Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0817 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - AUGUST 17, 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 Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Members Absent: Jim Lopez Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tanya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the July 20, 2004 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the July 20, 2004 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION �"' None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 1 Vl. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. TT 31490 - PONDEROSA HOMES II, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of } Environmental Impact, a tentative tract map to subdivide two 81 .45 acres into 237 single family lots, and modified setbacks for dwellings on 237 lots. Property is located at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, 74-000 Gerald Ford Drive. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the recommended action was a continuance. He asked for a staff report from Mr. Drell, who indicated that he had nothing further to add. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and leaving the public hearing open, Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion, continue Case No. TT 31490 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 4-0. e 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 B. Case Nos. PP 04-11 and VAR 04-02 - RANCHO MIRAGE BUILDERS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit and setback variance for a 2,140 square foot single story office building located at the northwest corner. of Alessandro Drive and San Jacinto Avenue, 73-900 Alessandro Avenue. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and informed commission that the project received approval by Architectural Review. Staff recommended approval. Regarding the cul-de-sac area, Commissioner Campbell asked if there would also be a sidewalk before the walls. Mr. Drell indicated that there was a Public Works Department condition requiring a six-foot wide sidewalk on the project frontages. He said there would be pedestrian access through the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Campbell clarified there w•• would be a wall and then five-feet from the wall to the building. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell noted that wasn't the main entrance to the building, which was facing the parking lot or Alessandro. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification why the east side of the building was considered the front for purposes of calculating setbacks. Mr. Drell said it was because the ordinance specified the shorter dimension. The vast majority of lots are deeper then they are wide. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the west side of the building was the front, if it would accommodate that approach. Mr. Drell indicated that the west side didn't engage in any setback issue. The setback was how it relates to streets and property lines. From a functional point of view, they could say the front was Alessandro. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that functionally it is really from the parking lot on the west. He said it wasn't a major point, he was just curious because the staff report indicated that since for code purposes the cul-de-sac side is considered the front, a setback variance was required. He asked if the west side was considered the front, if they would still need a variance. Mr. Drell said no, 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 i because it is the front of the lot, not the front of the building which determines where they place it. Mr. Drell said the commission would probably want to hear from the applicant and the next door neighbor regarding a six-foot wall being required to be built along the north side. Right now there was a grade difference and the wall was relatively short. The character of that wall was something that should be worked out to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the house and the building share a 21- foot combined, the house being considered the side of this building. Mr. Drell said for the distance, not counting the garage, yes. The garage is the structure that is up against, most directly adjacent to, that property line. So the house is another 21 feet. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. i MR. ALFRED COOK, 45-120 San Pablo in Palm Desert, stated that he represents the owner, the Fincher Family Trust, and he was present to answer any questions. They had met with staff and had three different versions of this site plan. This final one seemed to meet all of the final issues that came along with it. He said it is a difficult site and he thought they came up with a relatively good solution to it, keeping in context the building with both sides of the street and its neighborhood. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the color represented on the color rendering was accurate. Mr. Cook said no, the computer rendering was darker. He indicated there was a color board. It was noted that Commissioner Finerty's rendering was different, but the colors on her rendering were lighter and more representative of the actual colors. (The color sample board was distributed to the commission.) i 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 Mr. Cook said it was the same building, just a different view. He said the site configuration was different because they had to turn the building. Mr. Cook stated that neither he nor the owner had seen a staff report or the conditions of approval. They assumed that the cul-de- sac portion of the development would be the same as for the property across the cul-de-sac and they would be putting some money forward to it. Mr. Drell said yes, it would be half the cost. Mr. Drell gave Mr. Cook a copy of the staff report, which he quickly reviewed. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the finish on the building was a smooth stucco. Mr. Cook said yes. wr Chairperson Jonathan asked if there would be different colors/different shades of the brown used. Mr. Cook concurred. Regarding the wall on the north, Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a specific design element for it. Mr. Cook said that the wall to the north is on the property to the north and wasn't their wall. He said they might have to build a new wall when the grading plan is finalized, because now there is an existing two-foot high retaining wall two feet off of the property line and without doing some potholes and so on to find out why it is two feet off of the property line, they think it is because the first wall that was built has a spread footing, so they couldn't put it right up against and they had to investigate that also. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a requirement for a six-foot wall. Mr. Drell confirmed that there required under Condition No. 12. Basically the building pad is within six inches of the existing grade. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 f Mr. Cook said the existing grade is 218. He talked with the surveyor that day and would like to get to 219 for the finished floor, which is six inches higher then the existing grade. In addition to that, Chairperson Jonathan noted that the owner was being required to build that six-foot wall on the north side and on the west end of the property. Mr. Cook said they agreed with that requirement. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION regarding this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked the commission for comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Chairperson Jonathan commented that the proposed project was a very attractive design with the least amount of impact on the neighborhood and a good " use of that location. He called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2285, approving Case Nos. PP 04-11 and VAR 04-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. CUP 04-16 - TERI L. LOCKARD, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 1 ,240 square foot restaurant called Cafe' Marche' with approval of onsite sale and consumption of alcohol in the C- 1 zone. The property is located at 73-375 El Paseo, Suite F. Mr. Bagato outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 Commissioner Campbell asked what type of fencing they would be having on the sidewalk for enclosure and if it would be similar to La Bella Luna. Mr. Bagato said the applicant hadn't submitted anything yet, but might have something in mind. Mr. Drell said it would be a low, wrought iron fencing. It was an ABC requirement to segregate the area. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. TERI LOCKARD, 76-632 Morocco in Palm Desert, hoped that the commission thought her cafe' would enhance this area. She asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant has ever had a restaurant before. Ms. Lockard said no, she is currently the Director of Catering and Convention Services for the Grand Hyatt and she is going out on her own. Commissioner Campbell thought it was a very nice plan. She asked if there would only be salads and sandwiches. She asked if there would be any hot sandwiches or hot entrees. Ms. Lockard said she would be doing warm pannini sandwiches, as well as warm wraps and small appetizer plates like focacia, pizzettas and a Mediterranean plate with hummus, pita chips, feta cheese and olives. Small plates. Commissioner Campbell said that people could have a light dinner there. Ms. Lockard concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if she planned to remain open until 10:00 p.m. Ms. Lockard said probably not that late, but she wanted to make sure she had that window in case they were so busy they wanted to keep the doors open. But it would be based on business and 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 uri from what she understood, Hollywood Scoop did have a late night crowd with people coming to get ice cream, so she had the frozen yogurt and smoothies, but she probably wouldn't stay open that late throughout the season. She would determine that based on business. Chairperson Jonathan asked what hours Roc's Firehouse Grill ended up having. Mr. Drell said 2:00 a.m. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Ms. Lockard would have any problem if the conditions allowed a later closing time. It didn't mean she had to stay open. His concern was that if things did happen where people were actually walking down El Paseo later in the evening and she made a business decision to stay open until 1 1 :00 p.m. or 12:00 a.m., he wouldn't want her to have to come back and go through the approval process again. Mr. Drell said that 2:00 a.m. was fine with staff. He didn't believe at that location there would be any impact if the business was open 24 hours. He said they could eliminate the condition entirely. Chairperson Jonathan agreed. Ms. Lockard said that brought up the question if she decided to open earlier and have coffee and bagels. Mr. Drell said it was the same thing. Chairperson Jonathan indicated they would remove the time period if the rest of the commission concurred. He for one would like to see more activity on El Paseo in the early morning and late evening, so he would want to encourage that. Ms. Lockard thanked the commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Campbell moved for approval with the elimination of Condition No. 3. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Tschopp said he agreed with Chairperson Jonathan that the more activity 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 they got on El Paseo early morning and late evening was better for the businesses and he really looked forward to having outdoor seating and cafes. Commissioner Campbell agreed, and wanted to see the businesses open all year long. Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2286, approving Case No. CUP 04-16, subject to conditions as amended, deleting Condition No. 3. Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No. PP/CUP 98-21 Amendment - VILLA PORTOFINO, MIKE LA MELZA, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the development agreement, Ordinance No. 907, to reduce the minimum age for occupants of Villa Portofino from age 62 years to age t.. 55 years and to amend Condition No. 10 of the Department of Public Works contained in the City Council Resolution No. 99-19, 73-755 Country Club Drive. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Tschopp commented that they have seen this before and asked if it was time for the City to perhaps look at the Senior Ordinance as it applies to planning. It seemed to him that the premise that seniors (defined as someone 62 years old) drive less then someone 55 is somewhat flawed. In today's environment, it seemed people were much more active later and they are trying to look at densities and the whole premise that a 62 year old drives less then a 55 year old is flawed. He asked if it was time to look at that ordinance as it pertains to planning. Mr. Drell said that as it applies to these sorts of projects that has not been staff's experience. They have a standard for more parking for age 55. Commissioner Tschopp said that was his comment. Mr. Drell said that applicants can choose that standard at the outset. He would probably be recommending to the next person applying to plan for age 55 and put in the extra parking. But in the projects they have approved 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 # under this ordinance, the majority or a good number of the residents of these sorts of developments might own a car, but drive very little and typically don't own more than one. As projects age, the cars disappear. If they go over to Hacienda de Monterey, they are parked at one car per unit and they haven't experienced a problem with the standard. The problem has been where they have a situation like at Palm Desert Country Club where it wasn't parked, so they had to waive part of the parking and they ended up waiving only half of it. For this project, it's actually parked at the requirement. Commissioner Tschopp said that this project seemed to be fine, but it seemed to him that it was time to look at the age 55 and 62 because there really isn't a difference in parking needs for individuals in that age group. Mr. Drell suggested a study to see exactly what that parking requirement is. Commissioner Tschopp didn't think they needed a study, it was just common sense. Mr. Drell said they could look at the projects that have been approved and see what the actual parking requirements are. '< Chairperson Jonathan said they could also go with age 55 and just apply it uniformly without having another level. What Commissioner Tschopp seemed to be saying is that those that are 62 aren't necessarily driving less then those that are 55. Mr. Drell agreed that until someone gets into the 70's and 80's, it probably didn't change a lot. Commissioner Campbell agreed that they should look at ages more after 75. Her father just gave up driving and he is 87 years old. . Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICHARD DUBENHAUER, 1800 East Tahquitz Canyon Way in Palm Springs, stated that he was present representing the applicant. He felt that the staff report was very comprehensive and the scope of their request was very narrow, so there wasn't a whole lot to add. He pointed out that the density in this particular project, and it is a walled project, is far below the maximum. He thought it was approximately 27% so there is plenty of open space left for additional things that might arise, 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 such as if there were additional parking needs later on. He noted that Mr. La Melza was present if they had any questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he understood that the commission's motion, if it was in approval, would be to make a recommendation to City Council for the final decision. Mr. Dubenhauer agreed. It would be amending an existing ordinance. Commissioner Campbell asked if there had been a lot of sales/ applications. Mr. Dubenhauer said not that many applications or sales. There had been no closings yet, it wasn't quite that time, but they were getting to that point. He just found out tonight that the construction of the big club house was underway and when people see the amenities on the grounds, that would probably spur sales �r. and when they get people living there, that was even better. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were going to do anything more exciting with the walls that are painted white. MR. MICHAEL LA MELZA addressed the commission and thanked them for the consideration they had been given in the past. He said there would be landscaping in front of the wall which would tone down the wall substantially. If they had an opportunity and could spare a few moments, they could go to the Villa Portofino and see some of the things they have done. For instance, the desert landscaping in the islands, the street pavers (which eliminates cracking, maintenance and heat). If they looked at the roofs, they are real terra cotta roofs. That is what is seen on $2 and $3 million homes and they are putting them on their villas and casitas. If they looked at the thickness of their walls, they are six inches to eight inches to really get that European look. And the landscaping would complement everything else they are doing. Commissioner Campbell asked if he agreed with her that it was kind of white. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 ` t i Mr. La Melza said it was really white in the beginning and they toned it down and tried to match the buildings. Over time with the landscaping and so forth, it would complement what they are doing overall. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments. 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. 2287, recommending to City Council approval of an amendment to Ordinance No. 907, Development Agreement for Villa Portofino, and amendment of Condition No. 10 of Public Works Department, Resolution No. 99-19. Motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Jonathan announced that he would be abstaining from the next item, asked Vice Chairperson Tschopp to lead the discussion, and left the room. E. Case No. TT 30438 Amendment #1 - DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the approved tentative map to add two (2) new lots, consolidate four existing lots into two new lots and to adjust the approved pad elevations in the area west of the storm channel opposite the Somerset community. APNs 652-020-001 & 002, 652-070-002 thru 010. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 Vice Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TED LENNON, President of Stone Eagle Development, addressed the commission. He thought staff did a good job in analyzing the request. They weren't really adding any lots, they were adjusting grade lines and trying to avoid retaining walls to make it a better project. Vice Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0- 1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained). r.. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2288, approving Case No. TT 30438 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained). Chairperson Jonathan rejoined the meeting. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE None. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 2004 .r" C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE None. XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Jonathan said at the last meeting they talked about reviewing the ordinance regarding the parking requirement for the Service Industrial zone as it related to office use at 20% less versus over and asked if that was in process. Mr. Drell said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they should expect some kind of an update or response. Mr. Drell thought it would be before the commission in September. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m. .r PHILIP DRELL, Secretary AT E T: SABBY J NATH'XN, Chairperson Palm Dese Planning Commission /tm 14