Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-03 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chair Nancy De Luna, Vice Chair Van Tanner Roger Dash Connor Limont Members Absent: None Staff Present: David Erwin, City Attorney Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Donna Evans, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanner led the pledge of allegiance. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian stated that the City Council met on Thursday, December 12, 2011 and Bob Spiegel was selected as the new Mayor and Bill Kroonen was selected as Mayor Pro Tem. The City Council received an informational report regarding the City's new short-term rental conditions and gave staff direction to draft and bring forward a new ordinance that will allow short-term rentals in homes under specific conditions and restraints on them. Ms. Aylaian commented that there would no longer be a requirement to go through the Conditional Use Permit process. Staff is working on preparing the ordinance to bring to the City Council for consideration in the near future. Staff was also directed to select a consultant and prepare a contract for consideration. The consultant would be used to more aggressively pursue identification of short-term rentals that are currently not paying TOT and not obeying the regulations in the existing ordinance. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chair Campbell stated that any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the agenda may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his or her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. This is also the time and place for any person who wishes to comment on non-hearing agenda items. It should be noted that at Planning Commission discretion, these comments may be deferred until such time on the agenda as the item is discussed. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for approval of the December 6, 2011 meeting minutes. Action: Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner Limont seconded the approval of the December 6, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. iftw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 03-19, Scotelle Development, LLC, applicant. Approval of a two-year time extension for Phase III of Precise Plan 03- 19 (PP 03-19) located at 39-800 Portola Avenue. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Vice Chair De Luna seconded approval of a two-year time extension for Phase III of PP 03-19. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 09-236, T-Mobile West Corporation, applicant. Approval of a one-year time extension for a new 60' high T-Mobile mono-palm telecommunications facility consisting of six-panel antennas, one GPS antenna, one emergency generator, one parabolic antenna, four BTS radio cabinets, coaxial cable running from the antennas to the BTS, power and telco utility connection to be installed at 47-900 Portola Avenue, APN's 630-250-045 & 655-230-019. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded approval of a one-year time extension for CUP 09-236. Motion carried 5-0. Vlll. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Campbell announced that 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. C/Z 11-493, City of Palm Desert, applicant. A recommendation to City Council for approval of a change of zone to twenty-two (22) properties throughout the City to comply with State law and to coincide with the 2011 Housing Element. Vice Chair De Luna recused herself from this item because of a possible business issue and left the chamber. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Mr. Swartz orally presented his staff report and on-screen presentation bow to the Commission. He stated that the approved Housing Element requires changes of zone to twenty-two properties so that the properties are available for the development of housing units. With the completion of the changes of zone provided in the Housing Element, the City will have sufficient land to accommodate the State's requirement. Eight of the twenty-two properties would be zoned Planned Residential with twenty-two units per acre. These properties are located in the northern section of the City where most of the City's large parcels of undeveloped land are located. The PR zone allows for two-story developments and allows clustering of units for common area amenities. A map was shown on the overhead projector showing the parcels that were recommended for re-zoning and a description of the proposed zoning was given for each parcel. Mr. Swartz commented that in the past, there was an applicant who had proposed a mixed-use project and the City had determined that the twenty-four acres dedicated to that site wasn't appropriate, and he proposed removing the twenty-four acres and adding thirteen acres. This would still allow allocating two hundred units for this particular site. He stated that the City would not be responsible for the construction of any of these units, but it must complete the changes of zone to meet State law. Chair Campbell asked the Commission if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Limont asked for clarification of the proposal and wanted to know if the City would be increasing the density allowable under a particular zone and that it wouldn't specify that the parcels have to be used for affordable housing. Mr. Swartz stated that this is correct. Commissioner Dash asked about parcel "D", which is located at Monterey and Dinah Shore and wondered if this area is located within the city limits of Palm Desert. Mr. Swartz commented that the area in question, which is near Costco, was annexed to the City approximately twelve years ago and it is within the city limits. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Since the City of Palm Desert is the applicant, Chair Campbell asked if there was any testimony either in favor or opposition to this application. Speaker cards were received am 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 by the Chair and those members of the public were called up individually. Mark Irving of 2000 E. Fourth Street, #205, Santa Ana, CA 92705 approached the lectern and stated that he is the owner of parcel "D" on the exhibit. He thanked Ms. Aylaian for responding to his letter, which he had reviewed and was also distributed to the Commission. Mr. Irving stated that a couple of years ago, Urban Housing Communities attempted to entitle a project on parcel "D" with a density of fourteen units per acre. The project was denied because the density was too high. Mr. Irving explained that U.H.C. is in the affordable housing business, which is why they purchased this particular piece of property. The proposed project was in compliance with the open space and parking requirements and they also had a height variance. Mr. Irving stated that this project would not be feasible at twenty-two units per acre. He felt that the design criteria would have to be modified for a high density project such as this, although it may be achieved with a senior housing project with much smaller units and lower parking requirements. Mr. Irving commented that if the re-zoning is really to satisfy the Housing Element requirements and provide affordable housing, then the City has to be realistic on what can actually be delivered as part of the re-zoning of these parcels. Don Tannahill of 10113 Lakeview Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA addressed the Commission. He stated that he was at the meeting on behalf of the landowner of parcel "H" on the exhibit. He wanted to clarify that on exhibit "A" the property is shown as being twenty-nine acres and exhibit "H" illustrates approximately fifteen acres. The property is described as being "fifteen acres of twenty-nine acres", however, the proposed zone change is on twenty-nine acres. The landowner of this property also owns eighty acres on Portola and they are opposed to the re-zoning of this particular portion of their property. Mr. Tannahill commented that this is probably the best piece of undeveloped commercial land with freeway access and visibility in the Coachella Valley and that he is opposed to re-zoning twenty-nine acres of this property to Planned Residential. Susan Harvey of 77-933 Las Montanas, Palm Desert, CA approached the lectern and stated that she is representing the landowner of parcel "F" on the exhibit. She commented that High Point Development previously had made a proposal for an apartment project with 80% market rate units and 15%-20% affordable units. At that time, High Point Development was told that this project would not be approved because a minimum of 85% of parcel "F" would be required to be 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 extremely affordable, very affordable or affordable housing. High Point " Development then asked if the City was going to participate in sponsoring the affordable factor of the proposed apartments and they were turned down. The property owner is opposed to the proposed zone change because they feel that they won't be able to do anything with this property for years to come, given that the housing would be required to be affordable. Tim Palmquist of 1072 SE Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA addressed the Commission and stated that he represents an ownership interest in a thirty-acre parcel on Monterey. He commented that he's had the privilege of working with City staff for several months as his application is being processed for a commercial project. He stated that he was told that a portion of the site was allocated for two hundred affordable units and the City was very upfront with this information. The proposed zone change map shows approximately twenty-four acres for two hundred units. Discussions to date have been regarding a twenty-two acre split allocated for retail use that includes 1,200 feet along Monterey and an eleven to twelve acre site for the apartments. Mr. Palmquist stated that this is the information that he has based his design on and is requesting that this be reflected on the zone change map. He also requested some flexibility with the design so that they could develop a project that would be feasible and move forward, however, without financial assistance from the City, this would be economically impossible. Mr. Palmquist asked that the acreage allocated for two hundred units be reduced from twenty-four acres to eleven acres. Chair Campbell asked about the location of the property in question and Mr. Palmquist stated that it's labeled as parcel "G" on the exhibit. Ms. Aylaian commented that parcel "G" will be changed from thirteen acres out of the twenty-four acres that are currently shown on the exhibit. Chair Campbell asked if Mr. Swartz would like to make any further comments. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Chair Campbell asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Limont asked Ms. Aylaian if the property owners will be required to build affordable housing, per the State. She asked, hypothetically speaking, if a property owner approached the City with a project that has some sort of an exception, would there be any leeway for the applicant? Ms. Aylaian commented that although the State has shut down the Redevelopment Agency, the City still has control of local land use decisions. She stated that if a particular project is proposed, it will not go to the State for consideration. The one State law that 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 would come into play is one that states that if the General Plan designates a property for housing and a project comes in and proposes something other than that designation, then another piece of land somewhere in the City that's not currently designated for housing has to be changed to make up for the lack of units. Ms. Aylaian commented that the City is currently in compliance with the State mandate for our General Plan and also the updated Housing Element. Currently, the City's zoning ordinance is not in compliance with the General Plan, but this is what staff is working on at this time. If a developer proposed a project that had no affordable housing, but was supported with excellence in design and was in an appropriate location, staff could give their recommendation. This would be done on a case-by-case, project specific basis depending on the quality of design and the location. Staff's opinion is that some of the sites designated for re-zoning are better suited for affordable housing than others. Staff will advocate that these parcels will get either all affordable housing on that site, or a large percentage would be for affordable housing. At other sites, it won't be as critical. Staff will have to keep track of how many affordable units we have and then check that against the affordable housing obligation. Commissioner Limont stated that regarding the letter received from W Mark Irving, she wanted to clarify that Lauri Aylaian's title is not "Secretary" but is Director of Community Development. Also, it's been clarified at this meeting that to change the zoning of certain parcels in Palm Desert to comply with the State requirement, has been very well researched and well documented. Commissioner Limont commented that the re-zoning is to keep the City within the mandates of the State. Each project will still need to go through the complete approval process. Commissioner Limont also stated that she took personal offense to several comments that were included in Mr. Irving's letter dated December 29, 2011. One comment read that, "Previous actions by the City indicate that the commitment to affordable housing is not significant." Commissioner Limont stated that as a resident of Palm Desert, this is insulting. The City has one of the finest affordable housing programs around. It was recommended that Mr. Irving take a tour of the City of Palm Desert's affordable housing. Also, it was suggested that Mr. Irving review the reasons for denial, rather than question the "City's sincerity to support affordable housing" in regards to the City Council's denial of the Urban Housing Communities' project on April 9, 2009. Commissioner Limont commented that she feels that the City has been very sincere about developing affordable housing. The City is also dealing with all of the conditions that will come with not having Redevelopment money. am 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Commissioner Tanner wondered that if two hundred units were added to parcel "G" that were not in the affordable range, would the City have to find another parcel that would be adequate for affordable housing in order to comply with the State? Ms. Aylaian commented that staff would look at the other parcels that have been designated for affordable housing to add two hundred more affordable units. Commissioner Tanner asked if there would be any leeway from the State of California and commented that he was sympathetic with the builders since they won't be able to financially make a project work. Ms. Aylaian stated that it's not different from the current market where people aren't developing land due to the economy. Affordable housing usually takes assistance from many sources in order to make them financially viable. Historically, one of those sources has been local cities, however, the cities won't have that money available any longer, making affordable housing even more difficult to produce. Commissioner Tanner stated that he would like to let both sides take another look at this proposal, unless there is no other alternative because of what the State has mandated. Commissioner Dash stated that the action that the Commission will have to take is bringing the City into compliance with the State mandate and the General Plan. The actual development will be done later. This doesn't give the Commission much of a choice, in terms of approving this proposal. Commissioner Dash commented that staff should work closely with the developers so that they're not hurt financially, but we are providing adequate housing. Ms. Aylaian stated that if the City wants to remain in compliance with State law and the Housing Element, the City is locked into providing this number of housing units. Chair Campbell asked if there were any other comments. There being none, the motion was made. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Dash seconded recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 11-493. Motion carried 3-1- 1 with Commissioner Tanner opposed and Vice Chair De Luna absent. Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Dash seconded adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2581 recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 11-493. Motion carried 3-1-1 with Commissioner Tanner opposed and Vice Chair De Luna absent. e 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 ago B. Case No. CUP 11-401, JP Morgan Chase, applicant. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a revised design and a Conditional Use Permit to allow Chase Bank to remove twelve (12) parking spaces to install a remote ATM drive-up lane within the Desert Springs Marketplace parking lot at 74-884 Country Club Drive. Chair Campbell asked for the staff report. Mr. Swartz orally presented his staff report and on-screen presentation to the Commission. At the December 6, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant proposed a drive-up ATM within the Desert Springs Marketplace shopping center. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to bring back a resolution of denial based upon the conversation and the findings made by the Planning Commission. The resolution of denial was included in the Commissioners packets. Since the December 6, 2011 meeting, the applicant has revised the Conditional Use Permit application. A description of the changes was described to the Commission and on- screen drawings and photos were shown. The revised plans would allow for four stacking cars, and twelve parking stalls would be removed. The traffic flow was described in detail. Staff is recommending the re-design. A resolution for adoption was also included in the Commissioner's packets. Chair Campbell asked if there were any questions of staff. Vice Chair De Luna asked if visibility would be impacted by adding the ATM building to the parking lot and asked to see a photo of the proposal. Mr. Swartz commented that the ATM structure is open and showed the Commission a photo of a similar building on a different property. Vice Chair De Luna then asked what would happen to the structure if Chase happened to vacate this location in the future. Would Chase be responsible for removing the ATM and restoring the parking lot, should they move from this location? Mr. Swartz commented that he will add a condition of approval to the approved resolution that if the tenant leaves and a new bank does not occupy this site, then Chase would have to remove the ATM structure and restore the parking lot. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Austin Hahn, Civil Engineer, approached the lectern and addressed the Commission. His address is stated as being 1845 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2003, Chicago, IL, 60616. He thanked staff and the Commission for working with him. He described the history of the project, beginning in June of 2011. The current proposal would include removing twelve parking spaces, instead of thirteen spaces, as previously proposed. The existing speed bump was pointed out to the Commission as a critical item because Mr. Hahn felt that it will mitigate traffic speeds coming from the eastbound and westbound traffic. It will provide a natural safety buffer to any vehicles exiting the remote ATM. The revised location of the drive-up ATM was shown to the Commission on-screen. Joseph Edwards, Chase Bank representative addressed the Commission. The old and new plans were shown side by side on- screen. Mr. Edwards commented that changing the direction of the traffic flow makes the design work better, as well as making sure that there are no conflicts with vehicles backing out of existing parking spaces into the drive aisle. 3-D simulations of the proposal were shown to the Commission. The architecture and landscape plans were discussed. Jody Robbins, Chase Bank representative, of 24085 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, CA addressed the Commission. He commented that Chase would like to offer mobile banking because it's a key component of their service. This branch will have "full service banking" and will be the only one in the valley that will offer safety deposit boxes, internal preferred customer care items and will, hopefully, have this mobile banking component. Mr. Robbins stated that they tried to include the ATM into the building, but they couldn't make it work. They would like to have a drive-up ATM because of the seasonal climate conditions. He stated that he received letters of support from the surrounding tenants. Various remote ATM photos from locations in different cities were shown for the Commission to review. Joseph Edwards concluded the presentation by stating that the proposed project meets, or exceeds the code requirements and satisfies all criteria required by the City of Palm Desert in order to be granted a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the adjacent tenants are supportive of the remote ATM. Now 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Vice Chair De Luna asked the applicant if they would be willing, if the project is approved and Chase Bank vacates the property at some point in the future, that they remove the ATM and restore the parking lot to its original condition, if a successor bank tenant is not secured. Mr. Edwards stated that they would agree to this request. Vice Chair De Luna asked the applicant if they have approval from the adjacent tenants. Mr. Edwards stated that he has signed letters of consent from the adjacent tenants, and these letters have been submitted to staff. Chair Campbell stated that the public hearing continues to be open and asked Mr. Ray Rodrigues to address the Commission. Ray Rodrigues of 39417 Palace Drive, Palm Desert approached the lectern. He stated that he is in vigorous opposition to the proposed plan. The concept of eliminating twelve parking spaces from an area between five very busy restaurants (Morton's, Cork Tree, City Wok, All Pro Pizza and Bella Vida) makes no sense. He stated that it would be dangerous to remove parking spaces from this area and add a drive-up ATM in the middle of a parking lot serving five busy restaurants. Mr. Rodrigues commented that he was called by Chase Bank and he informed them that he was opposed to this and that someone is going to get hurt, or killed there. Mr. Rodrigues felt that Chase Bank would be putting our residents at risk. He asked to see the signed copies of the letters from the tenants because he had no understanding of a drive-up ATM. Mr. Rodrigues stated that he spoke to the other restaurant owners and they told him that they had no knowledge of the proposed remote ATM and that they were under the impression that it was going to be a simple, walk-up ATM and none of them understood that any of the parking spaces would be affected. Stuart Davis of 73-744 Highway 111, #3, Palm Desert addressed the Commission. He stated that he is the owner of the City Wok restaurant and that the consent letter that was sent by Chase was vague and misleading. He concurred with Mr. Rodrigues and was opposed to the proposed plan. He stated that they can't afford to lose any parking spaces in this area and that adding a drive-up ATM would be dangerous. Mr. Davis commented that putting an ATM in the middle of a parking lot is actually more of a marketing device, in his opinion. He stated that if Chase Bank wanted an ATM, they could easily put it on their building. Mr. Davis commented that he was unaware of the extent of the project and opposes it. Chair Campbell asked if there were any other persons in the audience who would like to speak, either in favor of, or opposition to this project. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Mr. Edwards stated that he has copies of letters that were signed by tenants in the shopping center, including a signed letter of consent from Mr. Davis. Copies of the letters were shown to the Commission on the overhead projector. Vice Chair De Luna was concerned about the other tenants in the shopping center and wondered if they were in favor, or opposed to the proposal. Ms. Aylaian suggested that the request be continued so that staff could investigate the letters to see who signed them and speak to them directly. She also suggested that the Commission could re-open the public hearing to ask the restaurant owners who are present to clarify their position. Vice Chair De Luna agreed to re-opening the public hearing because safety is such a huge concern to her. Chair Campbell re-opened the public hearing and asked the restaurant owners to speak again. Mr. Davis approached the lectern and Chair Campbell asked if he signed the letter and looked at the drawing that was included as an attachment. Mr. Davis stated that he signed the letter, but it was vague and he didn't think that they were going to put the ATM right in the middle of the parking lot. He stated that he saw a rough sketch that was very hard to read and he mistakenly signed the consent form. Mr. Rodrigues commented that the signature on the letter from the Cork Tree restaurant was from one of the managers, who did not understand that it was a drive-up ATM and thought it was a walk-up ATM. He commented that there was no mention of losing parking spaces in the letter. Mr. Rodrigues stated that the other tenants in the shopping center are clearly opposed to the project and he is personally, vigorously opposed to it. Vice Chair De Luna commented that her concern was whether or not the surrounding tenants approve of this project and it's obvious that they are opposed. Mr. Edwards stated that Chase Bank went to great lengths to work with staff regarding safety. Ms. Canales stated that the City of Palm Desert's Traffic Engineer reviewed the design and he didn't see any safety concerns and felt that the design was acceptable. Chair Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Tanner stated that he was asked by the applicant to participate in reviewing the revised design, but felt that he had made it am 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 very clear that this plan does not belong in the parking lot and made a motion to approve denial of the request due to safety concerns. Commissioner Limont commented that she was concerned about fairness to all tenants and safety for pedestrians. She felt that it would be much safer for people to get out of their car and walk to the ATM. Commissioner Dash stated that he was previously in support of the project with the hope that they would be able to revise the plans so that the ATM would be in a better location. He stated that he was interested in knowing how critical the ATM was to their business operation and the response from Chase was that it was a convenience for their customers. Commissioner Dash noted that right across the parking lot is a financial institution with an ATM. He commented that he was opposed to the request. Vice Chair De Luna commented that she met with Chase Bank and she was still concerned about safety and also the cooperation and acceptance of the surrounding tenants. She stated that she could not support the request. Chair Campbell stated that she was originally in support of the proposal and liked the revised plans, however, after hearing the opposition from the business owners and also the comments from Vice Chair De Luna, she changed her mind and is opposed to this proposal. Action: Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner Limont seconded denying CUP 11-401. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner Limont seconded adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2579 denying CUP 11-401. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS NONE X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION Chair Campbell stated that the Palm Springs Art Museum presented slides of ten sculptures that will be placed in the Eric 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Johnson Garden. Artists were selected for the Palm Desert too Registry and a sculpture was approved for the Oracle building located on Fred Waring. B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont indicated that the Landscape Beautification Committee did not have a meeting. C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner stated that the Parks & Recreation Committee did not have a meeting. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Dash stated that the Project Area 4 Committee discussed Palm Desert Country Club and the Redevelopment Agency legislation. He stated that funds are no longer coming from the Redevelopment Agency and the Palm Desert Country Club opened on January 1, 2012. XI. COMMENTS Chair Campbell asked about the date of the next Planning Commission meeting and Ms. Aylaian stated that it will be on February 7, 2012. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Tanner motioned for adjournment of the meeting, Commissioner Limont seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. SONIA CAMPBELL, CHAIR ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Me 14 CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chair Nancy De Luna, Vice Chair Van Tanner Roger Dash Connor Limont Members Absent: None Staff Present: David Erwin, City Attorney Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Donna Evans, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanner led the pledge of allegiance. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian stated that the City Council met on Thursday, December 12, 2011 and Bob Spiegel was selected as the new Mayor and Bill Kroonen was selected as Mayor Pro Tem. The City Council received an informational report regarding the City's new short-term rental conditions and gave staff direction to draft and bring forward a new ordinance that will allow short-term rentals in homes under specific conditions and restraints on them. Ms. Aylaian commented that there would no longer be a requirement to go through the Conditional Use Permit process. Staff is working on preparing the ordinance to bring to the City Council for consideration in the near future. Staff was also directed to select a consultant and prepare a contract for consideration. The consultant would be used to more aggressively pursue identification of short-term rentals that are currently not paying TOT and not obeying the regulations in the existing ordinance. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chair Campbell stated that any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the agenda may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his or her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. This is also the time and place for any person who wishes to comment on non-hearing agenda items. It should be noted that at Planning Commission discretion, these comments may be deferred until such time on the agenda as the item is discussed. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for approval of the December 6, 2011 meeting minutes. Action: Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner Limont seconded the approval of the December 6, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 03-19, Scotelle Development, LLC, applicant. Approval of a two-year time extension for Phase III of Precise Plan 03- 19 (PP 03-19) located at 39-800 Portola Avenue. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Vice Chair De Luna seconded approval of a two-year time extension for Phase III of PP 03-19. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 09-236, T-Mobile West Corporation, applicant. Approval of a one-year time extension for a new 60' high T-Mobile mono-palm telecommunications facility consisting of six-panel antennas, one GPS antenna, one emergency generator, one parabolic antenna, four BTS radio cabinets, coaxial cable running from the antennas to the BTS, power and telco utility connection to be installed at 47-900 Portola Avenue, APN's 630-250-045 & 655-230-019. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded approval of a one-year time extension for CUP 09-236. Motion carried 5-0. Vlll. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Campbell announced that 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. C/Z 11-493, City of Palm Desert, applicant. A recommendation to City Council for approval of a change of zone to twenty-two (22) properties throughout the City to comply with State law and to coincide with the 2011 Housing Element. Vice Chair De Luna recused herself from this item because of a possible business issue and left the chamber. am MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Mr. Swartz orally presented his staff report and on-screen presentation to the Commission. He stated that the approved Housing Element requires changes of zone to twenty-two properties so that the properties are available for the development of housing units. With the completion of the changes of zone provided in the Housing Element, the City will have sufficient land to accommodate the State's requirement. Eight of the twenty-two properties would be zoned Planned Residential with twenty-two units per acre. These properties are located in the northern section of the City where most of the City's large parcels of undeveloped land are located. The PR zone allows for two-story developments and allows clustering of units for common area amenities. A map was shown on the overhead projector showing the parcels that were recommended for re-zoning and a description of the proposed zoning was given for each parcel. Mr. Swartz commented that in the past, there was an applicant who had proposed a mixed-use project and the City had determined that the twenty-four acres dedicated to that site wasn't appropriate, and he proposed removing the twenty-four acres and adding thirteen acres. This would still allow allocating two hundred units for this particular site. He stated that the City would not be responsible for the construction of any of these units, but it must complete the changes of zone to meet State law. Chair Campbell asked the Commission if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Limont asked for clarification of the proposal and wanted to know if the City would be increasing the density allowable under a particular zone and that it wouldn't specify that the parcels have to be used for affordable housing. Mr. Swartz stated that this is correct. Commissioner Dash asked about parcel "D", which is located at Monterey and Dinah Shore and wondered if this area is located within the city limits of Palm Desert. Mr. Swartz commented that the area in question, which is near Costco, was annexed to the City approximately twelve years ago and it is within the city limits. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Since the City of Palm Desert is the applicant, Chair Campbell asked if there was any testimony either in favor or opposition to this application. Speaker cards were received m 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 by the Chair and those members of the public were called up individually. Mark Irving of 2000 E. Fourth Street, #205, Santa Ana, CA 92705 approached the lectern and stated that he is the owner of parcel "D" on the exhibit. He thanked Ms. Aylaian for responding to his letter, which he had reviewed and was also distributed to the Commission. Mr. Irving stated that a couple of years ago, Urban Housing Communities attempted to entitle a project on parcel "D" with a density of fourteen units per acre. The project was denied because the density was too high. Mr. Irving explained that U.H.C. is in the affordable housing business, which is why they purchased this particular piece of property. The proposed project was in compliance with the open space and parking requirements and they also had a height variance. Mr. Irving stated that this project would not be feasible at twenty-two units per acre. He felt that the design criteria would have to be modified for a high density project such as this, although it may be achieved with a senior housing project with much smaller units and lower parking requirements. Mr. Irving commented that if the re-zoning is really to satisfy the Housing Element requirements and provide affordable housing, then the City has to be realistic on what can actually be delivered as part of the re-zoning of these parcels. Don Tannahill of 10113 Lakeview Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA addressed the Commission. He stated that he was at the meeting on behalf of the landowner of parcel "H" on the exhibit. He wanted to clarify that on exhibit "A" the property is shown as being twenty-nine acres and exhibit "H" illustrates approximately fifteen acres. The property is described as being "fifteen acres of twenty-nine acres", however, the proposed zone change is on twenty-nine acres. The landowner of this property also owns eighty acres on Portola and they are opposed to the re-zoning of this particular portion of their property. Mr. Tannahill commented that this is probably the best piece of undeveloped commercial land with freeway access and visibility in the Coachella Valley and that he is opposed to re-zoning twenty-nine acres of this property to Planned Residential. Susan Harvey of 77-933 Las Montanas, Palm Desert, CA approached the lectern and stated that she is representing the landowner of parcel "F" on the exhibit. She commented that High Point Development previously had made a proposal for an apartment project with 80% market rate units and 15%-20% affordable units. At that time, High Point Development was told that this project would not be approved because a minimum of 85% of parcel "F" would be required to be 6. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 extremely affordable, very affordable or affordable housing. High Point Development then asked if the City was going to participate in sponsoring the affordable factor of the proposed apartments and they were turned down. The property owner is opposed to the proposed zone change because they feel that they won't be able to do anything with this property for years to come, given that the housing would be required to be affordable. Tim Palmquist of 1072 SE Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA addressed the Commission and stated that he represents an ownership interest in a thirty-acre parcel on Monterey. He commented that he's had the privilege of working with City staff for several months as his application is being processed for a commercial project. He stated that he was told that a portion of the site was allocated for two hundred affordable units and the City was very upfront with this information. The proposed zone change map shows approximately twenty-four acres for two hundred units. Discussions to date have been regarding a twenty-two acre split allocated for retail use that includes 1,200 feet along Monterey and an eleven to twelve acre site for the apartments. Mr. Palmquist stated that this is the information that he has based his design on and is requesting that this be reflected on the zone change map. He also requested some flexibility with the design so that they could develop a project that would be feasible and move forward, however, without financial assistance from the City, this would be economically impossible. Mr. Palmquist asked that the acreage allocated for two hundred units be reduced from twenty-four acres to eleven acres. Chair Campbell asked about the location of the property in question and Mr. Palmquist stated that it's labeled as parcel "G" on the exhibit. Ms. Aylaian commented that parcel "G" will be changed from thirteen acres out of the twenty-four acres that are currently shown on the exhibit. Chair Campbell asked if Mr. Swartz would like to make any further comments. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Chair Campbell asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Limont asked Ms. Aylaian if the property owners will be required to build affordable housing, per the State. She asked, hypothetically speaking, if a property owner approached the City with a project that has some sort of an exception, would there be any leeway for the applicant? Ms. Aylaian commented that although the State has shut down the Redevelopment Agency, the City still has control of local land use decisions. She stated that if a particular project is proposed, it will not go to the State for consideration. The one State law that 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 would come into play is one that states that if the General Plan woo designates a property for housing and a project comes in and proposes something other than that designation, then another piece of land somewhere in the City that's not currently designated for housing has to be changed to make up for the lack of units. Ms. Aylaian commented that the City is currently in compliance with the State mandate for our General Plan and also the updated Housing Element. Currently, the City's zoning ordinance is not in compliance with the General Plan, but this is what staff is working on at this time. If a developer proposed a project that had no affordable housing, but was supported with excellence in design and was in an appropriate location, staff could give their recommendation. This would be done on a case-by-case, project specific basis depending on the quality of design and the location. Staff's opinion is that some of the sites designated for re-zoning are better suited for affordable housing than others. Staff will advocate that these parcels will get either all affordable housing on that site, or a large percentage would be for affordable housing. At other sites, it won't be as critical. Staff will have to keep track of how many affordable units we have and then check that against the affordable housing obligation. Commissioner Limont stated that regarding the letter received from Mark Irving, she wanted to clarify that Lauri Aylaian's title is not "Secretary" but is Director of Community Development. Also, it's been clarified at this meeting that to change the zoning of certain parcels in Palm Desert to comply with the State requirement, has been very well researched and well documented. Commissioner Limont commented that the re-zoning is to keep the City within the mandates of the State. Each project will still need to go through the complete approval process. Commissioner Limont also stated that she took personal offense to several comments that were included in Mr. Irving's letter dated December 29, 2011. One comment read that, "Previous actions by the City indicate that the commitment to affordable housing is not significant." Commissioner Limont stated that as a resident of Palm Desert, this is insulting. The City has one of the finest affordable housing programs around. It was recommended that Mr. Irving take a tour of the City of Palm Desert's affordable housing. Also, it was suggested that Mr. Irving review the reasons for denial, rather than question the "City's sincerity to support affordable housing" in regards to the City Council's denial of the Urban Housing Communities' project on April 9, 2009. Commissioner Limont commented that she feels that the City has been very sincere about developing affordable housing. The City is also dealing with all of the conditions that will come with not having Redevelopment money. low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Commissioner Tanner wondered that if two hundred units were added to parcel "G" that were not in the affordable range, would the City have to find another parcel that would be adequate for affordable housing in order to comply with the State? Ms. Aylaian commented that staff would look at the other parcels that have been designated for affordable housing to add two hundred more affordable units. Commissioner Tanner asked if there would be any leeway from the State of California and commented that he was sympathetic with the builders since they won't be able to financially make a project work. Ms. Aylaian stated that it's not different from the current market where people aren't developing land due to the economy. Affordable housing usually takes assistance from many sources in order to make them financially viable. Historically, one of those sources has been local cities, however, the cities won't have that money available any longer, making affordable housing even more difficult to produce. Commissioner Tanner stated that he would like to let both sides take another look at this proposal, unless there is no other alternative because of what the State has mandated. Commissioner Dash stated that the action that the Commission will have to take is bringing the City into compliance with the State mandate and the General Plan. The actual development will be done later. This doesn't give the Commission much of a choice, in terms of approving this proposal. Commissioner Dash commented that staff should work closely with the developers so that they're not hurt financially, but we are providing adequate housing. Ms. Aylaian stated that if the City wants to remain in compliance with State law and the Housing Element, the City is locked into providing this number of housing units. Chair Campbell asked if there were any other comments. There being none, the motion was made. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Dash seconded recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 11-493. Motion carried 3-1- 1 with Commissioner Tanner opposed and Vice Chair De Luna absent. Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Dash seconded adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2581 recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 11-493. Motion carried 3-1-1 with Commissioner Tanner opposed and Vice Chair De Luna absent. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 B. Case No. CUP 11-401, JP Morgan Chase, applicant. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a revised design and a Conditional Use Permit to allow Chase Bank to remove twelve (12) parking spaces to install a remote ATM drive-up lane within the Desert Springs Marketplace parking lot at 74-884 Country Club Drive. Chair Campbell asked for the staff report. Mr. Swartz orally presented his staff report and on-screen presentation to the Commission. At the December 6, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant proposed a drive-up ATM within the Desert Springs Marketplace shopping center. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to bring back a resolution of denial based upon the conversation and the findings made by the Planning Commission. The resolution of denial was included in the Commissioners packets. Since the December 6, 2011 meeting, the applicant has revised the Conditional Use Permit application. A description of the changes was described to the Commission and on- screen drawings and photos were shown. The revised plans would allow for four stacking cars, and twelve parking stalls would be removed. The traffic flow was described in detail. Staff is recommending the re-design. A resolution for adoption was also included in the Commissioner's packets. Chair Campbell asked if there were any questions of staff. Vice Chair De Luna asked if visibility would be impacted by adding the ATM building to the parking lot and asked to see a photo of the proposal. Mr. Swartz commented that the ATM structure is open and showed the Commission a photo of a similar building on a different property. Vice Chair De Luna then asked what would happen to the structure if Chase happened to vacate this location in the future. Would Chase be responsible for removing the ATM and restoring the parking lot, should they move from this location? Mr. Swartz commented that he will add a condition of approval to the approved resolution that if the tenant leaves and a new bank does not occupy this site, then Chase would have to remove the ATM structure and restore the parking lot. 600 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the "W applicant to address the Commission. Austin Hahn, Civil Engineer, approached the lectern and addressed the Commission. His address is stated as being 1845 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2003, Chicago, IL, 60616. He thanked staff and the Commission for working with him. He described the history of the project, beginning in June of 2011. The current proposal would include removing twelve parking spaces, instead of thirteen spaces, as previously proposed. The existing speed bump was pointed out to the Commission as a critical item because Mr. Hahn felt that it will mitigate traffic speeds coming from the eastbound and westbound traffic. It will provide a natural safety buffer to any vehicles exiting the remote ATM. The revised location of the drive-up ATM was shown to the Commission on-screen. Joseph Edwards, Chase Bank representative addressed the Commission. The old and new plans were shown side by side on- screen. Mr. Edwards commented that changing the direction of the traffic flow makes the design work better, as well as making sure that there are no conflicts with vehicles backing out of existing parking spaces into the drive aisle. 3-D simulations of the proposal were shown to the Commission. The architecture and landscape plans were discussed. Jody Robbins, Chase Bank representative, of 24085 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, CA addressed the Commission. He commented that Chase would like to offer mobile banking because it's a key component of their service. This branch will have "full service banking" and will be the only one in the valley that will offer safety deposit boxes, internal preferred customer care items and will, hopefully, have this mobile banking component. Mr. Robbins stated that they tried to include the ATM into the building, but they couldn't make it work. They would like to have a drive-up ATM because of the seasonal climate conditions. He stated that he received letters of support from the surrounding tenants. Various remote ATM photos from locations in different cities were shown for the Commission to review. Joseph Edwards concluded the presentation by stating that the proposed project meets, or exceeds the code requirements and satisfies all criteria required by the City of Palm Desert in order to be granted a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the adjacent tenants are supportive of the remote ATM. am 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Vice Chair De Luna asked the applicant if they would be willing, if the project is approved and Chase Bank vacates the property at some point in the future, that they remove the ATM and restore the parking lot to its original condition, if a successor bank tenant is not secured. Mr. Edwards stated that they would agree to this request. Vice Chair De Luna asked the applicant if they have approval from the adjacent tenants. Mr. Edwards stated that he has signed letters of consent from the adjacent tenants, and these letters have been submitted to staff. Chair Campbell stated that the public hearing continues to be open and asked Mr. Ray Rodrigues to address the Commission. Ray Rodrigues of 39417 Palace Drive, Palm Desert approached the lectern. He stated that he is in vigorous opposition to the proposed plan. The concept of eliminating twelve parking spaces from an area between five very busy restaurants (Morton's, Cork Tree, City Wok, All Pro Pizza and Bella Vida) makes no sense. He stated that it would be dangerous to remove parking spaces from this area and add a drive-up ATM in the middle of a parking lot serving five busy restaurants. Mr. Rodrigues commented that he was called by Chase Bank and he informed them that he was opposed to this and that someone is going to get hurt, or killed there. Mr. Rodrigues felt that Chase Bank would tam be putting our residents at risk. He asked to see the signed copies of the letters from the tenants because he had no understanding of a drive-up ATM. Mr. Rodrigues stated that he spoke to the other restaurant owners and they told him that they had no knowledge of the proposed remote ATM and that they were under the impression that it was going to be a simple, walk-up ATM and none of them understood that any of the parking spaces would be affected. Stuart Davis of 73-744 Highway 111, #3, Palm Desert addressed the Commission. He stated that he is the owner of the City Wok restaurant and that the consent letter that was sent by Chase was vague and misleading. He concurred with Mr. Rodrigues and was opposed to the proposed plan. He stated that they can't afford to lose any parking spaces in this area and that adding a drive-up ATM would be dangerous. Mr. Davis commented that putting an ATM in the middle of a parking lot is actually more of a marketing device, in his opinion. He stated that if Chase Bank wanted an ATM, they could easily put it on their building. Mr. Davis commented that he was unaware of the extent of the project and opposes it. Chair Campbell asked if there were any other persons in the audience who would like to speak, either in favor of, or opposition to this project. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Mr. Edwards stated that he has copies of letters that were signed by tenants in the shopping center, including a signed letter of consent from Mr. Davis. Copies of the letters were shown to the Commission on the overhead projector. Vice Chair De Luna was concerned about the other tenants in the shopping center and wondered if they were in favor, or opposed to the proposal. Ms. Aylaian suggested that the request be continued so that staff could investigate the letters to see who signed them and speak to them directly. She also suggested that the Commission could re-open the public hearing to ask the restaurant owners who are present to clarify their position. Vice Chair De Luna agreed to re-opening the public hearing because safety is such a huge concern to her. Chair Campbell re-opened the public hearing and asked the restaurant owners to speak again. Mr. Davis approached the lectern and Chair Campbell asked if he signed the letter and looked at the drawing that was included as an attachment. Mr. Davis stated that he signed the letter, but it was vague and he didn't think that they were going to put the ATM right in the middle of the parking lot. He stated that he saw a rough sketch that was very hard to read and he mistakenly signed the consent form. Mr. Rodrigues commented that the signature on the letter from the Cork Tree restaurant was from one of the managers, who did not understand that it was a drive-up ATM and thought it was a walk-up ATM. He commented that there was no mention of losing parking spaces in the letter. Mr. Rodrigues stated that the other tenants in the shopping center are clearly opposed to the project and he is personally, vigorously opposed to it. Vice Chair De Luna commented that her concern was whether or not the surrounding tenants approve of this project and it's obvious that they are opposed. Mr. Edwards stated that Chase Bank went to great lengths to work with staff regarding safety. Ms. Canales stated that the City of Palm Desert's Traffic Engineer reviewed the design and he didn't see any safety concerns and felt that the design was acceptable. Chair Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Tanner stated that he was asked by the applicant to participate in reviewing the revised design, but felt that he had made it 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 very clear that this plan does not belong in the parking lot and made a ftw motion to approve denial of the request due to safety concerns. Commissioner Limont commented that she was concerned about fairness to all tenants and safety for pedestrians. She felt that it would be much safer for people to get out of their car and walk to the ATM. Commissioner Dash stated that he was previously in support of the project with the hope that they would be able to revise the plans so that the ATM would be in a better location. He stated that he was interested in knowing how critical the ATM was to their business operation and the response from Chase was that it was a convenience for their customers. Commissioner Dash noted that right across the parking lot is a financial institution with an ATM. He commented that he was opposed to the request. Vice Chair De Luna commented that she met with Chase Bank and she was still concerned about safety and also the cooperation and acceptance of the surrounding tenants. She stated that she could not support the request. Chair Campbell stated that she was originally in support of the proposal and liked the revised plans, however, after hearing the opposition from the business owners and also the comments from Vice Chair De Luna, she changed her mind and is opposed to this proposal. Action: Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner Limont seconded denying CUP 11-401. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner Limont seconded adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2579 denying CUP 11-401. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS NONE X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION Chair Campbell stated that the Palm Springs Art Museum presented slides of ten sculptures that will be placed in the Eric 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012 Johnson Garden. Artists were selected for the Palm Desert VMW Registry and a sculpture was approved for the Oracle building located on Fred Waring. B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont indicated that the Landscape Beautification Committee did not have a meeting. C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner stated that the Parks & Recreation Committee did not have a meeting. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Dash stated that the Project Area 4 Committee discussed Palm Desert Country Club and the Redevelopment Agency legislation. He stated that funds are no longer coming from the Redevelopment Agency and the Palm Desert Country Club opened on January 1, 2012. XI. COMMENTS Chair Campbell asked about the date of the next Planning Commission meeting and Ms. Aylaian stated that it will be on February 7, 2012. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Tanner motioned for adjournment of the meeting, Commissioner Limont seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. '7 SONIA CAMPBELL, CHAIR ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Me 14