HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 98-64 CUP 98-6 City Lites Business 42-335 Washington St J r' r
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Appeal to the Planning Commission decision, denying a
conditional use permit to allow a 2 foot by 4 foot outdoor
clothing display of women's apparel in front of the City Lites 0
business at 42-335 Washington Street # J. u; ,f gi (��e y
,-, H L'i co cn H t'7 K
"x3 Z•• 0.0 0-4 i
III. APPLICANT: Louis Lassabatere / City Lites tri / A
42-335 Washington Street # J V
Palm Desert, CA 92211
s ;I ` r'
ll
IV. CASE NO: CUP 98-6 � . :� i}��
V. DATE: June 11 , 1998 �. ,"
VI. CONTENTS:
o
rt or.
A. Staff Recommendation. '< if
B. Background n
C. Project Description i
D. Discussion 'pis- �A*
E. Conclusion cn
F. Draft Resolution No.98-64 0
t+,
G. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1865
H. Planning Commission Staff Report / Minutes dated Mayf , •9
I. Exhibits A & B (Site Plan & Pictures)
J. Appeal Application / Petition
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of C.U.P. 98-8, to allow the City Lites business to setup a single outdoor
display, based upon the display not being visible from the public street and located
underneath a nearly enclosed pedestrian walkway created by an architecture
projection.
B. BACKGROUND:
The applicant owns a women's retail apparel business, located in the Lucky's
shopping center on Washington Street. The business name is City Lites and is
located in the within a retail pad, with a 9 other retail units at 42-335 Washington
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 11, 1998
CUP 98-6
Street. The center is located at the southwest corner of Washington Hovley Lane
East and is zoned P.C. (2), Planned Commercial District.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant wishes to display a 2' x 4' x 5' high clothing rack in the front of the
business (see Exhibit A & B attached). The display would by placed behind an
existing column, leaving 8 feet for pedestrian access. The clothing rack would be
displayed during business hours only, which are Monday through Saturday (10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). The clothing rack is constructed of iron rods, a movable base
and a single cloth hanger.
No sales of merchandise will take place outside of the business. Customers wishing
to purchase an item on display, would bring the item inside the store and purchase
it in a normal fashion.
D. DISCUSSION:
Section 25.30.20 of the zoning ordinance allows outdoor sales of arts, crafts,
clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise, with Planning Commission approval
of conditional use permit. Although no sales of merchandise will take place outside
of the business, staff feels that this display can be categorized under the outdoor
sales section of the ordinance. The applicant wishes to use rack to display
discounted merchandise and let customers know that they are open. Due to the
centers design and layout with large overhangs, monolithic architecture, small
businesses have difficulty attracting attention and customers where the main
destination is the anchor tenant. This condition exists throughout the city in centers
dominated by large stores.
In shopping centers such as this, the architectural design of the buildings (i.e. large
overhangs, columns and the proximity of to the street) creates a semi-enclosed
pedestrian environment. The retailer's store front in essence begins at the edge of
the overhangs, where the only thing missing is the glass store front windows . If
the store front glass was at the edge of the overhang, the city would not regulate
such displays.
With the creation of the Business Support Center, the City has made a commitment
to promote and assist both large and small retail businesses. It is important that a
formula be developed which can provide a solution to the identity and visibility
problems of small businesses within the concept of the City's aesthetic philosophy.
2
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 11, 1998
CUP 98-6
Planning Commission (May 5, 1998)
The Planning Commission reviewed this item at the May 5, 1998 meeting.
Commission voted 3-1 , with Commissioner Jonathan absent, to deny the C.U.P
application based on the findings prepared in Resolution No. 1865. Commission felt
that the outdoor clothing display would create visual clutter and decrease the
aesthetic quality of the shopping environment. In addition, they felt the proposal
was not consistent with the City's aesthetic philosophy and goals for commercial
areas.
E. CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends Council approve the single outdoor display, based upon the
particular conditions that exist for City Lite's application:
1 . The display will not be visible from the public street.
2. The display does not impead pedestrian access and is located underneath a
virtually enclosed pedestrian walkway, created by the large overhangs and columns.
Prepared by
Martin Ivarez
Reviewed and Approved b
Philip Drell
4
r
RESOLUTION NO. 98-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 2 FOOT BY 4 FOOT
OUTDOOR CLOTHING DISPLAY OF WOMEN'S APPAREL IN FRONT
OF THE CITY LITES BUSINESS, LOCATED AT 42-335 WASHINGTON
STREET#J.
CASE NO. CUP 98-6
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
day of June, 1998, consider the request by LOUIS LASSABATERE / CITY LITES for the
above mentioned; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 97-18," in that the director of community development has reviewed the
project for compliance with CEQA and has determined that the proposed application is not
deemed a project for purposes of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and
reasons to exist to justify the approval of said conditional use permit:
1 . That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of
zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located.
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it
will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety,
or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions
of the zoning ordinance, except for approved variances or adjustments.
4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goal's, objectives and the
policies of the city's general plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the commission in this case.
2. That Conditional Use Permit 98-6 is hereby approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-64
APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this
day of June, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JEAN BENSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
SHEILA GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
PLAt G COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1864
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 2 FOOT BY 4 FOOT
OUTDOOR CLOTHING DISPLAY OF WOMEN'S APPAREL IN
FRONT OF THE CITY LITES BUSINESS, LOCATED AT 42-335
WASHINGTON STREET#J.
CASE NO. CUP 98-6
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
5th day of May, 1998, hold a'duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by LOUIS
LASSABATERE / CITY LITES for the above mentioned; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 97-18," in that the director of community development has reviewed the project for
compliance with CEQA and has determined that since the request has been denied, it does
not constitute a project for purposes of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did
find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the denial of said conditional use permit
1 . The aesthetic quality of the proposed project is not consistent with the City's
aesthetic philosophy and goals for commercial areas.
2. The proposed display will create visual clutter and decrease the aesthetic quality
of the shopping environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
commission in this case.
2. That Conditional Use Permit 98-6 is hereby denied.
PASSED, APPROVED "and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 19th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BEATY, FERNANDEZ, FINERTY, JONATHAN, CAMPBELL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE )72?
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
4}12--Q. )
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: May 5, 1998
CASE NO: CUP 98-6
REQUEST: Approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2 foot by 4 foot
outdoor clothing display of women's apparel in front of the City Lites
business at 42-335 Washington Street # J.
APPLICANT: Louis Lassabatere / City Lites
42-335 Washington Street # J
Palm Desert, CA 92211
BACKGROUND:
The applicant owns a women's retail apparel business, located in the Lucky's
shopping center on Washington Street. The business name is City Lites and is
located in the within a retail pad, with a 9 other retail units at 42-335 Washington
Street. The center is located at the southwest corner of Washington Hovley Lane
East and is zoned P.C. (2), Planned Commercial District.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant wishes to display a 2' x 4' x 5' high clothing rack in the front of the
business (see Exhibit A & B attached). The display would by placed behind an
existing column, leaving 8 feet for pedestrian access. The clothing rack would be
displayed during business hours only, which are Monday through Saturday (10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). The clothing rack is constructed of iron rods, a movable base
and a single cloth hanger.
No sales of merchandise will take place outside of the business. Customers wishing
to purchase an item on display, would bring the item inside and purchase it in a
normal fashion.
III. DISCUSSION
Section 25.30.20 of the zoning ordinance allows outdoor sales of arts, crafts,
clothing, goods, wares and other merchandise, with Planning Commission approval
of conditional use permit. Although no sales of merchandise will take place outside
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 3, 1997
CUP 97-8
of the business, staff feels that this display can be categorized under the outdoor
sales section of the ordinance. The applicant wishes to use rack to display
discounted merchandise and let customers know that they are open. Due to the
.centers design and layout with large overhangs monolithic architecture, small
businesses small businesses have difficulty attracting attention and customers
where the main destination is the anchor tenant. This condition exist throughout
the city in super power centers dominated by large stores.
In shopping in centers such as this, the architectural design of the buildings (i.e. large
overhangs, columns and the proximity of to the street) creates a semi-enclosed
pedestrian environment. The retailer's store front in essence begins at the edge of
the overhangs, where the only thing missing is the glass store front windows . If
the store front glass was at the edge of the overhang, the city would not regulate
such displays.
With the creation of the Business Support Center, the City has made a commitment
to promote and assist both large and small retail businesses. It is important that a
formula be developed which can provide- a solution to the identity and visibility
problems of small businesses within the concept of the City's aesthetic philosophy.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission make an interpretation that, the City should allow
small retailers to obtain permits to setup a single display on a limited basis, where
the architecture and layout of the building creates visibility and identification
problems.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal notice
B. Exhibit "A" (Site Plan)
C. Exhibit " " (Pictu es)
Prepared by
Martin Alvarez
Reviewed and Approved byC
Philip Drell
4
. % -- ` ,,,., City of Palm Desert
-.-.: ":y„ •• 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TELEPHONE(760)346-0611•FAX(760)340-0574•http://www.palm-desert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. CUP 98-6
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by LOUIS LASSABATERE/CITY LITES for _
approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2 foot by 4 foot outdoor clothing display of
women's apparel. The display is proposed in the front sidewalk area of the City Lites
business. Property is located at 42-335 Washington Street # J. Property is also described
as A.P.N. 637-072-004.
1 E 1 I
i 1 1 •
_J11_, :
NOvLEY L•NE EAST 42•4 AVENUE
`. IR-3 2.000
YICN1�1■ .7RIVt
....)-.)•
I R-Il R oil I I . . . a — I
P.C.—(2) I NORTH
No
O.S.
410 I\J-1 -10:g I 2
miamminsummin' _ &vIJ QNj ITwT[� (/)
(.Af.If QR 1 DRIV 1P.C.—(2) 0
r-1' , I , , c
4 T 5 - = I OI.P. f �
II
-1 1 I k i lu o ci2 . 1 . 1 \ i(
I 1.7 ^V I `�
!' I I
OEL AWARE PLACE
F 11 jT III I I : I
-1I 1 : i , ! I ~ . I I ,
R1
•row
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 5, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in'the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time_and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project
and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community
Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council)
at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
April 23, 1998 Palm Desert Planning Commission
,
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 5, 1998
C. Case No. CUP 98-6 - LOUIS LASSABATERE/CITY LITES, Applicant
Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a two
foot by four foot outdoor clothing display of women's apparel in
front of the City Lites business at 42-335 Washington Street #J.
Mr. Drell explained that a small clothing store located in a supermarket
shopping center would like to put out a clothing rack as a display. In that it
is outside of the strictly defined interior of the store, it is an outdoor display
and, therefore, it was not permitted unless a conditional use permit is
provided. Initially the city used to forbid outdoor displays entirely but that
changed when the city went through the process to allow the College of the
Desert Street Fair, which is all outdoor displays and sales. It was approved
with a conditional use permit and the city changed the code to allow any
commercial business to apply for permission through a conditional use to
engage in outdoor display or sales. He didn't recall any requests that had been
processed or approved other than the College of the Desert Street Fair. The
situation before the commission is a condition which he felt was a retail design
problem which exists throughout the city. It had existed at one time on El
Paseo, but it exists especially in shopping centers that have large stores that
P Y PP 9 9
have good visibility, then there are small intermediate shops typically
dominated by monolithic architecture and very large, heavy overhangs which
tended to obscure the shop windows from the parking lot and more so since
these shops were usually a good distance from the street and anywhere else.
Architecturally they seemed to fall somewhere in between indoors and
outdoors. The condition used to exist on El Paseo at what is now the El Paseo
Collection North. After the continued failure of small shops, the property
owner tore the facades off the buildings so that store fronts were right at the
sidewalk and there was visibility. Historically shops dominated by heaving
canopy overhangs fail. They have an especially hard time in these shopping
centers where there is no pedestrian activity of any significance. He felt that
the customer's attention needed to be caught from the parking lot or as they
leave a larger store. City Lites made application for a conditional use permit
to get permission to display a rack. Staff was unsure exactly how to solve the
problem. Mr. Drell noted that the Department of Community Development is
also responsible for Business Support, staff acknowledged and understood it
is a problem, and these shopping centers have a design which inherently is not
all that positive or conducive to attracting people to these businesses. In order
to differentiate, control and limit any precedent, which was staff's concern,
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 5, 1998
they could acknowledge that these semi-enclosed walkways are almost like an
indoor space. The only thing they lack is a piece of glass. If a piece of glass
was put between the columns, it would be inside space and they could display
whatever they wanted. The direction staff wanted to discuss with the
commission was to figure out a way to define these semi-enclosed spaces as
different from inside or outside and find a way to allow some sort of additional
display of both signage and/or merchandise to allow these people to attract
some attention to allow their business to survive. He said that if the
commission determined that in this situation that a conditional use permit is
warranted because of the architecture, then commission should direct staff to
prepare a resolution. If the commission had other ideas, staff wanted to hear
them.
Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. LOUIS LASSABATERE informed commission that his wife owns the
business and he was before commission on her behalf. He said that
thus far, he has had the pleasure of meeting three very delightful
people: Daisy Garcia, the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Alvarez and
Mr. Drell.-In-the very beginning he felt there was a misnomer attached
to what he inadvertently called a citation. He said that Ms. Garcia told
him that the rack was visual pollution and that they were conducting
business on a public sidewalk. A discount rack might be visual pollution
to some people, but he would let that go for the moment. The fact that
Ms. Garcia said that they were conducting business on a public
sidewalk was entirely erroneous. He said he was sure the ladies present
at the Commission meeting from the time they were little girls shopping
went with their mothers and a discount rack was a visual approach to
something that was extraordinary to that store, namely discounts.
When they come to the end of a season, there were so many shoes
they couldn't find a place for and they were discounted and moved out.
He has a door that is open and they have an air-conditioned
environment and he has a sign that says open and women still come by
and asked if they're open because they miss that rack. It was almost
historical and that rack goes back to the time when they were children
and it was also an indication that the store is open for business.
Assuming that there is an item that is the right size, etc., they would
take it from the rack and enter into the store into his leasehold where
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 5, 1998
there is a dressing room and all business is conducted within the
leasehold. They do not conduct any business on a public sidewalk. He
thought this was one error at which the two gentlemen he mentioned
couldn't come to an understanding on because the ordinance apparently
reads against the situation now. He wanted the commission to
thoroughly understand it. He said there was really no other way he
could display the situation. He told commission that unless they could
help him, it would bankrupt them. He said they might find that difficult
to believe and it was not that they sell that much from that rack, it was
the fact that the rack tells people that the door is open and leads them
to come in and buy other things. There was no bait and switch. It was
just an indication that the store is open for business. Giving the
commission an example of a comparable basis, he said that from March
of this year to March of last year they were down about $9,500 and
that was tough to make up, especially in this environment. When the
snowbirds left, the business was dead and he was hoping that the
commission would grant him some relief on an immediate basis so that
they could at least stay in business. He thanked the commission for
their consideration. He also mentioned that he has from merchants,
within shouting distance, eight positive testimonials to the effect that
they enjoy the rack or don't object aria look forward to seeing it there.
He said he had it available for the commission's inspection if they
wanted to see it.
Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Lassabatere was aware of the location of
the pillars and the surrounding area before signing a lease.
Mr. Lassabatere replied that if he knew then what he knows now, he
never would have allowed his wife to enter this business venture, but
since they were involved in it, he had to make the best of it and every
day was a challenge. This was a challenge now and he hoped they
could meet it in a win-win situation.
Chairperson Campbell noted that she is also in retail so she knew what he was
talking about, but if he was allowed to do this everyone in Palm Desert would
also request the same.
Mr. Lassabatere agreed, but felt that in practicality there weren't that
many people in this type of business with the combination that would
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 5, 1998
have these displays because some of the store fronts do not call for
this. Others were in a position of keen observation and a pedestrian
walkway. When this overhang that Mr. Drell so succinctly described
and with automobiles parked there as you drive by you can very easily
miss it.
Chairperson Campbell noted that everyone else would like to have the racks
out also for sale.
Mr. Lassabatere said he was only representing himself so he couldn't
speak for anyone else, but they needed the commission's help and
would appreciate it.
Commissioner Fernandez asked if the store was open seven days a week.
Mr. Lassabatere replied that they were closed on Sunday. They were
open from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
Commissioner Fernandez asked for clarification that Mr. Lassabatere was only
requesting permission for one rack.
Mr. Lassabatere concurred.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was
closed.
Commissioner Finerty stated that while she sympathized with City Lites'
dilemma, this action would be precedent setting and it was her personal
opinion that clutter of a rack would cheapen a center and the city would run
the risk of all businesses wanting racks and pretty soon centers throughout the
city would look tacky. She was against the proposal.
Commissioner Fernandez said that he was in favor of the proposal. He said he
was also a merchant and knew how tough it was and understood the troubles
City Lites was having. He was in favor.
Commissioner Beaty agreed with Commissioner Finerty. While he sympathized
with Mr. Lassabatere and understood his problem, he didn't like the
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 5, 1998
appearance of this rack and didn't want to have this as a citywide problem.
He was not in favor._
Chairperson Campbell said that she also was not in favor of something like
this. She could understand if the applicant wanted a special conditional use
for holidays or specific days to do something like this, but not six days a week
all year. She was also opposed.
Mr. Drell noted that the commission didn't have any resolutions before them,
so the appropriate action would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution. He
indicated that this might be somethingth
at could be taken upwith the Zoning
Ordinance Review Committee, but for better or worse the city is stuck with
these spaces and he said that while clutter might be a problem, centers with
a lot of vacant spaces and failed businesses were also a problem.
Chairperson Campbell suggested perhaps the Architectural Review Commission
should be told about this problem so that centers with this kind of architecture
aren't approved in the future. Mr. Drell noted that when the Desert Crossing
shopping center came in they virtually eliminated almost all the small
intermediary shops for that very reason. Their experience was that it was very
tough for the little shops to survive when dominated by the larger stores. He
said it was a problem they had to face and find a solution for and staff has
tried to induce developers to tear off the big dominate canopies or create
individual store fronts and do things to promote the success of small
businesses. Unfortunately, it has been a battle with shopping center
developers. He said that in the future, hopefully there wouldn't be any more
centers like that built.
Mr. Lassabatere requested a point of order to readdress the commission.
Chairperson Campbell granted permission for Mr. Lassabatere to speak.
Mr. Lassabatere said that since the original "charge" by Daisy Garcia,
it was that they were conducting a business in a public sidewalk. He
said he would like to think that if there are rules, regulations and
ordinances they should affect everyone. Lucky's and Say-On were
doing this very thing. They were conducting business on a public
sidewalk. People put a coin in a soft drink machine and the product is
delivered. If people put a coin in a newspaper vending box, the product
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 5, 1998
is delivered in front of them. People put a coin in the GTE telephone
unit and the service is received. That is conducting business in a public
sidewalk and he was wondering if all of these people have managed to
slip by all of this or if they all have permits. He wondered why it was
just for the smallest end of the business cycle. He said this would
practically put them out of business and it would be very tough to tell
his wife the commission's decision because all people do not put racks
out.
Chairperson Campbell pointed out that they are not allowed to put racks out.
Mr. Lassabatere said that if it was going to be allowed for him, then it
should be for everyone, and everyone in that shopping center. He
thought that all of them were in violation because he didn't conduct
business, nor has he ever conducted business, on a public sidewalk, but
there were others that do. He said he submitted photographs to Mr.
Drell and wondered what happened and if that would be taken up at
some time.
Chairperson Campbell informed Mr. Lassabatere that he could apply for a
conditional use for special sales.
Mr. Lassabatere said he didn't know what to do now. He understood
that the commission was voting against him, but now they were
encouraging him to apply for a conditional use permit.
Mr. Drell clarified that Mr. Lassabatere could apply for a temporary use permit
for special events, but that wasn't what Mr. Lassabatere wanted.
Mr. Lassabatere asked what commission suggested that he do. He was
confused. He asked what the meets and bounds were for the
temporary use permit that Mr. Drell said he could apply for.
Mr. Drell said that he was allowed ten days per year and the applicant could
pick out the days.
Upon questioning by Commissioner Beaty, Mr. Drell indicated that commission
needed to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial or approval.
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 5, 1998
Mr. Drell asked commission to state the grounds for denial or reason for the
decision. Commissioner Beaty felt an affirmative action would be encouraging
more of this to happen and in doing so they would be encouraging a real code
problem. He personally found it very visually offensive and didn't want to see
it in the city.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next
meeting. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Fernandez voted no).
Mr. Drell told the applicant that decisions of the commission were appealable
to the City Council if filed within 15 days. Mr. Hargreaves clarified that this
particular decision wouldn't be final until the resolution was adopted by the
Planning Commission at the next meeting.
D. Case Nos. TT 28701, PP/CUP 98-4 - MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP
RESORTS, LLC, Applicant
Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 13.64
acres into 12 timeshare parcels and a precise plan/conditional use
permit to construct 102 timeshare units with related amenities
for property within the Marriott Desert Springs Resort,
specifically parcel located on the north side of Hovley Lane East
between Portola Avenue and Cook Street.
Mr. Alvarez explained that the property is within the Marriott Desert Springs
Resort, specifically on the north side of Hovley Lane East between Portola and
Cook Street. It fronted on Hovley Lane East and is bounded by the Marriott
Golf Course on the remaining three sides. Zoning on the property is Planned
Residential, four units per acre and has 13.64 acres. The tentative tract map
proposal was to divide this parcel into 12 parcels which would be designed
with nine timeshare structures with a total of 102 timeshare units. The site
would also have a 10,000 square foot community facilities building. Mr.
Alvarez explained that there would be an entrance gate approximately 160 feet
north of Hovley Lane. The Fire Marshal would require a secondary emergency
access which connects to the easterly existing timeshare facilities. This would
be accomplished via a golf cart access which meanders through the golf
13
7
EXHIBIT A
City Lites
Entrance
42-335
.p
Washington St. # J
Column
ip_
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
E. Case No. ZOA 98-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to permit
mixed residential/service industrial uses in the S.I. (Service
Industrial) zone.
Mr. Smith indicated that in 1995 staff processed a similar amendment that
was applicable in the C-1 , PC and OP zones. In March 1998 they received a
request for the Service Industrial zone. Staff saw the issues as being
substantially similar and didn't have a problem with processing a mixed use as
part of a conditional use permit and recommended that appropriate
amendments be done to permit mixed use residential/service industrial uses in
the Service Industrial zone. Mr. Smith recommended that Commission adopt
Resolution 1863 recommending same to the City Council.
Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished
to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing
was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission action.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1863, recommending to City
Council approval of Case No. ZOA 98-3. Motion carried 5-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Case No. CUP 98-6 - LOUIS LASSABATERE/CITY LITES, Applicant
Consideration of a resolution denying a conditional use permit
request to allow a two foot by four foot outdoor clothing display
of women's apparel in front of the City Lites business at 42-335
Washington Street #J.
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1998
Chairperson Campbell noted that the conditional use permit was denied at the
last meeting on a 3-1 vote. Since there wasn't a resolution before them for
adoption at that time, staff was directed to prepare the appropriate resolution
for presentation tonight. That was done. Chairperson Campbell asked for a
motion.
Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he listened to the tape recording of the
meeting and was eligible to vote on this matter.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1864, denying CUP 98-6.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Beaty noted that he passed by the site today and not only did
they still have their clothing rack out, but there was another store in the same
shopping center with a rack. He asked what happens if someone is cited. Mr.
Drell said that since they were a good demonstration of the proposal, until
their appeal was finished he would allow them to remain. The other thing they
were contemplating was a "sweep". He noted that Mr. Lassabatere had
submitted pictures identifying outdoor vending machines and as far as staff
was aware the only ones that were exempt would be news stands, which
were protected under the First Amendment. Staff would be in discussions
with Code Enforcement people, the City Manager, and City Attorney relative
to the ramifications of a citywide sweep of all outdoor sales displays and
activity. He noted that they would probably be receiving an application very
soon from one of the golf cart retailers for the outdoor display of a golf cart
at Highway 1 1 1 and Presidents' Plaza. He said it would trigger a major code
enforcement effort.
B. Request for approval of revised Palm Desert Planning Commission
Bylaws
Chairperson Campbell noted that this item would be continued to the meeting
of June 2, 1998. Mr. Hargreaves stated for the record that a discussion was
held during study session and there were suggestions regarding amendments.
20
RECEIVED
MAY 2 9 1998
3/91
rf -1 'OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
f �L CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFOR �`A-a DESERT
10' `I� tim = '98 r1fl i 29 Rfl 10 52
, �" APPLICATION TO APP Y CERKS OFFICE
Nj
\4 !�
•' autieop
DECISION OF THE Pi-Aiu
(Name of Committee/Commission)
Case No. 6(i° v Meeting Date: / 1 A 1 ( 7 - / 9
Name of Appellant )OU l C • /AS S S 1 2
Dom : 1 -t- � ! P4 922r /
Address (4- .3 3' i VJI�.t 7DAf 5T eS e(e:T Phone: (740) 360. f c '
3
Description of Application:
Reason for Appeal:
F'WANC/, cC. 1.(AP6s1,11)
J / h/;Z'
Signature of Appel t
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
coo
Date Appeal Filed: ' 1`3"1j Fee Received: ��
Treasurer's Receipt #: , ` Received by:
Public Hearing Set For: ` `� Pst1 '� 2```-��g
Action taken by the City Council:
Date:
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
I ► -z -Z vn► )k9
(v Q L i/b'N1 ����- Z h
S-L 17 A-11
cv coy, 0 _91_' V ' 0 5/ f Cf
S?/naril K ?(rat
J N III
( 9 n rt- . -vnGA `� 17P� V4--L
• `v Q,Lei_At�s3 d -)-Vcaz1.5'/\ -k'W
\D nv !Qs `Jni tz5aq Warn 13 S 41
-E
?.?r) Cal 5-rvQ5-t '� a A 1 01_
- nod, LnA ��m�r �L n��r�' �rr S C' ► �C
/HcE i7 iV to -)3div/ 12/G ),-yY 5\274L 7
d09C 39) ry �V
r-v 0 c.�-v�r')/0DQC ..s
) b — rt,t/W
. 1,01/cV
,7K11,)/11);(
}479-vc- 14-is'Sexci rezy A.jg 15Jzzli7c)/ii -7-0
1-7 / r&s / v A- S 4-z-67-5 te.,4--e-/c_ ear-- e/ti
f L
o J (S
5 Wel? Whom i+ mGJ' ONCe„ •.
hav !\1 0 Cbrs'CPr/q o jfCtlory `-6
oNe isPkyt. pdC 011
offt6k Or fKIS
(Nr\C- Poddti
k% a ociSiS
ow,ter
7PPGi - ,.4, c/ P-
�� e-►vt o � c�2n ;
• •
1 '
. , .
,111/4 * :
‘, .----
\
I.
vpN ' ,
7ti
\ • ' i
I ‘
..)
cz ,=••
141%, A lc
1\, ,
•‘‘, 'N. ,
I( .....,
V ., 1 ..‘• , ,
\ , 1
Qnj ,
,A i
IlitIN
a ,
Ilk
Nik ,
-....
...,, %..
• .14'. .N..0 . ' N.
\1/4
Nik . , i - . - • : : : .
1 1
i . .
W� ' ` y's Postal Connec ' )n
Sl [NG • PACKAGING • BUSINESS SERV"- c6
<- - i - 9?
,_,
) —/ M41
j-,i; w40/v1
�S (S J D Cry
jlp , /(4,:_, . CT" TA e c,6-.:-..
./ /7).--------C- -1----
'ply.. '9fi^
� , . / 0
L.. Ie
"°z -�K i �`3F ,�. art.:' +r
'7;',A;;;', ---itt*i;',7„-.:',.5) .‘:\:,=.'..,=:':::',',-,-- ,' i'-'.':Af4".-1::t
k 5" `fi` 7 `� $% „r ,. ♦
a" t ' ^` ate k p 4s5F'KtitK
L ai 3 3` ° tit e r
'��� > y< .0 ! vt �`' �m g Sys. y.L ;Fz k h
.cc yysti``i -+ aR x' '-a�., � ,�,.; 5.z if3a it -.,.axv=Rl.. f �'i rcaTri
f..A,.1,,t `ir ;17 '`�'e 'h.. °�'F,' "eis.,�'ta"aq_ 'al t z
a e i
43-335 Washington St., Suite F • Palm Desert,CA 92211 • (760) 345-2211 • Fax (760) 345-8292
M3-R/23A7Pr',75
's_o24 km)/ _1314_
' sz _2o)�
))_.))7EDt4 Jai s� noip reap l/o 2/Q1).oP-J7P ?i9PJ0� 4 P
aq 07 sa.Wry��J JO _ cvJU) �/0P sa7Ps z2 -4a32suoD
'pa�P.�o7 s� sa.2ry �1�� 3a314 �u7p)inq �'ies� a�z u/
SdJdD AI ,�o aU0 Jo ?1��OJOkia UP 1CcpdJ7P/I 711ccp�Z
(24/3JNDd P1� -yi 110h y.Z
S'.7.,Zr7 1-1 )12 : a)/
'12gir6 ' MO IP77 z�j
13-- -iuoe7) a)7V c'SF CS
PpW1EA 'r a:l9qaC/
(86b1 1l Pll‘f
/,7)- e to
21/(/-ey -)1,e01--- oir 4 g, .
. 2P---A/PYtd.,
2117:1/ iC,41/ ' ;/(4 Alt& ...-7-2e- i/l/--G49 . /441,§.. --,,i,
leak _,erre.:_ai 1,44 7% 4ez, ,ce.4.71,--1--
-1/1.7-e/ ,A.Ar .//.1"te %
--terc -i. ce./
• , . f 44,-/(1 / 4:/r%
11042511
S �r 011
�.rt��'!!"Way
Vd
n.7rowl war
1 .
f 1 •,
J
' ...!.j
•
..,.1k,
- 4
. '
1 7 i' : 4
' MOIRIlil
44E-EW sliCitst-r.' :'" 7*-
4 . .
,..
,..„
iiii....„.....4___.----- -------'-,
!,...111ONAIANNENNa.10,04c,..,4,,,o.'44,•.•••
'
..-.
,----- -
, 111 t, .• i:
.1 -t.-------,
IIII _ • , i
. _..,...
...--" cd...s.?
•-- 1--- -• ' 1 - '
/(... ....„
...,
_
k .
_.„.. .
"....-----....... .....
F-.
;.. .'...-.',1--•.41P
I
. . •
— . .--
iw
•:-.!::.: • . . ' - --- -_.
' 11111
'''
-41
•,,
I kill :
--_,
.,....-' ..0.'"Al.
_ .
..-
EXHIBIT B
► M
•.•• ' '••.• 3/91
�► \ CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNI I v E D
,� ti : '98 f11Y 29 fill 10 52
ti�9 �" APPLICATION TO APP '�
'�`"'� yA Y C ERK S OFFICE
•• ............
9���°r ILI / - V
DECISION OF THE p�"� •
(Name of Committee/Commission)
Case No. &(IP v Meeting Date: 7(1A•ii ( 7 ' / q9 5
Name of Appellant 1oui C • G-AS SA Uf 1 2E
D 11- L [ � 922l rAddress �� -33� {�/ ,�ll�'7oN ST69'645 -r Phone: (7(50) • , -ct
3
Descril �� -
C
R easor
LoYDAtIpiq Date IS 4/57
L USE ONLY
CCU
Date Appeal Filed: -' \( � Fee Received:
Treasurer's Receipt #: co Received by:
Public Hearing Set For: -`-4*L6 S� 2`t`�g
Action taken by the City Council:
Date:
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
PLAT___..VG COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1864
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 2 FOOT BY 4 FOOT
OUTDOOR CLOTHING DISPLAY OF WOMEN'S APPAREL IN
FRONT OF THE CITY LITES BUSINESS, LOCATED AT 42-335
WASHINGTON STREET#J.
CASE NO. CUP 98-6
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
5th day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by LOUIS
LASSABATERE / CITY LITES for the above mentioned; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 97-18," in that the director of community development has reviewed the project for
compliance with CEQA and has determined that since the request has been denied, it does
not constitute a project for purposes of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did
find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the denial of said conditional use permit:
1 . The aesthetic quality of the proposed project is not consistent with the City's
aesthetic philosophy and goals for commercial areas.
2. The proposed display will create visual clutter and decrease the aesthetic quality
of the shopping environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
commission in this case.
2. That Conditional Use Permit 98-6 is hereby denied.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 19th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BEATY, FERNANDEZ, FINERTY, JONATHAN, CAMPBELL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE l / )„ 7
C
"'SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
/LLILL
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
•
.....
c r ' )4:\A:
pg
!' City of Palm Desert
q 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TELEPHONE(760)346-0611 •FAX(760)340-0574•http://www.palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: May 20, 1998
Louis Lassabatere
City Lites
42-335 Washington Street, #J
Palm Desert, California 92211
Re: CUP 98-6
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its meeting of May 19, 1998:
PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED CASE NO. CUP 98-6 BY ADOPTION
OF RESOLUTION NO. 1864. CARRIED 5-0.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community
Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
PHILIP DREL SECRETARY
PALM DESER PLANNING COMMISSION
PD/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
Recycled
Paper
1 I 11213 SAC of vd
_ L ry cloy '1Y1 �r 7€q,— 'Z )
1`7 A—L /
9Z( V? 5 f ' 0 5/ 1(5Y
5.7/00( K7 L
(b- 7f s ?'00A ?MA ry -JL
' `y e1ed/N2s3 d \c/ W
5;11 r2 / cv-104la 5.5 %1 rIt 1 od_3?) -31-U,
` \\ ni lGv'�? (-)1 1"eaq _913 C-i rare) l 3 75
?,rw' ' - ;'3dcj V ni j of Sr 5 i9 Avg 01,
no?) rIA iNc)),M?V 01, ry 71/4--awctLs Cr--; .35/__Lo
,htV75 QL -17//vIJ40 ),-yY SVjy _ ]
d c3c9 3 i ry
(-u0110-V L.0(1 3 Navp
. b ) _ �� , .