Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0305 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 5, 1996 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE ��„ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell James Ferguson Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: George Fernandez Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Steve Smith IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: � Consideration of the February 20, 1996 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the February 20, 1996 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent February 22, 1996 council actions . Chairperson Beaty noted that he was at a meeting in Moreno and heard two highly respected golf course architects speak and errant balls were becoming a big issue and for the first time there was a court case that ruled in favor of the person playing golf who was struck on the golf course because a tree was removed which was originally located there to prevent errant balls from entering another area. VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR � None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS r11 A. Continued Case No. TT 28287 - COLONY GATEWAY INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a subdivision of 25 lots into 41 within Bighorn Golf Club, south of the planned Metate Drive and the "Cahuilla Hills" area. Mr. Drell indicated that there had been some changes and there would now be 25 lots where the original map proposed 41 . The location of the service road (Metate) had been pulled back off of the property line. There had been discussions between the developer and various parties who had objections to the project. He understood that internally within Bighorn there was general agreement that the amended map was acceptable. There was still the issue of the Cahuilla Hills area and the landscaping along that slope which would be discussed with the architectural commission when they come up with a more detailed landscape plan. Surrounding property owners would be notified of that architectural commission meeting or it would be returning to Planning Commission if that matter couldn't be resolved. Staff recommended approval . � Chairperson Beaty o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CARL CARDINALLI, Vice President of Bay Colony Gateway, Inc. , and also General Manager of Bighorn. He said he would submit some letters of approval of the revised subdivision map from a group of inembers/owners at the club and it was approximately 90� of the members and residents of the club, as well as a letter of approval from the property owner who had a homesite in closest proximity to the area which they were proposing for subdivision. He said there had been some comments in the past about the homes being "row" homes and he explained that the type of homes that would be constructed would be detached, single family residences at approximately 2800-3000 square feet in size and they were similar to the Palo Brea units which were already constructed at Bighorn for which he would distribute brochures . He informed commission that he has been talking with Ann Cooper, who was also present at the meeting, and she was the owner of the residence called The Bird Cage that was within about f ive feet of the 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 �r.r north boundary of Bighorn. One thing they had been discussing was because Ms . Cooper enjoys a looped road access into her property and which then loops back out, was how to address the north boundary wall . He knew it wasn't within the commission's purview but he wanted them to know that they hadn't sat idly back. They did listen to their neighbors and tried to accommodate them when possible. One of the things they had been discussing was the possibility of putting the wall at the top of slope and noted that the subdivision map called for about 25 ' to 30 ' from the home that would slope down to the "bubble" on Metate Drive. If the wall was placed at the top of slope, that captured for her the potential of an additional 20-25 feet to the wall . They felt that was a legitimate solution, although it was something they were continuing to discuss with Ms . Cooper. He said that he would be happy to answer any questions . Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPO5ITION to the proposal . MS. ANN COOPER stated that she was at the last meeting. She said that she was disappointed that she had nothing r••� in writing to resolve the issue of the prescriptive rights for the property in dispute. They have been talking a lot and have gone over several proposals . She cancelled her trip twice and she was going back to Berlin tomorrow so she felt it was important for her to be at this meeting. Mr. Cardinalli had talked with her a lot, but Mr. Hubbard seemed to be the one that had not been available to give a yes or no to the proposal . As stated by Mr. Cardinalli, the wall would come 25 ' in back of the house and the other proposal was to deed over to her that portion of property between her property line and their wall along that whole property line there. They would also build a driveway and she would continue to have her turn-around driveway. Where the driveway is now, they would be building the wall and then the road. It would be pushed in but there was room for a driveway to go there. They would deed that property over to her. The wall would be 5� feet high and it wouldn't block the view of the mountains from her bedroom window, which she liked. The driveway should be built to standards so that she could use it and the county didn't come in and say it couldn't be used. She was also concerned because that was a steep slope and there was a lot of granite up in that area and she would 'r"" 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 � be concerned if they were proposing to dynamite at all � in that area because of the near proximity of her house and potential damage. She thought they dynamited the big hill, but the other area was very close to her house. She indicated that Mr. Cardinalli had indicated that he would fax her the proposal and necessary paperwork in Berlin within the next week. She said that she knew that the prescriptive rights was not an issue to commission as stated at the last meeting, but by the same token when a piece of property was so blatantly in dispute with the fence being where it was right now, she didn't feel the commission should give permission for something to be built there unless they came up with a solution. She said that she wanted to work it out with them and not have lawyers involved if possible and they have done a lot of talking and she felt they had come upon a solution, but it wasn't in writing. She said that since Bighorn was developed there had been many robberies--her house was a disaster. When they were building the road and wall there would be a lot of work men there and she hoped they would raise security. Her Father wished her to say that also because their homes were vulnerable in that area. She didn't know how it � could be done but wanted more security so that they weren't robbed again. She also stated that she would � submit her address to be notified of any future meeting. Chairperson Beaty closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Cardinalli would be building all of the proposed homes or if they would be privately built . Mr. Cardinalli said that he was not sure; the owner would be the developer. He said there were actually 22 homesites that were larger than originally approved and then a landscaped area. That progresses with 22-23 homesites and would be done by the owner or developer. Their intent was to do both and optimize the efficiency and construction by using the same developer. It was possible they would not be financing the infrastructure until a decision was made to go forward themselves . Commissioner Campbell asked if all the homes would be similar to the brochure submitted tonight in terms of architecture. � � � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 r•• Mr. Cardinaili said that was their intent right now and there were strict guidelines and this would not be an exception to them. Chairperson Beaty asked what the lot size ranges would be; Mr. Cardinalli replied that the smallest one was 66 feet x 120 feet and would go up from there. Most were over 8,000 square feet. All others were larger, from 140 feet x 70 feet, which was 8,000-10,000 square feet, with the exception of the large lots now on either side. Commissioner Jonathan felt that it was regrettable that the applicant had not been able to arrive at an agreement with all the neighbors, but he had done an admirable job in engaging the approval of most or almost all of the neighbors and affected parties . He also felt that Mr. Cardinalli and his organization have a proven track record with the city and he had some degree of confidence that they would continue to make a reasonable effort to accommodate the needs of all surrounding affected parties . Based on that he would be prepared to make a motion for approval . Commissioner Ferguson said that he would be abstaining for reasons as set forth in the March 5, 1996 meeting minutes . �... Mr. Drell noted that on the conditions of approval, condition #7 had been amended to state that walls, fences and landscaping for northern tract boundary to be reviewed by the architectural review commission (not staff) . Commission concurred. Chairperson Beaty said that when this proposal originally came to them for 41 homes the general consensus was that that was not appropriate but it looked like an honest attempt had been made to remedy that situation. For the Cooper property it sounded like the developer was being very generous in trying to satisfy the concerns. They didn't have anything in writing yet, but there was an appeal process to the city council and if Ms . Cooper was not satisfied, she could appeal the decision. He called for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Ferguson abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1722, �"� 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 � i approving TT 28287, subject to conditions as amended. � Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Ferguson abstained) . B. Case No. PM 28323 - SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of the creation of a separate lot for an existing homeowners association common area swimming pool at the terminus of Seville Circle. Mr. Drell explained that this was a housekeeping item. The swimming pool was assumed to be part of the association and was being maintained by the association, but was built on the golf course property. The proposal was to create a parcel to allow it to be separated from the golf course. Staff recommended approval. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the commission to address the commission. MR. ALLAN LEVIN, 74-768 Bishop Place in Palm Desert, � stated that he was present representing Sunrise Desert � Partners and concurred that this was a bookkeeping item and asked for any questions . Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723, approving PM 28323, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . C. Case No. PM 28324 - SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of the creation of a separate lot for an existing homeowners association common area swimming pool northwest of Castellana East and Calle De Verano. 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 �.. Mr. Drell explained that this was the same situation as the previous item. Staff recommended approval . Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and 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. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1724, approving PM 28324, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . D. Case Nos . C/Z 96-1, CUP 96-4 and PP 96-2 - MICHAEL FEDDERLY, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-3 (residential multi-family) to C-1 (general commercial) , conditional '� use permit and precise plan of design for the remodel and renovation of the existing building ( formerly the Sun and Shadows Resort Motel) to professional offices for property located at the northeast corner of San Luis Rey and Larrea Street. Mr. Smith stated that there was a similar request made in 1987 . At that time the applicant wasn't, in the opinion of commission, prepared to put quite enough improvements into the project. As a result the zone change was rejected as was the conditional use permit. In the last eight or nine years the property has continued to deteriorate. Mr. Fedderly is requesting a change of zone and precise plan. When staff advised Mr. Fedderly of the concerns with completing a change of zone when there was nonconforming parking, staff suggested that he file the conditional use permit. They would go half way with the change of zone and in the meantime they would be able to do the renovations and occupy the building with a professional office type of use. At this time the applicant's improvements include creating a break in the building and a new entry from along San Luis Rey, improvement to the elevations and parapet to screen the roof-mounted �.r � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 � � equipment, and elimination of the swimming pool . In order to �■ri comply with the total number of parking spaces they would enter into a long term lease for additional parking with the bank lot to the east. They would be creating a new lobby area for offices in the north wing of the existing buildings . Access to the offices would be brought up to current handicapped requirements. They would clean up the site and perform deferred maintenance items . The matter was before architectural review commission and they granted preliminary approval subject to submission of an acceptable landscape plan to upgrade the site. If the proposal was approved there would be substantial improvement to the site. Unfortunately, what would be left would be the continuing use of the 12 parking spaces off of Larrea which were nonconforming in that about half the spaces hang out into the right-of-way and back out onto Larrea which was not allowed in commercial/office professional types of settings . The city tried whenever possible to create a situation that allowed a vehicle to drive out in a forward fashion. With respect to the change of zone, staff suggested that the commission recommend to the city council approval of the change of zone to C-1 . That was consistent with the general plan, but the council would only give the matter first reading as long as the parking remained = nonconforming. If at some point in the future the site is � redeveloped and they put parking onsite and make it � conforming, then the city would be in a position to do the second reading and the zoning of C-1 would become effective. Secondly, staff was recommending approval of the conditional use permit and precise plan to allow the renovations to the building entrance from San Luis Rey and all the other items covered previously subject to the list of conditions contained in the resolution for CUP 96-4 and PP 96-2 . Some of the concerns were that as long as they had the parking spaces backing into the street, they didn't want to bring in office uses that had high traffic turnover. Condition #5 would limit the potential office uses to attorneys, accountants, tax preparers, real estate appraisers, architects, landscape architects, engineers, planners, city and financial design professionals, showrooms for design professionals and such other uses deemed by the city to be low traffic turnover uses . As well, staff would require the elimination of the swimming pool, the elevation changes would be completed prior to occupancy, the applicant would obtain the long-term lease for at least 12 parking spaces from Union Bank and the lease should be for not less than ten years, renewable and non-cancelable. The difference in land use intensity for offices use versus the existing motel use ? required the payment of TUMF for approximately $7400, 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 rr provision of Art-in-Public Places program and the low cost housing mitigation fee. He noted that staff was handed a letter just before the meeting started from Mr. Robert Noggle and Mr. Lawrence Chandler. He read it into the record (see Exhibit A attached hereto) . Commissioner Jonathan asked what would happen to building C. Mr. Smith deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Ferguson noted that in the staff report it said that the nonconforming parking spaces would have to become conforming before second reading and final approval from city council for 23 parking spaces . Mr. Smith replied yes, but it could be conceivably less than 23 spaces if the renovation on the site removed building area. Commissioner Ferguson concurred, but noted that the end product would be 23 parking spaces entirely on private property designed to facilitate head-first entry into the traffic flow. Mr. Smith said that was right, but didn't think it was physically possible as the site was configured now. Commissioner Ferguson noted that condition #8 said at least 12 parking spaces were to be leased long term from Union Bank. He asked if that envisioned the 13 head-in spaces to be continued to be used in a nonconforming fashion. Mr. Smith replied in the interim ` period, yes. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the interim period was between first and second reading. Mr. Smith replied yes, which could be quite some time. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the limitation on types of tenants as contained in condition #5 would at that time be lifted once all nonconforming parking spaces were eliminated. Mr. Smith replied yes, in that they would be going through another precise plan process at that point because the zoning would be C-1 . This was giving them the opportunity to accept Mr. Fedderly' s offer up until this point in time so they wouldn't continue to see the deterioration problem. Commissioner Campbell asked if the pool were eliminated, if that area could be used for additional parking. Mr. Smith replied that two or three spaces could be created, but to get access to them they would lose two or three spaces from the street. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE FEDDERLY, 73-121 Fred Waring Drive, stated that there was a building here that they could make use of and he could see it was deteriorating to a great extent. `. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 ; 1 � They were prepared to screen the air conditioning, ,� create a new entry on the San Pablo side, put in sidewalks, and beautify the area. They had worked out an agreement with Union Bank to lease the spaces that would be required and they would like to do that to beautify their side of the parking lot as well . They have a small firm of five employees and he couldn't see why they would need that many parking spaces, but he was willing to comply with the requirement. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Fedderly' s business would totally occupy the property. Mr. Fedderly said pretty much so--they might have an engineer and a single architect use a couple of the spaces, but his business would pretty much take over the space. In the middle they would fill in the pool and put in a sculpture garden in the center to create a different ambience. They wanted to make it habitable space. Commissioner Jonathan asked what Mr. Fedderly would be doing with Building C, the building to the east. Mr. Fedderly said it would be his office. They have some storeroom area, although he didn't know exactly what they were going to do, but they needed the 3,000-4,000 square feet total . Commissioner Jonathan said that entire square footage of all � the structures added up to approximately 6,000 square feet � and asked if that was correct. Mr. Fedderly replied that it could be, he wasn't sure. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it looked like all the refurbishments being proposed were to the structures other than what was identified on the blueprint as existing Building C, which had a notation of no changes to be made to it. Mr. Fedderly said that there would be screening on the roof, there would be new doors, flooring and different concrete throughout the project and that the space would be brought up to date in terms of electric, plumbing, flooring and cabinets . It would be possible occupied space. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the 5,776 square feet included Building C. Mr. Smith replied yes . Commissioner Ferguson asked if it was Mr. Fedderly' s intent to preserve his option to sublease out additional space here. Mr. Baxley nodded yes from the audience. Commissioner Ferguson said that he was curious why with a business for five people the city would be so concerned about parking, but if he leased space out, the parking spaces were needed. Mr. Drell noted that conditional use permits went with the land and the city couldn't assume that a particular tenant would be there forever. As an example he indicated that there had ; been a brand new building built by a particular tenant who � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 �.. went bankrupt before the building was finished. This is a building that will meet the city' s commercial office standard. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Fedderly had a lease agreement with Union Bank right now. Mr. Fedderly replied no. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there were discussions going on; Mr. Fedderly said that they have an oral agreement that would have to go to San Diego to their current jurisdiction to get something in writing. Commissioner Ferguson asked how many spaces Mr. Fedderly was acquiring. Mr. Fedderly replied as many as he needed. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Smith if it was conceivable that if Mr. Fedderly was able to acquire 23 spaces on a long term lease, the change of zone could be approved. Mr. Fedderly interrupted and said that getting 22 spaces was out of the question. He thought they needed 12 and that was what he told the bank they would need. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. ROBERT PAUL, a resident of Palm Desert and manager of Sambra de la Montana, the apartment complex across the street from this operation. He felt this project would be good, but wanted to make a correction to the '� statement by Mr. Fedderly when he said San Pablo, it was San Luis Rey. He said his question was if this was the meeting to determine whether this could be done or not, because there had been a lot of construction being done. Today there was carpeting being installed. It sounded like it was a done deal before the Planning Commission even saw the proposal . That was his question to the commission. Chairperson Beaty noted this issue had also been raised in the past. Mr. Drell stated that theoretically things like carpeting could be installed without a permit. There was a building there with a use. If he couldn' t use it for office use, he would have new carpeting in the motel . Mr. Paul said that walls had been removed so that it could no longer be used as a motel . Mr. Drell said then they would have a problem. If the owner didn't get an approval, then he wouldn't be able to get a business license; if he didn't have a business license he couldn't operate. � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 � MR. LAWRENCE CHANDLER, owner of Casa Larrea Resort across the street, stated that they have been there two years and have spent a great deal of time and money rebuilding that piece of property. It was now very busy. The property being discussed has gone hill and last week alone there were seven police officers there. In the two years he could not begin to estimate the type of crime in their neighborhood. They had formed a crime watch committee. Code Compliance Department helped with the trash situation--Bob Smith had been extremely helpful in getting that problem resolved. They still had tenants there that had been an extreme nuisance. He was not aware of the parking requirements, but anything the commission could do to get this property straightened around would be appreciated by all the neighbors and he said that he spoke for most of the residents . They deal with tourists and they were asked frequently if they would be safe. He did not want any of their guests to feel unsafe. There had been people who had fallen on the San Luis Rey side because of the lack of sidewalks. He felt the proposed plans looked wonderful to him as long as there was something there that was making improvement in their neighborhood. It improved his property and people down the street felt - the same way. The commission could help him by helping the applicant get through the process and get this eyesore cleaned up. Otherwise, all they could foresee for their neighborhood would be a further deterioration and property going off of the tax rolls and being boarded up like the building on Shadow Mountain a year and a half ago. The applicant should be allowed to proceed. Mr. Drell said that a conditional use permit would allow the applicant to operate as a professional office. He was across the street or adjacent to commercial . The applicant initially wanted the change of zone because to bankers having a commercial zone looked more secure than a conditional use on residential property. Mr. Drell indicated that a lot of the office uses in the city were the conditional use offices and unless they created an unforeseen problem, conditional use permits are rarely revoked. The process for the change of zone was an optional one, which the applicant could pursue or not, but the commission could proceed with the conditional use permit approval tonight and assuming the decision was not appealed within 15 days . , 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 r.. Commissioner Campbell asked what kind of tenants were living there now. Mr. Drell noted that Mr. Fedderly doesn't own the property yet. Commissioner Ferguson said there were people living there. Mr. Drell asked if they were living there illegally. Commissioner Ferguson replied yes . Mr. Drell indicated that if there was a current problem there that Bob Smith from Code Compliance already knows about it, then it would be handled. Mr. Chandler spoke from the audience and said that the problem had decreased in the past, but has increased again in the last ten days . Commissioner Ferguson said that when he visited the location it was reported to him that there were five people living there. Two roommates �hat he spoke with appeared to be around college age and had been there since September, 1995 . They have never paid rent, they had power, and the color television was going. He questioned why an owner would maintain power to the property in the way it was apparently being maintained. The tenants had not had contact with the owner, haven't paid rent or been asked to pay rent, and when asked if there was onsite management, they said they hadn't seen anyone anywhere near resembling a manager since last �•• September. Commissioner Campbell asked if they had water and electricity. Commissioner Ferguson said they appeared to have all utilities . Chairperson Beaty closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor the proposal . She wanted to add one condition: that these offices would be included in the El Paseo Assessment District if they fall within the boundary area. Mr. Drell said he believed they would be included, but the commission could add that condition if they wanted to make that clear. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would like that condition included. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was sensitive to the comments made by Mr. Paul and Mr. Chandler and he as much as anyone wanted to see the property improved. Palm Desert didn't need eyesores or security problems, but by solving that problem they would be creating another problem--a shortage of proper parking. That was a particular concern of his and parking shortages contributed to the deterioration of the quality of life in the community. He felt it was also �" 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 s unfair to other developers who were required to create adequate parking. This was a 23,000 square foot piece of property and normal coverage was about 30$ and that was a 6,000 square foot office building. Other developers found a way to create adequate parking, landscaping, circulation and all the other requirements of normal development in the city. He didn't see why an exception should be granted in this case. He felt the applicant, together with the city's help, could be creative and accomplish both objectives : rid the city of an eyesore and create adequate parking. Often a little money went a long way towards solving problems like that and it could be a factor here. He didn't want to contribute to the creation of inadequate parking. That was something they had worked hard to try and avoid. There were ordinances that provide for that and he didn't see justification for not complying with those normal requirements . He said that he understood what the city was trying to accomplish and appreciated the benefits, but was wary of the detrimental impact from inadequate parking. It would also not be fair to other developers who are required to comply. Commissioner Ferguson said that Commissioner Jonathan touched on something that bothered him, which was not so much the � parking. He used the San Pablo Meat Market as an example, which was an item at a previous meeting. He noted that the use was, in contrast, high traffic and high volume and he could easily perceive big problems happening there without the condition of approval encouraging tenants to park in the alley. He did not see any of those same concerns for this project. He discussed the area with Commissioner Campbell who has a business in the area, drove by the project twice and had yet to see parking on San Luis Rey. Commissioner Campbell said that her store had the same visual alley as that street and she had never seen a parking problem there. He said he hadn't thought about the problem of the difficulty of backing out of the parking spaces, but when he drove by there last night there were only two cars there. The applicant told commission there would be a business with five people and he believed him. He also took Mr. Drell ' s comments to heart that that might not always be the use of the property, but didn't see a problem now in parking. There was a problem with transients that didn't necessarily need to be resolved with a conditional use permit, but he liked the creative solution Mr. Smith presented. The problem was that it didn't have a back end. If it did he would feel much more Y comfortable voting for it. He didn't know what would be acceptable to the applicant, whether a period of two years or 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 r.. three years . He said that if the big fear was to permanently engraft nonconforming parking spaces into city code without putting a back end on this, that was in effect what they would be doing. Unless they razed the project or the bank seeded a portion of its parking lot, he didn't see it ever getting 23 parking spaces on private property. Mr. Smith said as someone trying to sell a home in a real estate market that is being experienced now, it was depressing, but he didn' t think it would last forever and the same thing applied in the commercial market. This site, with the city' s indication that it is prepared to approve general commercial zoning, he thought might be the impetus that when the economy improves would be one of the early properties to see major redevelopment occur on it. Whether that was five years away he didn't know, but that was staff ' s thinking. Staff knew it could be a considerable length of time. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the permit could be subject to review every three years . Mr. Smith replied yes . Mr. Drell said that although they don't like to see these back up parking spaces and they never approve any new projects with them, these were currently legal nonconforming and could exist forever as long as this was a motel use. They have � existed and served that motel for 30 years . They weren't ideal and there were a number of motels on Larrea and Shadow Mountain that have this parking configuration. They were not something that staff would approve today, but no one had died or been seriously injured as a result of it. They were requiring the offsite parking so there wouldn't be a shortage. They could require all employees to park in that bank lot and the only use of the onsite spaces would be for the occasional customers or clients that would frequent an office like this . If they do nothing and don' t approve it at all, the only thing they could look forward to was someone destroying the property and razing the property or someone coming back and trying to do another motel, and they would still have this parking. Commissioner Ferguson said that he believed Mr. Smith when he said this is what the city wants to do and here is the way they want to go about it. He would like to have the permit subject to review on a three-year basis so that the commission could look at it. He didn't think it would be a problem, but if it was they would have a way of automatically reviewing it. Mr. Smith noted that condition #12 would relate to adding the property to the E1 Paseo Assessment District, #13 would be that this conditional use permit be reviewed at least every three years before commission with a public hearing. Commissioner Ferguson ``�" 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 � asked the applicant if that was acceptable for commission to ,� review this in three years to make sure the parking wasn't a big problem. Mr. Fedderly replied yes . Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Drell reviewed several alternatives of what could happen to this property and there was one other potential happening--that the current applicant or someone else would come in and be creative and find a way to supply the required number of parking spaces . He didn't want to rule out that possibility. Even low intensity uses such as accounting firms, law firms, and architectural firms used parking spaces . The current building he occupied was about 7,000 square feet and had 29 spaces allocated to it and it sometimes ran into a parking problem. All the uses in that building would be on the list of acceptable uses . There was demand on parking spaces by employees, clients, UPS, and others. He listened to what was being said but remained convinced that they would be creating a parking problem. He might be in a minority, but he didn't feel that granting an exception was called for here. Chairperson Beaty stated that as a former resident of that area, although he hadn't been there for five years, he hadn't � realized how bad the area has apparently gotten, but it � wasn't very good when he left that area five years ago. He was in favor of seeing the neighborhood improved. He disagreed with the parking problem. He drove by there two or three times a day for ten years and never saw a problem with traffic. He was in favor of the proposal and strongly supported the addition of the three-year conditional use review, which meant if it was a problem there was a mechanism to halt usage in three years and require compliance with the parking. He was especially sensitive to Mr. Paul ' s camments about proceeding before approval or assuming that it was a done deal and he wanted to assure Mr. Paul that it was not a done deal prior to the hearing. He was offended if anyone said the commission would approve something before a hearing was held. Commissioner Jonathan noted that when buildings were vacant there was rarely a parking problem. Chairperson Beaty clarified that his comment referred to five years ago when it was being occupied as a motel, but the point was well made. Chairperson Beaty called for a motion. Action: � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 ... Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1725, approving CUP 96-4 and PP 96-2, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1726, recommending approval of C/Z 96-1 to city council . Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance and RV Ordinance. +` Mr. Drell stated that the commission hadn't seen any RV cases in a while, but they used to review cases determining whether the screening requirements for RVs in front yards were acceptable or not. The commission at that time had expressed a feeling that it was not appropriate for them to be reviewing these cases because they were purely design issues and not land use issues and felt the responsibility should be placed elsewhere. Staff was now assembling and putting together all the various property maintenance requirements in the Municipal Code and it happened to refer to this section and it came to mind that in terms of when they were initiating the comprehensive review as to whether the commission still wished to relieve itself of that responsibility. Commissioner Jonathan replied yes . Mr. Drell said that basically the requirement was that in front yards RVs have to be screened with walls and/or landscaping and for a while it was a big item. Once one person was cited, that person typically reported others in his neighborhood, so there were several of them at a time. We haven't had one in a while. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they would have neighbors arguing about whether the RV should be parked there or not and how it should be screened. Mr. Drell said they also discussed what screening was adequate and what sort of plant material was acceptable--it was more `" 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 � of a landscape architectural issue. He felt it was placed before commission because it was a public hearing and public hearings were traditionally held before Planning Commission. They don't have public hearings before the architectural commission, but in reality there was probably no reason why they couldn't. Commissioner Jonathan asked why this wasn't handled by staff as a code compliance issue. Mr. Drell said that the way the ordinance was written, if they send a notice and if there were any complaints, then that complaint in essence constituted an appeal . By its very nature, the reason they got cited was because of a complaint. Therefore, with virtually everything that came up it always went to a hearing. The process was similar to other exception processes in that it was a call that had to be made if the screening was adequate or not. Commissioner Campbell didn't feel the Planning Commission needed to be involved in this matter. Mr. Drell said he would take it up with the architectural commission. He noted that this was their expertise. They were design and landscape professionals . Action• � Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, directing staff by minute motion to remove the Planning Commission as the approving body. Carried 4-0 . X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. XI . COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Ferguson asked when the commission could anticipate the first Redevelopment Agency briefing. Mr. Drell said that he informed Mr. Yrigoyen. He didn't have an objection, but had to talk to Mr. Ortega. The presentation was tentatively scheduled for March 19 at 6 : 30 p.m. 2 . Commissioner Ferguson asked if the next meeting was going to be a long agenda. Mr. Drell replied yes, there were a lot of conditional use permits submitted. Commissioner Ferguson said he asked Mr. Drell previously 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 r.. that if there was going to be an unusually large agenda if the packets could go out early. He noted that Chairperson Beaty was going to be gone and he would be going out of town that weekend. If he could have it a day early it would give him Friday as well as Monday to review the cases . Chairperson Beaty said that he would be here for the next meeting--he would be absent from the first meeting in April . Mr. Drell stated that staff would make every attempt to get the agenda out Wednesday. The cases were conditional use permits and were not extremely complicated projects . 3 . Chairperson Beaty noted that the bagel business was open two days after receiving approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell said that was not something staff could control, but they were supposed to get a Certificate of Use before they got tenant improvements . He has reminded the building department of that requirement. 4 . Commissioner Ferguson asked if they could receive some kind of identification for when he visits sites. Chairperson Beaty noted that he had a name badge. Mr. Drell said that staff would order him a name badge and `. would look into getting business cards also. Commissioner Ferguson said that he would like to go to Lowe Reserve and look at their fairway, but was reluctant to do that without identification. Mr. Drell said that staff would look into that issue. 5 . Mr. Greenwood stated that during the review process on the restaurant on the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Portola some existing traffic concerns were raised. Staff indicated that the condition was a result of traffic signal timing at the signal on Portola and Highway 111 . Staff was able to make contact with Caltrans and they have made some changes to that signal . The green timing in the past had been three to seven seconds when a pedestrian pushed the button to cross Highway 111 . They measured that time today at 14-15 seconds and if there was not pedestrian present, it was 30 seconds . They used to be able to get about nine cars through there, now they could get 20-21 cars per cycle. Conditions should be better and he had been reviewing it for a few weeks and had been by there at least 20 times and has never seen traffic backed up to the alley from Highway 111 . Commissioner Campbell concurred that the situation was improved. �" 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1996 � � XII . ADJOURNMENT � Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting to March 19, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 :23 p.m. , �-�.�.,��� ` \ \ PHILIP� D , ecretary _ s ATTEST: ��...-c � �-��, PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � � 20 �