Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0820 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 20, 1991 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. IIZ. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Rick Erwood Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Phil Drell Kandy Allen Tonya Monroe Dick Folkers IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 6, 1991 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the August 6, 1991 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION There was no city council meeting since the last planning commission meeting. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR None. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PP 91-7 - ECONO LUBE N' TUNE, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to allow a 3120 square foot auto service MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 facility on Fred Waring Drive, 680 feet east of Highway 111 in the PC-3 zone. Mr. Drell informed commission that a continuance was recommended to September 17 to allow the applicant time to revise his plans and return to the architectural commission for approval . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak regarding this case. There was no one. Chairperson Whitlock asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, continuing PP 91-7 to September 17, 1991 . Carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. PP 91-8, VAR 91-2, GPA 91-2, C/Z 91-2 - MICHAEL BUCCINO AND CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments from high density residential to professional office, change of zone from R-3 (multifamily residential ) to O.P. (office professional ) , a precise plan for a 5400 square foot office building and building height variance on the south side of Fred Waring Drive between San Pablo Avenue and San Pascual Avenue. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval of the precise plan, zone change and general plan amendment and denial of the variance, noting there would be a condition on the precise plan that the building height would be 25 feet maximum. Chairperson Whitlock asked what was built to the south of the property; Mr. Drell indicated that there was a single story triplex. Mr. Drell stated that like the office on Larrea, it could be expected that applicants would avail themselves of their full rights under the code when upgrading. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Commissioner Downs asked if all other requirements had been met, other than the request for the height variance; Mr. Drell replied yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the change of zone was an upgrade in use and an increase in value to the area; Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Drell noted that no opposition had been received. He indicated there was only one potential drawback to the existing properties--the existing residences would become legal non-conforming uses and if they were to be destroyed, they couldn' t be replaced under the code, unless substantial rehabilitation was done and brought up to current aesthetic standards, then they would be granted a vested right in the existing use. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were other two story office buildings in the vicinity that had been allowed the 25 feet in height. Mr. Drell replied the building on the corner of San Pablo. He indicated that further down Fred Waring there was two and one story buildings approved. He noted that San Pablo west was backing up to single story buildings, which required different restrictions for offices. Commissioner Richards noted that from the south side there were windows looking down on a one story building. Mr. Drell confirmed that and indicated that restriction applied to single family; but indicated that an apartment building could be built there. Commissioner Richards was against a two story structure looking down into the backyards of the existing triplex, even if in the future it could be developed as another use. He felt that the same conditions should apply similar to the buildings on Monterey relative to screening windows in the rear. He also indicated that the original determination was that Fred Waring was too busy a street to keep residential, but should be developed as office professional or nor more than that on Monterey Avenue--not large office buildings. He reiterated that he did not approve of two story uses looking down on one story. Commission and staff discussed the design of the building with the parking under the building. Mr. Diaz noted that staff was recommending against the requested variance. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant would address the commission. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 MR. FRANK URRUTIA, Urrutia Architects, addressed the commission representing the applicant. He indicated that the initial concept was to maximize the amount of "* rentable space, but also noted that close to half of the building would be occupied by the owner, Mr. Michael Buccino, who is a landscape architect. He stated that the second floor of the building was designed to be his space--there would be no leasable space on the second floor. He stated that they came up with this plan because they did not want a typical two story building built right on top of the single story element. He said they were trying to be aesthetically sensitive to the adjacent properties. The idea they came up with was bridging across the driveway to allow the required parking to be located as if it weren' t there. He indicated they could take the second floor and turn it around and place it ground level with the same amount of square footage. He indicated they were not trying to gain additional square footage. He noted that the fire marshal informed them they did not have to have the 13 1/2 foot clearance for fire vehicles. Mr. Urrutia stated they could decrease the height of the building, but he did not know if it could be decreased by three feet, but could make the beam sizes shallower. As far as the windows were concerned, he indicated the windows could be eliminated or if possible, some clerestory glass on that side be permitted to allow indirect lighting. He noted that this was a landscape architect' s office and above the drive-through area was the work area. Commissioner Richards agreed with staff that there were problems with a height variance request for a building that bordered single story residential uses. He felt other options could be explored, such as an underground garage. He stated that the eight foot windows were an alternative, or similar to the Monterey office buildings. Mr. Drell felt the eight foot height was extreme, but six feet was more typical and still above eye level, which was required all along Fred Waring west of San Pablo. Mr. Urrutia pointed out on the drawing the location of the higher roof height and eight foot clerestory windows. He indicated that they could lower the ceiling height and have the clerestory windows at six feet. He stated there were no balconies on that side, only a stair exit and landing. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Commissioner Richards asked if that stairway would be used on a regular basis from the parking lot. Mr. Urrutia replied that it was a required fire exit. Commissioner Richards was concerned that this access point would be used as a main entrance. He noted that when a commercial building was trying to locate next to an existing residential development, the commission was strict to protect the residential development rights. Commissioner Richards asked what the height of the wall would be between the projects. Mr. Urrutia replied six feet. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was a 12 foot clearance for the driveway. He asked what overall height would be required to have a nine foot ceiling. Mr. Urrutia replied it might be possible to accommodate a nine foot ceiling within the 25 feet, or 26 feet. He noted that one concern was how grading would affect the site. He said they would have to drain to the street because of the lot configuration and was limited to 25 feet above the curb height. He indicated that he completed preliminary grading calculations and with a one percent slope from the back parking lot straight out, they were at least one foot and a half higher in the back already. Commissioner Richards asked what size of building would be submitted if the two story element was not allowed; Mr. Urrutia replied a 3,000 square foot single story building. `OW It was noted that the current request was for 5, 400 square feet. Mr. Drell indicated that when the office professional zone was amended, there was concern where the ground sloped away from the street and then the requirement that grades be raised to drain to the street and cited as an example the site on Alessandro where the grade of the office building ended up being four or five feet above the grade of the residences in back. He felt a conservative way of calculation was arrived at with the average curb elevation and stated that the building approved on the corner was actually below Fred Waring. He noted there was a storm drain in Fred Waring that was very deep and indicated that catch basins might be required to drain into a storm drain versus free flowing drainage. Commissioner Richards asked if there was a major problem besides economics with dropping a building down; Mr. Drell replied drainage. Mr. Urrutia indicated that he was not aware of the storm drain and the location; he only looked at surface drainage. Commissioner Richards felt there would be 5 ftwo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 a problem with the height because of the configuration. Mr. Folkers concurred that might be feasible and the applicant ' s engineer would have to look into that issue. Commissioner 'W Richards felt that the item should be continued. Commissioner Jonathan suggested approval per commission recommendation and then if he had a drainage problem then he could come back to commission. Mr. Diaz noted that in the staff report it was felt there were no grounds for a variance and was recommending denial . He indicated that the commission could proceed with the change of zone and the precise plan and deny the variance to allow the applicant to proceed. Mr. Drell noted that the matter would go to city council because of the change of zone. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Richards felt the best course of action would be a continuance and have questions answered because the question of how high the building could be in relation to the average curb line could be significant. He noted that he had grave concern with the proposed 28 feet and if it ended up being 25 feet or even 24 feet it could make a significant difference. He felt there might be something the architect or the developer could come up with. He did not feel there was any major problem with the design of the building, but would be better with a continuance. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with Commissioner Richards on some points, but felt the variance and the burden of the grading effect on the final project was on the developer. He did not feel that approval needed to be held up and agreed with staff' s recommendation that the variance be denied and the height be limited to 25 feet. He also indicated that the windows on the south side would be limited to anything six feet and above, but glass block or some other form of translucent wall would be acceptable to let in some sunlight, as long as people could not see out of it. Commissioner Downs concurred. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Urrutia if he would desire a vote now or a continuance. Mr. Urrutia informed commission that the applicant was out of town. Commissioner Richards 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 moved for a continuance. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Commissioner Jonathan made a motion to approve the findings as presented by staff. Action• Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Richards asked for clarification on the 25 feet height. Mr. Drell stated that it would be measured from the average curb elevation; the height would be measured from that curb and he would have to have a very minimum grade of slightly subgrade back where the second story would be located to achieve the 25 feet in height. Motion carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1531, recommending to city council approval of GPA 91-2, C/Z 91-2, PP 91-8, and denial of VAR 91-2 subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. ZOA 91-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for an amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P, Public/Institutional District Zone. Mr. Diaz stated that this hearing was not to discuss the pros and cons of the College of the Desert street fair, but the purpose of the hearing was to discuss the pros and cons of whether or not the city should allow open air sales in the P zone with a conditional use permit. The net result of that would be that if the ordinance amendment was adopted ultimately by the city council and enacted, then an application for a conditional use permit could be made and a public hearing on the specific permit applied for would be held before the planning commission. He stated that the ordinance was fairly simple and would amend the conditional use provisions of the P or public zone and basically that zone encompasses all public institutions of education, as well as certain other publicly owned parcels. He stated that an application for a conditional use permit would have to be made by the agency that would hold that parcel and the hearing would be before the planning commission. He noted that 7 O MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 letters in opposition had been received from the El Paseo Business Association, Cameron' s of E1 Paseo, and there was a letter before commission from the Chamber of Commerce opposing "imi the ordinance change as it was written and recommending that the ordinance change be extended to other commercial zones so that privately owned property could also apply for a conditional use permit. Staff did not have a problem with amending the wording of the ordinance to include other zones or having a hearing on those other zones. He clarified that the hearing was before the commission without the conditional use permit application because of the litigation filed against the city requesting that the city terminate the street fair at the college and in order to demonstrate to the courts that the city was proceeding, the city had to proceed with the zoning ordinance amendment. Staff had requested that the hearing be delayed so that the conditional use permit and the zoning ordinance amendment would be heard simultaneously, but those persons filing the writ did not wish to continue the matter. He requested that those present wishing to speak on the ordinance change limit their comments specifically to the issue of the ordinance change, not to the pluses and minuses of the street fair at the College of the Desert. He advised that the appropriate time for that testimony would be at the time the conditional use permit hearing was held on that specific application should this ordinance amendment be enacted. He stated that the ordinance amendment was also scheduled before the city council on August 22, 1991 because of the time constraints and if this hearing were continued, then the council hearing would also be continued. He stated that the matter would go to the city council whether the commission recommended approval or denial because the ordinance change was requested at the council level . He explained that the ordinance amendment would allow the city to discuss the issues specifically at a separate hearing. Staff recommended to the planning commission that it recommend to the city council approval of the amendment and incorporate the request of the Chamber of Commerce that the ordinance be revised to permit the use in other particular zones with a conditional use permit. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. DAN EHRLER, Executive Vice President for the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, informed commission that their board of directors met at a special meeting to 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 discuss and form a position regarding the ordinance amendment. He read for the record the action by the tow board as follows: "This communication is to inform you of the position the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has taken on the proposed City of Palm Desert request for an amendment to permitted conditional uses in the P/Public Institutional District zone. Following thorough discussion the chamber' s board of directors voted to recommend to you, the planning commission, and city council its opposition to the proposed ordinance which is on your agenda for action tonight as it is written. Instead of the proposed ordinance, we respectfully offer an alternative ordinance or additional language to the proposed ordinance for your consideration. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors recommends its support for an ordinance which would allow open air sales to both public and commercially zoned locations in Palm Desert. With this suggested ordinance, we also have deep and very serious concerns regarding the controls which should be included in the conditional use permit process. Thus we request to be included in any comprehensive review process during conditional use permit approval procedures for any open air selling applications which come to the city. We strongly believe this is a question of fairness and the implementation of very specific responsible and appropriate conditions to conditional use permits. While open air sales are less than advantageous if left uncontrolled, supporting an ordinance which would open the conditional use permit process to commercial and public zoned entities would at least put the process on an even playing field. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce believes that allowing the process to exist on an equal basis would ultimately be most beneficial to the city, our businesses and shoppers. " On behalf of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, a very sincere word of appreciation for your consideration of this suggestion and if you have any questions regarding this process or the decision of the board, we can answer them. Commissioner Richards asked for an example of what the chamber had in mind ( i.e. Town Center parking lot sale on a regular basis or one time) . Mr. Ehrler stated that they were requesting the equal application of the process by any entity; right now the way the ordinance was written it was only being 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 offered to public institutional zoned areas to come to the city with an application for a use permit to hold such an event. He felt the same opportunity should be given to any low commercially zoned entity as well . If a business or area where business is conducted wished to put on what would be considered open air selling, they would go through the same conditional use permit process. Mr. Diaz clarified that a one-time event could be approved in the present ordinance in the commercial zone with a special use permit approved by the director of community development. He stated that this ordinance was intended to be for on-going events. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Ehrler for an example of this use in the commercial zone; Mr. Ehrler replied that if there were an open air selling concept that came about by a section of town on Highway 111 (i.e. Palms to Pines shopping area) and the merchants there collectively wanted to do something that was defined as open air selling, in the same concept now being applied to the street fair, if they wanted to have it on a regular of basis or even specific months during each year, they should have the same opportunity to come to the city and apply for that opportunity to hold such an event. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Diaz if the E1 Paseo merchants wanted to hold a Saturday or Monday event and wanted to hold it in the street or parking lot, would staff still have to comply with all parking and other regulations; Mr. Diaz responded that under the special use permit provisions a special permit could be granted for a one time event. What the chamber was asking for was the same right to request of the commission the opportunity the have an ongoing event so that they could also request a street fair ( i.e. even on E1 Paseo) and there would be a public hearing on each specific request that the commission could approve, approve with conditions, or deny. He stated that the chamber was requesting that the same regulations apply to commercially zoned properties that is being granted to publicly zoned property. Mr. Ehrler concurred and indicated that at the same time they were expressing their concern about the conditions and wanted to take an active role in that process. Mr. Diaz clarified that the use would have to be done on privately owned property, not on public sidewalks. Commissioner Richards requested assurance that current ordinances regarding parking, etc. , would not be violated. Mr. Diaz concurred. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Ehrler stated that an owner of a commercially zoned area would have the same opportunity to submit an application for a conditional use permit which would be conditioned, was what they were asking for, which he felt would be equitable to both the commercially zoned property owner and the public institutional zoned properties. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that under this proposal the applicant would have to go through a conditional use permit process; Mr. Diaz concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant was on commercially zoned property, could he go through the same request today; Mr. Diaz replied no and it was clarified that the wording would have to be added to this ordinance to say that it should also be applicable to other commercial zones. Commissioner Erwood asked if there were any rational basis for distinguishing between public and commercial zones. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would accept the recommendations of the chamber, stressing that this would allow them the opportunity to ask for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Downs concurred. Mr. Ehrler stated that it was a question of fairness in applying to both entities the same process. Commissioner Richards indicated that the only way he could envision this in the commercial zone was for a developer to come in with a large vacant parcel with a lease on the land for a specific " r length of time and would segregate a portion for parking, provide public restrooms, etc. , and would mitigate any city requirements. Commissioner Jonathan suggested as an example the merchants in the Town Center coming to the city saying that their stores don't open until 11 :00 a.m. on Sundays and they would request an open air swap meet from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. , which he felt was a conceivable request, and he did not have a problem with the chamber' s request. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. DR. PAUL CAMPBELL, President of the E1 Paseo Business Association, speaking on behalf of the business community and himself, congratulated the commission on their courage and wisdom in approving a controversial country club project. He did not feel the current request was a controversial problem and stated that what was really being considered was a law. He stated that previous city leaders set up an ordinance that prohibited open air 11 %NW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 selling and they did that for reasons they thought were valid. He felt some of those reasons were that they did not want to change the image of Palm Desert to look more like Palm Springs and did not want shoddy goods or stolen items, counterfeit items or that sort of thing made available to the general public in such an' easy way. He felt that perhaps the most important part of their decision was the fact they didn't feel the general tax payer should go through tax subsidies to support open air selling on public property. He asked why the city council and staff would minimize the value of the business community, which they tended to do, and the other question was why would they rather change the ordinance than to enforce the current one that was in effect. He felt the answer was quite simple; it was politically popular and that was the only reason it was before the commission. He mentioned that when a sample ballot was received from the State for an election, it gave an estimate of cost of what new laws changed would be brought to bear upon the tax payer. Since Mr. Diaz referred to the College of the Desert and street fair, he commented on the fact that they made in the neighborhood of $300,000 per year to the alumni association. He said that they had no fight with that or with the use they put it, but nobody seemed to say anything about the loss of sales tax to the community and based on experts opinions of income around $15 million, that would mean the city would lose sales tax in the area of over $1 million per year at the current level, saying there was a cost involved which no one mentioned as far as what the tax payer had to come up with in addition to subsidizing the street fair, or public selling. He hoped that the planning commission would show the same courage and wisdom that the predecessors had when the law was established originally and commented that, "If it works, don' t fix it. " MR. SHERMAN, of El Paseo, stated that he had a small suite at College of the Desert and informed commission that they sell new merchandise and pay their taxes, and they were not over priced, and he knew of retail businesses on E1 Paseo that bought merchandise at COD, then marked it up and sold it in their stores on E1 Paseo. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Diaz reminded commission and the audience that the hearing before the commission was not on the pluses or minuses of the College of the Desert; that would be heard at a separate public hearing if the ordinance amendment proceeded. MR. TED GUSTON informed commission that he had a booth at the college street fair. He had a question about the ordinance, the city council, and the planning commission. He asked who was to justify the fact that the street fair had been in existence on that property for the last eight years. Mr. Diaz stated that the issue of whether or not the COD street fair was the same as what occurred in Santa Ana; that issue had never been decided and was not being decided at the present time. To the specific issue of those individuals wishing to stop the street fair--the Santa Ana decision was not before the city. The college voluntarily requested to apply for a conditional use permit and go through the public hearing. As far as the pros and cons and merits of the street fair and conditional use permit, the planning commission would make that decision. He indicated that if the planning commission decision was appealed, the city council would make a determination. He stated that the city would take all the testimony and consider the pros and cons and see if the application should be approved, and if approved with what conditions, or whether it should be denied. Mr. Guston stated that was not his question; he wanted to know under what conditions has the street fair been able to exist and maintain its position and be in business for the last eight years. Commissioner Richards clarified that there had been some recent court decisions relative to the city' s ability to regulate non-educational uses on public property and the city attorney had directed the city to consider this ordinance amendment. Hither to this decision, it was understood by the city that it had no ability to regulate state-owned property activities. Mr. Guston stated that if that were the case, the city had no justification to issue licenses for people at the street fair and that was in error also. 13 W.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Mr. Diaz stated that business licenses were issued merely for the raising of revenue and the issuance of a business license had nothing to do with whether a particular act was legal by the zoning regulations. Mr. Guston stated that he hoped the commission would adopt the amendment and make the street fair legal in Palm Desert. MR. MEL JOHNS informed commission that his wife has a small business at the street fair and wanted to go on record as to comments by the E1 Paseo Merchants Association Chairman being allowed to make statements that were false. He stated that the businesses were licensed and paid taxes and through the city records it would show that the State reimburses a percentage to Palm Desert. He also indicated that he wanted to go on record that the street fair had some extra things such as fund raising, and events like that, that were good for the community and felt the public at large liked the street fair and wanted the street fair to continue. MR. DAVE GEORGE, President of the College of the Desert, informed commission that they had been working for the last year with the retail establishment in Palm Desert to fabricate some type of a rational, reasonable agreement. He stated that at some time in the future he would like to respond to Dr. Campbell ' s aspersions as to the nature of the street fair merchandise. He supported the chamber' s position of leveling the field and adding the provision for open air selling on commercial properties also. MS. JUNE TERAN, Executive Director of the Alumni Association, indicated that she was informed that at one of the last commission meetings through the minutes that there were some questions about some of the issues involving the street fair and asked if it would be appropriate to address them. She noted that one question was the majority of the vendors were from out of the area and brought to the commission' s attention that at least 66$ of the vendors were from the college district and the majority from the Coachella Valley. She stated that all the vendors were licensed by Palm Desert and the State Board of Equalization. Parking was an issue that had been brought up and she stated that the college itself 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 was adding two additional parking lots and the alumni association had approved $84, 000 to put in two additional r.. parking facilities at the campus. She said they had tried working with the local merchants and because Dr. George and the alumni association wanted to improve the image of the street fair, they had worked diligently to meet with the different merchant ' s groups, the vendors of their street fair, and college staff to come up with a new image that would enhance Palm Desert. She felt the street fair had a good image, but the new image would be of a country fair, or an old fashioned image, and they had recently invested several thousand dollars for new signs and had a $25,000 promotional budget to bring more tourists to the Palm Desert area and the PR firm hired to promote the street fair and Palm Desert. She stated they were willing to work with the local merchants and members of the community to route the buyers at the street fair up to their district. She reiterated that they were trying to improve it. She welcomed calls to her at the college for anyone wishing to hear solutions and plans that the college has for the street fair. MR. QUAKE, resident of Palm Desert for the last 15 years and business owner in Rancho Mirage. He informed commission that he was the one who started this whole issue at city council, some of the reasons for not having tow enormous participation of the bad people, the retailer of the community, he went on record that after appearing at council with another group of people who were with him, that evening two of the stores that appeared with him had their windows pelted and he had three threatening phone calls which he recorded with the City of Palm Desert, and for this reason would not give his address for the record. He stated that he was reluctant to come before the commission, but the swap meet being conducted on the College of the Desert property was illegal and he felt that it had probably been illegal for the past eight years. He felt that the biggest statement he made originally was that he was not anti-swap meet or street fair. It was his pleasure for it to be done in an area that was competitive with the retail community where the rents run, not the same as a covered store, in an area that had parking, like at the Town Center or on E1 Paseo, in Cathedral City, down town Palm Springs, or in Indian Wells. As it was being conducted right now, he felt the illegality was what he had been speaking about and the 15 `AW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 fact that it was illegal and as a resident, he did not like what the chamber of commerce brought up because the next thing that would happen would be that Palm Desert would be known as "swap city" . He felt that ten acres mentioned by Commissioner Richards would be the perfect opening vehicle. He stated that the operation as enormous as it is had been running for eight years without an environmental impact report, which he felt was not to be believed. Commissioner Richards interrupted at this point and asked Mr. Quake to stick to the issue of the amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Quake said that he would like to go on record that he would like the planning commission to not vote in favor of the amendment and open air selling. Mr. Diaz clarified that he did not say that the activity at the college was illegal for eight years, but the summary by Commissioner Richards was correct regarding new legal decisions, and the specific decision on the activities currently taking place in the city had not been decided and they were trying to avoid all of that, which was the reason for the amendment to the ordinance, and then they could sit down and discuss the merits or demerits on the specific activity taking place. The amendment would give the city the right to discuss it and try to resolve those issues in Palm Desert ' s usual manner. MR. HENRY HOYLE, 73-440 Broken Arrow in Palm Desert, stated that he had two businesses in Palm Desert and had lived here and been in business since 1973. He said it was very difficult for him to quarrel with the position of the chamber, because he felt they had a unique in mind, which might be impossible to accomplish, but stated that as he observed in other cities, if Palm Desert does open up open air selling, as instituted by the College of the Desert, he was against the changes being made to allow the college to continue their swap meet and felt that Pandora' s box was being opened and the city council and planning commissions in other cities would be deluged with continual problems taking up their time because of the different problems open air selling would create. MS. JULIE BORNSTEIN, resident of Palm Desert and member of the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the commission as 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 President of the Governing Board of the Desert Community College District. She said they were not present to low debate the pros and cons of the street fair, though she wanted to make it clear that they were open to the community to do that in the appropriate forum and felt that Dr. George had attempted to deal with all the competing interests and interested groups and stated that she was also available to do that. She wanted to make their position clear that they had conducted the street fair for many years and it was a very crucial element to their funding, particularly in recent times of tight funding, and there was a new move to take more funding from education through the lottery. She said they had been conducting the use legally all these years and there was a new decision that came down regarding that affects of a street fair in another location under very different conditions, and it was their legal position that the street fair continues to remain legal even given that new court decision, irrespective of the feelings of the city attorney, which was what made lawsuits in that lawyers often have differing about the interpretation of lawsuits. She indicated she understood that the proposed ordinance was simply to give the city jurisdiction to now get involved in the street fair, because it had never had the jurisdiction to do that before, as advised by the city attorney. She indicated that the college it voluntarily submitted an application as a good neighbor, and stated that while they represent over 300, 000 people in the community college district and three different counties, their home was in Palm Desert and they prize the good neighbor relationship the college has with the city council, government, and citizens of Palm Desert. She supported the ordinance as suggested by the chamber of commerce so that it would apply to any commercial property who might wish to submit to city jurisdiction in similar activities. She noted there had been a lot said about having a level playing field and treating business entities similarly, while she believed distinctions exist because they were a non-profit, educational institution, and not a commercial enterprise, but they did not have any objections to expanding the ordinance as suggested. She said they would be willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the city so that if the ordinance was invoked, they would come back at a future time to discuss the pros and cons of the street fair and have an opportunity to correct misinformation given to 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 the commission by members of the community. She noted that even the business community was divided; the chamber of commerce had one recommendation and the E1 Paseo merchants had another on the opposite side. While the community was divided, it was their goal to do what was best for the community and preserve for themselves the fund raising option that had become a crucial part of financing the activities that were being provided to the entire community. In closing she reiterated that they do support the ordinance, especially the original ordinance, but had no objection to the expansion proposed by the chamber. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Downs stated that he had no objection, as long as commercial zones were also included. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. He noted there was a recommendation by the city attorney and felt the amendment would create jurisdiction for the city to get involved and did not pass comment on the advisability of the street fair; just a legal vehicle to get the city proper. He had no objection to the revision per the chamber of commerce recommendation. Commissioner Erwood felt it was important to note that this 'o would give the public a chance to have a forum to litigate this issue before the commission and city council and have the right to have their voices heard, rather than a having a situation existing that the city would be incapable of doing anything about. He was in favor of the recommendation. Commissioner Richards stated that he wished to address some of Ms. Bornstein comments. He concurred that the college was not being in opposition to the city' s involvement and they had done what the city asked in submitting an application. He stated that he was also involved in the economic development advisory committee and noted that committee was made up of a number of citizens and at a meeting with the majority, city manager, staff, the city attorney, and a number of outside citizens including Dave Tschopp, Diane Cox, Frank Goodman, John Ceriale, Hank Stokes, George Berkey, and Don Hedlund. He wanted the audience and staff to know that there was comment in detail and suggestions that this committee had on the merits or non-merits of this issue and if anyone wished 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 to obtain copies of those comments, they were available. He felt that Ms. Bornstein' s comments were correct; they were • trying to clear up some legal technicalities and attempting to get the issue before a public forum to allow discussion. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she had nothing further to add and concurred with the staff recommendation and recommendation of the chamber of commerce. She requested a motion. It was moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the findings as amended. Ms. Allen advised the commission that with respect to Mr. Ehrler' s request to include amendment to the conditional uses in commercial zones, it was not legally noticed and recommended that the commission only make a recommendation relative to the use in the P zone. Mr. Diaz stated that if this was the case, the commission should instruct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow the use in the commercial zones for hearing at the September 17, 1991 meeting and staff would so inform council . Chairperson Whitlock asked if this item should be continued to allow have both actions simultaneously; Mr. Diaz stated that he would inform the council in the staff report that this was the commission' s position, that if the commercial zone allowance with the conditional use permit was not included, then the recommendation would be negative. He indicated that because the commission had to proceed with the ordinance separately, the commission' s decision was approval of both the commercial and public zones to be allowed with a conditional use permit and if council were considering it only in public zones, the recommendation was no. He indicated that commission could recommend that the council continue the hearing on the P zone until the commercial zone could be heard simultaneously. Staff noted that the matter was probably going to be continued anyway due to the absence and abstentions of some council members. Mr. Diaz clarified that the commission would proceed with the P zone, he would advise the council that they would not concur without the commercial zone being included, and commission was instructing staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance for public hearing on September 17. Commission concurred. 19 vow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1532, recommending approval of ZOA 91-2 to city council subject to the addition of the amendment to the commercial zone. Commission also instructed staff to prepare that zoning ordinance amendment for public hearing on September 17, 1991 . Motion Carried 5-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES An oral presentation was given by Environmental Conservation Manager John Wohlmuth on proposed water efficient landscape guidelines. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. DAN EHRLER, Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President, spoke on the behalf of the Board of Directors regarding their Annual Planning Conference and encouraged the commission to participate on October 17 and 18, 1991. He felt the involvement of the planning commission would be beneficial in the process of planning their year, as they deal with many aspects of the city. Commissioner Jonathan volunteered his services. Mr. Ehrler indicated that the chamber was involved in Mr. Wohlmuth' s project on water efficient landscape guidelines, and noted that Mr. Wohimuth was involved in the chamber' s environmental affairs subcommittee on water. He stated that their subcommittee had done a lot of research and activity with the information Mr. Wohlmuth presented and the chamber gave its whole-hearted support to that effort and planned to be a distribution center through walk-ins, mailings to new residents, as well as utilizing their newsletter. Mr. Ehrler thanked the commission for their time and efforts for Palm Desert. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1991 X. COMMENTS .w None. XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adjourning the meeting to September 17, 1991 . Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 15 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, 9ec ary ATTEST: &t4z CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 21