Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-04 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Nancy DeLuna called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner Lindsay Holt Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto Chair Nancy DeLuna ftaw Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary 111111. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner John Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development, summarized pertinent March 23, 2017, City Council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2017 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of March 21, 2017. Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 36342 for the subdivision of 22+ acres into 196 units consisting of 84 cluster units, 64 attached units, 48 single-family homes, and a private recreation facility development located on the northwest corner of University Park Drive and College Drive. Case No. TT 36342 (WSI Mojave Investments, LLC, Irvine, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year extension for Case No. TT 36342 until May 3, 2018. On a motion by Vice Chair Pradetto, second by Commissioner Greenwood, and a 4- 0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS to None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map 37157 for Monterey Crossing, an 18-acre commercial development located at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. Case Nos. SP/PP/CUP/EA 16-188 & TPM 37157 (Fountainhead Shrugged, LLC, Newport Beach, California, Applicant). Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, presented the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He referred to Condition of Approval No. 32. He said that park fees are not applicable to commercial projects; therefore, staff recommended to strike Condition of Approval No. 32. At the end of his presentation, he showed a video of the proposed project. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the project and allow it to move forward to a public hearing with the City Council. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Lindsay Holt asked what the City's hotel occupancy rates are. N 2 GAPlanningWlonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\4-4-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2017 Mr. Stendell responded that the City's annual occupancy average is below 70 percent; however, it is on the rise. He commented that the applicant may have more market data. Commissioner Holt inquired if the traffic improvements would be done in phases. Mr. Ceja replied that traffic improvements would begin when construction starts on the project. Commissioner Holt asked if there is a timeline for the leasing or sale of the lots in the development. When would construction begin? Mr. Ceja said he did not know and would let the applicant answer that question. Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto asked what would happen if the Planning Commission did not strike Condition of Approval No. 32. Mr. Ceja responded that it would move forward to the City Council, and the applicant would not have to pay the fee since it does not apply to commercial projects. He noted that Condition of Approval No. 32 is a correction item by staff. Chair DeLuna commented that the applicant proposed three left-turn lanes eastbound on Dinah Shore Drive. However, the video only shows two left-turn lanes. Mr. Ceja said that the video was prepared for the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) before the Traffic Impact Analysis was accepted by the City. Chair DeLuna asked what the height is of the proposed hotel that would extend above from the Monterey Avenue grade. Mr. Ceja responded that the height would look similar to the Marriott Fairfield currently being built on Cook Street next to Interstate 10 (1-10). Chair DeLuna mentioned that the video does not show the architecture of the hotel and how it fits in with the other buildings. She asked if the second proposed hotel site would be along the railroad tracks. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Chair DeLuna inquired if the second hotel is intended to be 60 feet. Mr. Ceja replied that the second proposed hotel would fall under the same development standards as the first hotel, which is a height of 50 feet. The video was shown again to show the hotel building. Chair DeLuna pointed to the video and asked if the hotel height shown above Monterey Avenue is to scale. Mr. Ceja replied yes. 3 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\4-4-17.docx i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2017 Chair DeLuna said that there would be automotive uses. She inquired if automotive uses would include a car wash or a gas station. wrr Mr. Ceja replied potentially yes. It could allow for any number of automotive-related uses. He noted that there are conditions in place such as, if there is an automotive repair area, bays cannot be visible from Dinah Shore Drive. Commissioner Greenwood referred to the northeast area of the site where there seems to be a two-lane road; however, the road terminates at the property line. He asked if the road is for a farther connection or a receptacle access when the adjacent parcel gets developed. Mr. Ceja explained that there are several easements that crisscross the site plan. One is a sewer easement along the northern property line. Therefore, the applicant is providing a two-way road over the sewer easement. He noted that the area behind the auto dealer location is not only for the sewer easement. If the use changes, there would still be a road that connects to the backside of that parcel. Commissioner Greenwood pointed to pads 3 and 4. He said from looking at the renderings, it appears you are able to look into the roofs. He asked if there were any discussions with the applicant in terms of providing sight studies from the Monterey Avenue overpass through multiple stages at pads 1, 3, 4, and 5. Mr. Ceja responded that staff did not request sight studies from the roofs near the roadways. He stated that the ARC echoed Commissioner Greenwood's concern. He said the applicant has updated their drawings that show parapet walls at a sufficient height and well above the equipment. He also said that some of the returns on the architecture are four sided to help hide the roof equipment. In terms of the Specific Plan and the language pertaining to the height increase, Commissioner Greenwood asked if the language in the Specific Plan should be adjusted if a secondary hotel is proposed. He noted that ARC would review the first hotel because of the architecture and the context of the site. In his opinion, he felt the architecture of the secondary hotel would be more substantive, more massing and more articulation because it stands alone and would read a little different on the site. Mr. Ceja replied that the hotel site shown in the corner is partially screened by Monterey Avenue so a stand-alone building at that hotel height might read differently at parcel 2C. He believed that the Planning Commission could add a condition to have language added to the Specific Plan to address Commissioner Greenwood's concern, and the ARC would review the second hotel under the added guidelines. Chair DeLuna asked if the Planning Commission discusses signage such as height, color, and logos. Mr. Ceja stated that a master sign program for the proposed development has been approved by the ARC. MW 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2017\Minutes\4-4-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2017 Chair DeLuna asked what the allowed height of freestanding signs along the freeway is. Mr. Ceja replied that there are no criteria for these signs along the freeway because they are prohibited at this time. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. VASANTHI OKUMA, representative for Fountainhead Shrugged, Newport Beach, California, thanked staff for working with them. They were very clear on what they wanted to see at Monterey Crossing such as high quality architecture and a good site design, which coincided with their vision for the project. She noted that they have a tremendous amount of interest in the site from various high-quality national tenants (hotel, food, and retail), and felt that it would be a successful project for Palm Desert. She said that other members of their team are present to answer questions: the planning consultant, the landscape architect, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consultant, and the civil engineer. Ms. Okuma hoped for the Planning Commission's recommended approval to the City Council. She added that they hope to start construction in 2018, and have the first phase open in the middle of 2018. She offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Greenwood asked Ms. Okuma to elaborate on the phasing of the project. ONO MS. OKUMA replied that they expect to have the two pads along Dinah Shore Drive and the plaza to be completed in the first phase, as well as the pad immediately to the north at the corner and the tire store (to the right of the main driveway). The hotel would be part of the second phase. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the site improvements and landscaping are part of the first phase. MS. OKUMA replied that everything south of the main driveway that goes east and west up to the hotel would be constructed as part of the first phase, as well as the landscaping. Commissioner Greenwood asked how much time between the completion of the first phase and the beginning of the second phase. MS. OKUMA believed that the time between phases would be six months. They are still actively marketing the site. Commissioner Greenwood stated that it is a beautiful project. He noted that there is a lot going on at pads 3 and 4. He voiced his concern with the functionality of the drive-through on pad 3, with cars stacking up in the drive-through and cars not able to back out of the parking stalls. In addition, the applicant has done a great job with tow the line of sights from the overpass along Monterey Avenue in maintaining and continuing the integrity of the architecture on all four sides. However, he is 5 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\4-4-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2017 concerned with seeing equipment, even with the screening and parapet elevations. He is interested in looking at some sight section studies, stacked from north to south looking and cutting directly east and west from Monterey Avenue heading east from pads 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to really understand if there are impacts. He stated that some renderings might be deceiving. He noted that same comment would apply from the Gateway development on the south, cutting through Dinah Shore Drive heading directly north. MS. OKUMA replied that they are valid concerns and concerns that were raised by the ARC. She would have Mr. John Loper address the site design. She said the architects could also address the parapets. She noted when they prepared the animation; all of the rooftop equipment was modeled into that animation, which cannot be seen. MR. JOHN LOPER, Palm Tree Communities Consulting, Inc., Irvine, California, stated that he wrote the Monterey Crossing Specific Plan, and assisted with the entitlement process and planning of the project for over a year. He also stated that the City of Palm Desert has a wonderful staff, which have guided them through the process and to make sure the project is a high-quality development. He first addressed the elevations, and noted that they are still working with tenants on each of the buildings. Therefore, they designed a vernacular architecture with the elevations. The retail buildings would probably be built first, but each individual building may get modified as they find an actual tenant to take the space. He explained that Monterey Avenue starts a couple of feet higher than Dinah Shore Drive at the corner, with the plaza slightly lower to help lessen the wind. As Monterey Avenue travels up to the hotel pad, the street is approximately 20 feet above grade of their proposed project. Pads 5 and 6 building elevations are shown in the animation and plans, which range from 22 to 24 feet for the main parapets. This gives the applicant four to six feet from the roof elevation to the top of the parapet to have equipment; most of the equipment is three to four feet tall. Mr. Loper said they also made sure the elevation in the back, where most of the kitchen equipment is located, is tall enough to cover the equipment. The architectural elements would go up to 30 feet so you should not to see any of the equipment. In regard to the height of the hotel, the applicant envisioned the majority of the hotel to be 50 feet and allow for architectural features to go up 60 feet. He noted that a 50-foot hotel allows for the flexibility to design a nice hotel, and believed the hotels would be four-story. He referred to the driveway located at the northeast quadrant of the site plan. He said that the applicant has put the water quality basin along the rear between the property line, adjacent to the railroad tracks, and a Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) main sewer trunk line. The applicant is required to pave above the sewer trunk line so that the CVWD could maintain the sewer line. The driveway would also provide for fire truck and auto sales access. Mr. Loper stated that traffic improvements would be built in the very beginning, with the entrance to Toni Way. The applicant would provide dual left-turn lanes into the shopping center from Toni Way, dual left-turn lanes for westbound traffic on Dinah Shore Drive, and the Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive intersection would be modified to accommodate triple left-turn lanes for eastbound traffic on Dinah Shore Drive. Lastly, he addressed the drive- through restaurant(s). He explained that the drive-through would have a dual so ordering facility, which there could be two cars stacked with two separate ordering 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\44-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2017 booths and a pick-up window farther up of the drive-through. However, the drive- throughs are subject to change based on the actual tenants. He offered to answer any additional questions from the Planning Commission. Chair DeLuna asked how close the buildings are from the railroad tracks. MR. LOPER replied that the buildings are approximately 50 feet from the railroad tracks. Chair DeLuna inquired if there have been any sound mitigations done. MR. LOPER responded that when they start the construction drawings for the building(s) nearest to the railroad tracks, the applicant would have to meet the sound requirements. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the applicant considered additional restaurant lots throughout the site. MR. LOPER replied that many of the pads shown are potentially fast food restaurants. However, he potentially could see a restaurant use along Dinah Shore Drive. Commissioner Greenwood pointed to the rendering for pad 5, and voiced his concern because it seems you are looking below the parapet level. MR. LOPER remarked that he would let the architect address Commissioner Greenwood's concern. MR. JIM BICKEL, Bickel Group Architecture, Newport Beach, California, referred to the building 5 rendering, and noted that the dotted black line depicts the roof line level. The dotted boxes above the dotted line depict the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units (HVAC). He stated that their typical shop building design would have a roof height of approximately 15 feet, and normally target the parapet at 20 feet. He felt confident that between the placement of the architectural towers and the extra deep roof wells, the equipment would be hidden well. He commented that they have many years of experience designing drive-throughs, and was also confident the tandem drive-through system would lessen the queue demand. Again, the design could get modified depending on the tenant. He mentioned that there are codes that they must meet to mitigate sound. In conclusion, his goal is to satisfy his client and create a special place where the general public would like to go. Commissioner Greenwood commented that pads 3 and 4 did not go through the ARC. When pads 3 and 4 go to the ARC, he inquired if the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to add a condition that the applicant provides sight section studies from various angles: high, middle, and low on the pads to determine everything is efficiently screened. Mr. Stendell remarked that a Specific Plan equals flexibility. Instead of referencing a specific pad/parcel, he suggested that the Planning Commission take a broad 7 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\4-4-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2017 approach since the buildings and the pads could change, and gave the following example, ". . . that sight lines from Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive are included as part of the ARC's review." .rrr MR. BICKEL interjected that the applicant is willing to do sight studies from Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. Commissioner Greenwood pointed to the median by building 4, and asked if there were water meters or utilities in the median. MR. BICKEL replied that they are grease interceptors. Commissioner Greenwood asked Mr. Bickel if he was comfortable with the amount of trash enclosures. MR. BICKEL responded that they discussed trash enclosures at length. He stated that they have one trash enclosure for every parcel. He said that he usually advises his clients to schedule multiple trash pickups in a week to minimize the amount of trash enclosures so that they stay cleaner. Commissioner Greenwood asked where there is the closest mass transit location (Sunline Transit Agency). MR. LOPER said that the closest bus line is located on Monterey Avenue between I- 10 and Highway 111, which includes two bus stops (one on each side) on Monterey Avenue near the intersection of Dinah Shore Drive. Commissioner Greenwood asked staff if a lighting photometric plan has been reviewed. Mr. Ceja responded that typically a lighting photometric plan is reviewed during the building plan submittal. He noted that the City does have an Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if there have been any discussions in regard to security lighting along the northern part of the project adjacent to the railroad. MR. LOPER responded that as a general rule when they design a shopping center, they would have lighting in paved areas, they would maintain a minimum foot candle, and provide lighting in the pedestrian areas. He mentioned that the paved driveway for CVWD would also have lighting. Generally, they provide lighting photometric plans at the time of construction drawings for the parking lots. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the applicant would have an issue providing lighting in the parking lots if the Planning Commission were to add it as a condition of approval. MR. LOPER replied that he does not think it would be an issue since they intend to provide lighting for the parking lots and pedestrian walkways. 8 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\4-4-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2017 Chair DeLuna pointed to an area northeast of building 1, and asked if it was a trash enclosure. MR. LOPER replied yes. It is the trash enclosure for the hotel. Chair DeLuna asked where the trash enclosures are located in buildings 2A, 2B, and 2C. She also asked where the trash enclosures are located potentially for the auto uses or car dealership. MR. LOPER referred to the site plan and pointed to the trash enclosure locations. Commissioner Holt inquired if there is a block wall proposed for the northern boundary of the project site. MR. LOPER said that they do not have a plan to have a block wall at the northern boundary of the project site; however, they do plan on having some type of fencing. Chair DeLuna asked if not having a solid wall would affect the sound mitigation. MR. LOPER responded that generally with a multi-story building, a solid wall only helps mitigate sound for the ground floor. When they design hotels, they provide sound mitigation through the exterior of the building, such as walls and windows. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the wall (fencing) would be reviewed by City staff in terms of design and articulation. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Chair DeLuna commented that there is usually wind in the northern area of Palm Desert. She asked if blowing sand has been addressed. Mr. Ceja responded that he does not believe anyone has been successful from keeping sand from blowing on a project since it is a desert. Commissioner Greenwood asked the landscape architect if there is a plan for improvements at the western boundary of the project at the slope going up Monterey Avenue. MR. ROBERT CURLEY, Cummings Curley and Associates, Inc., Long Beach, California, replied yes, only within the boundary of the proposed project. Commissioner Greenwood asked what the current condition of the slope is. Mr. Ceja said that it is compacted dirt. All freeway interchanges were never required to be landscaped due to challenges with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). • Commissioner Greenwood voiced his concern with people walking down the slope, and asked if anyone has looked at it. 9 GAPlanning\Monica OReiIIy\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\4-4-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2017 Mr. Ceja replied no. He felt that the City should look at all the interchanges in Palm Desert and have discussions with Caltrans to find out if the dirt could be stabilized or other improvements could be made. Now Chair DeLuna mentioned that the City spent years updating the City's General Plan, and one of the items they focused on were walking trails and outdoor uses. She asked if there were any plans to include walking trails. MR. LOPER said that the proposed project has an internal pedestrian system. MS. OKUMA thanked the Planning Commission for their time and consideration of the proposed project. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenwood commented that the proposed project is going to be great for the City. There was an incredible amount of attention to detail and the architecture is beautiful, which would complement the City. However, he proposed a couple of conditions for discussion: 1) add a condition to provide a site lighting photometric plan for the Planning Department's review; 2) in regard to the second hotel site, add language to the Specific Plan that the proposed hotel must go back to the ARC for review; 3) when future pads go to the ARC for review, provide the ARC with line of sight studies for the Monterey Avenue overpass, anything adjacent to Monterey Avenue, and anything on Dinah Shore Drive from the southern parcel at its higher elevation; and 4) strike Condition of Approval No. 32, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Holt seconded Commissioner Greenwood's motion. She commented that it is a great project, and thanked the applicant for the work they have put into the project. She also thanked staff for a job well done working with the applicant. Commissioner Greenwood asked if he should restate his motion for the record. Mr. Stendell replied yes. With the assistance from Mr. Ceja restating the motion, Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2693, recommending approval of Case Nos. SP/PP/CUP/EA 16-188 & TPM 37157 to the City Council, with the following amend ment(s)/condition(s): 1) add a condition for a line of sight study from Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive for the ARC's review at the time the applications are submitted; 2) add a condition that the applicant provide a parking lot lighting photometric plan for the Planning Department's review; 3) when the second hotel is presented to the ARC, that they pay special attention to architecture (massing, building depth, etc.); and 4) strike Condition of Approval No. 32. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the Planning Commission needs to add a condition for the wall (fencing) along the northern boundary of the project. Ud Mr. Ceja responded that the wall (fencing) would be reviewed by City staff. 10 GAPlanningUAonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\44-17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2017 Motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). Chair DeLuna thanked the applicant for their time, attention, care, and concern working with City staff. She said the City worked years to update the City's General Plan. The General Plan focused on the northern sphere of the City and the University Village, which is east of the proposed project. As a result of a high-quality project, she hoped that this would attract future development in the area. X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XII. COMMENTS XIII. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. ZL,aly� NAN& DECOUNA, CHAIR ATTEST: Aa RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6A MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 11 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2017\Minutes\4-4-17.docx