Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-21 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT •► PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 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: Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Missy Wightman, Assistant Planner Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Page Garner, Senior Engineer Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Donna Evans, Administrative Secretary Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Dash led the pledge of allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian stated that on January 26, the City Council looked at a fiscal impact analysis that would consider potential annexation of areas into the City. The areas to be considered are north of the Interstate 10, including low Sun City. The item was continued so that there would be more time for MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 various parties that would potentially be impacted to review the analysis +m and report back with any concerns they might have. The item was continued to February 23, but the recommendation will be to continue one more meeting until March 8. On February 9, the City Council approved a 10Y2 -month moratorium on the approval of permits for any roof decks in residential zones. Ms. Aylaian noted that the issue of roof decks will be addressed as the zoning ordinance is updated. In addition, they continued one item that would be an exception in one instance at one residence to this moratorium. The exception that is being considered is simply because the applicant had submitted an application just before the moratorium was enacted. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chair Campbell stated that any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the agenda could address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his or her name and address for the record. Remarks were to be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time was authorized by the Planning Commission. She added that, because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, Commissioners would not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. Chair Campbell also introduced the time and place for any person who wished 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 were to be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time was authorized by the Planning Commission. No oral communications were presented. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for approval of the January 3, 2012, meeting minutes. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Vice Chair De Luna seconded the approval of the January 3, 2012, meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 Vll. CONSENT CALENDAR None Vill. 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. CUP 10-298, Royal Street Communication CA, LLC, Applicant. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert approving a Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate and maintain a 65- foot monopalm wireless telecommunications facility consisting of six flush- mounted panel antennas, one GPS antenna, and four equipment cabinets at grade level. The property is located at 47-321 Highway 74. Commissioner Dash abstained from participating for this item because he is a member of St. Margaret's Church, and exited the chamber. Ms. Wightman orally presented her staff report and on-screen presentation to the Commission. She stated that this is a telecommunications facility at Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church. The property is located west of Highway 74, south of Haystack Road and north of Thrush Road. The zoning is R1, single family residential, which the General Plan designates it as public property. The adjacent zoning to the north is planned residential with Indian Creek Villas in that location. St. Margaret's Church is located to the south, which is public. On the east is planned residential, where gated and non-gated single family residential homes exist, and to the west is Hillside Planned Residential where there is vacant land. Ms. Wightman stated that the Architectural Review Commission approved the project subject to conditions on September 13, 2011, motion carried 4-2- 1. There was a split vote on the location of the monopalm. The actual project consists of the installation and operation of a 65-foot monopalm telecommunication facility. Its location coincides with eight live existing palms with the addition of three live palms. The antennas are concealed within the palm fronds, but they are flush mounted to the outside of the monopalm. She stated that the equipment is screened within an enclosure. Ms. Wightman reported that legal notices were mailed and posted, and two published in the newspaper. Staff did not receive any public comment in 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 favor of, or in opposition to, the monopalm. She noted that there is an ... exception required, that it is located within 300 feet of residential property. There are only two to three homes that are located within the 300-foot radius. Ms. Wightman communicated that the applicant originally tried to install the telecommunication devices within the church belfry area. The applicant went back and forth with the Architectural Review Commission. Originally the applicant wanted to emulate what they found as a rendering from the church, but they could not fit the equipment within to keep the thin look in the appearance of the original design. The Commission asked the applicant to go back to a monopalm design. She stated that the proposed location is south of the existing church. The equipment enclosure would be located on the west side and the monopalm would be located on the east side. Ms. Wightman stated that the equipment enclosure would be surrounded by a block wall with a roof installed on top of the equipment enclosure since there is a grade change. She noted that the Architectural Review Commission did not want anyone to be able to see into the equipment enclosure. Architectural drawings and site renderings were displayed. Ms. Wightman stated that to the south there are more telecommunications devices that are located at another church property within the area. The applicant was asked to look at two locations with the monopalm located further back from Highway 74, closer to the mountainside. The applicant provided coverage maps indicating that it would be better suited on the Highway 74 side, and that they would have to install another monopalm in the near future if they had to locate the monopalm further back. Ms. Wightman stated that staff recommends approval, waive further reading, and adopt Resolution No. 2582 approving CUP 10-298 subject to the attached conditions. Commissioner Limont asked if the two no votes from the Architectural Review Commission had to do with the location of the monopalm. Ms. Wightman responded that they preferred it further back towards the mountain. Commissioner Limont asked how many monopalms are currently in the vicinity. Ms. Wightman replied two to three. Commissioner Limont asked if she knew the height of those monopalms. Ms. Wightman responded that they all range between 60 and 70 feet. Vice Chair De Luna asked how tall the live and mature palms that are already there are, and what is the growth rate of the trees and how long ••• before the trees reach the height to screen the monopalm. Ms. Wightman 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 responded that she did not know how tall the mature trees are, and that she ... would need a landscape person to answer the growth rate and how long it would take to screen the monopalm. She mentioned that the applicant do like the palms a little shorter because when they grow to the height of the monopalm, they start to block the signal and they end up sometimes replacing them. Ms. Wightman guessed that the mature palms are approximately 45 to 50 feet. Vice Chair De Luna asked if the monopalm was located further back to the mountain, would it necessitate adding another monopalm. Ms. Wightman replied it would require another monopalm because the coverage is blocked by the mountains. She added that due to the church's height and the mountains to the west, they would not achieve the coverage they are seeking, and they would have to add an additional monopalm at a future date. Vice Chair De Luna stated that she has concerns with a 65-foot tree right off of Highway 74 and is trying to figure out ways to mitigate the impact, but not finding them just yet. Commissioner Tanner commented that he did not see any complaints from residents coming up or going down Highway 74, or from the Presbyterian NNW Church. He asked if there were any complaints or concerns expressed at the Architectural Review Commission. Ms. Wightman replied no. Commissioner Limont clarified that there were only three houses notified. She noted that she lives across the street and she was not notified. Ms. Wightman answered that several people were notified within the 300-foot radius with only three houses within that vicinity. She noted that the 300-foot radius is actually measured from the outside boundary of the parcel, and also noted that it was published in the newspaper. Chair Campbell commented that the monopalm at St. Margaret's is about the same distance from Highway 74 as the placement of this one. Ms. Wightman replied that was correct, and displayed a photo of the existing monopalms. Vice Chair De Luna stated when she sees the cluster, there seems to be live palms taller than monopalms, and asked if that's correct. Ms. Wightman replied yes. Vice Chair De Luna asked if the live palms block the signal. Ms. Wightman responded that she cannot answer if it blocks the signal, but that they do have several facilities in that location. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 Vice Chair De Luna asked how many monopalms are in that general vicinity. too Ms. Wightman responded that there are three. Vice Chair De Luna asked if they want a fourth. Ms. Wightman replied that this is a separate applicant and a separate property owner, and this will be a fourth monopalm in the area. Vice Chair De Luna inquired how tall the other monopalms are. Ms. Wightman answered between 60 and 70 feet. Chairman Campbell declared the public hearing opened, and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Ms. Veronica Arvizu, representative for Metro PCS, formerly known as Wall Street Communications. She thanked the Commission for letting her speak on Metro's behalf. She communicated that generally the palm trees go 30, 40 to 50 feet to stagger the trees to make a grove affect. They can go 40, 45 and 50 feet to get them closer to the height of the trees. She noted that there is a concern once it reaches the antennas that there is blockage of the coverage, but then the trees continue to grow and coverage is better. She stated that when they first looked at putting the cell site at this location, they did look at St. Margaret's as an option because Metro PCS generally likes to collocate as much as possible. Unfortunately at St. Margaret's there was no space for equipment or room to give up. Ms. Arvizu stated that the Presbyterian Church is in full acknowledgement that the lease is almost done. They reviewed the conditions of approval and the board has approved the design. She asked the Commission if they had any questions. Vice Chair De Luna asked if the monopalm is installed and live palms are placed around it and they begin to grow, are they going to come back and ask for another monopalm because the signal is blocked. Ms. Arvizu responded that the signal would be lower for a time period until the trees grow over. She stated they would not come back and ask to change it. Commissioner Limont asked what estimated percentage of accuracy would be lost by putting the monopalm back. Ms. Arvizu replied about 35 percent coverage. Chair Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for the Commission's comments or a motion. Commissioner Limont commented that this reminds her of the issue they had with The Living Desert and the monopalm at the corner of Portola and Haystack. It was simply too close to the street. She was impressed that the Commission said no, and requested that the applicant come back with a go" better design and better placement. As a result, she felt that The Living 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 Desert worked with the Commission very well, and they came back with three alternate places for the monopalm to be placed. Her concern is that it is too close to Highway 74, and she would be more inclined to be in favor if it was moved back a little more. Vice Chair De Luna agreed with Commissioner Limont. They are starting to look clustered, which tells her that it is a good area and serves a need. She stated that she is troubled by the proximity to Highway 74. She stated that she remembers the issue with The Living Desert, it was an inconvenience for the developer, but the final result was that it was a far superior product, less intrusive, and it blended in with the surroundings far better. She hopes that the monopalm does not have to be close to Highway 74 to make it effective. Commissioner Tanner commented that there were no complaints, and he does not see any reason why they should reject the monopalm. He mentioned that they have accepted many project sites, and he does not feel this is any more or less intrusive. His inclination is to approve this site. Vice Chair De Luna commented that she has the same response as far as that no one stepped forward to oppose it. On the other hand, she asked how much efficiency would be lost if you put the monopalm back about 5 or 10 .. feet. The response was that there would be some loss of efficiency. Chair Campbell concurred with Commissioner Tanner. She stated that there are three monopalms on St. Margaret's Church, and there have been no complaints or problems. She is in favor of the proposed monopalm. Vice Chair De Luna asked if they could condition that if live palms are put in that they be taller than 40 feet so there is not such great disparity. Chair Campbell responded that they are willing to do that. Chair Campbell requested a motion from the Commission. Action: Chair Campbell moved and Commissioner Tanner seconded approving CUP 10-298 subject to the live palms to be 40, 45, and 50 feet in height. Motion carried 3-1-1 with Commissioner Limont opposed and Commissioner Dash absent. Chair Campbell moved and Commissioner Tanner seconded adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2582 approving CUP 10-298. Motion carried 3-1-1 with Commissioner Limont opposed and ftm Commissioner Dash absent. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 B. Case No. ZOA 12-57, City of Palm Desert, applicant. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 12-57 amending Section 25.70.020 Membership of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, adding two members to the Architectural Review Commission as directed by the City Council. Chair Campbell asked for the staff report. Ms. Wightman reported that on January 26, 2012, the City Council decided to consolidate the Landscape Beautification Committee with the Architectural Review Commission. Membership is designated in the Zoning Ordinance, and currently is seven members. As stated, the City Council directed that membership be increased to nine members, so the Zoning Ordinance has to be amended as part of a housekeeping measure. She stated that the recommendation is to forward to the City Council for final approval. Vice Chair De Luna stated that it was not clear in the staff report, and asked if the two new members would be coming from the current Landscape Beautification Committee or is the Committee being wiped out and starting the process again. Ms Wightman responded that two members will be selected and appointed by the City Council; they will not �.. necessarily be members from the current Committee. Commissioner Limont commented that when groups get too big it then becomes less efficient. She asked if the Architectural Review Commission was asked if it would be helpful to increase, as opposed to when new members come up or as part of the interview process. Ms. Aylaian responded that the Commission was not consulted. Commissioner Tanner inquired if it was due to not having a quorum to vote. Ms. Wightman responded that it was a lack of items, and that the Architectural Review Commission is really responsible for reviewing landscape plans as well as architectural plans so it made sense to combine the two. Commissioner Tanner stated that there are not many architectural review items going on, but if staff believes it is necessary, he does not see why the Commission should be opposed to it. Vice Chair De Luna asked if Mr. Knight was okay with the change. Ms. Aylaian responded that the City Council and the City Manager are looking for ways to consolidate committees, and this is one of three committees 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 and commissions that are being consolidated because there are a large +MW number of them and at some point they get a little unwieldy. Commissioner Dash commented that he does not see any reason why the Planning Commission should become involved in it. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open, and asked if there was anyone in the audience that was in favor or in opposition. There was no response so she closed the public hearing. Chair Campbell requested a motion from the Commission. Action: Vice Chair De Luna moved and Commissioner Limont seconded recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 12-57. Motion carried 5-0. Vice Chair De Luna moved and Commissioner Limont seconded adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2583 recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 2-57. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS Nam Request: Finding of General Plan consistency for vacating a portion of the frontage road along the east side of Highway 74 as part of the approved hotel and condominium project known as Rosewood. Recommendation: By Minute Motion, find that the proposed street vacation of a portion of the frontage road along the east side of Highway 74 in front of the approved project for the Rosewood Hotel is consistent with the General Plan. Chair Campbell asked for the staff report. Mr. Bagato reported that the item is on the agenda for a finding that the street vacation is consistent with the General Plan. He noted that normally it would be on the Consent Calendar, but the Rosewood project was approved on a 4-1 vote so it was moved off the Consent Calendar to allow more discussion by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bagato stated that the hotel project was approved on August 26, 2011. low The approved plan indicated that the frontage road would be eliminated as 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 part of the project; however, the government code for street vacations requires a separate action to be taken. He stated that the Planning Commission is only looking at whether findings are consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Bagato reported that staff reviewed this request initially when the applicant applied when they brought in the application two years ago. Both Planning and Public Works Departments looked at the location of the frontage road. He communicated that the frontage road ends at a private parking lot, 480 feet north of the project. When the request was made, staff anticipated that it would be possible. He stated that the remaining section of the frontage road that heads south will remain. After the project, the street would continue up for residents, and as it goes into the residential area. In the future it would be disconnected and tie into where currently there is a private parking lot and does not connect directly to a public street. Staff feels it is consistent with the General Plan. As indicated, the City Council will hold a public hearing where the City will notify the newspaper as well as surrounding property owners that are at least 300 feet. He asked the Commission if they had any questions. Commissioner Limont asked if the developer moved. Mr. Bagato replied that he has relocated. Commissioner Dash asked what the legal definition of vacating a portion of the street is. Does it mean that it is being given or is it an easement? Mr. Bagato responded that it would be transferred to the property owner. He forgot to mention and stated that in the development agreement, they are going through the hearing process today, but the vacation itself would not be recorded and deeded over to the applicant until building permits are issued. So the street would always be under City control until they start construction then the recordation of the road would be done at that time. Commissioner Dash inquired if the City would be protected in the unlikely event that the project does not proceed. Mr. Bagato responded that if the project is never built, the City will still have the frontage road. It will never be transferred until there are permits. Commissioner Limont asked if this is for this specific developer or for the project on a general level. Mr. Bagato replied that it is per the project with the development agreement. The development agreement could be transferred. Chair Campbell asked if there was anyone from the audience that would like to speak on this matter. Mr. David Fletcher, Chartwell Properties, stated that they manage a number of buildings in the area. He communicated that the frontage road 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 mentioned dies into their parking lot, and that they are very much in favor. They urge that the Planning Commission approve this matter. There were no other comments. Chair Campbell asked for a motion. Action: Vice Chair De Luna moved and Commissioner Tanner seconded approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont opposed. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION Chair Campbell stated that the Art in Public Place Commission did not have a meeting. B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE The Landscape Beautification Committee no longer exists. Commissioner Tanner asked if there is a liaison from Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Limont responded that they are their own Commission, and they would not have a liaison. Ms. Aylaian stated she would need to check with the City Attorney if it would be appropriate to have a liaison from the Architectural Review Commission. However, she indicated that it would probably not be appropriate since both Commissions were independent, but discussed the same projects, which could lead to the liaison having information on a project that was not made part of the public hearing in front of the entire Planning Commission. C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner stated that he did not attend the meeting. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Dash indicated that there was a meeting today, but he did not attend due to a doctor's appointment. He noted that he was not sure of the Committee would continue. Ms. Aylaian communicated that it may not continue due to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency. She stated that there are still bond funds 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 that could potentially still be used for undergrounding and other projects YAM they were advising on, but it is uncertain at this point whether or not that bond money is still available. Therefore, the Committee is in suspension and waiting, but not yet being dissolved. Vice De Luna asked if the bonds become an enforceable obligation. Ms. Aylaian responded that it being discussed by legal counsel. Ms. Aylaian reported that the Committee did ask if the residential lots in the Palm Desert Country Club area could have reduced setbacks because the lots are typically smaller than any other lots in the City. There are people that want to improve their properties, but are constrained by the amount of setbacks that are required, which typically are more appropriate for larger lots. She noted that Mr. Bagato committed to discuss the issue with the City Council as they review the zoning ordinance update, and find out if they want to see some change in that area. XI. COMMENTS Mr. Bagato mentioned that there will be a Planning Commission meeting on March 6. On March 22, there will be a joint study session between the Planning Commission and the City Council at 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be about the zoning ordinance update. He stated that the City Council �. ordered a contract to update the City's zoning ordinance because a comprehensive update has not been done in a while, and there are a lot of inconsistencies. They will update the whole zoning ordinance to make it more user friendly and more understandable for the general public. Commissioner Limont stated that she will be out of town March 22. Vice Chair De Luna commented that the Planning Commission recently received a letter from the City Manager about an audit that was performed by the IRS, and how it was no longer economically feasible or legal to continue offering the Commission a stipend. As an alternative, it was recommended that in place of a stipend that dinner would be provided before the meetings. She stated that she called the City Manager, John Wohlmuth, and her recommendation was to not put the City through that process. She communicated that several Commissioners work full time and sometimes cannot get off work early enough to come running to have a meal, and with the economic times, it would make more sense to not have the City spend the money on dinner. Vice Chair De Luna mentioned that even if the City gives the Commission a certificate at the end of the year, it becomes a taxable event. She stated that she was going to recommend a gift certificate in the end as an alternative. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 Chair Campbell agreed with Vice Chair De Luna because she usually gets here at 6:00 p.m. Vice Chair De Luna commented that there might be times an ordinarily long Planning Commission meeting may occur, in that instance, maybe take a break and have some kind of refreshments on hand would be appropriate and appreciated. Commissioner Dash also agreed. Ms. Aylaian stated that on behalf of the City Council and the City Manager, she thanks the Planning Commission for their time. She commented that the compensation was never meant to really pay entirely for their time, but it was more a token of their gratitude and it has gotten unwieldy with the IRS getting involved. Ms. Aylaian commented that the Planning Commission's willingness to show up and continue to do so without compensation and without dinner is appreciated, and thanked the Commission on behalf of the City of Palm Desert. Chairman Campbell stated that they are here because they want to be here. XII. ADJOURNMENT Now Commissioner Tanner motioned for adjournment of the meeting, Vice Chair De Luna seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. r �SONIA CAMPBELL, CHAIR ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRE Y PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION /mo 13