PLANNING
COMMISSION
MINUTES
of March 29, 2006
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
City of Indio, California, was held on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, in the Dr. Carreon Academy,
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioner
Jacquie Bethel
Commissioner
Rick Diaz
Commissioner Robin DuFault
Vice-Chairman
Mickie Reed
Chairman
Glenn Miller
Absent
at Roll Call: None.
Staff
Present: Stephen
Copenhaver, Community Development Services/Bldg & Safety Dir.
Steve Walker, Planner
Sean
Moore, Associate Planner
Lonnie Bell, Planner
Matt Straite,
Assistant Planner
Nancy Ferguson,
Environmental Planner
Grant Eklund, City
Engineer
Juan Ryland, Principal
Civil Engineer
Tom Brohard, City
Traffic Engineer Consultant
Sonia Cooley, Fire
Specialist
Ben Guitron, Indio
Police Department
Omar Sandoval,
Janis Dawson, Planning
Commission Secretary
DISCUSSION FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA:
Rick Panos: I just want to make one comment to the
Planning Commission in regards to the Indio Fashion Mall. There was a investor who wanted to redevelop
that area, and because it was not in the (indistinct) it never happened.
MINUTES:
1. Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 8, 2006
Motion: Received
and Filed, with the following corrections:
Vice-Chairman Reed noted the following:
• Page 19, 1st paragraph, 1st
sentence; “lots of Plumas” should read “Las
Plumas.”
• Page
19, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence; “for residents” should
read “for a reason.”
Commissioner DuFault noted
the following:
• Page
6, 2nd paragraph; “acre part” should read “acre park.”
• Page
19, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence; “agree with you o this”
should read “agree with you on this.”
• Page
19, 11th paragraph; “and that parcel” should read “on that parcel.”
Made by: Commissioner
Bethel
Second by: Vice-Chairman
Reed
Approved: 5-0
by voice vote
Abstained: None
Due to the quality of the taping equipment this is not an exact
transcript of the Planning Commission meeting of March 29, 2006.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Item 1 Continued
from February 22, 2006; Venture Retail Group;
a.
Design Review 05-8-188; to review and consider architecture
and landscape plans for a proposed 32,300 square-foot commercial shopping
center on 3.62 acres.
b.
Conditional Use Permit 06-1-852; to allow the
development of two buildings, proposed bank and fast food restaurant with a
drive-thru, and a 4000 square foot convenience market.
Staff report by: Steve Walker, Senior Planner
At this time staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission take the following action:
• Continue Design Review
05-8-188 and Conditional Use Permit 06-1-852, to a date specific of April 26, 2006.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF:
None.
PUBLIC HEARING REMAINS OPEN:
MOTION:
M/S Commissioner
Diaz/Commissioner Bethel - that the Planning Commission take the following
action:
• CONTINUE
Design Review 05-8-188 and Conditional Use Permit 06-1-852, to a date specific,
April 26, 2006, and leave the Public Hearing open.
Motion passes 5/0/0 with the
following vote: Order No. 1476
Order No. 1225
AYES: Commissioner Bethel, Commissioner
Diaz, Commissioner DuFault, Vice-Chairman Reed and Chairman Miller.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Item 2 The Home Depot; Greenberg Farrow; has
filed a development application located on the southeast corner of
a.
Environmental Assessment 05-12-488 to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
b.
Conditional Use Permit 06-3-856; to allow the
operation of a retail store located within the
c.
Design Review 05-12-206; to consider the site planning
and architecture for a 137,153 square foot home improvement center on an 11
acre portion of a 65 acre site.
Staff report by: Sean Moore, Associate Planner
The staff report was
presented, with the following concerns:
·
There are revised conditions, per handout, for Conditions No. 79, 80,
81, 96, 105, 125, 136, 139 and 140.
At this time staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission take the following action:
• Approve Environmental
Assessment 05-12-488 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review
05-12-206 and Conditional Use Permit 06-3-856, based on the findings and conditions of
approval in your staff report.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF:
Commissioner DuFault: On pages 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, Conditions No.
38-61, are those typical conditions for a commercial property?
Sean Moore, Associate
Planner: Which conditions?
Commissioner DuFault: Starting with Condition No. 38.
Sean Moore, Associate
Planner: They would be conditions
that were from the previous geo-technical study that were submitted at that
time.
Commissioner DuFault: My question is are these typical for a
commercial development?
Sean Moore, Associate
Planner: I would say it is similar.
Commissioner Diaz: On the yellow sheet you gave out,
Condition No. 140 is an addition, not a change; is that correct?
Sean Moore, Associate
Planner: Correct.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 6:14 P.M.
APPLICANT: George Wright.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND APPLICANT:
George Wright: Spoke
briefly on this item.
2nd
Applicant: Spoke about seasonal sales. They
want six seasonal sales, and are in agreement on three of them; two that would
last a week and one that would last during the Christmas season to sell
Christmas trees. On the other three they
would like to amend the seven day to a fourteen day period. They also spoke about security lighting, and
that at night they will be screened from the surrounding communities and will
have only a minimal impact on these communities.
Commissioner Diaz: On Condition No. 139, it says that all
lighting shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. except for security lighting.
2nd
Applicant: Spoke about a lighting plan.
Commissioner Diaz: On Condition No. 136, six seasonal sales
shall be permitted per calendar year; two seasonal sales shall be limited to a
seven day period, and the rest to a fourteen day period. Is this what you are referring to?
2nd
Applicant: Yes.
REQUESTS FROM AUDIENCE TO SPEAK:
Lana Hall: Spoke
about the Night Sky ordinance.
APPLICANTS REBUTTAL:
None.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 6:20 P.M.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS:
None.
MOTION:
M/S Vice-Chairman
Reed/Commissioner Bethel - that the Planning Commission take the following
action:
• ADOPT a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated
Monitoring Program for Environmental Assessment 05-12-488;
and
• APPROVE Design Review
05-12-206,
subject to the findings and conditions of approval as contained in the staff
report, with the following modifications; and
• Amend
Conditions No. 79, 80, 81, 96, 105, 136 and 139; and
• Delete
Conditions No. 105 and 125; and
• Add new
Condition No. 140
• APPROVE Conditional Use
Permit 06-3-856,
subject to the findings and conditions of approval as contained in the staff
report.
Motion passes 5/0/0 with the
following vote: Conditional Use Permit
06-3-856: Order No. 1226
Design
Review 05-12-206: Minute Order No. 1477
AYES: Commissioner Bethel,
Commissioner Diaz, Commissioner DuFault, Vice-Chairman Reed and Chairman
Miller.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner DuFault and
Commissioner Diaz: We will recuse
ourselves due to a potential Conflict of Interest.
Chairman Miller: Noted
there will only be three Commissioners to hear this Item and vote on it.
Item 3 Indian Palms Country Club
Expansion; The project is the redevelopment of a 23 acre portion of the Indian
Palms Country Club located at the southeast corner of Monroe Street and Avenue
48. Entitlements include:
a.
Environmental Assessment 05-8-440; The
proposed construction of 160 condominium units, 78 room hotel, 32
hotel-ownership units, conference building, and existing restaurant.
b.
Amendment to Conceptual Specific
Plan/Project Master Plan (SP95-9-5); To change the land use designations on
the 23 acre site from Neighborhood Commercial Resort (NCR), Recreational
Commercial (RC) and Residential Low Density 5 (RL-5) to NCR, RC and Residential
High Density (RH).
c.
Conditional Use Permit 05-8-842; A Conditional Use
Permit is required for two entitlements. First, to allow the transfer of
density within the site; and secondly, for building height in excess of the
35-foot height limit. The hotel building and the hotel
ownership/conference center building at four-stories and approximately 56 feet,
the hotel building and 32 hotel ownership unit/conference building will exceed
the 35 foot height limit allowed under the Development Code as will the 3-story
condominium buildings.
d.
Design Review 05-8-189; For the construction of 160 condo units, 78
room hotel, 32 hotel ownership units, a conference building, restaurant, the
relocation of the visitor entry gate and guard booth from the Monroe Street
entry to the entry on Avenue 50 and the renovation/realignment of a portion of
the Indian Golf Course.
e.
Tentative Tract Map 33932 (TM 05-8-435); To subdivide
23 acres into three condominium lots for 160 units, and one lot for a 78 room
hotel, 32 hotel ownership units, conference center, and restaurant.
Staff report by: Stephen Copenhaver, Community Development
Services/Bldg & Safety Director and Nancy Ferguson, Environmental Planner.
Gave a PowerPoint Presentation.
The staff report was
presented, with concerns. The Indian
Palms Country Club is a cantankerous area, and is due to faulty planning and
engineering work over the past 25 years.
It’s not necessarily the current developer’s problem, but it is a
problem for everyone. The one good thing
about this project is that there are some pluses for the overall Indian Palms
Country Club, in that our conditions of approval would correct some of the
problems that the Indian Palms Country Club is now experiencing, because our
conditions of approval for their project would incidentally cover some of
these.
For instance, there is a
major drainage problem at the corner of Odlum and Eisenhower, and one of our
requirements in this project is that that area be improved. Also, if a hotel was built, it would be a
revenue source for the City, which would be a positive impact.
On the negative side, and
from a planning perspective, we did work with the developer for months, and did
ask them to make lots of changes. They
did end up reducing the number of units and separated the buildings. In one case they reduced the building height. They increased the separate between condos
and the single-family homes. But, when
we went about as far as we could go, in working with the developer, and we
stood back and looked at the project, we just cannot recommend approval of the
condominium portion of the project. The
Hotel part, I’m 100% in favor of. The
Hotel ownership units I think there are a reasonable number of them, at 32, and
I think they have a good chance for success.
I hope that the developer can build the Hotel, because it would be good
for the City.
However, those condominiums,
which are labeled as luxury condominiums, in our judgment are far from luxury
condominiums. They are very similar in floor
plan and dimensions to timeshare-type units.
In fact, the two bedroom units have dual front doors, so that one of the
bedrooms could be locked out; so, someone could occupy the one bedroom, and the
living portion of the unit, and they could rent out the second bedroom. The bedroom wing is very similar to a hotel
room.
The one bedroom’s are the
same as the two bedrooms, except that they don’t have that additional bedroom
wing. In our judgment they are not
suitable for permanent residents. Their
intent is to sell it to people seeking second units, but we are concerned that
over a period of time, particularly over a long period of time, like five or 10
years, that we would see families and permanent residents moving into them, and
we don’t think they are appropriate for that use whatsoever.
We are asking that this item
be continued, and that you ask the developer to go back and redesign the
condominium portion of this. We feel it
is more appropriate to have more of a traditional town home or condominium type
product, with lower density and better parking.
We are very concerned about the timeshare style units being occupied by
permanent residents. These units in the
northeast section are rented out, and this is where the majority of the
problems for the City are located; that, and in proximity to the entrance. I don’t want to have a situation where 10
years from now people will be asking, “What were you guys thinking when you
approved this project.”
We are not trying to stop
development, but are just asking for high quality development. We don’t believe that they are luxury condominiums. We don’t believe that they would sell anywhere
near what they are saying. It is being
suggested that the selling price of these condominiums would be more than what
single-family homes are going for within the complex. If you look at the price per square foot they
would be hitting all
At this time staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission take the following action:
• Continue Environmental
Assessment 05-8-440, Amendment to
Conceptual Specific Plan/Project Master Plan (SP95-9-5), Conditional Use Permit 05-8-842, Design Review
05-8-189 and Tentative Tract Map 33932 (TM 05-8-435) to a date uncertain.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF:
Vice-Chairman Reed: For the record, there were people who
dropped off material to my business office, which I did bring and distributed
to the other Planning Commission members and staff, with the original being
given to Janis Dawson, Planning Commission Secretary. I did consider them and read them.
Commissioner Bethel: I did look at them.
Chairman Miller: Yes, we did look at them, and everything
that was brought to the Commission will be entered into the record for the
Final Record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 6:51 P.M.
APPLICANT: Dave Weimert, Mike Bracken, Mark
Scheibach, Mr. Paulowski and Mr. Hargreaves.