Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1115 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 15, 1994 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE taw I • CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Bob Spiegel Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Phil Drell Bob Hargreaves Dick Folkers Steve Smith Tonya Monroe low IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the October 18, 1994 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the October 18, 1994 meeting minutes as submitted by minute motion. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz indicated that no October 27 and November 10, 1994 city council items impacted planning commission. VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PM 24255 - EDC CONSULTANTS, Applicant Request for a first one-year time extension of a parcel map which was originally approved in the county to divide 173 acres into 100 commercial/ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 industrial lots on property located southerly of Dinah Shore Drive extended, easterly of Monterey Avenue, and southwesterly of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PM 28059 - FUSCOE ENGINEERING/THE PRICE COMPANY, Applicants Request for approval of a two (2) parcel tentative parcel map of the existing 16 . 99 acre Price Club site north and west of the Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore intersection. Mr. Smith explained that the request was to divide a 2 .2 acre parcel from the existing 16 . 99 acres; it did not include any .r of the existing parking. It was an existing graded pad that had been developed with the Price Club through the county and the 2 .2 acre site would be used for a future tenant; right now staff did not know who that tenant would be. He noted that the property was zoned regional commercial which would provide a wide range of commercial uses . He stated that for purposes of CEQA, the county conducted several EIRs during their processing of those developments in that area, most specifically EIR #96 of the County of Riverside applied to this site, so the site had been previously assessed. Staff recommended approval . Commissioner Spiegel asked for and received clarification as to the location and what uses could be allowed. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN OLIVIER, from Orange California, stated that he was present to answer any questions . Commissioner Spiegel asked if they had a tenant that wanted to locate there. 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 Mr. Olivier replied no, there was not a tenant in mind at this time. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1667, approving PM 28059, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 94-6 - JAMES R. FETRIDGE FOR G. MENDOZA, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a two phase 10,220 square foot single story industrial building on a 28,216 square foot lot at the northeast corner of Ritter Circle and Merle Drive. Mr. Smith stated that the request was for a single story industrial building, with essentially warehouse activities with ancillary offices . Access was from Merle and Ritter Circle, which created a semi-circle driveway with parking located on either side of the driveway. The parking complied with the warehouse standard for the area. The building architecture and landscaping was reviewed by architectural review commission and they were not satisfied with the architecture. They were looking for revision to the west elevations to remove the tile roof sections and replace them with single story plaster or stucco that would extend the full length of the building. They were also looking for relocation on the trash area on the south side to move it more into the center of the site and create trash recycle areas which would comply with city requirements . As well, they were looking at the landscape plan to comply with the parking lot tree ordinance to provide a more drought tolerant theme with drip irrigation. He also noted that a letter was received from Holmgren Incorporated which covered a couple of the same concerns . Mr. Smith explained that occupant load on the building was 20 persons and the proposal was a class 3 %no 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes . Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions and conditions outlined by the architectural review commission. He noted that it would be going back through ARC for approval . Commissioner Spiegel asked why the item came to the planning commission before receiving ARC approval . Mr. Smith explained that the item had already been advertised in the newspaper and that the lead-in time was not sufficient to allow the applicant to go back through ARC. Commissioner Spiegel noted that in the staff report staff mentioned a parking problem because of the rock supplier that had property that blocked the street. He asked if it was part of the conditions of approval to resolve that. Mr. Smith explained that was not something this property owner would be responsible for--when he visited the site, he observed that situation and indicated they would end up having to find parking for those cars because those spaces would not be available. Commissioner Spiegel asked if that was the city' s responsibility; Mr. Smith said that it was the responsibility of the employer who was employing the people parking there. Commissioner Spiegel asked that to make sure that the parking problem that exists today did not exist if this project went forward, who would make sure that would happen. Mr. Smith felt it would take care of itself--once the construction activity began on this site, the spaces would not be available. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the 21 spaces were provided on the basis of 2 per 1,000, which was the industrial use minimum standard; he asked if there was a mechanism for allowing for the partial office use. Mr. Smith stated that the city has typically allowed up to 20% where it was obviously a warehouse use with an ancillary office; he said that condition number 5 required that all future occupants would have to comply with the parking ordinance. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that only when the 20% office use was exceeded did the office parking requirement begin, which was not the case in this instance. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JAMES FETRIDGE, the architect, stated that he was representing the owner. He said their idea was to develop an industrial building to attract smaller businesses that wanted a place to store tools and equipment. He indicated a restroom facility was �1 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 provided for each unit; there would be a total of seven units--four now and three in the future. He said they located the buildings on the east side of the property because the parking requirements and undulating curvature of the property line on the west side made it a problem to accommodate the required parking. He stated that ingress and egress were from Merle Drive on the south and Ritter Circle on the west. He felt the existing buildings when they were approved must have had a parking requirement which for some reason no longer seemed to apply. Their employees parked perpendicular to the curb to get the most number of cars . Ritter Circle was a wide space for a turn-around. If this building went up, the driveway entrance would interrupt a lot of the existing parking, although he felt that areas along Merle Drive could accommodate that extra parking. He described the building setbacks, elevations and landscaping treatment. He felt the primary concern of the architectural commission was elimination of the tile roof and he would present a more contemporary design. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the phasing. Mr. Fetridge replied that the project would be two phases and the first phase would be for about half the project. Commissioner Spiegel noted that there was another question in the letter from Mr. Holmgren about the trash enclosure on Merle Drive. Mr. Fetridge stated that they would attempt to fit it into the west side of the property where the other one was located and he would work with the architectural commission on that. Mr. Diaz noted that planning commission could also place a condition of approval as to the location of the trash enclosure. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. ROBERT SOLOMON, a 50% owner of the building on Ritter Circle which was across the street from this proposal, said he was glad that others realized that there was a huge parking problem there right now and with the development of this new piece of property, they would lose about four parking spaces . He said that ti.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 their parking lot was full and they used it for their r employees and visitors/customers . The parking situation was acute because there were diesel trucks double parked in the streets . He was very concerned about the parking. His technicians sometimes had to park around the corner. He asked if it was possible for the owner/developer to give up some of his greenbelt area and add more parking spaces on that property. He stated that he would like to see as much parking on the property as possible. He indicated that when the existing buildings were built, there was a certain number of parking spots and he knew that the other property owner there did not allow his employees to park there unless they were in management. Commissioner Spiegel noted that much of the parking was taken up by a rock supply business . Mr. Solomon concurred; he said it was a marble business and he was adjacent to them. That owner had his own diesel trucks, he brought in big sheets of marble and parked them for four or five hours during the day, plus he did not want his employees parking on his property. He felt there was an acute problem there. Commissioner Spiegel asked if it was the rock supply business the one that was creating the problem. Mr. Solomon replied yes . Commissioner Spiegel asked if staff could do something about that; Mr. Folkers replied yes . Commissioner Spiegel advised Mr. Solomon to contact Mr. Folkers if something was not done. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Beaty stated that he would move for approval . Commissioner Spiegel asked if that included the conditions of the architectural commission; Commissioner Beaty concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff . Chairperson Jonathan stated that he had concerns about adding to the parking problem and he felt that 21 spaces for this project were not enough. He acknowledged that 21 spaces was the minimum ordinance requirement, but with seven separate offices, three spaces per unit was not enough if there was a bookkeeper, a receptionist, an owner and one other employee-- all the parking spaces were already used up. There weren' t any spaces left for customers . He felt they were just adding 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 to the existing parking problem. Also, he felt the Merle Drive frontage needed to be set back, because although it was the side of this particular building because of the odd configuration, it was the front for all other buildings on Merle and it would be inconsistent to have a shorter setback because that building would "jut out" compared to all the other buildings on Merle. He felt it should be set back further. Finally, he felt the status of the project was uncertain and they had not seen a drawing that complied with the architectural commission' s requirements, the trash facility had to be moved, and the project right now was not in compliance with the parking lot tree shading ordinance. He said that he would like to see how they dealt with that and if there would be a loss of parking spaces, less landscaping. He felt the project was not at a point where the commission should approve it. Commissioner Whitlock noted that in the past the commission has approved projects subject to the approval of the architectural commission. She felt that if the commission approved the project subject to the recommendations of the architectural commission that would be sufficient and the project would not have to come back to planning commission. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he could go along with that, but he still had a problem with the parking. The reason he felt differently was that in this particular case he felt there was a possibility that the concerns might change the layout significantly enough that the commission might want to look at it, particularly with relocating the trash areas and adding landscaping. He still had a problem with the side setback which he felt should be in compliance with the front setback and with the lack of parking. Commissioner Spiegel noted that the parking met the criteria set by the city for industrial uses and he did not feel that the commission should penalize the developer when he met that criteria. Chairperson Jonathan felt that the criteria was a minimum requirement and the commission had the discretion to require more. Mr. Diaz clarified that the ordinance set forth the criteria. It was minimum criteria. In terms of placing additional criteria on the development, he believed that the city was limited by the ordinance in terms of placing additional criteria that would curtail a project. If a developer were coming in and the landscaping requirement was 20% and he provided 30% and the minimum parking requirements, then staff could require them to reduce the landscaping and provide additional parking. What he was hearing was that people wanted additional parking, not r.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 because of the square footage involved, but the way it was being divided. He stated that was not provided by code; he did not think that was wise because of the development that has already occurred and they would be hard pressed legally. Staff could not recommend that either; he felt it would not be right to put the burden on this individual . If the applicant could still meet the minimum landscaping requirements and come up with an additional two spaces, then staff would work with him on that. Mr. Hargreaves said that generally speaking, the commission was allowed to condition approval of a project on a particular project mitigating whatever impacts that could be identified and if there was sufficient evidence in the record that a particular project would have an impact on parking requirements that were above minimum requirements in the ordinance, the commission would be within its discretion to impose additional parking requirements . Mr. Diaz noted that it would have to be impacts from this particular project; Mr. Hargreaves concurred stating that they have to be the impact of the project--it was not the responsibility of this project to solve impacts created by other projects . Commissioner Spiegel noted that it appeared to be the rock supply business that was causing the problem. Chairperson Jonathan felt that the problem was caused by the function of only requiring only two spaces per 1,000 square feet. He felt that problem could be found up and down both sides of the Cook Street area. He felt that when another project was allowed at the 2/1,000 square feet, it was only adding to the existing problem instead of solving it. Mr. Smith stated that the problem was that there was a tremendous amount of outdoor storage at the marble place where there were parking spaces marked. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was not limiting his concerns to Ritter Circle or Merle Drive. He was talking about the entire service industrial zoning throughout the Cook Street area. He felt there were severe parking problems throughout the entire area that was a direct result of having: A) a 2/1, 000 standard; and B) illegal conversions from warehouse to office use. He stated that a possible way to mitigate that in the future was not to require the additional office parking for over 20%, but for any degree. If there was 10% office use, then 10% should be required at the 4/1,000 standard. Mr. Diaz stated that part of the reason there was development in that area and the people who were already out there developed was because of the parking standards as they were under the county and the city. He felt this would say to the ones out there that they would have no problem because they 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 "r developed before the city decided to do something about the situation. The area was part of the redevelopment project area #3 and he felt that could be something that the redevelopment project could look at, which was providing additional parking while there was still vacant land out there and doing something about it. He felt the commission might want to consider a recommendation to instruct staff to approach the redevelopment agency to look at establishing some kind of off-street public parking area on the vacant land in the area under redevelopment project area #3 . He did not want to say to someone who had undeveloped land that they could not develop just because the others were there before them. If they were to do that, he would like to find a way to handle the buildings there now. Chairperson Jonathan noted that this issue was discussed about three years ago. He felt the resolution at that point was to have the city conduct a study of the illegal uses out there and talk to those people. If they were offices already, the city has not shut them down; more parking spaces couldn't be created, so it was a difficult problem. By saying that those people got in under lesser standards and therefore harsher standards could not be imposed on new construction was not doing the community a service. The city %MW knew there was a problem and part of the planning process was a dynamic one so that they could handle problems as they occur. He suggested that commission ask staff to study the problem and within three months or so come back to the commission with thoughts and three or four alternatives that would solve the parking problem in the Cook Street area. Mr. Diaz noted that there were other alternatives such as assessment districts to provide additional parking. Staff was concerned about giving existing business undue benefits and penalizing those that happened to be caught at the wrong time. He said staff could come back in three months with potential solutions including redevelopment agency assessment districts . Commissioner Beaty did not feel the problem was quite as severe as described and noted that he had been a business resident in the Velie Street area for ten years and there were pockets of problems that always related to a particular business, which is what he felt needed to be addressed to solve the immediate problem. Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. Motion Carried 5- 0 . tow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1668, approving PP 94-6 , subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . C. Case No. CUP 91-16 Amendment - OMRI AND BONNIE, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit amendment adding 600 square feet of space to an existing restaurant to allow an expansion to the kitchen area and add eight additional seats, located at 73-675 Highway 111 . Mr. Drell stated that the present size of the kitchen did not allow them to have a dishwasher so they had been confined to serving on plastic plates and utensils . They had a company that would recycle their plastic ware and that person had recently gone out of business . It was a very nice restaurant and the applicants wanted table service comparable to their food. He noted that in the site plan most of the expanded area was taken up by the kitchen. There would be additional room for four small tables and eight additional seats . Staff inspected the parking area in front of the restaurant--this was unique in that it has its own on-site parking in addition to the parking available in President' s Plaza. There was between eight and 12 vacant places presently at lunch time. Staff anticipated the most obvious problem was that this was not "in season" and staff typically liked to review new restaurants or expansions in season when more people were in the area. Staff recommended that the additional seats not be added at this time for lunch service, but could be added at dinner since most of the area retail stores were closed at that time and there was adequate space. This limitation would be until the in season condition could be evaluated. Staff recommended approval with that condition. Commissioner Spiegel asked how that condition could be accomplished and if staff would monitor it every day. Mr. Drell explained that they would require it; if a parking problem developed staff would see if there were extra seats being used and the condition would be enforced. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 MR. SAUL JACOBS, stated that he was representing Omri and Boni and was a patron of the restaurant. He stated that they were a very successful small restaurant. They were taking over a vacant adjacent store that the city would approve two parking spaces for automatically. Their concern was the limitation on the lunch versus dinner hours and did not feel it was a realistic situation. They felt there was sufficient parking. By allowing them to expand they would be serving the public in a nicer ambiance situation rather than using plastic plates . Commissioner Spiegel asked what percentage of the business was take out. Mr. Jacobs replied 10%-15% . Mr. Drell clarified that the condition was that the parking be reviewed in season and if there was not a problem, staff could return to the commission with a report that there was not a problem. Mr. Jacobs said they were talking about a small amount of parking and they were opposed to the restriction. At the most there would be six additional parking spaces needed at lunch time. Commissioner Spiegel noted that most of the parking was in back of Las Casuelas . Mr. Jacobs felt there was a lot in front also. There were 14 spaces in the front in addition to the frontage road spaces in addition to the back area. Most people tried the front before going into the President ' s Plaza parking area. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she was not in favor of splitting the number of seats between lunch and dinner. She had been at the restaurant and did not see a parking problem. She felt there were so few spaces needed and she would like to see them complete their whole expansion and not cut it off at lunch. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that condition no. 3 of the conditions of approval would then be deleted. Commissioner Whitlock concurred. She noted that if a problem occurred, the issue could return to the commission and they could be cut back to 28 seats . Mr. Drell stated that 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 typically to make the findings a staff person had to make an absolutely affirmative statement based on actual knowledge. He did not have a problem with the condition being deleted. Commissioner Beaty agreed that it made more sense and the applicant was on notice that there would be a possible review and cut back if a problem occurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1669 , approving CUP 91-16 Amendment #2 , subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . D. Case No. CUP 93-3 Gerald Ford/Cook Street - RICHARD ODEKIRK, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 25+ acre multi-use, pay for play recreation facility to be located on 25 r1{ acres of City of Palm Desert owned land zoned PC-2 and PR-5 at the southeast corner of Gerald Ford (extended) and Cook Street (extended) . Mr. Diaz stated that he would like to turn the matter over to the city attorney because of comments he received before the meeting started. Mr. Hargreaves stated that just prior to the meeting he was presented with a letter dated November 14 , 1994 from a Mr. Stan Greene and Judge Einbinder. The letter basically constituted a challenge to staff ' s recommendation that this project be approved with a negative declaration. In his opinion there was a threat of litigation and he recommended that the commission adjourn to closed session to consider the possible ramifications . The closed session would be under Government Code Section 54956 . 9 (b) which was pending litigation. In order to do so, commission would have to add a closed session to the agenda which would take a two-thirds vote of the members . It would be an agenda add on the grounds that this was an item that arose after the agenda was posted regarding which immediate consideration was necessary. f 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 If the commission felt comfortable making that finding, he suggested a vote be taken and the meeting be adjourned to closed session. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, to add closed session to the agenda by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . Chairperson Jonathan announced that the commission would break for closed session. The time was 7 : 55 p.m. Chairperson Jonathan reconvened the meeting at 8 : 12 p.m. and stated that on the advice of counsel, the commission would be voting to continue this matter. He noted that the city council on November 16 would be reviewing this matter as well as the application for the sports complex in Section 4 . Because this meeting was publicly noticed, the public testimony would be opened; however, he urged that those present consider postponing their testimony either to November 16 before the city council, or to the time when the planning commission would be addressing the matter. Again, the commission would be voting to continue the matter and would not be making a decision tonight. He felt the motion would be to continue the matter to December 6, 1994 , which was the next planning commission meeting. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant or anyone present wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. JUDGE ARNOLD H. EINBINDER, Retired, 549 Desert Falls Drive East in Palm Desert. He requested that the planning commission put into the record the letter dated today that was initiated and submitted to the commission by Mr. Greene and himself. Chairperson Jonathan stated that the letter was automatically part of the record, but his request was noted and commission would comply with that request. MR. STAN GREENE, 362 Muirfield Drive in Desert Falls, asked how this matter would move to the city council for them to take action when it required planning commission action first. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the city council had on its agenda consideration of this particular project November 16, so the 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 t city council could discuss the matter and could act on the project as far as the north sphere project was concerned, but it would not be able to make any final decision with respect to this site until it had been considered and final action was taken by the planning commission. Mr. Greene said that it was his understanding that there were two items : one, this project located in two different locations (one on Cook Street and Gerald Ford and one on Portola south of Frank Sinatra) . Mr. Diaz stated for the record that there were two projects . It just happened that there was one applicant for two projects . Mr. Greene said that the council could hear both items, but could take no action on the Cook Street site tomorrow night. He asked if that was correct--they could take action on the Portola site but not on the Cook Street site. Mr. Hargreaves stated that was correct. MR. HANK GEROMA, a Desert Falls resident, requested that a point be clarified--it was his understanding that the planning commission would make a recommendation to the city council and he did not know if their recommendation would be that an EIR study and report be made and prepared or not. It appeared to him that that recommendation should come from the planning commission to the city council . He asked if such a recommendation would be made or if planning commission would recommend that an EIR study and report not be made. Mr. Hargreaves stated that if the matter was continued, there would be no recommendation one way or the other. The planning commission would not have acted on the matter yet. Mr. Geroma stated that at some point it would have to be acted on. He asked if there was another planning commission meeting set and if so, on what date. Mr. Diaz stated this hearing would be continued to December 6 , 1994 . He noted that if staff had received this letter a week or two ago, staff would have had an opportunity to respond to it and the planning commission could have made a decision. To have these issues brought up this extensively at this time, staff could not address them. Commission would 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 continue the matter, but it was also scheduled for public hearing tomorrow at the city council meeting and they could decide to take testimony or not, but as the city attorney indicated, the council could not make a decision on the conditional use permit at this location. Mr. Geroma asked if at the conclusion of the December 6, 1994 planning commission hearing, the planning commission would advise them of their decision to recommend or not recommend and EIR. Mr. Diaz stated that he did not know what the vote would be at that time or the action. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the application before them was for a conditional use permit. Eventually the planning commission would vote to either grant or deny the application. MR. ED BYK, 57 Birdie Way in Palm Desert, asked if tomorrow night the city council could approve construction on the Portola site which would make any further consideration of Cook Street unnecessary. Chairperson Jonathan stated that was a possibility. The council could take action on the Portola project. Mr. Diaz noted that the Cook Street hearing was a totally separate hearing; whether that would make Cook Street totally unnecessary he did not know--that would be up to the applicant. Mr. Byk asked if council approved the Portola site, what would be the point of considering the Cook Street site. Mr. Diaz stated that was up to the applicant to withdraw the Portola site or go ahead with it. He felt Mr. Byk was asking for a guarantee that neither staff nor the commission could give him. Mr. Byk asked if the project was approved at Portola and the applicant did not make further request for Cook Street, if the matter would be dead and would stay at Portola. Mr. Diaz replied that if the applicant withdrew the Cook Street site, it would be dead there; if he withdrew the Portola Street site, it would be dead there. He noted that what the city attorney had said was that tomorrow night the o.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 council had the ability to make a decision on the Portola site, and the Cook Street site was being continued to December 6 by the planning commission. At that time they could make a decision or ask for further information on the Cook Street site. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the EIR for Section 4 was before the city council tomorrow night; Mr. Diaz replied yes, the EIR for all of Section 4 and the conditional use permit for a sports complex on Portola. MR. CHARLES PERONE, 374 Oakmont in Palm Desert, stated that he would like to have the applicant explain to the residents what his plans were if the Portola site was denied by council . Chairperson Jonathan stated that the applicant could choose to address the commission or not; what the commission was trying to do was to simply continue the matter and give everyone present an opportunity for public testimony, but at this point the commission would continue the matter to December 6 , 1994 as was discussed earlier. At the same time, he wanted everyone informed that the council would be considering this matter on their agenda November 16 . Mr. Perone stated that he just felt it would be nice if the applicant would make himself clear at this time. Mr. Diaz said that in fairness to the applicant and all involved today, right before the hearing the commission received a ten page letter along with the threat of litigation. Therefore, the applicant could not address it and staff could not address it. That was why the matter was being continued to December 6 . Chairperson Jonathan re-emphasized that the commission just received this letter and it was placed before them tonight. Mr. Greene asked to correct a statement that was made. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Mr. Greene had already addressed the commission and commission would like to give others an opportunity to speak. Commission would then reconsider additional testimony. MR. MERV LIMMERMAN, 338 Desert Falls Drive East in Palm Desert, stated that he found some of the comments by Mr. Diaz to be very confusing and he asked for 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 clarification. It was his understanding that there was one project being proposed and there were two possible sites . Some of the comments by Mr. Diaz made it appear to him as though there were two different projects . He asked for clarification. Mr. Diaz explained that when a conditional use permit was given, the conditional use permit "ran" with the land. In other words, if someone else came in later and picked up that piece of property, they could develop the conditional use permit. From a legal standpoint, although one individual was applying for the conditional use permit, the conditional use permit ran with the land and if someone bought property from the individual and developed whatever that use was, whether it was a school or church or in this case a pay-for-play softball complex, if they agreed to the conditions they could develop. They were talking about two different projects on two different sites . It just happened that in this case that there was one applicant for both of those projects . Mr. Limmerman felt that it was the desire of the applicant to build one project. Mr. Diaz agreed that the applicant' s desire might be to build %NW one project, but if the conditional use permits were approved on both sites, then someone could build the other one. He acknowledged that the chance of two being built was slim, but it was a possibility. MRS . DEBBIE BYK, a resident of Palm Desert, stated that since the meeting of the planning commission would take place December 6, she asked if it followed, and hoped it would not be a day of infamy, that the council would meet on December 7 . She asked if that followed suit. Mr. Diaz replied no. Mrs . Byk asked when council would meet after the next planning commission meeting. Mr. Diaz explained that the council was meeting tomorrow evening (November 16 ) and they would be considering the Section 4 site on Portola and the conditional use permit. This matter was also before them tomorrow night. They had numerous options before them. They could approve the Section 4 site, they could continue that hearing and take testimony on the Cook Street site, but they could not make a decision 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 on the Cook Street site until after the planning commission made a decision. Mrs . Byk asked if Mr. Diaz knew agenda-wise when the next council meeting would be after November 16 . Mr. Diaz replied that the next regularly scheduled council meeting was December 8, but it could not be determined right now if this matter would be on that December 8 agenda. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the council regularly meets on the second and fourth Thursdays of every month. Mr. Diaz noted that the council could continue this specific matter to December 8 if they so desired. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Mrs . Byk should be able to find that out tomorrow night. MR. LON RUBIN, 77-570 Springfield Lane in Palm Desert, asked Mr. Diaz about the procedure for the next planning commission meeting. He said that if they assumed the commission would either approve or reject this site, then that decision could be appealed to the city y council . He felt that what the previous speaker was f driving at was if that was the case and the matter was appealed to council, what was the period of time that had to elapse before council would hear it on appeal or if it could be appealed within a day or two after the planning commission action. Mr. Diaz explained that the normal procedure was that the commission decision was final unless called up or appealed to the council within 15 days . There was an unusual situation in that it had already been scheduled for hearing before the city council because there was a development agreement involved in this, which was not before the commission at this time. He could not give Mr. Rubin a decision on what he was asking. All he could tell him was that council would be looking at this site tomorrow night as well as Section 4 ; they could make a decision on Section 4; they could continue Section 4 ; they could continue this matter to December 8--but they could not make a decision on this matter tomorrow night. He explained that yes, the matter was before the council but they could not make a decision until after a decision had been made by the planning commission. Mr. Rubin asked for further clarification. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 Chairperson Jonathan stated that this particular project (the conditional use permit on Cook Street) was placed on the council agenda for tomorrow in anticipation of the planning commission taking some form of action on the CUP. Because they were presented unexpectedly with a lengthy letter that included an implicit threat of litigation, the planning commission would likely choose not to address the matter, but would continue the matter. That meant that although the matter was on the council ' s agenda tomorrow, they could discuss it, take public testimony, but they could not take action before the commission took action. Mr. Rubin noted then that the earliest the commission could take action would be on December 6 . Mr. Diaz stated that was for the Cook Street site. Mr. Rubin said what he was really asking was regardless of the decision positive or negative, if it was likely to be called up by either a proponent or opponent, when could the council hear the matter. Mr. Diaz said that the council tomorrow night could continue this matter to December 8 because it had already been advertised for hearing before them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission voted to continue the matter to December 6, on December 6 the commission could vote to continue the matter again, or they could take action. If the commission instead of continuing the item on December 6 took action and if the action was appealed to the city council, when would the council consider the appeal . Mr. Rubin said that was his question. Mr. Diaz explained that the council could call the matter up or it could be appealed 15 days after the December 6 meeting. But what he was saying was, if the council tomorrow night continued this to December 8 and the commission took action December 6, then they would hear it on December 8 automatically. It depended on what happened tomorrow night. Mr. Rubin concluded it was possible for council to hear it on December 8 after the planning commission had made a determination on the 6th, or it was possible that council would then hear it at the second meeting in December. Mr. Rubin said that he was not aware that this site was on the council agenda for tomorrow night, although he knew that the Portola site was and the EIR 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 i 3 on Portola was, but was not aware that this site was on their agenda. MR. FRANK DIPASQUALI , 249 Vista Royal Circle East in Palm Desert, stated that the question he wanted to ask was a financial one. The financial cost for the Portola site was "x" number of dollars; he asked what the financial cost of the Cook project was and if funds were available, or if council knew how much money would be available if they decided with planning commission 's recommendation to use the Cook Street project and how much of that money the developer would be required to put up at that site. Mr. Diaz informed Mr. Dipasquali that the issue of a development and disposition agreement was a redevelopment agency issue and the issue of money and how much it would cost was decided by the agency and how much the agency would contribute would be decided by the agency. The only issue decided by the planning commission was the land use issue. The question he was asking staff did not have the answer to, the commission did not have an answer to, and it was the decision of the redevelopment agency. He noted that Mr. Dipasquali might be able to get the answer tomorrow night. Mr. Dipasquali stated that if it was a money decision, someone that was responsible for funds ought to be able to know before a decision was made how many dollars it would cost the City of Palm Desert and the taxpayers . Mr. Diaz agreed and stated that it was a question to be asked tomorrow night. Mr. Dipasquali felt it would be to the commission' s advice for staff to come up with "some dollars" . Mr. Diaz again said that it was a question that could be answered tomorrow night. JUDGE EINBINDER readdressed the commission and wanted to be sure that everyone understood something that Mr. Diaz said. That for all intents and purposes, if the commission acted on December 6 approving this CUP, that according to Mr. Diaz the council could approve that project on December 8 . That would negate and obviate the ability of anyone to appeal the decision of the planning commission. If planning commission would be having the council vote on the project that the planning 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 commission on the 6th of December approved, and giving presumably that there were 15 days in which to appeal that decision, if two days after they act the council acts, that obviated the 15 days . He said that was cutting it down to two days . Mr. Diaz stated that a person had to exhaust all their administrative remedies before taking an issue to the courts . What happens on December 6 and if the council chose tomorrow night to continue it to December 8, what that meant was that those in opposition would not have to wait the 15 days to be heard by the council . He felt sure that if Judge Einbinder indicated tomorrow night that he wanted a 15 day appeal period after the planning commission considers this on December 6, he might get it, although he felt it was to the advantage of those in opposition not to have to wait the 15 days and if they were going to file litigation as some had threatened, then they could go to court and say they had exhausted all their administrative remedies because the matter was heard two days after the December 6 hearing. Judge Einbinder said that his understanding of what was occurring was that this was a fast deal on a fast track. The city council believed that the planning commission tonight would approve a CUP and all they had to do tomorrow night was approve the whole deal . That was the way he felt it was set up. He felt the city council set it up with the idea of having the planning commission have the hearing on the 15th and they would address the issues on the 16th. They presumed this would happen. It didn' t happen. His understanding was that the thing they would supposedly be addressing tomorrow night was the approval of the CUP of the project on Cook Street, irrespective of the Portola site. If that was not before them, he asked what was before them. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was not comfortable pursuing this line of discussion which was far afield of the main issue before the commission. If Judge Einbinder had a question about timing, they would try to answer it, but he did not want to get onto a different course of discussion. Judge Einbinder asked what was before the city council tomorrow if the planning commission continued this CUP to December 6 . Chairperson Jonathan explained that on the council ' s agenda for tomorrow night was a separate project from this one which "No 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 p k was a sports complex on Portola, there was also the environmental impact report for Section 4 . This project was also on the council 's agenda tomorrow--they could talk about it, they could solicit public discussion, but they could not take action on the Cook Street project. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. There was no one and Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Whitlock stated that she would move to continue this matter to December 6 . Mr. Diaz advised that the public testimony should be reopened before a motion was made to continue this item to December 6 . Chairperson Jonathan reopened the public testimony and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing CUP 93-3 Gerald Ford/Cook Street to December 6 , 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS z None. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Commissioner Spiegel updated the commission on EDAC October 20, 1994 meeting actions . Mr. Diaz noted that there was a special EDAC meeting November 15, 1994 to discuss the Via Paseo project. XII . COMMENTS None. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1994 XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adjourning the meeting to December 6, 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 :52 p.m. RAM ON A. DIAZ, S cr ry ATTEST: SABBY JON T N, Chairperson Palm Desert lanning Commission /tm %No 4%. 23