would be a great addition to the area if they were to serve breakfast as mentioned by Mr. Drell and she would be in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez concurred also. He hoped that everyone is so successful that it creates a parking problem, but it sounded like everything was safe and they have some conditions in place to at least attempt to mitigate problems if any ever occurred. He thought it was a ` great project and felt good about it. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � 9 Commissioner Tschopp said any parking concerns that were potential � problems that he could see happening with this project are mitigated by the parking structure at the Gardens that has a lot of capability and capacity. He also thought staff's recommendation of a parking management plan should help mitigate any problems. Chairperson Jonathan also concurred. He felt they are right to be vigilant about the parking situation on EI Paseo. He has joyfully experienced challenges in finding a parking spot even at the Gardens recently, which he was very excited about. It's the first time he's had a problem finding a parking spot in the structure. Obviously anyone going to Daily Grill and that end of EI Paseo has a challenge with parking. He happens to frequent Palm Desert Tobacco and that is always challenging. So those are good signs and good problems to have, but nevertheless, good problems can turn into bad problems, so they need to continue to be vigilant about it. Having said that, not only would this restaurant make a logical addition to the complex, but he thought there were proper mitigations and they are under the 20%. Any kind of parking problems are and will be adequately mitigated. � Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion. '� Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2256, approving Case No. CUP 04-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 03-21 - PRES DEVELOPMENT & CM SERVICES INC., Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan to construct 16 light industrial buildings with a combined floor area of 174,550 square feet on a 10.21-acre parcel. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Dinah Shore Drive (to be constructed) and Leilani Way (to be constructed). � � � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6. 2004 �.. Chairperson Jonathan advised the commission that he had a potential conflict of interest with regard to this matter so he would turn the meeting over to Vice Chairperson Tschopp and then he excused himself from the meeting. Vice Chairperson Tschopp asked for a staff report. Mr. Urbina explained that the 10.21-acre project site is located at approximately a half mile east of Monterey. He outlined the salient points of the staff report. He stated that staff received a letter today from Mr. Paul Quill, representing the property owner to the south (Mr. Bernard DeBonne), and some of the issues raised in the letter included the issue of along the southerly property line and whether Buildings 5-10 requires a 25-foot setback instead of the five-foot proposed minimum setback. The reason this issue was being raised is that with the new general plan designation of Residential on the property to the south, the S.I. zone states that if there are adjacent residentially zoned properties, that the setback needs to be increased a minimum of 25 feet. However, the property to the south is still zoned Se�vice lndustria! and this project was ` filed last fall well before the adoption of the new general plan land use. The applicant informed staff that upon further discussions with Mr. Quill, the main concerns of the property to the south include the fact that the property to the south is nine to 12 feet higher causes the property owner concern about what will be the future views looking north into this project. One concern is the viewing of roof-mounted mechanical equipment from the property to the south. If it is eventually zoned for residential uses, it could include two-story residential buildings and they would be looking down upon roof-mounted mechanical equipment on Buildings 5-10. Staff had a condition of approval requiring that the parapet walls on all these buildings be at least as high as the highest piece of roof-mounted mechanical equipment, but the property owner to the south is concerned if there are two-story buildings constructed on his property that they would be able to look down at that roof-mounted equipment over the parapet walls. That was one concern. The second concern raised is what the rear of Buildings 5-10 will look like. He showed the southe►!y elevations of Buildings 6 and 7 and said it was representative of Buildings 5-10's southerly elevation. Mr. DeBonne � thinks that these southerly elevations for Buildings 5-10 should be 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6. 2004 � s redesigned to provide more architecture and visual aesthetic interest. � Because of those concerns raised by the property owner to the south, staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission approve Precise Plan 03-21 based on the findings and subject to the conditions in the draft Planning Commission Resolution attached to the staff report with the following added condition to the Department of Community Development conditions, No. 20, "Prior to final approval of the project plans by the Architectural Review Commission, the applicant shall revise the rear yard landscaping along the project's southerly property line to provide additional screening of the project site from the property to the south. The screening shall specifically address parking and screening of roof-mounted mechanical equipment. The applicant shall also revise the southerly elevations of Buildings 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to enhance the architectural appearance. With that condition, staff thought the property owner's concerns could be adequately addressed. Going back to the turn around stalls, Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification on its purpose. Mr. Urbina stated that the City Council resolution attached to the Planning Commission staff report requires that � all dead-end parking aisles that are 10 spaces or more deep have a turn � around stall so that someone would not have to back out straight for a `� distance of 150 feet. Mr. Drell concurred. If all the spaces were full, they would have a space to make a three-point turn. Commissioner Finerty asked if the diagonal line simply represented a turn around stall, how it is that the stall would be left vacant. Mr. Urbina said it would either be posted with striping or signs "no parking." Mr. Drell said that they would also only make it 12 feet deep. They don't start turning until halfway out of a space, so they were going to make it shallower to make it very clear. Otherwise, if that was the only space empty, they won't turn around in it, they would park in it so it physically had to be made shallow enough that it is clearly not a parking space. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification on overnight parking. Mr. Urbina said that in some of the dead-end stalls the applicant was proposing sliding wrought iron gates. The applicant envisioned that some of his tenants might be contractors that have company vehicles that they want to store overnight and provide some meaningful security. Commissioner Finerty asked if the sliding wrought iron gates would only be for the contractors and owners and would not lend itself to RV parking `' or any kind of overnight parking. Mr. Urbina clarified that the only � � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6. 2004 � overnight parking would be for the tenants' company vehicles. There is a condition of approval requiring that these access gates remain open during business hours. Commissioner Finerty asked if there is a condition that states that this type of parking is for tenants only. Mr. Urbina said no. That parking would be available for tenants and the public during business hours. Commissioner Finerty asked about after business hours. He was referring to overnight parking. Mr. Urbina said there wasn't a condition specifically stating that overnight parking shall be for tenants only, but they could add that language. Referring to the area by Gold's Gym, Commissioner Finerty explained that her concern is for all the problems they have had their with the parking of the big rigs and those sorts of things and she wouldn't want to see this area become another spot to store the large trucks and the trailers. Mr. Urbina said they could add a sentence to the Department of Community Development Condition No. 16 stating that overnight parking shall only be allowed for tenants. Commissioner Finerty said that would be fine. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Urbina could tell her if the T's that are taking up a parking space are for trash. Mr. Urbina said that was '� correct. They were trash enclosures. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a letter with the staff report from Management Analyst Frankie Riddle stating that maybe that wouldn't be ample trash enclosures. She asked if it was enough. Mr. Urbina said that to address the issue of making sure there are a sufficient number of trash enclosures and that the locations are convenient to the tenants, staff is recommending Department of Community Development Condition No. 19 that requires that prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a project site plan to Waste Management of the Dese�t for approval of trash enclosures, locations and types. That would also include the number of trash enclosures. Commissioner Campbell asked if it would be different than that is on the plan right now. Mr. Urbina said it could be if Waste Management determined that it was necessary to revise locations and number. Commissioner Campbell noted that the tower elements are over 30 feet but less than 50 feet, but it was only showing on Building 1 and 12. She asked if all the other buildings would have tower elements and if they would be of the same height or if they would be a little lower than Buildings 1 and 12. Mr. Urbina said they would also be over 35 feet. � They were indicated by the black asterisk. For example, the tower on 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � � Building 4, the elevation shows the height of that tower at 35 feet 6 � inches. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that the buildings would not be any higher than 28 feet, from 25 to 28. Mr. Urbina said 30 feet is the maximum height limit for non-tower element portions of the buildings. They would not be higher than 30 feet. Commissioner Lopez asked if they were going in with this southern exposure as Service Industrial for the setback matter, not the newly designated High Density Residential. Mr. Drell said they were betwixt and between. He thought what the adjacent property owner realized was that since he is going to be significantly higher, probably after he grades his property he might be 15 or 20 feet higher than this site and it was better for him to have buildings right up to the property line than to have setbacks with activity behind those buildings in terms of traffic going by, storage, or something. So after making that request, his second thought was if given the grade difference, typically they have a setback to create a separation between the mass of two projects between residential and the industrial. In this case since the residential was going to be 15 to 20% higher, it wasn't a mass problem, it was understood that it was � going to be more of a noise problem. The more activity happening behind � the buildings would exaggerate that, therefore, he didn't think he had that concern, but they would find out from public testimony. The bigger issue was aesthetics and the biggest issue was looking at not mass, but not enough mass since it was conceivable that they would end up looking down on the roofs. Therefore, the problem becomes how to screen rooftop equipment from above which is a problem they normally don't have to deal with. He said the commission would be getting the project, he thought at the next meeting, where it is up against the interchange that has a solution to that. In essence, building a roof over the roof to screen the rooftop equipment from above. Obviously they need more height to do that, but when the sensitive viewers are already significantly higher, then they aren't worried about the height of the building, they're worried that the buildings aren't high enough. Because they are betwixt and between the zone changes, they want to come up with a solution that really fits the site and the desires of the adjacent property owner. They have the ability to do that since it technically the zoning hasn't occurred yet. � On the conditions of approval for the Riverside County Fire Marshal No. 16, Commissioner Finerty noted that it says only parking of vehicles shall 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 +�... be allowed in secured parking areas and no storage would be allowed in secured parking areas. She asked if secured parking area was what they had been talking about for overnight parking with the sliding wrought iron gates. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. The secured parking areas are those areas where wrought iron fencing and sliding wrought iron gates are proposed. Commissioner Finerty reiterated that it is covered that there wouldn't be any storage, as well as for tenants only. Mr. Urbina concurred. Vice Chairperson Tschopp had a question regarding the ingress and egress of the traffic circulation. He understood that there is a reciprocal agreement with the adjacent property owners. He asked if that was anticipated in the future for vehicles to make a left turn out at some time to get to Monterey as opposed to heading down Dinah Shore. Mr. Urbina stated that the purpose of requiring the applicant to offer reciprocal access with properties to the west and to the east was because Public Works wanted to provide a circulation opportunity that would allow vehicles from this site to access adjacent sites to the west and east without having to go out onto Dinah Shore Drive. Vice Chairperson �•• Tschopp said if he understood it right now, to exit this property they could only take a right onto Dinah Shore. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Urbina said someone could exit by taking a left from Leilani Way onto west bound Dinah Shore after Dinah Shore is constructed. He noted it was under construction now. Vice Chairperson Tschopp reiterated that someone would be able to leave this project, take a left and get to Monterey or down to that area. Mr. Urbina said that was correct, by exiting via Leilani Way. Vice Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY LEViNSKI, a Senior Vice President and one of the partners on this project, stated that they have been working with Francisco and Phil on this project. Commissioner Lopez asked Mr. Levinski for his address for the record. Mr. Levinski said it is 1201 Dove Street, Newport Beach, California. He said they have been working with Phil and Francisco `..� for the last eight months and with the Public Works and the Fire 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 i � � Department he thought they had come up with a site pian that addresses everyone's concerns, as well as their past experience dressed up what they would typically send out as industrial buildings. He thought they would see through the renderings that they dolled up the front of them quite substantially. Up until three weeks ago their south neighbor was Service Industrial. They had since discussed today his letter and issues. The one issue that came up was the setback to the south. This just came up for them in the last 24 hours. They looked at that and they basically have a lower elevation with a slope going up to the south property which they feel, talking to their engineer this afternoon, is probably right about 25 feet, 20-25 feet, so even worst case if the south property goes residential, he didn't think they would have a setback issue. But they did talk today with Mr. Quill who represents the DeBonne property to the south. He thought those issues could be addressed from their standpoint relatively easy. He noted that someone mentioned secured parking. He said they also have parks throughout Southern California that they have � done just like this. They are governed not only by city jurisdiction, � but they have design guidelines and CC&R's given to them by the master plan of the 170 acres. As well, they have fairly stringent CC&R's that govern the trash, parking, storage and all of that. It would be drawn up and submitted to the City for recordation as well. He stated that the project architect was present. There were no questions for the applicant. Vice Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. PAUL QUILL, 51-245 Avenida Rubio in La Quinta, stated that he was present on behalf of Bernard DeBonne, who is out of the country this week. He hoped the commission received the letter they drafted regarding the application and hoped they had a chance to review. He didn't want to go into in any depth, but would point out on the very first part of that he referenced the first case that was before the commission regarding the restaurant � and that was in e�ror. However, that being said, he was totally in � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMtSSION APRIL 6, 2004 � favor of another restaurant on EI Paseo and another watering hole opportunity. Having spoken with the applicant today, their primary concern is a result of the Council's decision to change the land use designation. Yes, it is by virtue of the fact that the zoning has not changed, the zoning is still S.I., but the land use designation is now Medium Density Residential and that creates a conflict and they have to look at it from the perspective of what will be able to be approved there. Now they had to look at it as residential property, so it has totally different opportunities looking at it from that view point. Before when they were S.I., what happened on that south property line was really not very important because what happened on the adjacent property was going to be similar. Now with the opportunity to do some type of inedium or high density residential, it could go two or three stories and the idea of screening and buffering that becomes the major significant point. Both the Francisco's and the applicant's comments, they are not concerned about the fact that they need a 25-foot setback. That �••• is only pointed out to say that is what the zoning ordinance requires if the zone is residential per the table in the staff report. Frankly, he thought less was actually in this case better. What they would prefer though is that there is a five-foot setback already existing there and that there needs to be ample vertical landscape elements planted in that area. They were thinking about palm trees, tall, vertical elements to soften the elevations of the backs of those buildings and they would hope that they could work with applicant and that the condition would require the applicant to work on improving those elevations to some degree on the south because right now they are just a stark, blank, tilt-up concrete wall. If he was living facing north, whether in high density residential, whether it was condominiums, apartment living, whatever it is, he wouldn't really want to look at that and it would be a less desirable opportunity for him from a residential standpoint. So they do think there are some impacts that exist now that didn't exist before with respect to the adjacent residential property and he wouldn't go into all the things on the list. �.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 i � � He said they are in favor of the project. They don't want to hold � them up and believed they can say they are in favor of the commission approving the project tonight with appropriate conditions and he thought some strengthening a little bit of the language of that additional condition would allow that to happen. They don't want to delay these guys and would like to see them move forward, but they did want some security in knowing that that southerly property line is going to be able to look different than it does now. And issues that could potentially impact the southerly property that are not there today need to be mitigated. That would include the retaining wall issue, the height of the retaining walls, the structural design of the retaining walls and some of those types of issues as they might increase structurally from a building and safety stand point the need to move back from the retaining walls in the future just because they haven't been built adequately or something to that effect. So those were just some of the simple building and safety type of architectural articulation issues that they would like to make sure they get some conditions and have another chance to discuss with the applicant. � Mr. Drell said what they were proposing, since they weren't even sure `� what some of those things are, is that prior to the issuance of building permits for the project, that they will give the applicant and the neighbor a chance to work these things out. If they work them out, then we are all happy. If for some reason they can't be worked out, then the remaining issues would come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Quill said they were all screening issues. Mr. Drell confirmed that they knew what the problem was, they just weren't sure what all the solutions might be. Mr. Quill concurred. Mr. Drell said the applicant didn't know what their grade was going to be or what sorts of retaining walls and slopes were going to be inherent in how they grade their property. Now the question is if Mr. DeBonne is going to start doing some preliminary work so they can figure out what those interface problems might be in terms of what sorts of slopes he t 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � was going to have on his property and what sort of retaining walls he was going to need based on how he is going to grade. Mr. Quill said that being that his property was down zoned three weeks ago, they really haven't had a chance to think about it or address it. He has been involved with Mr. DeBonne on this for about two days and he's out of the country in Syria and not even accessible by fax or phone, and hopefully he's safe, so he couldn't really say other than to say that he thought that he (if he's included) and Bernard could adequately work with the applicant to insure that they get something that works for everybody. Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure it was a down zoning; it was a different zoning. Since the Council did that, there has been a g�eat deal of interest from several develope�s in the property for medium or high density housing. Mr. Quill said he wasn't there to try and convince the City to change their mind and go back the other way. Mr. DeBonne has �... come to grips that his property is changed and he can live with that, he is just trying to mitigate the impacts to the south that weren't there before looking at it from another perspective. He said most of his comments are just entered into the record to insure they are protecting their future rights as well. But he thought they could work with the applicant and he didn't have any issues with that if they are willing. There might be a little more expense involved in landscape treatments and architectural articulation and a few things like that. He thanked the commission. Vice Chairperson Tschopp asked if the applicant had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Levinski reiterated that they talked today and have agreed within reason to sit down with them and find out what they can do to address their issues and as was said, they would be agreeable to work with them over the next, however the caveat was put on it, that by the time they go to pull a permit and go back before architectural review, that they have some type of notarized agreement with Mr. DeBonne that they have satisfied `.. any conditions he might impose on the property. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6 2004 � � � Vice Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissione� Finerty moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Vice Chairperson Tschopp asked if there were any comments. Commissioner Lopez said he wasn't sure why he was uncomfortable about this, and maybe he shouldn't be so they had to help him with this. The gentleman put into the record concerns regarding setback issues as it pertains to land use for high density. Where they were moving is they are comfortable with what was presented tonight, that being the setbacks are not an issue, that the landscaping or other mitigations can be agreed upon by the two entities will work out okay. Everything would work out okay they hoped. Mr. Drell said if not, it comes back to the commission to adjudicate the dispute. Again, this is a problem where they had two property owners who were working along their merry way with a certain degree of certainty and the City has suddenly thrown at the last hour a surprise in on both of them. So they would work with � them to allow them to solve the problem and allow the project to move � forward. He thought all the problems were addressable and it would allow them to work it out. If they work it out, everything can proceed. If not, they would have to come back. Commissioner Lopez asked if it would probably be attached to that conditional use permit regarding setback, views and things along that line. Mr. Drell asked if he meant the issues that come back to the commission. Commissioner Lopez said yes. Mr. Drell said the issues that would come back would be the ones that aren't resolved. Almost all of their zones have an exceptions process that allows them to come up with unique solutions that work. One of the things that they were going to be needing to do with this new residential zone is there would probably have to be a lot of zoning ordinance amendments, not just changes to the map that respond to the goals and objectives of the new general plan. Until they do that, they could allow the people caught in the middle to work out their unique solutions. Obviously those solutions would have to make sense to the city as well. Commissioner Finerty noted that was provided for in Condition No. 20. Mr. Drell concurred. Vice Chairperson Tschopp said he had the same comments and concerns � and he was happy to see that the adjacent property owner had their say � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 1�r. and hopefully they could work out any differences. He noted there was a motion and a second and called for the vote. Action: it was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2257, approving Case No. PP 03-21, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4- 0. C. Case No. PP 04-03 - PALM LAKE, LLC, Applicant Request for a approval of a precise plan to amend Precise Plan 84-17 allowing a reduction in parking requirements in a PR zone which will allow the conversion oi an existing �••. apartment complex to condominiums. The subject property is known as Palm Lake Villas Apartments at 43-376 Cook Street. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. Commissioner Finerty asked if the streets are public or private. Mr. Drell answered that the streets within the project are all private. Commissioner Finerty asked if the HOA would be responsible for maintaining the private streets. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty asked how the City would have jurisdiction to go in and enforce parking on private streets. Mr. Drell said we could not enforce illegal parking; we could enforce the requirement that no tenant had more than two vehicles. If they weren't enforcing it and for some reason that problem was manifesting itself on the public, if we saw this horrendous parking problem out there and for some reason people were actually parking on Cook Street and walking into the project from Cook Street. Commissioner Finerty asked if it didn't manifest itself to the public outside the project, if the City would get involved. Mr. Drell said we have the ability to get involved. Typically the City is not a named party in any CC&R's. CC&R's are contracts between private parties, none of which is the City. They usually involve issues that are not generally of gove�nment interest. If we � 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � are going to find relief of a condition, then they need some mechanism '"'� to have a reasonable chance that relief could be justified. Commissioner Finerty asked if the City plays a role in any other projects like this in the city where they can enforce the condition with regard to the owners or tenants having two vehicles. Mr. Drell said no. Every condominium project in the city, in virtually all the other condominium projects there are normal garages and driveways and in those situations they count the driveway as the additional half parking space. Obviously in a conversion we are stuck with what we have. So when they talk about the general plan, the general plan encourages ownership housing so that the overall process of creating condominiums is one the Council chose to endorse. Commissioner Finerty asked if all the units would be for sale. Mr. Drell said that was a question for the applicant. He believed they would be. Whether they are all ultimately owner-occupied is different question. In many condominium projects people buy them as an investment and they are turned over to a management agency. Commissioner Finerty noted that it lends itself to very difficult management of parking and vehicles. Mr. Drell said that is why staff felt � that if things got out of hand we retain the unique ability to sort things � out if there is a problem. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other comments or questions. There were none. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CORBITT KERR, 43-376 Cook Street, said he represented the applicant and was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked if all of the 220 apartments would be sold as condos. Mr. Kerr said they would be offered for sale. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that the idea is to have all ownership with no rentals. Mr. Kerr said that was correct. � .�' 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � Commissioner Finerty asked if he had a time frame approximately that he is looking at. Mr. Kerr said it was hard to gauge. It was a long process and they were probably looking at nine months to a year. Commissioner Finerty asked if he anticipated that people who are renting there would be potential buyers. He said absolutely. They hoped as much. Commissio�er Finerty asked what the occupancy rate was at the present time. Mr. Kerr said it is approximately 87%. Commissioner Campbe(( asked about the size of the one and two bedroom apartments. r.. Mr. Kerr said approximately, there is a one bedroom mix, a two- one mix and a two-two mix and they range in size from 750 square feet up to 950 square feet. With regard to the parking, Commissioner Tschopp asked if the driveway that leads to this project is a part of this project or if it is private. Mr. Kerr explained that there is one easement that leads to another lot and then it turns left and that is their street. They are actually proposing to put in a guard shack. They would be coming to the City to try and get permits for that. Commissioner Tschopp said that the drive running to their development is part of their property. Mr. Kerr said yes. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the other one belonged to the Palma Villa homes. Mr. Kerr concurred. r�.. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � Commissioner Finerty asked if the guard shack would be there for onsite � security and patrolled. Mr. Kerr said it would be there throughout the sales of the units. Someone would be posted at the guard shack. Commissioner Finerty asked what would happen when the developer left. Mr. Kerr said that when the developer leaves, that item was not put into the HOA, but they were proposing a disclosure that would make that very relevant to all the purchasers of the condominiums. They could choose to add it if they wished. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that they are setting this up as an HOA. She asked if there were going to be dues to maintain the common area. Mr. Kerr said yes. ; � Commissioner Finerty asked if all the landscaping was common area. � �.�i Mr. Kerr said yes. Mr. Drell explained that these would be air space condominiums so the association will own the entire property. Mr. Kerr said that was correct. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Kerr was comfortable with all the conditions of approval, specifically Community Development #2 indicating ihat the restrictions shall be enforced by the City as well as the association. Mr. Kerr said yes. Mr. Drell said he might want to change that condition to say it "may" be enforced by the City. In essence the City has the ability to do it. Mr. Kerr explained that they put it in there so that the City would � ; have some assurance that they could do it. They hoped that if � �i 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � there was any kind of issue then it would be self regulated. If there's an association, there's a board that is affiliated with that association and it's their own community. So if there is a parking problem, they would deal with it themselves. As a further assurance, they put the provision in there that gave the City a guarantee that if there was a problerri and the association wasn't doing anything about it, they could step in and handle the problem. Chai�person Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell didn't see any problem with converting these apartments to condominiums. First of all, the size of the apartments, even though they are two bedrooms and the parking is 2.5, just from the size she didn't think there would be two vehicles in the two-bedroom apartment because they aren't large enough to have a teenager that would have another car. Also, from the parking survey that was conducted at 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., they could see that at 6:00 a.m. �r,,,, there were more vacant spaces then at the p.m. time. She thought that was a good time to see who was home and who would be there taking up parking spaces. With the CC&R's with the parking requirements, and if they needed additional parking it would be made available, so she was in favor. Commissioner Tschopp said he was also in favor of the project, but would counsel that they may want to have the CC&R's or the City's involvement restricted to in the event of an impact to the surrounding areas. He didn't think the City wanted to get involved in the homeowners association that has a board and will be policing its own onsite problems. But if there should become a problem outside the gates, then the City should be involved. Otherwise, he thought it was a good project and should work well. Chairperson Jonathan commended staff and the applicant for dealing with the potential parking issue, both through the CC&R's and the contingent parking plan should it be required. With those two safety valves, he thought this would work out just fine. He asked if there was a motion. •..► 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 i � Commissioner Finerty stated that she would concur with Commissioner ""'� Tschopp with regard to the City not getting involved in the internal parking problems. From her experience it is difficult enough for a board to manage parking problems and to think of the City trying to get involved she thought was a disaster waiting to happen. They are 85 spaces short, but she thought it was the board's responsibility, the HOA's responsibility, the governing document's responsibility. She suspected that in the disclosure with regard to the guard shack they should also include that this is currently under parked so that people know when they come in that parking may very well become a problem. But she would be opposed to the language involving the City in trying to manage the parking problem. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was a specific condition she was referring to. Mr. Drell said he had a question for the applicant. He had already submitted these CC&R's to the Department of Real Estate. (Mr. Kerr said yes.) Commissioner Finerty noted that the language was on page 3 under No.1 CC&R's and parking requirements where it starts in quotations, "a maximum of..." kind of in the middle of the page of the staff report. Mr. Drell said he was looking for the actual exhibit of the � CC&R's. Commissioner Campbell pointed out in the conditions of "'r approval it is No. 2. Mr. Drell noted that the wording said "shall be enforced" and what they want to be able to say and the question is if they have to amend ihe CC&R's. Commissioner Finerty said she would take out the last sentence. Mr. Drell thought it should say, "which may be enforced by the City if as a result of the parking shortage it impacts the general public." Commissioner Finerty thought that if the City is going to get involved, it needs to specify the general public is clearly outside of the development. There is no internal control. That is left up to the board. Mr. Drell concurred. The city's involvement would be limited to impacts beyond the project boundary. Chairperson Jonathan asked if 7.8.4, the last sentence, if it was broad enough so that the City has the discretion to either exercise it or not. Mr. Drell said it says if the board fails to enforce it, the City may enforce it. Commissioner Finerty noted that it is not delineating between internal and external problems. Chairperson Jonathan said he didn't disagree, but he was saying that the CC&R's themsefves are adequate. If we want to have a condition or clarify that is the situation under which the City could _ conceivably be called upon. Commissioner Finerty asked if 7.8.4 was in � , � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 +rr�. direct conflict with 7.8.3 where it says "which restrictions shall be enforceable by the City and/or Association." They are talking in one section "shall" and the next "may" so there is going to be an argument from the beginning. Mr. Hargreaves said it is a practical matter and he didn't believe that the City signs these CC&R's, so it could not be enforced against the City. No one could force the City to do anything and the City would have the decision regarding the amount it gets involved in these issues. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that when people go to buy these and are told by the sales people that if there's an issue, even though they are short on parking, the City shall get involved. There is nothing telling potential buyers that the City does not sign off on these. She thought it was misleading. Mr. Kerr said they could change the language. Mr. Drell said the direction woutd be that the City "may" enforce CC&R's if the impacts of the shortage extend beyond the project boundary. r.. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Mr. Kerr said they could change that, no problem. Mr. Drell said it could say "if it extends beyond the project boundary onto public streets." Commissioner Finerty said she liked the words "beyond the project boundary." Commissioner Tschopp noted that there is a high school and other parking areas that could be impacted, so he agreed with outside the project area. Chairperson Jonathan didn't think that language was necessary, but would not object. He thought it was fine the way it is but was okay with what was being proposed as well. Commissioner Lopez noted that the applicant was willing to make that change. Commissioner Campbell said she would make a motion of approval ` incorporating the change to Condition No. 2. Chairperson Jonathan 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � � wanted clarification that what they were doing was requiring that the "� CC&R's be modified. Mr. Drell said no, they were amending Community Development Condition No. 2. It would say that the restriction shall be enforced by the Association or may be enforced by the City if the impacts of the parking shortage extend beyond the project boundary. He said the language in the CC&R's themselves, No. 7.8.4 already uses the word may and 7.8.3 uses shall. He said they want to separate out the expectations of enforcement of the HOA versus the City. Chairperson Jonathan said that is where he didn't see a need for change because saying enforceable is different than saying shall and for. Mr. Drell said that is correct and it shall be enforceable. It is just saying we have the ability. Chairperson Jonathan said he had no problem with modifying Condition No. 2 and thought it was appropriate. Mr. Drell said the condition provides the guidance as to under what conditions we would be interested in enforcing. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was what Commissioner Campbell's motion was. She concurred they would be using the language suggested by Mr. Drell for Condition No. 2. Commissioner Finerty still thought the language in 7.8.3 in the last sentence is misleading. Commissioner Lopez noted that the applicant ; indicated that he would make that language change. He didn't think they � had the ability to create CC&R's for the association. He thought they "'� could amend the conditions and then the applicant could change the language in the CC&R's, which was up to them and their board. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that right now it is up to the developer. As a point of order, Chairperson Jonathan noted that there is a motion on the table. He asked if there was a second to the motion and then they would go to discussion. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the motion. Commissioner Finerty thought what they talked about was amending Condition No. 2 and then when the applicant came up he said he would be happy to change 7.8.3. That it wasn't an issue. She asked if that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp said he understood. We amended our conditions so this commission is stating what they believe the agreement is. The applicant who is proposing and handling the CC&R's has some conflicts there that he may want to clean up prior to making it available to the public for sale. That isn't an issue of this commission. Mr. Hargreaves said that actually, the City should literally review the CC&R's to make sure they are consistent with the condition and at that point if there is an inconsistency, the City can insist that the CC&R's be modified � appropriately. Chairperson Jonathan said on the face of it, he is reading � � 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 i.. them as being consistent with the amended Condition No. 2. He didn't see a conflict there at all. Mr. Hargreaves said that what Commissioner Finerty is saying, her concern is that potential purchasers not be misled and he thought the way it is worded right now, that problem remains. But he thought if they go ahead and adopt the condition they are proposing to adopt, when this comes back to city staff for approval, that can be addressed if the developer has not addressed it before, which he would expect that he would. Mr. Drell said the addition would be to 7.8.4 that the City may enforce such regulations if the negative impacts of the parking shortage extend beyond the project boundary. The same language would go in 7.8.4. He thought 7.8.3 was perfectly accurate. Chairperson Jonathan suggested a revision to the motion that would further expand Condition No. 2 requiring the City or staff to insure that the CC&R's are consistent with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Campbell amended her motion and Commissioner Tschopp amended his second. 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. 2258, approving PP 04-03, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP 04-04 - ALFRED COOK/BRIAN GOTTLIEB, Applicants Request for approval of precise plan to allow construction of a 25,000 square foot two-story office building on the east side of Cook Street, 460 feet south of Sheryl Avenue. Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report. He indicated that staff was proposing to revise Public Works Department conditions referring to the median island (No. 12) and simply state a "raised median island will be required" and leave the final design into the future. Mr. Drell said his assumption would be that it would be less than 16 feet. Mr. Joy r.. concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that there would 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 ; i h rd median. Mr. Jo said es. He thou ht the w I I be � be a a y y g y ou d probab y looking at 12 or 14 feet. He recommended approval of the project with that condition amendment. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any concerns about the left turn into the project of possible traffic problems. He thought it seemed like a dangerous intersection as they are coming down going up that hill. Mr. Joy explained that it is a protected left turn. Commissioner Tschopp asked for further clarification. Mr. Joy said that looking at the plans, this would be for south bound travel on Cook Street entering into the project. So it would be a protected left turn. They would only face on coming traffic and wouldn't have to deal with traffic crossing two ways. Commissioner Tschopp said his concern was with the slope of the hill coming up there. He asked if traffic engineering was comfortable that the line of sight for both vehicles is adequate. If they were the car on Cook turning left into the project, they would be looking into the project straight out or having to look down because of the hill and his question was if we felt comfortable that they can see a fast approaching car coming up that hill adequately. Mr. Joy said yes, staff felt there was � adequate visibility. It wasn't that steep and isn't the situation like on � Portola where they definitely have a visibility problem. He said it wasn't that severe here. There was no bump that would cause a visibility problem like that. Commissioner Lopez noted that there were a couple of inemos attached, one from Diane Hollinger regarding landscaping. He didn't know if those were addressed any where in staff's report. Mr. Joy apologized that the ARC minutes weren't attached to the staff report, but explained that the landscape plan was continued at ARC. The committee approved the elevations, but they continued the landscape plan because they didn't have a chance to respond to Diane's comments. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification because one memo said that the drainage would go into the Whitewater Channel and then the staff � report said the drainage would now go into Cook Street. He asked if that was right. Mr. Joy said that was correct. Initially they looked at the project and thought it would be beneficial if the site was lowered a little bit so it could drain and wouldn't go out onto Cook Street. But the . applicant met with the Water District about the two different options and ; � they determined the best alternative. There's a storm drain located on the ' � 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � project and what the applicant was proposing was to drain the site having storm drains pick it up and then pipe it down and punching into the storm drain. That would take it out to the Whitewater Channel and would remove the necessity of having another drain going into the Whitewater Channel because it is a little unsightly. In looking at the channel side and if they have any kind of outlet, they have a maintenance problem with weeds growing at the bottom of the channel, so it was a lot cleaner situation. The applicant agreed to do that and preferred to punch a hole into the storm drain on Cook Street and go ahead and empty it onto that location. So it wouldn't be going out onto the street itself, it would be going into the storm drain. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the applicant wasn't applying for a change of zone at this time. Mr. Joy concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said it would be an office building, but on a Service Industrial zoned property, but subject to all the standards of otfice professional. Mr. Joy said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was correct in terms of setbacks, parking requirements, height limitations and so forth for office professional. Mr. Joy said that was one point staff didn't clarify �... earlier. Staff's initial concern on this project was the height of the building measured from Cook Street because there isn't a bridge on Cook Street yet and it slopes way down. One of the drawings shows that they applied the 45-degree angle to make sure it didn't violate the angle requirement for the height of the structure. Mr. Drell said that the development standards for S.I, are the standards. The only O.P. standard being used is the parking standard which is the way they have done most of the quasi office buildings in the S.I. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that meant they were over the 25-foot limit. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they were concerned about the one foot of setback for one foot of height. Mr. Drell said from curb, Mr. Joy indicated that it does meet that. But our interior setbacks in the O.P. are designed for mitigating impacts adjacent to residential. Chairperson Jonathan thought he was going onto another subject. The one for one wasn't for residential. It is a view corridor from the street. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff was saying this project met that requirement. Mr. Drell said correct. Obviously there is an exceptional situation. The property is flat, it's the road that is descending. So it was kind of hard to figure out and measure what that might be. Chairperson Jonathan asked if someone had done that. Mr. Drell believed the analysis was in the report. Mr. Joy said it was one of the copies in the plans. �.. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 ; Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff was satisfied that it was met. Mr. ""� Drell said yes. Mr. Joy said the applicant revised his drawings to meet that criteria and a portion of the building was stepped back to meet it. Chairperson Jonathan said his other question had to do with the grade of the driveway approach. He drives by there at least four times a day and it seemed like its current configuration they would practically need a four- wheel drive to get up the dirt road, but he tried to imagine what the reshaped driveway would look like and it still seemed like it would be pretty steep. He asked if staff addressed that issue. Mr. Joy said yes. It meets their criteria for driveways. Even if they brought the driveway back a little bit for the maximum steepness for a driveway. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the 9% would work. Mr. Joy said yes, they were comfortable with the 9%. It was indicated that it will be 12%. Mr. Drell said that limit is placed on them by the Fire Department and 12% is the steepest slope that the Fire Department will drive their truck up. So that is where that limitation comes from. Unfortunately. This is a hill. Chairperson Jonathan asked if this goes up to the 12%. Mr. Drell said yes. Mr. Joy said one thing to keep in mind when looking at this piece of i property is that all the trees and shrubs on the Water District's property � have been hanging over the fence so long they probably protrude a good 40 feet onto this project. So it was really hard to see this property line because everything �vas hanging over so far. Once they brought the driveway back, it would help things out. Going up the hill on Cook Street, then the hill wasn't as steep as looking at the existing driveway. Chairperson Jonathan commented that he runs the tram road challenge, which is a 7% grade and vehicles have problems, not just going up but coming down and that was his basis for comparison. He would go by the expert opinions and if they were satisfied, but it seemed that 12% was a steep incline over a short space. So staff was telling them that it should be okay. Mr. Joy concurred. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ALFRED COOK said he also had Brian Gottlieb and Dick Baxley (their real estate agent on this piece of property) with him at the meeting. His office is at 45-120 San Pablo in Palm Desert. He said he and Brian have been happy to work in this community for the last 30 years doing architectural projects and finally they ? � 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 +�.. were going to be able to do one for themselves, so it was quite exciting. They were at the meeting mainly to answer any questions and hopefully get some kind of direction regarding what the City really wanted them to do in terms of a directive for the street. Everything they have been told in writing says they are to put in the median, put in two travel lanes, a decel lane and a sidewalk. Then there was also discussion of a bike lane which didn't seem to make sense with this scenario. So he wanted to have some clarification on that. Other than that, he was present to answer questions. One other thing is they put on the agenda today that wasn't in the previous information and that was the inclusion of a signalization fee and he assumed that was customary on all projects. Chairperson Jonathan confirmed that it is. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Drell if he had any comments about the bike lane or any of the conditions of approval he thought might require clarification. Mr. Drell said Mr. Cook's comment was well taken. They needed to be explicit in designing these road improvements they expect people to install. They �.. should know about them when we go through this process. Right now there is a bike lane. Ultimately the bike lane would go between the travel lane and the right turn lane, so the bike lane would continue to go straight as the right turn lane veers into the property. He asked if that was correct or if Mr. Joy would like to elaborate. Mr. Joy stated that they have been spending quite a bit of time on this issue over the last few days especially. The more research they did, the can of worms kept getting bigger. He explained that this project is being conditioned to build to the ultimate roadway width for Cook Street, which would be three travel lanes, a bike lane and also a deceleration lane. Mr. Cook thought it was a decel lane and two travel lanes. M�. Drell asked where the third lane would be. He asked if the third lane became the travel lane and if Mr. Joy would explain the relationship between the future third lane, the bike lane and the decel lane. Mr. Joy explained it was drawn out on his copy of the grading plan. Mr. Drell asked if one of the answers was they were going to get enough right-of- way to allow the third land if and when we ever build it and right now what was being installed were the two lanes plus the decel lane. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Joy said they sketched up a design earlier � 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 � that day using the grading plan. From the centerline of the street to � existing right-of-way is 55 feet. To edge of pavement right now is 43 feet. So what they were requiring was another 12 feet on top of the 43 feet for the widening. He believed it would leave one location 39 feet. Mr. Drell asked from the center line how much of that would be occupied. Mr. Joy said it wouldn't be from center line, it would be from the median location. From the median to the curb would be 39 feet. That would allow enough room for three travel lanes. Mr. Drell asked what happened with the bike lane. Mr. Joy said that if they went to six lanes, the bike lane would disappear. That's one of the requirements for the eight-foot wide sidewalk. He thought that would be the condition all the way up and down Cook Street. If they go to six lanes, the bike lane would disappear up and down Cook Street. Commissioner Lopez asked if they would share the sidewalk. Mr. Joy said it wasn't an ideal situation. Commissioner Lopez thought that was better than trying to ride a bike or having a bike lane with the deceleration lane. He didn't think it was safe. Commissioner Finerty concurred and with the installation of an eight-foot sidewalk, that should be plenty of room. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that clarified the issue for Mr. Cook. ' .rr/ Mr. Cook replied somewhat. The plan they drew their little diagram on, they didn't realize was incorrect because they weren't aware that the center line of Cook Street actually shifted five to six feet easterly because of the striped median that is there now is not in the center as far as this map is concerned. So if they could use this as a condition, he didn't have a problem with it. Mr. Drel! said that was okay. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission commenis. Commissioner Finerty moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for any discussion. Commissioner Tschopp stated that it would definitely be a prominent, noticeable building. He didn't like that part, but thought other things considered it was fine. � � 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 +�.. Chairperson Jonathan said he might be a minority of one, but he had a problem not with the overall architecture, but with the second story aspect. Because this structure rises 49 feet above Cook Street, it calls for a stepped back second story to soften the impact and instead the way the architecture is right now, the roof, instead of stepping back the second story actually made the building more prominent. It is a very heavy, imposing feature in the architecture and he thought it created the exact opposite effect of what he would want looking up 49 feet. So he wasn't opposed to the use, he wasn't opposed to the size of the building, he wasn't opposed to anything except for the architecture and the design as it relates to the second story. He thought it made the situation worse instead of better. For that reason, what he would personally favor was a continuance to give the applicant and/or ARC the opportunity to address that matter and see if they could come up with a softer design with regard to the second story. He might be a minority of one, but he thought it was their job to express their opinion honestly and objectively and that was what he was�trying to do. He asked for any further comments. There were none. He called for a � vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no►. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2259, approving PP 04-04, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of recently adopted General Plan and Land Use Map Mr. Drell distributed an excerpt of the staff report that summarized the major changes, referring to the land use maps included in the commission's packets reviewed those changes. `... 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6. 2004 l Chairperson Jonathan thanked Mr. Drell for following up on this so � promptly. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell stated that their last meeting was informational. They would also be having a special meeting next Wednesday regarding two special benches on EI Paseo. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE No meeting. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE No meeting. � XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Campbell said she would be absent from the next meeting. Commissioner Tschopp said he would also be gone. Chairperson Jonathan, Commissioner Finerty and Commissioner Lopez said they would all be present. � i 1� 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2004 r.► XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. '`�' _-� _. �._ . .. - . _.�_,_ ; - i, �:. _ .�._ .. ___ � PHIL DRELL,�Secreta.ry__.. , ATT T: , � SABBY J THA , Chairperson Palm Desert anning Commission /t m � �.. 37