Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0904 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Limont led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chair Dave Tschopp, Vice Chair Connor Limont Mari Schmidt Van Tanner Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the July 17, 2007 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the July 17, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent August 9, 2007 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS no None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 06-25 - TERRY AND NANCY ANDERSON, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 24 and 25 of Tract 25296-6 in Bighorn, 890 Crescent Falls. B. Case No. PMW 07-01 - SUNLITE DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 33 and 34 of Tract 29713 located on Canyon View Drive within Ironwood Country Club (APN's 771-540-011 and 012). C. Case No. PMW 07-08 - MASON SMITH AND NANCY SMITH, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 27 ■„ and 28 of Tract 29713 to allow expansion of a home located at 50-023 Canyon View Drive (APN's 771-550-006 and 007). D. Case No. PMW 07-15 - RJ VENTURES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between Parcels 8 and 9 of PM 30502 and to combine a portion into Parcel 10 for property located at 34-660 and 34-680 Monterey Avenue (APN 653-082-007, 008 and 009). Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. 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 2 "" MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 07-08 - GREG COCKERILL, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a new 1,695 square foot detached accessory structure within the required rear yard setback. The subject property is located at 77-602 Robin Road (APN 637-320-019). Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report. He requested that an additional condition be added as Department of Community Development Condition No. 8, "Building pad elevations for the proposed development are subject to review and approval in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code." With the addition of Condition No. 8, Mr. Bagato recommended approval of Case No. CUP 07-08. Commissioner Limont asked if it would still be 18 feet with the pad elevation. Mr. Bagato said yes, 18 feet measured from the grade. Commissioner Tanner asked if staff had heard from any neighbors. Mr. Bagato replied that no comments had been received. Chairperson Campbell ooQened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TODD SHUCK said he was representing the applicant who couldn't attend the meeting. He indicated that he was a friend and would be the contractor on the job. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Shuck had anything to add to the staff report. Mr. Shuck said no, Mr. Bagato covered everything. There were no questions for the applicant. Chairperson Campbell asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Tschopp agreed with staff's findings that the structure complies with the code, that it's consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, that it would be a nice addition, and he moved for approval. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2451 approving Case No. CUP 07-08, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 07-02 - GREG SHANNON AND PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the construction of four buildings totaling 25,024 square feet. The properties are known as 75-060, 75-072, 75-108 and 75-120 Gerald Ford Drive (APN's 653-690-047, 048, 072 and 073). Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report. A material/color sample board was distributed to Commission. He requested the addition of Community Development Condition No. 11, "Any and all proposed parking lot lighting poles shall be relocated so that they are not adjacent to the parking lot trees as currently shown on the proposed landscape plan." With the addition of that condition, Mr. Bagato recommended approval. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the poles Mr. Bagato was discussing were for lighting and all other utilities would be underground. Mr. Bagato concurred. Commissioner Limont asked for clarification in terms of the memo from Diane Hollinger. Mr. Bagato said he spoke with the applicant and they could look at putting in 36" tall bollards that will be shorter than the tree, or the taller poles could be relocated. The applicant agreed to look at it since the trees are required in the ordinance, not the poles. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. GREG SHANNON, Peppertree Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he concurred with staff's recommendation. There were no questions of the applicant. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. 4 .� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 ... There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Limont thought it was a very nice building and would be a great improvement for the 1-10 area. She moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Tschopp and Chairperson Campbell also agreed. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2452 approving Case No. PP 07-02, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. PP 06-18 and CUP 06-15 - PATRICK YANG, JWDA, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of a precise plan of design and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new 88-room hotel and restaurant pad, including a height exception to allow a maximum height of 52- feet. Subject property is located at 75-144 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Stendell explained that the subject property is located on Gerald Ford Drive, east of Cook Street, is currently vacant, and is zoned PCD (Planned Community Development). He said the PCD zone requires a master plan and allows owners flexibility in uses. He stated that buildings in the area range from industrial buildings to newly constructed buildings, such as the Valley Business Center where Kaiser Permanente is located, as well as a Hampton Inn located across Cook Street. To the south was the developing Cal State campus. He indicated that this property was part of the Wonder Palms Master Plan which was approved in 1997. It dealt with about 269 acres generally between Portola and Cook Street at the 1-10 Freeway. He explained that the project site is in Planning Area 4 of that master plan. Planning Area 4 has an emphasis of office/industrial park, but encourages a mixed use of retail and residential uses under conditional use permit. He showed a site plan aerial which he prepared to help put the proposed project into context with the site conditions. He stated the city is sloping down toward the freeway in a northerly direction; the area also slopes down in an easterly 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 direction. Essentially they were getting to the bottom most area of the city as .u. they travel further to the east along the 1-10 freeway. As well, the relationship in pad height to the existing Hampton Inn on Cook Street is about a four-foot difference. Between the corner of Cook Street/Gerald Ford exiting the freeway to this site is lower four feet along several hundred or thousand feet in that location. Mr. Stendell described the adjacent uses and pointed out the Valley Business Park, which was approved with five buildings at a height of 39 feet 4 inches to the top of the pitched mechanical screening. He stated that those buildings were currently under construction. The Hampton Inn was approved at a height of 38 feet to the parapet with tower elements up to 42 feet. For the previous case, Item B on the agenda, the Planning Commission just approved the buildings to the rear. There was a mixture of retail, restaurants and office use. There is an existing gas station on the corner and approval for more retail with office to the rear on the parcel just east of the subject property. There was a mixture and a transition from retail to more office uses traveling down Gerald Ford. As they transition further, they are existing office/industrial buildings further down the road. He stated that the proposal before the Commission included one main four- story hotel building and one detached single-story restaurant pad. He coo explained that Candlewood Hotel is an extended stay with larger rooms and more in-room amenities than a typical hotel. The applicants felt this was the right spot for a product like this with its proximity to the freeway and the rapidly developing Cal State campus. The buildings were oriented to place the largest mass, which is the four-story building, in the middle of the property and farthest away from Gerald Ford. The front building would be the single-story restaurant pad which would help soften the transition to the main building. Commissioner Tanner asked about the location of the restaurant pad. Mr. Stendell showed the location on the aerial map. He also showed the locations of two previously approved nearby restaurant pads, which he confirmed was a separate issue. Chairperson Campbell requested that additional questions wait until after Mr. Stendell's staff report. Mr. Stendell explained that the proposed architecture is a contemporary style using a blend of materials which would compliment the building. The architectural review process started in March of 2007. The ARC (Architectural Review Commission) from the beginning explained to the applicant that to get approval for four stories was going to be very tough. To give it the best shot, 6 ..� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 sow they needed to provide an excellent building with a lot of delineation of masses and textures to help soften the impact. Through a four-month process, ARC worked very diligently with the applicant to come up with this style of building which utilizes several colors and textures of stucco, slate tile, and stucco veneer. He had a material sample board on display. He said there were a lot of offset and planes provided. One of the goals of ARC was to insure that this building had a lot of ins and outs and architecture was varied enough to provide a very extraordinary design. This building was ultimately endorsed by ARC at its June 12, 2007 meeting by a 5-0 vote with one abstention and one absence. Mr. Stendell noted that the restaurant was designed as a 20-foot tall building to the parapet and 27 feet to the tower element. The main hotel building was 44 feet 6 inches to the top of the parapet and up to 52 feet to the top of the three tower elements, which necessitated the height exception approval. Parking requirements for a hotel is 1.1 space per room, plus other uses found onsite. The 88 rooms generated a need for 97 parking spaces for the actual hotel. The restaurant parking rate is 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of restaurant area up to 3,000 square feet. At 2,700 square feet, the restaurant requires 27 additional spaces. In situations where they've had restaurant pads onsite with hotels, staff has argued in the past that upwards of 50% of the patrons of that restaurant could be onsite people staying at the hotel. For that reason, in the past staff has argued for up to a 50% reduction in parking. In this case the applicant has provided 115 parking spaces. The staff report indicated 119, but 115 was the correct number and equated to approximately a 21% to 22% reduction in parking. Mr. Stendell indicated that every hotel previously approved in Palm Desert has been granted an exception. This proposal falls within the Wonder Palms Master Plan Area 4 and a mix of residential and retail was being encouraged under a conditional use permit. Staff felt the proximity of the freeway, the growing college campus, and the context of the surrounding buildings makes this location attractive to this type of development. The Wonder Palms Master Plan also requires that this property be compared with the Planned Industrial District, which has a height limit of 30 feet, but allows the Planning Commission to recommend approval of a height exception to the City Council through the entitlement process. Staff believed that in context this building would fit in nicely. If there is an area of the city which can accommodate slightly larger buildings, he thought the proximity of the freeway and the lowness of this area of the city was definitely an area which could accommodate taller buildings without as much of an impact. ... 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 He recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council .r approval. He noted that Public Works Condition No. 14 required that full public improvements as required be constructed including a six-foot meandering sidewalk on Gerald Ford. The applicant indicated to Mr. Stendell that there is an existing six-foot straight sidewalk out there. There wasn't a representative from Public Works present at the meeting, but staffs direction was to amend that condition to read, "Including a six-foot sidewalk to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works." That would allow the ability to have the Director of Public Works review it, and if Mr. Greenwood is okay with the existing sidewalk being straight as indicated on the landscape and site plans, it could be handled at staff level. With the amended condition, staff recommended approval. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were questions for staff. Commissioner Limont noted that the college campus is directly south. Mr. Stendell concurred. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the existing sidewalk is six-feet wide. Mr. Stendell said yes. There were no other questions and Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. .r MR. MICHAEL SCHAFFER from Bakersfield, California, said that in a few minutes, after nearly a year of labor and open communication between the City's Architectural Review Commission, JWDA Architects, Ray Martin Design and Associates, Coachella Valley Engineering and Meg Garden and Associates all came together for their approval. He said the desert urban design is state of the art. The hotel is using native colors and materials to sooth the eyes and would allow a beautiful desert building in a much smaller facility. He said this design will truly be a complement to Palm Desert and the university district. He stated that their commitment to the community would not end on the opening day of the hotel. It was in their best interest to operate in a professional manner and ensure that the hotel serves the needs and the owners of the Palm Desert community. He explained that Candlewood Suites is an extended stay hotel brand which belongs to the same parent company as Holiday Inn brands. It is the perfect amenity for the Palm Desert university district and the business district it is in. It has about 25% larger space than an average hotel room. It 8 MW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 ... would satisfy the special long-term stay needs of the university visitors and business visitors at a price comparable or below many of Palm Desert hotels that cater mainly to tourists. This would be a premium product at an affordable price for university visitors. As seen from the beautiful design of their hotel, Mr. Schaffer said their difference from the franchise's cost effective prototype is that the overall development cost of this project is estimated at 30% higher than an average hotel development. Their mission is to develop a high-quality extended stay hotel that will serve visitors such as professors, lecturers, administrators, and business travelers with fully equipped studio suites. A successful project requires 80 to 90 rooms, which in this instance required a height variance. For this purpose, they were before the Planning Commission to request a variance approval of their design. This design utilizes all of the City's Architectural Review Commission's recommendations and meets all the City's exacting standards except height. This is a hotel which incorporates community input and landscapes into the surrounding environment. They were proposing a project with a commitment to making a great amenity for the long-term development of the university district and asked for approval of the project. He said additional team members would submit some additional information. MR. MICHAEL SUN, the architect from JWDA Architects, 529 E. Valley Boulevard, San Gabriel, California, stated that their office specializes in hotel design. They completed many hotels for Hilton and Holiday Inn. This project was his third Candlewood hotel; the other two were located in Bakersfield and Palmdale. He stated that those hotels were very successful. He explained that they started this project two years ago and within the last six months they have been working closely with the design review board. They have changed the entire elevation design from the prototype to better fit into the desert environment. They also applied many layering techniques to further enhance the horizontal expression, resulting in a design they liked very much and hoped the Planning Commission would also like. He, his colleagues, and the consulting engineers were present to answer any questions. He thanked them. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any questions of the applicant. ... There was no response. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. LEW PIPER, Vice President and CFO for KDI Elements located in Palm Desert, California, stated that they are a granite/tile/stone/ wood/carpet local contractor and have worked with Bighorn designs and these developers. He indicated that this project has a lot of those elements. He was in support of this project and was confident that the Commissioners and the developer would reach agreement on this project given the efforts to date by staff and ARC. He pointed out that in this market the project is very important to the community. They have in excess of 300 employees and they are struggling, like everyone else, to keep them employed and keep those dollars being invested locally and rolled over locally, not to mention the long-term impact on the tax base that would be created by this project's successful completion. He thought there were many reasons for approval of the project. He said it would be a great amenity for the university district and business district. It was something they could use because it is one exit down and they frequently have out of town visitors as well. Economically speaking as an accountant, when a project is built to these ..r specifications and the costs involved with that project, it is important that it pan out or pencil out on paper at the inception of the project to make sure it works. Building a hotel with these types of specs so that it can support the community is very important so the design has been built that way from the beginning. Based on trends in the university area, it is moving into a fast track speed and would need these items as well. Speaking to Irene Di Vito of Baxley Properties, who has a 175,000 square foot development, they are in full support of this hotel as it is being presented now. He thought staff was very succinct in pointing out that this property is the lowest point in Palm Desert and these height limitations should not be an issue given its location. Mr. Piper requested approval of the project with the height exception. He thanked them. MR. RAY MARTIN read a letter of support from Ms. Irene Di Vito of Baxley Properties into the record (see Exhibit A attached hereto). 10 ..r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 .. There was no one else wishing to address the Commission and no rebuttal comments. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments or action. Commissioner Schmidt asked for the definition of extended stay. Mr. Stendell deferred the question to the applicant. MR. SCHAFFER explained that extended stay hotels are designed specifically for travelers or temporary residents in communities where the rooms are complete with kitchens and separate bedrooms from the living area and work space. It was like a studio apartment in many ways. Some similar products included the Residence Inn by Marriott, which started this concept quite a few years ago. Using power point, he showed pictures which depicted the separated work area that allowed guests to have visitors without inviting them into their temporary bedroom. Commissioner Schmidt asked about the length of stay and if the rentals were by the day, week or month. Mr. Schaffer said that all extended stay products are marketed as limited service, full service and extended stay. The typical extended .�,. stay guest stays 7-14 days, whereas a normal hotel guest stays 1-2. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any other questions or comments. Commissioner Tschopp said that very few other places in Palm Desert would work with the height exception, but given the elevations, topography, and proximity of the freeway here, that all worked very well to accommodate the additional height of the 44 feet going to 52 with the parapet which he believed is also needed to add some architectural design to the building. He thought the setbacks were very good with 68 feet to the curb; it would fit very well into that area. He also complimented ARC for holding the applicant to a higher standard on the design and thought the applicant tried to comply with that. There might be a few things he would tweak here and there, but again, he would defer to ARC and the good work they did. He was in favor of the project. Commissioner Tanner was also in favor of the project. He thought it went hand in hand with development on the west side of the city. It complimented that corner quite nicely and is the lowest point, so the four stories didn't bother him. What bothered him a little bit was not have a landscape element 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 with this proposal. The Hampton Inn across the street is very stark. Maybe no it was because it wasn't built up yet, but it concerned him that there was nothing in their packet to look at. Mr. Stendell said if the landscape plan was not included, he had to apologize. There had been a landscape plan that they have been working extremely diligently on. MR. RAY MARTIN came forward. He identified himself as the landscape designer. He said he worked very closely with Diane Hollinger for probably upwards of six months and revised the plan approximately seven times. They have done extremely well in the landscaping area and met most of the requirements. There should have been a landscape plan in the packets. Mr. Stendell apologized if it wasn't included. He reiterated that they have been working extremely hard on this, especially after discussions with Landscape Department staff and Planning Commission. He showed the latest version of the landscape plan, noting that one of Ms. Hollinger's concerns was to protect the west side from the afternoon sun. That was why there were some dense trees there and along the front of the building. Commissioner Tanner said that was his only concern. He'd asked Commissioner Limont if the Landscape Committee had reviewed it and they hadn't. Everything else looked great. His concern was that there was sufficient landscape in the area so there wasn't just an Arco and then the Candlewood hotel just kind of stuck there and he wanted to protect against that. He was in favor of the project, also. Commissioner Schmidt asked how many parapets there were on the building. She could see two and some sort of air-conditioning tower. Mr. Stendell showed a drawing of the building roof plan and said that the parapet will run the entire length around the building. That gives the finish to the top of the building. There are three tower elements: two are pitched tower elements and the third was on the back staircase which they were using as a tower element to provide some architectural relief in heights and variations. As far as the parapet, it would run along the top of the building at 44 feet 6 inches and the tower elements were up to 52 feet. He said the parapet would screen the HVAC units on the roof. The line of sight which was done, and approved by ARC, showed about five feet of parapet above the finish of the rooms, which would be adequate enough to screen all the HVAC equipment on the roof. The tower elements would be intermittent to break up the architecture of the building. Commissioner Schmidt clarified that she meant tower, not parapet. So basically there were two towers and the rear one. She 12 WO MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 emu asked if the third was the same style. Mr. Stendell said the third was more of a contemporary element. The two are pitched elements and the third more of a contemporary block giving some mass to that element and changing the height, breaking up the plane of the building. Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification that Mr. Stendell stated earlier that because of the topography, this building would appear to be four feet lower. Mr. Stendell said that if they were using Hampton Inn as a comparison, this pad was four feet lower than the Hampton Inn pad. This building is six feet taller to the parapet than Hampton Inn. So essentially this building would appear to be two feet taller if they were looking right at each other and comparing them. As it slopes down, the building appears to be more in line with what is already existing in the neighborhood. Commissioner Schmidt asked for and received confirmation that they wouldn't see the air- conditioning units. Commissioner Limont said her concern is height. She wouldn't disagree with any of her colleagues; everyone has worked really hard to comply and to attempt to make this really fit. The difficulty she had was looking at the thought that has gone into the creation of Palm Desert and she thought they have had great leadership who has worked hard to come up with Palm Desert's ordinances. Part of that is the height, and the height at that location ` has always dipped down there, even when they came up with the master plan. When they continue to make exceptions, the thing she thought they needed to be concerned with is that little by little as they approach Palm Desert from 1-10, they are starting to look less and less and less like Palm Desert. While she agreed they needed hotels and affordable hotels, she also thought the height limitations needed to be enforced or they should go back to the Council and change the ordinances. She would be voting against the project. Chairperson Campbell said she concurred with Commissioners Tschopp and Tanner. She thought this would be a great project in a great location. It is close to 1-10 and they need the hotels and it wouldn't be an eyesore. She asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voted no.) ... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner no Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2453 recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP 06-18 and CUP 06-15, including a height exception, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voted no.) D. Case No. CUP 07-09 - TAKAE TAKAMATSU, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 600 square foot massage establishment located at 73-981 Highway 111 (APN 672-222-015). Ms. Schrader reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Limont asked for the number of massage parlors in Palm Desert. Ms. Schrader didn't know citywide, but said that within this vicinity there were four or five within the Presidents Plaza area. Commissioner Tschopp acknowledged that it was difficult for staff to count parking spaces. Given that it was August and there were fewer people using Presidents Plaza and with previous parking problems, he asked if staff was ..w ready to assure the Commission that in January or February there will be sufficient parking for this establishment. Ms. Schrader indicated that staff only counted parking directly behind the building; however, there were other available parking spaces adjacent within the parcel boundaries. Even if this wasn't a massage establishment, there would be impacts. Given its location, it would have impacts whether it was a retail operation or an office. Chairperson Campbell pointed out that the hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and most of the retail uses are gone by 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., but it does get busy during there in season. Commissioner Schmidt noted that the floor plan included in their packet was sort of a typical, general layout and wasn't specific. Ms. Schrader agreed that the positioning of the tables could move, but they were allowed two massage tables, two reflexology seats, a small waiting area, and the two heated shiatsu tables. The maximum number of employees allowed in the conditions of approval are three, so they were limited. 14 .rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 Chairperson Campbell asked if this was all one open space. Ms. Schrader confirmed it was one open space with a small enclosed lunch room in the back. Chairperson Campbell ol2ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RAY TAKAMATSU, the son of the applicant, 44-220 San Pablo in Palm Desert, was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any questions for the applicant. There were none. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. MR. STEVE BLAIR, the property owner, asked for the Commission's support. He said initially he was concerned with a massage use, but when he found out it would be all in one open room, found out a little more of what they do and how they do it, he was in favor. With respect to parking, if they took the same space and turned it into a beauty salon with six stations, someone answering the phone, and a couple of people waiting, the vehicle impact would be greater and would not need to be before the Planning Commission for approval. .. He said he would appreciate approval. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Tanner said it seemed to him that in the last four or five months they've had quite a few massage parlors come before the Planning Commission. He isn't against massage, but said he had a bit of an adversity to it. He wasn't going to disapprove the application tonight, he just felt a little uncomfortable with the number of massage parlors coming into Palm Desert. He wasn't going to disapprove the application, he just wanted to voice his opinion and go on record. Commissioner Limont agreed with Commissioner Tanner. She wasn't going to disapprove of this application, however, they ought to take a look at how many massage parlors there are in Palm Desert and have a discussion as to if one could limit certain establishments. She wasn't sure how that worked, but the thought process seemed to be they don't want to be known as the massage parlor capital of the Coachella Valley. Ms. Aylaian indicated that she hadn't thought to look at how many licensed massage parlors or 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2907 establishments we have in the city, but she would be glad to look at the numbers and the numbers per capita and compare that with the other valley cities. She noted that there would obviously be more massage and day spas here than in another city that isn't resort oriented, but for interest, they could take a look at Palm Desert compared with Palm Springs, Indian Wells, and other valley cities to see where we measure up and will bring that information back to the Commission. Commissioner Limont thanked her. Commissioner Tschopp said his comment would be on the other side of the fence on that. When he was in banking, he always thought there were too many banks and it would be nice to keep others out. He said that as long as it's a good, legitimate, well-run business, we should welcome it to the city. He thought this location works well across from A.G. Edwards. He was in favor of it and he didn't think they could keep out competition. Commissioner Schmidt was also in favor of the application before them, but she would like them to work a little on definition, because day spa to her indicates that the facilities have bathing facilities, showers, dressing rooms and that sort of thing. Massage is just what had been presented. If there isn't a differentiation in our ordinance, perhaps we should have that because they really are two different animals. Chairperson Campbell concurred with Commissioner Tschopp. They couldn't ..r discriminate against massage parlors, how many hair dressers there are, how many shops, etc. She was happy to see that this was one open room and not individual rooms. She asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2454 approving Case No. CUP 07-09, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. ZOA 07-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Notice of Exemption and an amendment to Title 25 (Zoning) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code adding and amending Sections 25.04.361 through 25.04.363, 25.15.024, 25.22.033, 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 25.23.015, and 25.24.026 to prohibit helicopter fields, heliports, helistops and similar facilities at residentially zoned properties. Ms. Aylaian explained that the proposed revisions to Title 25 are the result of the request of the Commissioners at the July 3, 2007 meeting. It was reported that there were complaints of helicopter activity over residential areas, in particular over the south end of the city. The City Attorney was asked to draft certain prohibitions for the residential zones. The ordinance before them responds to that request. She stated that helicopter landings and helicopter landing pads have never been a specifically permitted use in any residential zone, but the code has been silent to the issue. What they were doing didn't technically change the ordinances in place, it just gave it more clarity. In each residential zone, they determine that where a use is not specifically permitted, it is prohibited. They just didn't mention anything about helicopter landings. This proposes explicit language for each residential zone prohibiting helicopter landing pads in those zones. She asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked who made the complaints. Ms. Aylaian didn't know the specific individuals, but knew there were complaints from Ironwood Country Club and believed the helicopter activity was over Bighorn and Ironwood. She did get complaints directly from the Bighorn Institute, so she was aware of those, but didn't know the specific residents who made the complaints over Ironwood. Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation that the Bighorn Institute has its own helicopter. Ms. Aylaian believed that the Department of Fish & Game, if she understood the relationships between the agencies correctly, the Department of Fish & Game is required to once a year or on a periodic basis take a count and actually identify locations of each bighorn sheep and they do fly over for counting purposes. She believed they also are required to respond if any of the radio-collared animals show no activity for a period of time to see if the animal has been hurt. She thought helicopters might be used by the Department of Fish & Game to check on those animals. So yes, associated with the Institute, there is helicopter use. Commissioner Tschopp noted that this restricts it to residentially zoned properties. Ms. Aylaian concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that meant helicopters could land on commercial buildings or commercially zoned properties. Ms. Aylaian said in the ordinance right now there is no specific prohibition. In fact, they have granted temporary use permits for a fund raiser ... 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 that involves landing a helicopter with a celebrity or someone at a golf ..r tournament and didn't believe there was any specific prohibition on helicopter use in commercial areas. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that was something they should think about incorporating or think about while looking at it. Ms. Aylaian said it was up to the Commission. If there is a perception that we're having a problem or if we're receiving complaints, they could come up with some suggested language. They might have to think about it to determine if there would be needs. Obviously they didn't have emergency medical facilities in the city that require helicopter landings, but they should think about other places where they might want commercially viable helipads. Commissioner Tanner asked if there would be any legal liabilities for the City for any existing heliports if they change the ordinance. Mr. Hargreaves stated that our position is that it has never been a permitted use and they are just clarifying the situation. He wasn't aware of any specific circumstances. If any circumstances arise, they would be evaluated at that time. Commissioner Tanner asked if there was an issue with helicopter travel and landing in Bighorn. Commissioner Schmidt said yes. In the community in which she lives, they tracked it on a regular basis and they could almost tell time on the comings, goings and landings, particularly from one location. One of the other ones that Commissioner Tanner might be referring to is up in the Cahuilla Hills in the County. She asked if that meant they couldn't fly .r over the city. Mr. Hargreaves said the City could not regulate the overflight, that was in the federal jurisdiction. They can regulate uses on the ground. Commissioner Tanner asked about land in the County. Mr. Hargreaves said it was up to Riverside County to regulate. Commissioner Schmidt said that on Exhibit A, page 3 under helistop, the last part of the sentence talks about the meaning of helistop and then there is a comment, "but not including such an area used strictly for fueling service or any other maintenance of any kind." Mr. Hargreaves didn't know where that language came from. He thought the definition might have been pulled from another ordinance, but suggested that they could strike it at this point and revisit it before it gets to the City Council. If in fact there is some benefit for that language, it could be added back in. Commissioner Schmidt said that would be fine. Ms. Aylaian proposed that it be left in the definition of a helistop, because it was probably some sort of industry standard definition of helistop, but then in each of the zones, they could say that additionally helicopter fields, heliports, helistops, helicopter fueling and maintenance facilities and similar types of facilities are prohibited. That would insert back in that they can't have places to just land and refuel or a place to just work 18 no MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 on their helicopter. Commissioner Schmidt said her first choice would be to omit it, but understood where she was going and that was fine. Ms. Aylaian said they could take a look at it and if that is what the Commission would like to see, they could revise the language before going to the Council for consideration. Chairperson Campbell didn't see how they could dictate if people have a helicopter. Not everyone on the block is going to have property large enough to have something like that, that they can tell them no, you can't leave home or go to work by helicopter. It would be the same thing as depriving someone of using a motorcycle, or a car or whatever they wanted to use. Noise is noise. Everything makes noise. Airplanes idle. She asked how they could discriminate just because someone has a helicopter that they want to use every once in a while. Commissioner Schmidt thought Mr. Hargreaves said it very clearly, they aren't allowed at this time, so why encourage it. Commissioner Limont thought they were trying to have clarity the ordinance that is already in existence. Ms.Aylaian concurred. Commissioner Limont suggested, and also agreed with Commissioner Tschopp, that maybe they should also be looking at commercial zones as well, but maybe as a separate issue. Commissioner Limont thought this was a good first stab and suggested they send this to Council to start consideration for clarification for an ordinance that is already in existence. Chairperson Campbell said if it was already in existence, why some people already have these helicopter stops. They should have had a permit from the City. Commissioner Limont said that was correct, but one of the things they've learned is that some homeowners do things regardless of whether or not they do have a permit. She thought this helped the City to maintain a certain semblance of civility among the neighborhoods. As a person who received personal calls from neighbors, she was in favor of at least sending this to Council. Commissioner Tschopp noted that helicopters create a different noise then airplanes. Airplane noise is behind the plane and the blades of a helicopter create the whop whop sound coming directly down onto the ground, and to him was a very offensive noise. Right now, he thought there were too many helicopters and for the most part were probably police or something of that nature. He thought going over residential areas it should be regulated and that's why he thought they should also look at commercial zones and make sure they aren't leaving some door open for someone then to instead of landing on their property, move over a couple of spaces. That was his concern. �,,. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 Commissioner Schmidt thought one of the most regular fly over patterns, .■r which this really doesn't address because she didn't think they land, is real estate being shown from the air, particularly in the Bighorn area. It was just constant during the season. There were probably a dozen flights per day. There was a Bighorn reserve up there and they weren't supposed to be spooking the sheep with helicopters. And helicopters hover. They don't just fly over like an airplane, they stay put for long periods of time. Commissioner Tanner said they couldn't control that. Commissioner Schmidt agreed, but to discourage it is what they were calling attention to. That issue was already being addressed by the United States Government. Commissioner Limont asked if Commissioner Tschopp would be in agreement with sending the residential uses to Council and then addressing commercial. Commissioner Tschopp asked which was more efficient. If they could look at it at the next meeting and incorporate it at the next meeting, he would be in favor of holding it up for a month or so. Commissioner Limont questioned if they were separate issues. For commercial purposes, Mr. Bagato suggested that maybe it could be allowed as a special event. There have been requests for special events and staff talks to the special events people, the police department, but he would advise allowing a special permit rather than just prohibiting it. Once in a while there will be special events that would require them and maybe limit the number of them rather than outright prohibiting them. Commissioner Tschopp clarified that he wasn't saying "r prohibiting them, but it might be a good time to incorporate it at one time and deal with it once. They could incorporate commercial landings as a special event. Chairperson Campbell asked if he would like to continue the matter. Commissioner Tschopp said that would be his preference as opposed to doing it piecemeal, but he was just one voice. Ms. Aylaian said they could come back at the next meeting and address both the language regarding the helistop and also address the use in commercial areas such that a temporary use permit or special permit be required in commercial areas. Chairperson Campbell asked if Commission would like a continuance until the next meeting or a whole month. Commissioner Schmidt wasn't interested in delaying it for any amount of time. It is a serious issue for those that live on the hillside. Commissioner Limont agreed. Commissioner Schmidt thought these were different. Commercial was one aspect and residential another. She urged them to go ahead with the residential portion, which seemed to be in good order and instruct staff and the City Attorney to prepare as soon as possible the commercial version. 20 no MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell said she would be in favor of a continuation. Commissioner Tschopp said he would make a motion to continue it to the next meeting if that was sufficient time. Ms. Aylaian said she was just discussing with the City Attorney as to whether or not they needed to renotice the item because they noticed it for helicopter landings in residential zones. She thought they were good with just continuing it to the next meeting to a date certain. If it was approved or recommended by the Commission, then when they went to the City Council they would notice it for all zones. Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification that the continuance would be to the next meeting. Ms. Aylaian concurred. Commissioner Tanner asked if verbiage regarding commercial was going to be included. Ms. Aylaian said yes, that was staffs intent. Commissioner Tanner said he would second the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, by Minute Motion, continuing Case No. ZOA 07-02 to September 18, 2007. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Schmidt voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Proposed Amendment to the Valet Parking Ordinance - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Notice of Exemption and an amendment to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code revising Chapter 10.50 Valet Parking to change the procedures for issuance of valet parking permits and to revise the penalties for failure to comply with requirements of the ordinance. Ms. Aylaian explained that this issue peripherally relates to land use and zoning, so it was brought to Planning Commission. She noted that it doesn't require a public hearing because technically it isn't Title 25 Zoning, it is under Title 10. Nonetheless, staff expected that the Council would want to hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ms. Aylaian indicated that the issuance and enforcement of valet parking permits has traditionally been performed by the Public Works Department. The ordinance itself was last ... 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 updated in 1993, staff has run into some mechanical difficulties, and it is .r cumbersome to enforce. Right now it is referring to positions, departments and committees within the City which no longer exist and have not existed for a while. So they wanted to clean up that language. The other substantive change is that previously the only real action that the City could take for a valet parking operation that was not complying with the requirements of their permit was to hold a public hearing and either revoke or modify the permit. Because the whole public hearing process is so cumbersome, it was rarely used if at all. They were looking for something that was more easily enforceable at a lower level. They frequently run into problems with valets parking the vehicles on the sidewalk because it is convenient or close, or in handicap accessible parking stalls, or other inappropriate locations. Rather than taking them through a public hearing process, the proposed revisions would allow citations and relatively low levels of fines for infractions. It leaves in place the City's ability to revoke the permit altogether for continued and persistent noncompliance, but otherwise gives them some more manageable in-house tools for enforcing the requirements of the permit as it is approved and issued to the applicants. Chairperson Campbell reiterated that everything remains the same except for the violations and monies. Ms. Aylaian said the only real difference they would see is that violators will get citations for $100 or $200 fines for minor infractions. They were hoping that would get them to comply on a regular basis so they won't have to revoke the whole permit. Chairperson Campbell asked if it would go to the City Manager or his/her designee. Ms. Aylaian concurred. She said they would actually be doing this through the Code Compliance Department. Chairperson Campbell asked about page 4 number 9 where designated handicapped spaces cannot be used for valet parking. It was allowed in the old ordinance. Ms. Aylaian explained that there had been a change in State law and this new language reflects that change. State law now says no parking in handicapped stalls, regardless if the valet is parking for a disabled individual. They still couldn't park in that stall. Chairperson Campbell thought that made sense. Commissioner Schmidt asked who would be charged the fines. Ms. Aylaian said they would go to the valet parking service or to the business owner. While looking at the valet parking ordinance, Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would make a couple of other suggestions. He thought valet parking was truly a service and should be optional. At some eating establishments 22 ..+ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 �... in the city, although valet parking is optional, if someone wants to park their own car, they have to go out to the north lot 40, while the valets are parking the other cars very close to the building in more convenient spaces. To him that made absolutely no sense, especially in a society where people are overweight. But on page 3 of the draft, item number 3, it says, "Permittees shall not prevent customers from utilizing those spaces which are nearest to building entrances." His suggestion would be to strike "entrances." Let the self-parkers park closer to the building and let the valet companies, who are being paid a lot of money to do this, park out further. Since it is a service and is optional, the second thing he suggested is that those who want to self-park their cars have the right to do so without being hindered. He would like to add something that basically says valet parking may not impede, infringe, or discourage self parking. If they ever read the liability of one of those cards they give you when they take your car, you have no rights. That's always bothered him, too. And having had a problem with it, it really bothered him, especially trying to prove it if something is wrong with your car the next day. Ms. Aylaian said that staff could certainly get those changes added if that is the request of the Commission. Chairperson Campbell thought in most instances they can self-park closer to the building. Commissioner Tschopp said there are a couple of steak places around here where you can't park close to the building because those spaces are roped off for the valets. If you try, they won't let you. He thought that was wrong. The self-parkers should get the closer spaces and the young guys getting tipped, holding your car hostage, should have to walk a little ways further to get the car. Commissioner Limont agreed. Chairperson Campbell asked if the changes should be made and brought back. Commissioner Tschopp said his suggestion would be to add those two things. Ms. Aylaian said staff could do that if it is the desire of the Commission and either bring it back or just insert those changes and take it to the City Council. Commissioner Tanner didn't think it needed to come back. Commissioner Limont agreed. Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was any prevailing or legal reason it should come back to the Commission. Mr. Hargreaves said that as long as the Commission is clear in its motion as to what it is sending on to the City Council, it didn't need to be brought back. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Limont, by Minute Motion, recommending to City Council approval of a Notice of Exemption and an amendment to Title 10, Chapter 10.50 Valet Parking as amended to delete the word "entrances" on page 3, section am 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 10.50.030 B.3., and include language that valet parking may not impede, no infringe or discourage self parking. The motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES No meeting. B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION Commissioner Limont reported that the next meeting would be September 19. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont reported that the next meeting would be on September 17. D. PARKS & RECREATION rt Commissioner Tanner reported on the sad news of the passing away of David Garcia and on issues relating to the last Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. XI. COMMENTS 1. Commissioner Tanner said he received mail from the District Attorney regarding the Brown Act. With the assistance of County Counsel, they are offering four voluntary training classes. He asked if they needed to attend. Ms. Aylaian said there was annual training offered by BB&K, or one of their representatives, and there is mandatory training. This is additional training that is provided for anybody that might want it. Staff will let the Commission know when it is mandatory. Chairperson Campbell noted that BB&K did it about a year ago. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Commissioner Tanner reiterated that they don't have to attend this. Ms. Aylaian said that was correct. Mr. Hargreaves said that they and the staff take the Brown Act very seriously and make sure in this chamber that the Brown Act is complied with. The only thing this Commission needs to be concerned 24 •r+ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4. 2007 .� about is getting together collectively or serially outside of the Planning Commission meetings and having a conversation about Planning Commission business. That was the only thing with respect to the Brown Act they needed to concern themselves with. Getting together socially is fine as long as they aren't talking about business. But any telephone conferences, exchanges of email or anything like that that incorporates three or more of them is a problem. Other than that, he thought they were covered. 2. Ms. Aylaian informed that the UCLA Extension Service is putting on a series of six training seminars for Planning Commissioners. The next is being held September 20 in Los Angeles and Tonya will generally have information available. They could let staff know if they would like to attend. 3. Ms. Aylaian introduced our new Assistant Planner, Kevin Swartz. Commission welcomed him. 4. Chairperson Campbell noted that the next meeting is September 18 and asked for a motion to adjourn. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adjourning the meeting by Minute Motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. AURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: y, SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 25 EXHIBIT A W I R�rd�Plrwltln0 Oe�+�l�y o Proper es 0 a•• AP:&-)7.:VP°1 _ r August 21, 2007 Dear Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission: It is my pleasure to offer support for the approval of the Candlewood Suites project at Cook Street and Gerald Ford. The University District is one of Palm Desert's greatest sources of pride and as it develops, it will easily become the center of the Valley's universe. There is nothing else in the entire Valley that compares to the functionality of this comer. A well planned University project requires sophisticated planning not only on the campus itself, but also for the surrounding amenities. Where can students and faculties enjoy their meals, where are the bookstores, and where can long term visitors stay? A typical hotel room is not comfortable enough for a Professor to stay for weeks while waiting for his new home to be ready; a visiting lecturer would like to dine in the personal setting of a"home away from home" instead of relying on restaurant fare for weeks. Candlewood Suites, which offer the space ..r needed for comfort at an affordable price, should be part of the successful University Project. Baxley Properties represents the largest office project(175,000 square feet) in the same business park and we strongly support the Candlewood Suites project.. It is the perfect complement to the entire neighborhood. We urge your approval. Thank you. Sincerely, Irene Di Vito Irene Di Vito 760.773.3310 Direct: 760.773.6006 Mobile: 760.799. 1821 Fax: 760.773-3013 73712 Alessandro Drive Suite B - 4 Palm Desert CA 92260 www.baxleyproperties.com