Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1207 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 7, 1993 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairman Paul Beaty Sabby Jonathan Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Jeff Winklepleck Bob Hargreaves Gregg Holtz Steve Smith Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: low Consideration of the November 16, 1993 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, to approve the November 16, 1993 meeting minutes as submitted by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent city council actions of November 17, 1993 . VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 93-15 - VARNER/BANTA/ANDERSON, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments between lots 25 through 31 on Harrison Drive in Tract 23940-1 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. �"' Carried 4-0 . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS err Chairman Spiegel explained to the audience that for Public Hearing Item B - Case No. TT 27698 the applicant was requesting a continuance to the first meeting in January (January 4, 1994) to get together with the homeowners and try to work out concerns . A lady from the audience asked about the legal noticing of the hearing in the newspaper and objected that it was placed in the Desert Post instead of the Desert Sun. Mr. Diaz explained that the Desert Post was used because it was a newspaper that had legal judication. He said staff attempted to notify everyone within 300 feet on the latest equalized assessment rolls and hoped that neighbors talked with each other and informed others . He also noted that anyone could give planning staff self-addressed stamped envelopes and the agendas would be mailed to them. The lady in the audience stated that she felt that more people would be reached if the notice was placed in the Desert Sun. A. Case No. CUP 93-9 - CIRKO INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and negative declaration for �r a 5780 square foot family billiard parlor and entertainment center licensed for the sale of beer and wine at 73-608 Highway 111 . Mr. Smith explained that the building was constructed in 1986 as a furniture store with 20 parking spaces on the north side of the building adjacent to Alessandro. The proposal was for the billiard room, an entertainment room to offer darts, snacks, beer, wine and soft drinks . He noted the property was zoned commercial and designated commercial in the general plan. A conditional use permit was required as part of getting approval from Alcoholic Beverage Control . As well, billiard parlors were a conditional use in the C-1 zone. Staff considered parking and impacts on nearby properties . The ordinance required parking at a ratio of two spaces per billiard table. The facility was proposing 18 tables so 36 parking spaces would be required. As indicated, the onsite parking lot would provide 20 parking spaces, the street parking in the frontage road between San Pablo and the slip ramp at the east end of this property from Highway 111 would provide 78 additional parking spaces . Mr. Smith noted that 2 �■r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 another billiard facility was considered in the former Houston Lumber site--he stated that this was a different applicant in a new location. When staff reviewed the previous proposal an extensive parking survey was conducted for the existing Hot Pockets billiard parlor on Painters Path to see what the day time parking situation was for that facility. During the day time between 1 : 00 p.m. and 2 : 30 p.m. and between 4 : 00 p.m. and 4 :45 p.m. they had an average parking lot usage of 5 .4 and 4 . 6 vehicles . At night that level was considerably higher and their peak hours were after dinner. In the proposed location at 73-608 Highway 111 there were three nearby evening operated businesses that would share the 78 street parking spaces in addition to the 20 onsite spaces . Staff felt reasonably comfortable that the parking would not be a problem given the low evening usage of the parking. He added that he observed the parking along that stretch in mid-November on a Wednesday at approximately 11 : 15 a.m. and the street parking in front of this business was empty. He noted that this would be located near a gym facility, the Lock Shop, a realty/map shop, and the highway to the south. Proposed hours were 12 : 00 p.m. to 2 : 00 a.m. daily. Mr. Smith said that since staff ' s concern was parking, a condition was added to limit the number of ancillary tables . There would be 18 pool tables and a limit low to the number of tables with chairs for people waiting or not playing pool . Staff was suggested one ancillary table per pool table would be the limit. Mr. Smith clarified that the ratio would be one per one, so if commission wanted to reduce the number of pool tables, the number of ancillary tables would also be reduced. He noted that one letter was received from Robert and Laurie Del Gagnon, who had a realty office and map shop. Their letter expressed concern. Staff recommended approval of the proposal subject to the conditions . Commissioner Jonathan said that Del Gagnon' s letter expressed concern about the owner maintaining higher standards then existing businesses of this type. He suggested the possibility of not allowing alcohol or limiting hours of operations, particularly limiting the night time closing to 10 : 00 p.m. on week nights and 11 : 00 p.m. on weekends . Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff had any other mitigations that might alleviate those concerns . Mr. Smith stated that staff proposed in condition no. 4 that the operator be required to monitor the parking lot on a regular basis to prevent loitering to try to control this type of potential problem. Staff had not heard from the Del Gagnon' s at that point in time, but it was a concern on a previous "" 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 proposal so staff included it. He felt it should provide r some type of protection. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MRS. KAREN LESHKO, a Palm Desert resident and the applicant, stated that she was present with her husband and two business partners . She said that they formed a corporation called Cirko Inc. and they would be doing business under the name of St. George Place. She described the billiard room as being comfortable. She also described the interior decor and indicated there would be 18 pool tables (two at 4 1/2 by 9 feet, eight at 4 by 8, and eight would be 3 1/2 by 7 feet in size) . The tables would be custom manufactured and owned by them and custom made billiard lamps would hang over each billiard table. The tables would be rented on an hourly basis and there wouldn't be any coin operated tables or video games . A portion of their floor space would be used for retail items including T-shirts, gifts items and billiard accessories . They would serve a variety of beers, wine and special coffee and all patrons had to be 21 years old as dictated by Alcoholic Beverage Control and that would be strictly enforced. Satisfactory proof r■U of age and identification had to be provided by any patron coming into the establishment that did not look at least 35 years of age. Due to the 21 year old age restriction St. George Place would not become a hang out for teenagers . They would institute tight controls and at least one of them would be on the premises during businesses hours--they would not be hiring a manager to take care of the business . She felt a billiard center was similar to a health center, bowling center or golf course. The goal was to maintain and increase profits; tolerance of negative actives would only hamper their profit goals . The location at 73-608 Highway 111 would provide excellent exposure for surrounding businesses . She felt this type of recreation was highly desirable because it would provide adult recreation for citizens of Palm Desert and would keep the citizens of Palm Desert in their community for this type of recreation, rather than going somewhere else. She said they were seriously committed to their business and its success . Chairman Spiegel asked what type of food would be served. 4 r/ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 Mrs . Leshko replied snacks, popcorn, potato chips and desserts with espresso and cappuccino. Chairman Spiegel noted there would be four entrances, two from the parking lot and two in the front. Mrs . Leshko clarified that there would only be two entrances--those in the front. The ones in the back would be closed and used for emergency purposes only. Patrons would have to walk around to the front. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony. Mr. Diaz said that commission might want to consider requiring an entrance from the parking lot in the back to encourage patrons to use the onsite parking. Commissioner Jonathan felt that should be a condition of approval that the back entrances would be functional . With regard to the same issue brought up by the Del Gagnons, maintenance of the quality was a concern. He was not sure limiting the hours would be effective and he understood that serving beer and wine was necessary to the viability of this type of business . He wondered if the serving of beer and wine could be made a condition of approval so that if there were problems with inebriated clientele, the city would have a way of coming in and revoking the beer and wine permit. He asked if that was legal . Mr. Hargreaves said that commission would be preempted by state law from revoking someone' s alcohol permit. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the serving of beer and wine could be conditional on there not being any problems . Mr. Hargreaves indicated that with a conditional use permit there was an ongoing ability to recall the CUP before the commission reviewed it to make sure it was not becoming a public nuisance and if it did, additional conditions could be imposed on the project. Commissioner Jonathan asked if a specific condition should be placed that if there was a public nuisance as a result of serving beer and wine that the CUP could be revoked. Mr. Diaz said that the city had a requirement that a CUP was required for the serving of any alcoholic beverages . In order to make it easier for the city to revoke a conditional use permit if there was a problem, they would say the entire permit would be revoked, which would include this operation and the conditional use to serve beer and wine. Also, the city could control the hours of operation if there was a problem. "Mr 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 Chairman Spiegel asked if this had been reviewed by the Sheriff ' s department. Mr. Smith said staff had not received any comments from them. Chairman Spiegel questioned the necessity of the business to remain open until 2 : 00 a.m. Mr. Diaz said that a condition could be placed that the 2 : 00 a.m. closing time was approved for a six month period and if any complaints were received, then the hours would be reduced. He clarified that if there was a problem after the six months, the city could still review the hours of operation. He said another alternative was to alert the applicant that the city was concerned about what happened there late at night. Commissioner Jonathan said that with the added conditions, he would move for approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1632, approving CUP 93-9, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . w B. Case No. TT 27698 - TEMPLE CONSTRUCTION, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to re-subdivide a portion of Tract 15000-1. Chairman Spiegel opened the public hearing and indicated that this matter would be continued. Mr. Winklepleck said that he wanted to provide some clarification. Approval of this map would not result in the construction of any additional units . The tract map request was a refiling of Tract 23151 which the planning commission approved in February of 1988 . The units on the map were actually built under Tract 15000-1. After building the first six units they decided to put in a cul-de- sac road and what happened was that two years after the approval, the applicant did not get the map finaled within the time limit so it reverted back to the original configuration. The developer was refiling the map to clean up the existing situation. No physical changes to the site would take place. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 vow Chairman Spiegel noted that there was concern on the part of the residents . Mr. Winklepleck concurred. He indicated that letters had been received and he had spoken to approximately 30 people about it. Chairman Spiegel said that he assumed the developer between now and the January 4 meeting would attempt to get together with the people that live there. Mr. Winklepleck said that was staff ' s suggestion to him that he request a continuance to speak with the homeowners associations to clarify as many things as possible. Chairman Spiegel asked for a motion to continue. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, to continue TT 27698 to January 4 , 1994 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . C. Case No. ZOA 93-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to establish a definition for "fast food restaurants" . Mr. Smith explained that during the processing of the commercial complex known as Desert Springs Marketplace at Country Club and Cook Street, a condition was placed that there would not be any fast food restaurants . The city did not have a definition of fast food restaurant so that was what was being done now. He read the definition and explained that when staff started having questions coming up as to what a fast food restaurant was, staff went to council and asked them their intent; they said to come back with a definition and this was what they came up with. Staff recommended that planning commission recommend approval of the definition to city council and codify the definition for fast food restaurants . Chairman Spiegel noted that the last sentence said delivered food items would not be counted in the take out or to go category. He indicated that Domino' s Pizza would not be considered fast food because they deliver most of their food; Mr. Smith said that was correct. The question was raised because of a chinese restaurant that wanted to locate in the center. Mr. Diaz felt the concern with the shopping center wasn't the type of people the food was delivered to, but the type of people who might go and get the food. Mr. Smith said "' 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 the city did not want a loitering problem. Chairman Spiegel rj questioned the ability of staff to monitor restaurants for the 40% requirement. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. LEONARD NIEWALD, a resident of Desert Falls Country Club, said he thought the definition of fast foods was resolved by city council . Chairman Spiegel indicated this was the definition that was resolved, but it had to go through the planning commission and then back to council . This definition was exactly what was resolved by city council . Mr. Niewald said it was not quite the way he understood it and objected to a Domino' s in that center--he felt fast food was where there were no waitresses there to serve customers . He felt more study was needed on the definition. Mr. Diaz stated that this matter would be before the city council because it was a zoning ordinance amendment and if r, Mr. Niewald provided his address, staff would see to it that he received notice of the council meeting. A definition was needed if the city was going to disallow fast food restaurants . The particular issues raised warranted some study and would be reviewed between now and the council meeting. Mr. Niewald said that he was already on the list to receive agendas for planning commission and city council, but felt the planning commission was the primary place to discuss these things, not at city council . Mr. Diaz said that what he was recommending to the commission was that the matter go on to the city council because they have to act on it and the matter had been reviewed by the council . He clarified that he had asked for Mr. Niewald' s name and address because he did not want to assume staff already had it and wanted to make sure he had the notice on this particular hearing. Mr. Niewald still felt that the planning commission was the place to resolve the "natty gritty" . 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 r„ Chairman Spiegel said that because it came up for a particular development, it was decided that the city needed to establish a definition for fast food restaurants . This was the one that was handed back to the commission from city council . Mr. Smith indicated that it went to city council three times . He noted that on the last page of the staff report there was a state definition of fast food outlet, which came back to the primarily take out or to go basis . That was essentially where the city began in its discussion and then evolved as the city attorney, staff and council reviewed it. This was how it evolved up to this point, but it could evolve further. If commission had other direction for staff to look at they would entertain it. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the elimination of the last sentence would solve the concern expressed, specifically if this had come up to address that one corner. Mr. Smith said it might solve this gentleman' s problem at the expense of the other people who spoke to council and got them to add that sentence in. Mr. Smith said there was no Domino' s Pizza proposed for that center at this time. Mr. Diaz stated that people that were just in the delivery business were not going to pay the higher rents to locate there. There was a Domino' s Pizza in town that delivered to the entire city. Since their business was not to attract people coming in off the street, they would locate where the rents were lower. As far as the to go category, one of the major speakers at the city council was a person who wanted to open up a chinese restaurant, which provided food to go. In terms of fairness, that was why it was put in. The developer knew what not to put in that center. Commissioner Jonathan asked if a condition that was implemented now could be applied retroactively to a prior condition. Mr. Hargreaves answered that if there was no definition on the books and it was subject to debate as to what the definition might have been, the definition at this point could be construed a clarification of what was already on the books . If it was clear that the definition somehow changed the substance of the statute, then there would be a kind of retroactivity. Commissioner Jonathan felt they were there to address the definition of a fast food restaurant, not to decide if a particular shopping center would have a Domino' s Pizza. That was an issue that would be addressed at another time. As far as a valid definition of a fast food restaurant, he saw no problem and would be prepared to moved for approval at the appropriate time. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor or opposition to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Whitlock said that she agreed with Commission Jonathan and would second his motion. Commissioner Beaty also agreed. Chairman Spiegel said he did have a problem. There was a clear difference between a McDonald' s and a Ruth' s Chris and Domino's fell between the cracks . A chinese restaurant did not seem to do most of their business delivering, but with take out it was people picking it up. If 40% of their business was take out, so be it. He liked what Commissioner Whitlock said earlier to eliminate the last sentence that delivered food items should not be counted in the take out or to go category. He considered a Domino's Pizza to be fast food. Commissioner Beaty asked if the intent was to prevent loitering and trash; Mr. Diaz felt that some of the people were trying to prevent certain types of customers . Commissioner Beaty said he had never seen anyone take out chinese food and throw the cartons on the ground, or pizza containers. With Domino's the concern would be directed more toward the traffic and the cars racing in and out of the parking lot. Commissioner Jonathan stated that there was a distinction because Domino's was a food delivery service, not a McDonald' s or Jack in the Box that was a fast food facility where people sit and eat there or take their food out. Domino's manufactures food and delivers it and he did not consider them a fast food restaurant and did not belong in the fast food restaurant definition. Mr. Smith noted that when the condition was imposed, the concern was loitering--they did not want the wrong element loitering at the center. Chairman Spiegel indicated that was one reason the movie theater was withdrawn. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-1 (Chairman Spiegel voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1633, recommending approval of ZOA 93-2 to city council . Carried 3-1 (Chairman Spiegel voted no) . 10 ri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 D. Case No. C/Z 93-3 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, Applicant Request for approval of a negative declaration and change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential) to P (public) for a three acre site located 1400 feet north of the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue. Mr. Diaz explained that the reason for the change of zone was that Southern California Edison Company wanted to make sure that people who were going to develop around them knew exactly what the plans were to build a substation. Staff concurred with that. When Edison decided to proceed with their substation, they would have to come in with a precise plan of design and elevations at that time. Staff recommended approval of the change of zone, which was consistent with the master plan of design. He indicated that one letter was received from Mr. Messick whose concern was the appearance of the site when developed and staff would make sure that was done right. He thought the property owners in the area realized that without this substation going in, they would have a problem getting power. Staff �..,, recommended approval of the zone change. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. KERMIT MARTIN, Area Manager for Southern California Edison, 44-425 Town Center Way. Mr. Martin felt that Mr. Diaz did a good job describing the reason for the request for the zone change. He said they periodically review their plans to determine future needs and it was obvious that the north sphere area would be a site where development will occur and they did not have distribution facilities for most of that area right now. It would not be practical to extend circuits from the existing stations to serve this area. From experience, he found that once an area like this began developing and the need for a station developed before they anticipated, they had a great deal of difficulty locating a site in residential neighborhoods where it was not anticipated and development had already occurred. They decided to go ahead and purchase the site and hold it until it was needed and development occurred. They felt a real need to identify the site for anyone that might want to purchase property in the "� 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 area so that there were no surprises . The reason that r■/ site was selected was because it was centrally located in that vacant area and would be in a good position to serve the area as it developed. They had existing transmission lines passing by the site right now, so there would not be a need for additional transmission lines to the site at the time they built the substation. When they get ready to develop, they will bring in a development plan and at that time they would design it to fit in with the adjacent development. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she had no problem with the proposal . Commissioner Beaty commended the applicant for their foresight. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1634, recommending approval of C/Z 93-3 to city council . Carried 4-0 . VIII . MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Whitlock thanked public works for responding to the repair of the light standard on San Pablo. Chairman Spiegel concurred that Mr. Folkers did a good job in responding in a timely manner. Commissioner Beaty noted that the traffic signal was 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1993 working within a- couple of days . Chairman Spiegel directed staff to relay the commission' s appreciation. 2 . Mr. Diaz handed out a draft ordinance that would permit day care centers between six and 12 children after meeting certain criteria. He explained that this would be coming to the commission at a future date as a public hearing item. 3 . Chairman Spiegel noted there were no items scheduled for the December 21 meeting, so the next meeting would be January 4, 1994 . XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting to January 4, 1994 y minute motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned 8 : 10 p.m. Apf evw 1q. RAMON A. DIAZ , ec ary �., ATTEST: ROBERT A. SPIEGE , C ratan Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm %NW 13