Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0405 �1��� MINUTES �""` PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION . TUESDAY - APRIL 5, 2005 * � * * � � * � � � � � � .� * � � � � � � * * * � � � � �. * * � � � � � � * * � � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tschopp 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: Dave Tschopp, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson � Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Sonia Campbell Staff Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for approval of the March 15, 2005 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the March 15, 2005 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � APRIL 5, 2005 � �i V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent March 24, 2005 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the � Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. �i A. Case No. VAR 05-01 - SUZANNE LOPEZ, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow a reduction of the required minimum front yard setback from 20 feet to 0 feet for construction of a front entry vestibule addition to the existing single family home located at 45-807 Portola Avenue. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Smith stated that staff was recommending that the matter be tabled, explaining that it would be renoticed. Staff anticipated that it would return in two weeks. Chairperson Tschopp o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matter. There was no one. The public hearing was closed. j � � � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, tabling Case No. VAR 05-01 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. PP 04-33 - VENTURE CORPORATION, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of a precise plan to construct four (4) general office/ warehouse buildings totaling 65,892 square feet, and a height exception to allow varying roof heights up to a maximum of 34'6". The property is located at 73-700 Dinah Shore Drive. Commissioner Jonathan advised the Commission that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter and for Public �.». Hearing Item C because he owns property in the vicinity. Mr. Tony Bagato addressed the Commission. He displayed a map showing the location of the property and reviewed the salient points of the staff report. He noted that the building design incorporated some architectural features above the 30-foot height limit. The maximum height being requested was 34 feet 6 inches and that would require City Council approval. He indicated that the plans were approved by the Architectural Commission. He explained that a new resolution was distributed which added two conditions to the Public Works Department which had inadvertently been left out, Condition Nos. 18 and 19. Condition No. 18: Reciprocal access easement required with the property to the west and an irrevocable offer for a 24' reciprocal access easement shall be recorded with the property to the east, 75' from curbline of Dinah Shore Drive. Only temporary parking spaces may be allowed in this area. � 3 MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 Condition No. 19: Where adjacent, the project shall line the sides of the Mid Valley Channel with cement in accordance with specifications from PM 24255, or as approved by the City Engineer. With those corrections, staff recommended approval. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant was aware of these two additional conditions. Mr. Bagato said yes, he talked to the applicant about both of them and they did want to discuss them. They had some concerns and wanted to speak on the matter. Chairperson Tschopp o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. MARK PARRY with the Venture Corporation, 600 Miller � Avenue in Mill Valley, California, 94941 , addressed the Commission. He said they were very excited to be bringing their newest Venture Commerce Center to Palm Desert. He explained that these would be 32 individual commercial condominium upscale properties for sale units for small business owners. So the four buildings out there would actually be divided in a manner for sale with seven properties each to make it 28 out there, ranging from about 1 ,300 square feet to 3,200 square feet. He said they've had a lot of success in other areas of California including San Francisco and San Diego doing this type of product and the reception has been to the small business community to give them an area where they can actually buy small real estate and become a member of the immediate business community and the larger community at that point. They have an asset, a risk taker and are more of a vivid piece of the community instead of just being a for rent/for lease type of property. They were very excited. He said it's been well received and they were fortunate to have a great location here in Palm Desert to bring it to. :� 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 � They reviewed the conditions of approval and there were actually three items he wanted to discuss. One was from the Public Works Department regarding a 75-foot throat. They currently designed a 55-foot throat depth at that location to require stacking and for vehicle access and flow and manipulation. The condition of 75-foot would actually bring it basically up to the parking stall depth which cuts off and they would like a continuous 75-foot depth with no breaks for any traffic movement in front of it, which would basically cut off those parking elements shown in the front or where they are actually impacting where the site layout is to a building would push it into a point where they would probably have to reconfigure the site. This is the second site plan. They worked very hard with Tony and the Planning Department to reconfigure the site. So what they decided to do was create more �,., of what they called the "main street" going through the site to connect and access to that driveway location and the critical point of that driveway connection is that it lines up with Spyder Circle on the other side. It is already a City improvement and they were trying to get alignment to go from Spyder Circle; there's a left- hand turn lane that's already an offsite improvement that's already installed, so to align their entry driveway and make the connection that they do have traffic flow into that center drive aisle. He thought they had done a really good job of giving them actually more than 75 feet and giving them access and flow well into their site at that point. And they have the benefit of having their site having the left-hand turn lane. There was concern about stacking and some other issues. To their knowledge, they comply with all setback issues. At this point he wasn't aware of any ordinance requiring a 75-foot throat dimension at this time. The other issue was regarding the reciprocal easement to the east side for the 24 feet. He believed it was a moot issue because the property to the east has already been approved and there's no offer from them offering a reciprocal easement, so they thought it +�„` 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 � was really unnecessary and they would rather have the condition removed. It seemed to serve no purpose at this point that they could see. The new issue that came up that they found out about that day was having the cement lining of the storm drain ditch back there. It was actually an offsite piece that fronts their property, but they didn't own the property and they tried to review that, but hadn't been able to get in touch with the seller of the land and with the City to coordinate whose responsibility and obligation that issue is at this point in time. So they wanted to have approval from Planning Commission on their project and go forward to City Council on the height revision. Commissioner Lopez thought there should be some conversation regarding the road. Mr. Joy said it was something Public Works has been requiring of every project on Dinah Shore Drive and kind of resulted from the way the whole industrial park has transformed. When it was originally approved, Dinah Shore Drive was not going to go through to Portola. As it was developed, the City decided to put it through and they were lucky just to get four lanes of traffic; however, the traffic model shows that it should really be a six-lane street because of the volume of traffic it will hold. That part of Palm Desert is on the grid system and all streets go north and south and Dinah Shore will be a diagonal, so it will carry a tremendous amount of traffic. The way this industrial park was designed, however, has these individual parcels having the access onto this major thoroughfare and good planning says that individual parcels should not have access to a major thoroughfare individually like that and all the other industrial parks in the city such as Country Club Drive and Cook Street all have a separate street coming off of it and the driveway accesses it that way. To try and mitigate this type of situation with all these different driveways coming out onto a major thoroughfare, they are asking these property owners to develop throats so that traffic can enter onto the sites without tying up and backing up onto the street itself. All the literature that Mr. Greenwood has done on it suggests a 200-foot deep throat. He compromised right away to 100-foot depth and they still � had objections to that, so he went to a bare minimum of what he felt 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 � they could live with was 75-feet deep and that's what they have been requiring of other projects. Because of a lot of other different issues involved with this, they were kind of waiting for an edict from the Assistant City Manager on this matter, and he believed that the City Attorney was also involved on what they want to require, because it is an ongoing issue on every single project on Dinah Shore Drive. For traffic safety on Dinah Shore Drive, Public Works felt the throats were necessary. Mr. Bagato indicated that the way the condition was worded it was meant to be flexible. The applicant provided a traffic study that was attached to the staff report. Because this is an ongoing issue, as Mr. Joy said, that sometimes Planning Department doesn°t agree with it and hopefully it was being worked out internally. So the condition was worded if the applicant provided evidence that a 75-foot throat is not necessary, the Director of Public Works could make the final �„ determination. So there was flexibility in the condition and the applicant was still working with Public Works. There is a traffic study and with the decel lane, they were providing extra length than a normal decel lane and they were hoping to mitigate that, but the condition was worded so that the final determination could be made by staff, not necessarily at the meeting if the Commission was comfortable with it. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. MR. SABBY JONATHAN, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102 in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He said he reviewed the application and wasn't opposed to it in concept, but he had a concern about parking and the project being parked at the Service Industrial code of two parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. As he understood it, the revision to that ordinance allows the 2/1 ,000 when the office is under 20% of the project. In this particular case the office clearly exceeds the 20%. So the Code requires that the parking be calculated at 4/1 ,000 for the office portion and 2/1 ,000 for the warehouse portion. He was very concerned about � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 this project in particular, not only because it didn't meet the revised code, but because they know from experience what happens to projects like this, particularly when they are subdivided into 32 commercial condominiums. They end up with a lot of office use and people. In the case of Cook Street where they've seen that happen, they have a relief valve and that's the various side streets that provide offsite parking. In this particular case they wouldn't have that luxury and there wouldn't be any parking allowed on Dinah Shore, so there wasn't going to be a relief valve. He had no idea what would happen when that lot gets full. He had no doubts that the way this would develop and the way the market is going in terms of how this project will end up being used, which is a lot of office if not entirely office, and he thought they were very under parked here and he was concerned about what would happen in that particular situation. He wasn't opposed to the project by any means, but he thought they knew what happens in situations like that and they had an opportunity right now to prevent a parking problem and they should take advantage of that opportunity. Mr. Bagato explained that the proposed project would be parked at four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet so that it could develop as 100% office. He had a site plan and indicated that there would be 4.02 spaces, a little over 4/1 ,000. That was one of his concerns, especially with the new code. It was one thing to control renters, but then they have owners which would be even more problematic, so they took the steps to provide the parking required by the current code. There was no one else who wished to speak and Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Lopez said that with the updated information on parking, as well as the flexibility in the condition regarding the throat width he would move for approval. Commissioner Finerty concurred and seconded the motion. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 � Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0- 1-1 (Commissioner Campbell was absent, Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2328, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 04-33, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Commissioner Campbell absent, Commissioner Jonathan abstained�. C. Case No. PP 04-36 - THOMAS SUN/SIERRA LANDSCAPE, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 14,978 �„ square foot warehouse / office / showroom building with outdoor storage on Lot 13 of PM 24255, 73-771 Dinah Shore Drive. Chairperson Jonathan had advised the Commission that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter because he owns property in the vicinity. Mr. Smith noted that this is the same neighborhood as the last application at Dinah Shore and Spyder Circle. He said this would be at the easterly end of Spyder where it meets Dinah Shore. The request was for a 14,978 square foot warehouse/office/showroom building with outdoor storage on the lot as shown on the location map. The project had one access point from Dinah Shore and one from Spyder Circle. He said it was the applicant's intention to eventually construct a second building on the site which is shown in the upper left corner of the site plan. That wasn't before them at this time. What was before them was that the applicant be allowed to use that area for open storage for what would be a temporary period, they weren't sure how long that would be, so staff was requiring extensive landscaping and walling along Dinah Shore. In � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 � � this zone open storage is acceptable, but only if it isn't visible from a public street. So what they showed on the landscape plan is a series of berms in the range of four feet in height with a six-foot wall on top of that with the landscape material in front of it composed of trees, shrubs and ground cover. He said for the most part parking is located for this phase, which was what was before them at this time, immediately adjacent to Spyder Circle. The applicant has shown a gate system at the ends of each access driveway. In the case of the access from Spyder, the gate if it happened to be closed during business hours, would preclude the use of about half the parking, which does include some handicap parking. So there was a condition that requires that the gate be open during all business hours. Staff felt the open storage area would be adequately screened with the landscaping as proposed. He said the building architecture was probably '; best described as desert contemporary. While the original proposal came �.rri in with a higher building, as it processed through architectural review, the building became lower and complies with the code and the architecture was given preliminary approval. Mr. Smith stated that the project complies with code, is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption, and staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the report. He noted that when he spoke with the applicant earlier during the day and the applicant had an issue he would be bringing up. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked what would be stored in the open storage area. Mr. Smith said it would be landscape material; it's a landscape business. Plants, among other items. Commissioner Finerty noted there are four-foot berms and six-foot walls and asked if that would adequately screen everything from the start or if they would be waiting for landscaping to mature. Mr. Smith said with time, landscaping will help infill any gaps they might have, but they feel they would have substantially a 10-foot barrier and that should be adequate. As the landscape matures, they would be able to store bigger things. � 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 � Commissioner Finerty indicated that the way the staff report was written, a four-foot berm and a six-foot wall, at this time nothing beyond ten feet would be allowed to be stored. Mr. Smith said that any storage visible from a public street is a code violation. On the screening issue, Chairperson Tschopp asked if the property to the west would have the benefit of the ten-foot screening. Mr. Smith replied only if they chose to install it on their property. There wasn't an application on that piece at this time. Chairperson Tschopp noted that the area that would be screened off contains 27 parking spaces and staff had taken steps to screen that from the public and at the same time they were requiring that the fence be open so that employees and the public could park there. It was one thing to have it available, but if people can't see it or can't see an access to it, they probably wouldn't use it and would end up on the streets. He asked if they had looked at any kind of signage requirements that would make that be open. Mr. Smith said no, but they could. He suggested that when someone got to that part of the �. parking, they could have a sign saying additional parking with an arrow. Chairperson Tschopp suggested a condition requiring that if there is parking taking place outside the premises that this area be revamped or reopened to the parking. Mr. Smith said there is already a condition there that requires it to be open whenever they are open for business, the rolling gate. Chairperson Tschopp said his concern is that although it is open, if it's adequately screened and protected and looks like a barrier, people aren't going to park there and they may have customers parking out on the street. Mr. Smith suggested that he talk about that with the applicant. Mr. Joy noted that there was a condition that the curbs on Spyder Circle be painted red, so there wasn't going to be any street parking at all on Spyder Circle. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BROCK GRAYSON with Ware Malcomb Architects at 20950 Warner Center Lane in Woodland Hills, California 91367, stated that he was present to represent the owner of the project, George Gonzales, who was also present to answer any specific questions �. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 about the use of this project. He was here to respond to the conditions of approval. Mr. Gonzales reviewed the conditions and had no exception to the conditions of approval except for clarification on Public Works Condition No. 19 where it talks about the driveway gate on Dinah Shore Drive to be setback 100 feet from the curb face. Mr. Grayson said he spoke with the Engineering Department during the day and also spoke with Planning and the big concern is that if the gate were to be shut and cars pulled in off Dinah Shore, there would be no really good way to get them back out onto Dinah Shore, so the Planning Department told him that if they agreed to keep that gate open during business hours, then the issue of the gate would be mitigated. So he talked to Mr. Gonzales and he agreed that during business hours, both gates are going to remain open continually. So he was hoping they could keep the � gate where it's currently at 80 feet off Dinah Shore. Bringing the gate further into the site would impact the function of the space in the back, so he says he'll keep the gate open during the day if the City is comfortable with that. The way that the circulation works on the site for him, he opens up both gates in the mornings. Most employees would be coming in off of Spyder Circle and coming into the site. Employees would be the ones parking behind the gate that will be open. The parking behind that gate that's open is strictly for employees. What he does store in that area are landscaping trucks that are out during the day, so it was swapping the vehicles. The trucks leave in the morning and the guys park their cars there, so it was replacing the trucks with cars during the day and at night they come back and make the switch. To answer the question about screening, they were just the small trucks so they would never be over ten feet high, so they would always keep the equipment below that screen wall. There was parking in the front of Spyder Circle and Mr. Gonzales anticipated � that was where all the visitor parking would be. Mr. Gonzales was 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 � open to the suggestion for signage for the additional parking in the back, but he felt the parking up front should be adequate for the use. He asked for any questions. Because this is such a visible corner lot, Commissioner Lopez said their concern was what people would see when they drive on Spyder Circle or down Dinah Shore Drive and that was pretty important. He asked if the storage area itself would have erected shelving in that back area to store items on. Mr. Grayson said no, there would be no racking in that area. Commissioner Lopez asked if they had any idea when they would develop the future pad. Mr. Grayson said that if business is good, sooner rather than later; Mr. Gonzales didn't have a date. �..� Commissioner Lopez noted that this could be a storage area for quite a long time. Mr. Grayson explained that the way they laid out the site and they spent many hours designing this site so that he could have that future opportunity to put a building in there because he really has under utilized the coverage of that site currently with that storage area, so as his business grows and the market grows, he anticipates to build that building. Right now the lot is low in coverage. It's a very small building for a lot that size. Commissioner Finerty asked if they were storing plant material and trucks. Mr. Grayson said there would not be any plant material stored there. They would just be parking their trucks there at night. � 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that the only thing that would be in the storage area are the company trucks that are below ten feet. Mr. Grayson said that was correct. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. SABBY JONATHAN, 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 102 in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He expressed his support of the project. They own property in the vicinity and Chairperson Tschopp asked about the property to the west and that is actually owned by them, so they are adjacent to this property. They understood how it lays out. They just today submitted their project to ARC, so they have an idea of how their own project would lay out and he thought the two were quite compatible. So the design, the ingress and egress, and everything about this project he thought really set the standard and they were very much in support and looked forward to its construction. Chairperson Tschopp stated for the record that he was also handed letters of support from Edmond Berkeley and Fabio Ceresa (copies attached►. There was no one else wishing to speak regarding this project and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Action: Commissioner Finerty moved for approval. Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. Mr. Smith asked if that included the additional condition relative to the signage advising people that additional parking is available. Commissioner Finerty said she wasn't convinced that it was needed at this time if the curb is red. After hearing the testimony, Chairperson Tschopp was convinced that it was covered adequately. Commissioner Lopez said the only change would be to the condition requiring 100-foot setback on the gate and asked if they wanted to change that to 80 feet, or leave it 100. Mr. Smith said they heard the arguments. Commissioner 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 � Finerty suggested leaving it to the discretion of Public Works. Mr. Joy said it should also be noted that there isn't a deceleration lane on Dinah Shore at this location either. Commissioner Lopez said they should leave it at 100. Commission concurred. Chairperson Tschopp called for the vote. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Commissioner Campbell absent, Commissioner Jonathan abstained►. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2329, approving Case No. PP 04-36, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Commissioner Campbell absent, Commissioner Jonathan abstainedl. IX. MISCELLANEOUS Assistant City Manager Sheila Gilligan introduced the Palm Desert Youth Committee to the Commission. Planning Commission welcomed them �,,,, and wished them good luck. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting would be on April 6, 2005. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty noted that the meeting was canceled. "�"" 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2005 XI. COMMENTS Mr. Urbina informed Commission that this year's California Chapter of the American Planning Association state conference would be held at Yosemite National State Park. It's a three-day conference, the last two days of October through November 2. He said he would be asking permission to attend and perhaps could even do a presentation on the architecture we have in the city of Palm Desert which he believes is a world class city. He has traveled to other cities throughout California, including our Sister City and we can be proud of Palm Desert and our aesthetic environment. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m. STEPHEN R. SMITH, Acting Secretary ATTEST: � �s, - �� t �� :-=� -- �DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairp son Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 16 EDMOND J. BERKELEY 75-100 Mer1e Drive Tel. (760) 56&3691 � Palm Desert, CA 92211 April 5, 2005 Reoeived at Planning Com�r��n� �, ,,y o; �� �P oy 3� � 0, :_ ��►i Planning Commission F City of Palm Desert Re: Proposed building on Parcel 13 Gateway Industrial Park Palm Desert, California To whom it may concern: This letter is to confirm my support for the subject project. As a fellow property owner in Gateway Industrial Park I ;�, am very pleased to see such upscale design and construction. This project will be an asset to the Park! Thank you. spectfully yours, " �/,` �/��, � � �., Edmond J. Berke � FABIO CERESA 42-620 Caroline Court Tel. (760) 837-3811 Suite 102 Fax(760) 779-8926 Palm Desert, CA 92211 E-mail:fceresa�hotmail.com April 5, 2005 R�IYrd�t PI��'q 00�1bAA��O oy/os�;t��.'�oy-�6 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert .-�.M' � �``�� ���' ��"`� - Re: Proposed building on Parcel 13 Gateway Industrial Park Palm Desert, California To whom it may concern: This letter is to confirm my support for the subject � project. .� As a fellow property owner in Gateway Industrial Park I �r� am very pleased to see such upscale design and construction. This project will be an asset to the Park± Thank you. Respectfully yours, � —�� -�.�_...� abio Ceresa .�