CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 6, :00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Nancy DeLuna called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner Lindsay Holt Chair Nancy DeLuna Absent: Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto Staff Present: Robert Hargreaves, City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Heather Buck, Assistant Planner Monica O Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. 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 May 25, 2017, City Council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None

2 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of May 16, Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application for a lot line adjustment at and Dinah Shore Drive (APNs and ). Case No. PMW (CarMax Auto Superstore California, LLC., Lakewood, Colorado, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner Gregory, and a vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Pradetto). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 6,150-square-foot personal training studio at Corporate Way, Suite 300; and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the Coachella Environmental Quality Act. Case No. CUP (The Camp CV, LLC., Riverside, California, Applicant). Ms. Heather Buck, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report (staff report is available at Staff supported the applicant s proposal and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Greenwood asked if it is correct that the applicant s business is in place and functioning. He also asked if it is correct that the applicant was not aware that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was required by the City. Ms. Buck replied that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if adjacent owners or tenants have reported any noise complaints. 2

3 Ms. Buck responded that she had not received noise complaints from adjacent business owners or tenants. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the parking count was done when the applicant s business was fully functioning. If so, were there parking spaces available during peak times? Ms. Buck replied that is correct. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. ERICK SALGADO, The CV Camp owner, Riverside, California, thanked the Planning Commission for considering his CUP application. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Greenwood asked the applicant whether there have been any issues with the adjacent neighbors. MR. SALGADO replied no. He noted that the training studio building is isolated and far enough from other adjacent businesses. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if any workout activities are done outside. MR. SALGADO replied no. He commented that the building is large enough to have all activities indoors. Chair DeLuna asked if there is amplified music or sound. MR. SALGADO responded that there is the typical stereo system in the cardio room, which is located on the opposite side of the building and away from the tile store. Commissioner Lindsay Holt asked if there would be any additional improvements to the interior or exterior of the building. MR. SALDADO replied no. Commissioner Greenwood asked if all of the Department of Building & Safety Conditions of Approval had been satisfied. MR. SALGADO replied yes. Commissioner Greenwood inquired how long the training studio has been operating. 3

4 MR. SALGADO responded that they opened the training studio in February Commissioner Greenwood mentioned that in the past, the Planning Commission has reviewed similar CUP applications in Service Industrial zones. He inquired if there have been any issues with noise, if so, have there been conditions placed to address those issues. Mr. Stendell responded that he did not recall any issues in the past. From his experience, music coming from a gym is no louder than other business trades in the Service Industrial zone. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Ron Gregory commented that the training studio is great and in a great location. It is also a great mix with the other businesses in the area. Commissioner Greenwood agreed that it is a great fit, especially since there is a residential neighborhood and a park nearby. Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2695, approving Case No. CUP , subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Pradetto). Chair DeLuna thanked the applicant for choosing to do business in the City of Palm Desert. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow clothing donation bins to be placed at Highway 111; and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. CUP (TexGreen, Inc., Los Alamitos, California, Applicant). Ms. Buck outlined the salient points in the staff report (staff report is available at She mentioned that the Planning Commission once approved a donation bin in the north parking lot of the Westfield Palm Desert (Westfield). However, the donation bin was not well utilized and eventually removed from the parking lot. With that said, it is one reason the proposed location for this CUP was considered. Staff offered to answer any questions. Chair DeLuna asked if the area for the donation bins would be lighted. Ms. Buck responded that no additional lighting is being proposed, and pointed out the closest light post to the donation bins. Chair DeLuna inquired if an area on the north side of Westfield was considered. 4

5 Ms. Buck answered that a location on the north side was considered. However, the applicant did not have the appropriate mailing labels to mail out a Public Hearing notice. The applicant decided to rescind the north side location, which was a location considered by the applicant and Westfield. Commissioner Gregory inquired if the proposed donation bins are a charitable effort or a for-profit effort. Ms. Buck said she did not recall and deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Greenwood asked how people would know of the donation bins in the Westfield parking lot. Ms. Buck replied that she is not aware of any advertising or marketing to let people know of the donation bins. Commissioner Greenwood asked what happened to the donation bin that was approved in the north parking lot. Ms. Buck responded that the bin was removed. She explained that Westfield enters into 12-month leases with a lessee. She is not sure if the lessee for the other donation bin served their 12-month lease, or if they decided to remove the bin prior to the end of the lease because they were not generating enough donations. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. VIKTORIYA NIKOLOVA, TexGreen representative, Huntington Beach, California, stated that they are a for-profit company; however, they do sponsor charities. They have three branches located in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. Each branch donates money to a local charity. In regard to advertising and/or marketing, they have found that once the donation bins are in a good location, people see them and use them. Therefore, they do not plan on advertising or marketing the donation bins. She added that they have a system in place to monitor the condition of the bins and the area around the bins to make sure there is no graffiti or items left behind. The system could also provide information, such as how many pounds of donations were collected from each location. Commissioner Holt asked if the TexGreen donation bins are the first to be located in the Coachella Valley. MS. NIKOLOVA replied yes. Commissioner Holt asked how often the bins are checked for donations. 5

6 MS. NIKOLOVA said the bins get checked three to four times a week. They would also send someone out if the system shows that the bins are full. Chair DeLuna asked the applicant if they considered other locations within Westfield. MS. NIKOLOVA responded that they considered the north side of Westfield. However, the bins would be close to a residential area. She noted that they did not have labels to mail out a Public Hearing notice to the surrounding businesses and residents on the north side of Westfield. She stated they are open to talking with Westfield in regard to finding a new location. Chair DeLuna inquired if TexGreen has considered benefitting a charity in the Coachella Valley. MS. NIKOLOVA replied yes. Commissioner Greenwood asked if people usually donate clothing, and do they occasionally find that someone dropped off a couch. MS. NIKOLAVA responded that it depends on the area and where the bins are placed. They have had people drop off couches, but they do pick them and haul them away. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Gregory commented that he does not have a problem that the donations are for-profit. He felt that it would help community relations if a more assertive effort was made to indicate that some of the money would be donated to local charities. Commissioner Greenwood stated that the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a similar CUP on the north side of Westfield, and does not see an issue with donation bins in that area. He had a concern with the location on the south parking lot because there is going to be a brand new business, which would make it more visible and there would be more traffic. It could become a visual nuisance, granted there are Conditions of Approval. Therefore, he questioned if the southern location is appropriate. Chair DeLuna said she had similar concerns. She supported the endeavor of clothing donation bins at Westfield. She mentioned that the City recently completed the General Plan update process. The corner of Highway 111 and Monterey Avenue is one of the key corners in Palm Desert, which is highly visible. She is concerned that the donation bins at the proposed location may hinder the City s efforts to obtain high-scale tenants in the area. 6

7 Commissioner Holt felt that the donation bins would be fine at the proposed location, as long as the bins were kept in an orderly fashion and without having trash or debris to remain no longer than a couple of hours. She asked if there could be a Condition of Approval added if there are a certain number of complaints received within a certain time period. If there are too many complaints, the location of the bins would have to change or their lease could be revoked. Mr. Stendell responded that they have crafted conditions in the past, in which the condition included the number of complaints received in a given year. However, the CUP would not necessarily be revoked, but it would trigger a reassessment of the CUP to the Planning Commission. He stated that if the Commission would like to have a trial period, staff could draft language to accomplish that goal. If the Planning Commission felt that the donation bins are not appropriate to have on the south side of Westfield, the CUP application could be continued so staff and the applicant could consider a different location. Chair DeLuna remarked that she would prefer to see the donation bins located in a place other than near the corner of Monterey Avenue and Highway 111. She asked if that is something the applicant would consider rather than having a trial period. MS. NIKOLOVA stated that she would have to discuss other locations with Westfield. Commissioner Gregory inquired if the developer for Jared The Galleria of Jewelry (Jared) has been contacted by Westfield in regard to the proposed donation bins. Ms. Buck responded that unfortunately the jewelry store may not be moving forward; however, staff has not heard anything from Jared. Chair DeLuna stated that she is now more concerned because they could potentially look for a new owner or tenant in the corner of Monterey Avenue and Highway 111. She said that the donation bins on the south side of Westfield could be an impediment to a decision on a high-end owner or tenant. She voiced they consider another location within the Westfield parking lot for the donation bins. Ms. Buck said that the Planning Commission could continue the CUP application so staff could work with Westfield and the applicant to select another location. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the CUP application is nulled or void at the end of the Westfield one-year lease or would a renewal lease need to come back to the Planning Commission. 7

8 Ms. Buck responded that a CUP application generally runs with the land. These types of projects run with the company. The lease with Westfield is not the City s concern or part of the CUP process. She stated that the approval by the Planning Commission would only be for this use, as long as this applicant (TexGreen) stays in the approved location. Commissioner Gregory respected Chair DeLuna s concern and felt it is not much of a crisis to continue the CUP request till other more suitable locations are considered. Mr. Stendell recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to a date uncertain since staff would need to send out a new notice. Commissioner Gregory moved to, By Minute Motion, continue Case No. CUP to a date uncertain. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Pradetto). The Planning Commission thanked the applicant for wanting to do business in the City of Palm Desert. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve an amendment to Precise Plan for a new architectural design concept for Grafton s Restaurant, which includes a new 11,237-square-foot two-story building with a retractable roof and an outdoor patio located at El Paseo. Case No. PP Amendment No. 1 (MBH Architects, Alameda, California, Applicant). Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and updated plans for Grafton s Restaurant (Grafton s) (staff report is available at He clarified that Grafton s would only be open for dinner from 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Wednesday through Sunday. On Mondays and Tuesdays, the restaurant would be open for private parties. At the end of the presentation, staff recommended approval. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if there were any comments by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) in regard to the screening on all four sides of the equipment on the roof. Mr. Swartz replied yes. He pointed to an exhibit and explained that the architect would look at adding a wall on the roof to conceal the equipment. Chair DeLuna noted that there is cedar proposed in front of the building, which would get a lot of the hot sun. She asked what provisions have been made to make sure the cedar would survive the heat. 8

9 Mr. Swartz responded that the project architect seemed to think that the cedar material would sustain the desert s climate. He noted that Palm Desert has a property maintenance standard in place. If for some reason the cedar does not sustain the desert s climate, there are mechanisms in place to address that issue. Commissioner Gregory commented that the previous building was indicated as being 40 feet tall at the entry. He asked what the mass of the building height was. Mr. Swartz replied that the building height was approximately 30 feet. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. ALLAN LEVIN, applicant s representative, Palm Desert, California, communicated that Mr. Steele Platt is the applicant and was also present at the meeting. He said Mr. Platt is founder of the original Yard House and developed several locations, which he sold not too long ago. Mr. Platt decided to build another restaurant in the City of Palm Desert on El Paseo. Mr. Levin and Mr. Platt were available to answer any questions. Commissioner Greenwood expressed that the restaurant design is beautiful, it would be a fantastic addition to El Paseo, and the restaurant has some exciting features such as the retractable roof. In terms of the air conditioning (AC) units, he asked the applicant to expand on the screening of the equipment. MR. LEVIN replied that he is not the architect. He noted that he was not able to participate in the ARC discussions since he is a member of the Commission. He stated that the ARC looks at the screening of equipment very carefully with every building that comes before the ARC; Grafton s was no exception. He also stated that the architect is aware that the equipment must be screened. The architect is looking into when the roof is retracted if it would screen the equipment; however, the roof would not be retracted all the time. Mr. Levin informed the Planning Commission that they would screen the equipment to the satisfaction of City staff. They understood that El Paseo is a sensitive spot in the City of Palm Desert, and everyone is aware that no one wants to look at AC units. Commissioner Greenwood voiced his concern with the west and south views from the second floor of the Colonnade building (Le Paon Restaurant), and whether there would be possible viewsheds that could be impacted. MR. LEVIN communicated that the viewshed from Le Paon Restaurant was discussed by the ARC. He explained that it is difficult when you are looking down to be able to screen the equipment without totally enclosing the equipment. He said the screening has always been from the public view, and that you cannot screen the equipment 100 percent if you are on the second floor looking down at 9

10 another second floor. Mr. Levin asked staff if they looked into the height of the Colonnade building across from Grafton s. Mr. Swartz replied that the Colonnade building was a little taller. He indicated that the ARC added a condition that the equipment has to be 100 percent screened from the public view at ground level. He noted that as part of the new Downtown zone, three-story mixed-use buildings would be allowed. There would be some residents looking down into rooftops. Commissioner Greenwood said that as a minimum they should be able to screen to the top of units on all four sides, and he would want that as a major proponent having it as a condition. Chair DeLuna asked if the mechanical equipment for the retractable roof is motorized, and where would the equipment be located and would it be screened. MR. STEELE PLATT, applicant, La Quinta, California, responded that the motors would most likely be in the same screened area as the AC units. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Gregory commented that the Planning Commission was very enthusiastic with the previous presentation. Frankly, he was more enthusiastic with the new plans. He mentioned that he was recently in Mexico, and he went to several restaurants that had retractable roofs. The restaurants were comfortable and wonderful. He felt that this project is a step forward for El Paseo. Commissioner Greenwood mentioned that the General Plan update touched on the outdoor dining element and what an important feature it is. He is a big proponent of seeing future projects expand further and finding ways to do so. He stated what is so great about this design is that almost the whole restaurant becomes outdoor dining and it would bring a lot of life to El Paseo. He asked staff if there is an existing condition in regard to screening of equipment on all four sides. Mr. Swartz replied that the condition is not included in the Planning Commission resolution; however, it could be added as part of the motion. He restated that the condition is included in the ARC s motion. Mr. Stendell interjected that the screening of equipment is a condition of the ARC. He stated that staff would make sure the condition is in place prior to the final construction drawings going back to the ARC for review and approval. Commissioner Holt inquired if the applicant has a timeline for the construction of the restaurant. 10

11 MR. PLATT responded that once the drawings are finalized, it is approximately a five-month construction process. They anticipate opening the first quarter of Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2697, approving Case No. PP Amendment No. 1, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Pradetto). Chair DeLuna thanked the applicant for choosing Palm Desert to do business. The City is looking forward to Grafton s opening. X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XII. COMMENTS Mr. Stendell commented that Vice Chair Pradetto regrettably could not attend the meeting. He said his role with the County of Riverside has changed, and has to work in Riverside two days of the week. He still wants to be on the Planning Commission; however, he has to be in Riverside on Tuesdays and may have to resign. Vice Chair Pradetto wanted him to ask the Commission if they are willing to move the meeting day. If they had any comments, see him after the meeting. 11

12 XIII. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. ATTEST: NANCY DE LUNA, CHAIR RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 12