Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0319 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tt1E S DAY - MARCH 19, 19 9 6 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * �.r I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ferguson led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell James Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Steve Smith IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: r.. Consideration of the March 5, 1996 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the March 5, 1996 minutes . Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent March 14, 1996 City Council actions . VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 27055 - MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a 296 lot single � family subdivision north of Gerald Ford Drive, 700 feet east of Monterey, 680 feet west of Portola. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 B. Case Nos, PP/CUP 90-27 and TT 26562 - SUN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Applicant � Request for approval of a second one- year time extension for a 687 unit residential development, 18 hole golf course and 225 suite hotel on 420 acres located east of Portola Avenue north of Frank Sinatra Drive. Action• Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 96-7 - JUAN ARMENTA, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 5900 square foot gymnastics training center at 75-080 Mayfair Drive in the service industrial zone. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was requesting to � continue this item to April 2, 1996 . Mr. Smith noted that since receiving that request, the applicant indicated his intent to withdraw his application, but nothing in writing had been received. He also noted that no public hearing items had been scheduled for the April 2 , 1996 meeting. Mr. Drell recommended that the commission continue the item to April 16, 1996 . Commission concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, continuing CUP 96-7 to April 16, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . B. Case No. CUP 96-10 - THE HUMIDOR, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow operation of a 950 square foot cigar room with beer, wine and spirits at 73-405 E1 Paseo, Suite No. 31-A in the C-1 S.P. zone. Mr. Drell stated that as described, the aspect of the plan that required a conditional use permit was the liquor � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19 , 1996 license. The actual activity which was less than 1, 000 � square feet and less than eight seats would typically be permitted as just an incidental seating within a business . Given the small scale of the activity, staff had no problem with recommending approval . Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were an existing business . Mr. Drell said that they could open and operate under the existing code as a cigar store and cigar club. They needed this permit for the liquor license. Commissioner Ferguson noted that they were open as a store now. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that without a conditional use permit process they could operate with the exception of service liquor. Mr. Drell said that was right due to its limited size. Commissioner Campbell asked if this could be regarded as a liquor store. Mr. Drell replied that it could to the extent that it would be selling alcoholic beverages for off site consumption. He felt the principle attraction of the use was as a private smoking club. Chairperson Beaty o ened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. DENNIS FREEMAN, 42-575 Melanie Place in Palm Desert, stated that their intent regarding the liquor license �► was to have off sale privileges for selling fine wines and beer with the intent later to form a club, and then they would come back for a full liquor license. They were asking for beer and wine at this time for on sale and off sale. On sale had its problems with minors entering the store who were of age to buy cigars and they were aware of that, but primarily wanted to sell off sale at this time and use it as a lounge for people to smoke cigars while people were shopping. Mr. Drell asked if relative to this approval the applicant wanted the conditional use permit to cover spirits as well . Mr. Freeman concurred. He said they would be applying to ABC later for a full liquor license to be able in the future to sell cognacs and good scotch, but at this time it was prohibitive. Commissioner Campbell asked if right now it was only going to be offsite sales . Mr. Freeman concurred. Chairperson Beaty 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. Chairperson Beaty indicated that the conditions required that the air be vented and not recirculated within that building. ` He noted that Palm Desert was an unusual city in that they strongly support natural gas on the Sunline buses, electric 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 ; vehicles, and now they were going to hydrogen gas . He asked � if the installation of a filter on the exhaust vent had been � discussed or considered. Mr. Drell asked if they were regulated by the state. Mr. Rudolph replied that this was directed from the labor code provision and the county was taking the lead in administering that on behalf of the city. He said it was not required by law to have a filter that he was aware of. Mr. Drell said that he was not aware of what kinds of technology were available, although it had been discussed for restaurants and was an extremely expensive piece of technology, but it was up to the commission as to whether they wanted staff to investigate it. Mr. Rudolph stated that outdoor smoking areas were not regulated by state law and they would be putting the smoke outside where people could smoke anyway. Commissioner Ferguson commented that the more interesting part of this application was the finding that the application would not be detrimental to the public health and safety. He stated that he went by this facility and was impressed by it. It was clean and well developed. He was a cigar aficionado himself, so he welcomed the opportunity at some time in the future to have a glass of cognac and enjoy a cigar. He really liked the store and felt it was an enhancement to E1 Paseo. He welcomed them to Palm Desert. � Commissioner Campbell stated that she also went by the store � and noted that they were almost ready to open. She noted that she was the President of the E1 Paseo Business Association and welcomed them to the street. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissianer Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1727 , approving CUP 96-10, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . C. Case No. CUP 96-9 - BETH SHALOM EAST VALLEY JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 5,000 square foot synagogue with ancillary office and kitchen in Units A and B at 75-153 Merle Drive in the service industrial zone. ' ri 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19 , 1996 Mr. Smith explained that the property was on the south side �• of Merle east of Chapman College and opposite Ritter Circle. It was formerly an appliance showroom and encompassed approximately 5,000 square feet. It included an office and low key kitchen facility. As noted in the staff report, their services would take place Friday evenings between 7 : 30 p.m. and 10 : 30 p.m. They hope someday to see in the range of 250-290 people. They also offered Saturday services between 9 : 00 a.m. and 11 :30 a.m. where they anticipate 40-80 people and several weekday evenings per month between 7 : 00 p.m. and 10 : 30 p.m. Building on the site was constructed with 51 perpendicular parking spaces . Visiting the site during the day there was an average of eight cars parked there. In the east driveway there was an extra-wide driveway in that it was a loading zone on the east side of the building. The south end of the building was all industrial warehouse space. Staff estimated that another 12 parking spaces parallel could be achieved in that east driveway to come up with a total of 63 onsite parking spaces . The site plan indicated a total of 130 seats shown on the floor plan. Given the number of participants expected during the religious services between 7 : 30 and 10: 30 p.m. on Fridays, staff thought there were two services . Staff had since been advised that this was not the case. They have fewer than the 250-290 people, so staff continued to recommend approval of the application. Within � 200 feet on the street on Merle and Ritter Circle staff felt they could easily accommodate an additional 42 parking spaces. Therefore, staff would like to omit condition #3 which limited the seating to 189 seats and would replace it with a new condition #3 which would read that within two years this conditional use permit be reviewed again with a view to determining any adverse impacts resulting from the growth of the congregation. With that revision staff recommended approval . Commissioner Campbell stated that she visited the site that morning and there were only two cars in that parking lot and everything seemed to be empty. Chairperson Beaty o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICHARD MAYER, 48-118 Vista Cielo in La Quinta, stated that Beth Shalom had a congregation that started �ust under two years ago and they took at meeting room at the Indian Wells Hotel/Radisson. They outgrew that facility fairly quickly and moved to the Palm Desert Country Club meeting room off of Avenue of the States and quickly outgrew that facility, so they moved to the � present location at the new social hall at St. John's Church on Washington. They were somewhat limited there 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 ; so they decided to take a lease building and that was � the proposal before the commission. He felt their � declaration to the commission was self-explanatory and he was present to answer any questions . Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Mayer had a projection of what their growth would be, noting that they were contemplating a five year lease and knew that they have had phenomenal growth in the past. He asked for a projection of how large the membership would be in the next 2-4 years. Mr. Mayer replied that their projections only went to the end of next year and they were hoping to grow from about 400 to about 600 members. Commissioner Ferguson noted that in speaking with staff and reviewing the application that there was adequate overflow street parking at hours when it was not otherwise being used. He was also informed that the pedestrian lighting and facilities were inadequate. He asked if that was a problem for them. Mr. Mayer stated that their congregation tended to be a little older in years and one of the things they were most concerned with was the lighting on the parking lot and street. He felt that from a safety standpoint it was adequate. He hoped the commission agreed. Commissioner Ferguson replied that it would be his lease and as it was explained to him, the only people this would hurt was them because the use was clearly permitted. He wished ; them tremendous success, but hoped they were not victims of � their own success . Mr. Mayer thanked Commissioner Ferguson for his comments and said that they understood the limitations . Chairperson Beaty 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. He asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she didn't see a problem with having a synagogue there. In that building two other places were leased and then there was another empty building at the other end. She felt there was adequate parking and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he also supported the project. He spent some time with some folks at Temple Isaiah discussing the qrowth patterns of the Jewish Community in the valley. A lot of his friends, particularly in the conservative Jewish Community, were wildly enthusiastic about this temple locating where it was and expanding in size. But for the concerns he expressed on their behalf, he was also very enthusiastic about the project. Chairperson Beaty called for a motion. � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSTON MARCH 19, 1996 Action: � Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1728, approving CUP 96-9, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. D. Case No. CUP 96-5 - BANK OF THE DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 2880 square foot banking office at 42- 005 Cook Street, Unit No. 310 . Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant was requesting approval to place the bank facility in the location on the west side of Cook Street between 42nd and Velie. The applicant was before the commission on February 6, 1996 and Planning Commission determined that subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, that a bank could be an acceptable use in the service industrial zone. There was an � access drive off Velie that extended across the front of the building. There was another ingress/egress point at that point and one at the westerly limit along 42nd Avenue. There was angle parking along Velie Way. Across the Cook Street frontage there were 22 parking spaces and along the north side along 42nd Avenue there was more parking available. The applicants indicated that they intended to occupy approximately 3,000 square feet with 16 parking spaces allocated. There would be four loan department employees, the president of the bank and four other staff inembers for a total of nine. Their emphasis was on business banking as opposed to retail banking. When staff first received the application his first inclination was that there was not enough parking available with the existing mini-mart facility. That was wrong. He visited the site nine different times all days of the week (Monday through Friday) between the hours of 10:45 a.m. and 3 :20 p.m. Across the Cook Street frontage (22 parking spaces) the average occupancy was 3 . 1 vehicles . The 12 spaces along 42nd had an average of 4 . 1 vehicles . Staff concluded that there was adequate parking. The requirement was for 12 parking spaces and they would be allotted 16 . The situation out there was that there was more than 16 available should they need them on occasion. Staff recommended approval subject to the ` conditions in the draft resolution. He noted that the change in land use from the industrial use to the banking use 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 entailed a significant TUMF fee. He indicated that the previous approval on the mini-mart had a requirement that the � parking lot be striped. It was still not striped out there and he felt there was a better mechanism now through the Building Department to hold up any occupancy until the parking lot is appropriately striped. Staff was comfortable that before the bank opened the parking lot will be striped and it was so conditioned again. Commissioner Campbell said that the building to the south of the proposed bank was empty and asked what would be allowed there. Mr. Smith concurred that it was currently vacant and said that it would have to be an industrial use unless it came before Planning Commission for a conditional use permit. The portions of the building that were occupied were warehouse activities. That was why the parking use was so low out there, although there was a fair amount of latitude in that zone. Commissioner Campbell asked if staff had any problem with the existing granite manufacturing use and parking availability. Mr. Smith replied no. Commissioner Campbell asked if the speed bumps were required and if there was a need for them because they were very high. Mr. Smith said that was a call for the property owner; if he received enough complaints he would do something. He clarified that they were not installed per city request. Commissioner � Campbell noted that the driveway on 42nd was only for egress � and not ingress . Commissioner Ferguson asked if there wasn' t an implied condition that with every conditional use permit issued that the Planning Commission retained continuing jurisdiction to revoke the CUP if the conditions annunciated therein were not complied with. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Ferguson asked if that was the case, then why did the city have to rely on the issuance of occupancy permits to get the striping done, which should have been done in 1992 . Mr. Smith noted that it just came to staff ' s attention two weeks ago. The bank would not open without parking lot stripes . Commissioner Ferguson noted it was previously stated that the city' s preference was for parking spaces that could enter traffic flow head first. With the striped diagonal spaces along Velie Way, those spaces backed into traffic flow. He asked if it was beyond the purview of the current application. Mr. Smith replied yes and explained it was because they were on the street. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. Ms . Rhoda Casto spoke from the audience and replied no. Chairperson _' Beaty asked if the commission had any questions for the � applicant. There were none. Chairperson Beaty asked if rri 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the `.. proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he expressed a concern initially when this matter first came before the commission and he still had that concern. He felt that there was a serious parking and serious circulation problem in that area. He had been involved with local banking for over ten years and he was familiar with the demand for parking spaces and it was intense, particularly on payday. Many people, particularly in the Cook Square area, could envision coming in to cash their paychecks on the 15th of the month, at the end of the month, or on Fridays and it was a real problem getting in and out of that facility and a real problem in the general area beyond this particular property. He felt that any kind of usage, and of this nature in particular, would only make the problem worse. He was not in favor of the application in that location for that reason. Chairperson Beaty asked for any other comments . There were none. He requested a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner '�► Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1729, approving CUP 96-5, subject to conditions . Carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . E. Case No. CUP 96-6 - RICK AND SHELLEY MURO, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the temporary operation of a 4248 square foot health club including gym equipment, exercise classes, physical therapy and related uses in Suites B and J of the building located at 74-040 Highway 111 . Mr. Smith stated that the property in question was at the Ruth' s Chris building at Highway 111 and Alessandro. The applicants had been in business in Palm Desert for ten years . In late 1995 they had negotiated a lease for 17 ,000 square feet of space in the 111 Town Center and negotiated a ` termination of their current lease in the Palms to Pines Center at that point. Festival Management later notified 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 them that the owners had chosen to not execute any leases due to the potential sale of the 111 Town Center. Thus the � applicants were left with a business but no place to operate. They needed to find immediate tenancy with minimal improvements . Mr. Dick Oliphant offered them the property in question. They opened late in January without benefit of appropriate permits . On February 15 staff received the conditional use permit application. Staff seriously looked at closing them down at that point, but given the circumstances of them losing their previous lease and having commitments to existing members, staff felt it warranted some leeway. As well, allowing them to continue to operate allowed staff to do a meaningful parking survey at various times of the day and night. The applicant' s long term goal was to create his own facility and even though it wouldn't now be in the 111 Town Center, he still had that goal . Mr. Smith indicated that Alessandro divided what staff considered as one complex. It was considered that way when Ruth' s Chris and Tsing Tao were approved back in 1991 . There was a total of 40, 000 square feet. The south building adjacent to Highway 111 has 28,000 square feet and the north building on the north side of Alessandro has 12, 000 square feet. There were two existing restaurant uses, Ruth' s Chris at about 60, 000 and Tsing Tao at 2,000 square feet, so they were within the 20$ range for parking purposes, which was one of ; the main concerns back in 1991 . He noted that both � restaurants do quite well, which the parking lot reflected. There was a total of 128 parking spaces supporting the building. Adjacent to the restaurants were 46 spaces including two handicapped spaces . On the north side of Alessandro there were 82 spaces, 64 open spaces, and 18 reserved/covered spaces . Those were the spaces towards the west end around the building with Ron Gregory' s office. Tsing Tao is open for lunch and at that time of day there were 128 spaces available to serve the two complexes . During the day the south lot was crowded at about 74$ occupancy. That reflected the impacts created by the Fitness Mart. They did a substantial business during the day and staff still came out with 74$ in the survey of approximately 10-12 entries. During the day in the north lot there was a lot of parking. In a 64 space area there was 21 .5� occupancy, in the covered area 62� occupancy which reflected the office use. At night things changed dramatically. The parking counts confirmed that the restaurants do well . The south lot adjacent to the restaurants was full after 6 : 15 p.m. The restaurants seem to get fuller by about 6 :45 p.m. At that point the north lot (64 available spaces) was at capacity plus . The valet parkers were sticking cars in aisles and making use of all space. The 18 reserved spaces were , generally not used. The survey showed two or three cars in ; there but that probably reflected the office use, although � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 the people doing the counts did note some people went to the r•• restaurants and the Fitness Mart from those spaces also. Staff indicated that not too long ago there were complaints from residents on the north side of the north parking lot about the valet parkers creating noise. Staff inet with the manager of Ruth's Chris which hired the valet parking firm. He assured staff that the problem would be taken care of and staff has not had any further complaints . As noted in the staff report, normally staff would not consider adding another high traffic generating use, but there seemed to be extenuating circumstances here. What was more important was the temporary nature of the request. The applicant was seeking approval to operate until February 28, 1997 . Staff reviewed it to determine what would be acceptable for about one year and also met with the applicant last week to hear what the proposal was for the new facility. If it was real or a mirage. The applicant brought in plans and showed staff a proposal for the area at the northwest corner of Monterey and Fred Waring. The plans were well on the way and quite detailed. They needed additional work but were in process . He said it could be done so that he could move by next February if the proposal was approved and building permits were pulled by September 1, 1996 . In talking with the applicant and building director, he feels the proposal he has could be constructed in six months . What could the city do � to the health club use to limit its impact, but still give them a facility to operate out of until February 28? Staff came up with a situation where they wanted the aerobics classes to cease by 6 : 16 p.m. and the doors locked, the building vacant and the people out by 6 :30 p.m. They would still be able to operate the gym facility but it had been staff ' s experience that the evening aerobics classes were typically the traffic generators . Staff 's recommendation was to grant the conditional use permit for a temporary period expiring February 28, 1997, subject to the conditions limiting the health club use after 6 : 15 p.m. , plus the other conditions noted in the draft resolution. Basically, there were stipulations that the applicant must make application for the new site no later than May 15, 1996 and the building permits be issued with construction commenced no later than September 1, 1996 . He asked for any questions . Commissioner Campbell asked for a clarification as to what related uses meant. Mr. Smith replied such things as weight lifting since it was a full gym facility. He felt the applicant might better address those uses . Commissioner Campbell asked if massage parlor was included in the related uses; Mr. Drell replied that related uses could include massage. Massage associated with a health club was permitted � by the city ordinance, assuming the masseurs and masseuses were licensed per city requirements . I1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson noticed on the investigative report � from February 5, 1996, that it was determined that the � facility had relocated without a conditional use permit, without a business transfer license, without a certificate of use, and with unapproved tenant improvements . He asked if any of those conditions had been remedied as of today, other than the obvious . Mr. Smith replied that staff was also withholding a banner permit because they did not have a legal use there and staff didn't want to issue a permit on a sign for a business that might not be legal . He felt that was probably also true of the business license. Mr. Drell concurred. He explained that as soon as staff knew the business was there, staff had to determine if the use needed a conditional use permit. They would therefore not issue them a business license until they received approval of a conditional use permit. They immediately did some parking surveys, even before they applied, to determine if the situation was so unacceptable that it was a serious threat to life, property, health, safety, etc. Staff determined at that time that although there would ultimately be some problems, there wasn't an eminent danger to the public to have it operating. It was a unique sort of use in that the property owner contracted to provide services for a lot of people in the city. It wasn't like a business where if they shut their doors, people don't buy from them. He has to ; provide service to these people. Given the applicant ' s � position in the business community, his history in the business community, and the fact that he was serving residents of Palm Desert, staff determined that given the fact that there wasn't an eminent, horrible problem staff would allow them to operate while staff expedited this process to get a determination to see if he could have this temporary use. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK MURO, 93-744 Olive Court in Palm Desert, stated that in conversations with Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith last week when he presented the plans for their future location they discussed the conditional use permit, specifically condition #7 where they would have to vacate and lock up unit J. They did have a class that runs 6 : 30 p.m. to 7 : 3 0 p.m. Monday through Thursday. At that time he asked Mr. Drell, in order to mitigate having to close that, what they could do. His response was for them to get additional parking available at the Orange Coast Title building, which was Ron Gregory' s building. He was told by Mr. Oliphant that this was � done as of yesterday. Mr. Gregory allowed them to use � those spaces until 8 : 00 p.m. Under the conditions of � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 approval he wished to waive that item because of having '� those additional parking spaces . Mr. Drell asked how many additional spaces they were able to obtain. Mr. Muro replied ten. Mr. Drell said he didn't know if that condition could be waived; ten spaces didn't satisfy typically what a class could be, although it might make them more comfortable in letting the gym use to continue during those hours, but at the very least it would limit the class size to ten. He said the decision was up to the commission. Commissioner Campbell asked if more spaces could be obtained from Ace Hardware. Mr. Muro said that Mr. Oliphant has attempted several times in the past, but to no avail . Mr. Gregory' s option was the only option they had available. He said the whole point was that this use was temporary in nature. They have been in business on E1 Paseo for ten years . Their membership was generally at capacity based on the square footage they have--they have over 700 '� members and it was not like they would gain 20�-30� in the next year, and they didn't intend to. They were only here temporarily until the other location could be secured and developed. Commissioner Campbell asked if they had ever had a problem on E1 Paseo as far as parking was concerned. Mr. Muro replied no. He said that the members don' t seem to have a problem at this point in time. He hasn't had one complaint from a member. They don't like walking across the street there because at their previous location everyone could park in front of the club. Other than that the members haven' t even complained about the limited parking available in the evening. He again noted that they were able to secure ten additional spaces over and beyond what staff reported on. He requested, based on the conversation with Mr. Dell and Mr. Smith, that item #7 be waived. The reason was simply that if not, he was, like Mr. Drell pointed out, under contractual obligations to these individuals so he would not only have immediate loss in terms of refunds, but future losses in terms of dues that would be produced for these individuals that ` take the 6 : 30 p.m. to 7 : 30 p.m. class in the evening. The average size class was about four to six people. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Seventy percent of their facility' s use was before 4 : 00 � p.m. � Commissioner Campbell said that she has noticed the aerobic classes on Portola on the J Suite in the morning. Mr. Muro said that out of their 700 members, only about 20$ of the members take aerobic classes on a regular basis; it was not like there was a huge amount of people. Commissioner Ferguson noted that 20� of 700 members would be 140 people. Mr. Muro said that was through the course of seven days . Commissioner Ferguson asked how comfortable Mr. Muro was with the deadline dates setforth by staff with respect to May 15 and September 1, 1996 . Mr. Muro replied very comfortable and said that they were well on the way with that project and he didn't feel those dates were a problem. ; Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Muro would entertain an � amendment to the conditional use permit that said if he missed either date that he would vacate the premises by October lst of this year. Mr. Muro said no, he didn't think that was satisfactory. The conditions of approval that were set were reasonable and on that basis they should be allowed to stay for a year simply because they didn't plan any growth at that point in time. Even if they were unable to meet a deadline, as an example start construction by September 1 because they brought additional plans, what they were dealing with on the plans now was having additional parking. They were planning a 20,000 square foot facility at the northwest corner of Fred Waring and Monterey and they were dealing with having enough parking so he could come to Planning Commission with a set of plans with the commission saying, "Great, you have 30 spaces more than you need" . That was what they were dealing with right now. On that basis, if in fact they come before commission with plans and the commission says no, they need additional things, then that would push them back farther. He didn't feel he should have to close his business and he had been in � business in Palm Desert for ten years . There were certain factors involved that he had no control over. � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson said that he could understand and �• appreciate that and he would be willing to condition this date on first submission by the applicant, but he didn 't like how Mr. Muro got into this location. There were permitting procedures that were ordinarily followed. He respected the fact that Mr. Muro contributes to the community and had been here for ten years, but he wasn't supposed to be in the location he was now. He felt that staff had gone to great lengths to try and assist him. He was willing to work with him, but he wanted Mr. Muro to work with him as well . He was a square peg in a round hole and he didn't like the business there during the season and if he could get into a facility, that was great and they would review his plans and work with him, but he was not sure he wanted this use there for another season if something fell through and Mr. Muro couldn' t find larger accommodations . That was the purpose of his question. Mr. Muro replied that if that was an ultimatum he would have to accept it. Commissioner Ferguson clarified that it was a question which he would like to have answered. Mr. Muro said that he would have to agree with that. '� Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. GARY TRYON, 74-047 San Marino Circle, stated that he lived directly across from Ruth' s Chris and his home backs up to the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro. He said that he and his neighbor were surrounded by the parking lot now. He said that with all due respect to Mr. Smith, he was not the one who had to live with this situation. They were. He said that it was a circus out there now and had been for four and a half years . If anyone wanted to dispute this, he had hours of video and audio tape to prove it. About six weeks aga he gave a short video tape to Wayne Ramsey from Code Compliance. They made some minor changes that had done nothing to alleviate the noise they live with. Chairperson Beaty asked if the noise problem was during the evening hours. Mr. Tryon concurred. He said they had no problem with the daytime businesses . The problem was the noisy nighttime businesses that had been allowed to locate there and spill across the street into the north parking ` lot. The parking spaces were within eight feet of his bed and he had to live with this every night and they 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 : were out there until 11:00 p.m. and 12 : 00 p.m. every � � night. � MR. RAY WINNER, 74-039 San Marino Circle, a resident behind the parking lots, stated that he did not object to the business but management of the parking lot was very poor. There was so much noise it was out of control . He had talked to Code Enforcement, tried to talk to the manager of Ruth's Chris, and the big problem was that no one wanted to take any authority to do anything about controlling it. There was valet parking. The problem was that there was no one to control the auto alarms and the noise after they come out of the businesses . His bedroom was only about 13 feet from the parking lot, the west side of the parking lat where there were 16 parking spaces . He had an agreement with Ron Gregory through Ruth's Chris that no one would park in there at night because there were hundreds of car doors being slammed every night. When it first started they jumped up every minute to see if someone was out there. It continues and goes on continuously. He didn't think putting more cars in that parking lot would solve the problem. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Winner when the noise and � nuisance he talked about occurred. � Mr. Winner said that it started around 6 : 00 p.m. and ended around midnight. He also said that they had a real problem with the employees of this business . They parked right up against the wall . There was a lot of noise going on and they came out late at night anywhere from 10 : 15 p.m. to 11 :45 p.m. and they made all kinds of noise. He tried to get this worked out on a one-to-one basis . That hasn't worked. He knew that growth in the city was important but what happened was that no one wanted to take the authority to control this lot. They ended up being the watchdog for this and there was a lot of other things going on in that lot. He felt at one time that they should have security out there. The Sheriff ' s Department pulls stolen cars out of there, people leave there drunk and get into arguments and they're out there at 11:00 p.m. screaming, and this went on all the time. Auto alarms go off and run 15 minutes at a time. He objected to the project. Chairperson Beaty said that Mr. Winner was describing a situation that was not really being addressed with this = conditional use permit. He was not saying that the � commission was not concerned, but he was asking for comments � to help this problem. +� 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19 , 1996 MR. RICHARD OLIPHANT, 45-500 Navaho Road in Indian ` Wells, stated that what they were discussing tonight was not an issue for this public hearing because they were talking about something that did not occur in the evening or late at night. He wanted to comment though. They did have some consideration for them and did sympathize with the situation. At the time they built that building in 1991 they attempted to buy all the houses in that area. They were not able to buy those two houses so they were forced to build around them, which was fully approved through the legal process here in Palm Desert. That didn't excuse the fact that they were being disturbed by a lot of noise at night. Unfortunately, the quality of help they got in valet service was not always the greatest and they did bang doors, bumped the horns, parked the cars and set off alarms. That was inherent in the valet business . It was something that he no control over because the valet company didn't work for him. They work for Ruth' s Chris and �hey have talked with Ruth' s Chris on a regular basis . They were in the process right now with negotiating with Ruth's Chris with regard to the quality of the valet service ta try and upgrade that. Hopefully they would be able to achieve that within the next 30-45 days . The issue being discussed tonight dealt with Rick � and Shelley Muro and he had tried to assist them because it was a well established business in Palm Desert. This business was in a real terrible situation when they came to him and asked for his assistance. The reason there was a period of time between the actual time they moved in and the application before commission was because they did two things . One, he couldn't allow them to move in there and pay a TUMF fee. There was a huge TUMF fee on that type of business. He went to the traffic commission of CVAG to discuss the TUMF fee because this was a temporary use. They paid a TUMF fee where they were at now and would pay a TUMF fee where they were going, this was just a stopover until they get to their ultimate destination. He helped write those original TUMF laws when he was Mayor of Indian Wells . He went to CVAG and suggested that there was something that they had missed at the time they wrote those laws because they hadn't considered temporary uses and should. It was considered by the traffic commission and they waived the TUMF fees for this temporary move. He took that to the executive committee and they waived it as well . During that time Mr. Drell and his staff did traffic studies. Once they had all that information they put it all together and got the application in. He said this � was a temporary use in his building. Mr. Muro couldn't stay there beyond 12 months from when he moved in, or 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 ; February 28 actually. That date was arrived at because � they put together a development construction schedule � for the site he was going to. He felt that was a pretty legitimate schedule and felt they would be able to meet that schedule. In any event, if for some reason the building started to unravel or Mr. Muro' s financing did not come together liked he hoped, or if they were not able to achieve the kind of parking he needs on that site which was under study and consideration right now, it would be necessary for him to find another site someplace else and get busy working on that. What they were trying to do was clear those issues up immediately so that his options were open to him and he could stay in business, could grow and be a worthwhile business to the city of Palm Desert, which he believed he was . Commissioner Ferguson stated that his comments were particularly in regard to one sentence in the staff report that said that failure to comply with these dates would result in further hearings and possible revocation of the conditional use permit. There was a less than sterling track record in certain of our temporary provisional programs to assist people and he wanted to make clear, in fairness to Mr. Oliphant and his tenant, that if there wasn't a new facility and he was not in it one year from the date indicated, there � would be in his opinion no extension and no continuation. He � could fully appreciate, although he didn' t understand why, the situation Mr. Muro found himself in and as indicated to the applicant, he was willing to work with him but didn't want to create any illusions with anyone about this being anything more than a reluctant, temporary situation. Mr. Oliphant stated that he concurred completely. Under the CVAG rules for TUMF it was not the tenant but the building owner that was responsible for the TUMF fees . Under this temporary use that CVAG created it was good for 12 months . At the end of 12 months if he was still in that space one day beyond 12 months he would have to write a check for those TUMF fees and he didn't intend to write that check. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he appreciated the comments from Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner, the surrounding residents, because they provide a good illustration for the commission on the adverse impacts that could result from inadequate parking. He hoped they as a commission would learn from the � experience and comments and be more sensitive to that very � important problem because it directly impacted in a very 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 negative way people' s real quality of life. He also felt �•• there were occasions when exceptions were called for and in this particular case he felt the application, if it was permitted, was not where their problem was but with the existing uses that were there. He felt they, along with other concerned neighbors, needed to work with the city to examine specifically the hours of operation that were allowed under the conditional use permit and the other provisions that probably didn't allow the use to continue when these types of problems were created. He heard them say they had been working with staff, but that it had not been effective. He invited them to try one more time and if it continued to be ineffective, they should come back to the Planning Commission and advise them that there was an existing use ad�acent to their property that appeared to not be complying with the conditional use permit and the commission would take it from there. With regard to the application, he recognized the existing problem and felt they might be adding to the existing problem, but in this case he felt an exception was warranted. The reason for that was articulated by the applicant and his representative. There would be a benefit to the overall community of Palm Desert and he felt they could live with the inconvenience for one year given the result that would take place one year from now. In light of that he suggested that condition #7 be modified to allow � extended use beyond the time limits indicated. An additional one and a half hours would have activities concluding by 7 : 45 p.m. and the place vacated by 8 :00 p.m. He felt that met the applicant's requirements . He also felt that needed to be conditional on the applicant obtaining written agreement for the use of ten or more parking spaces elsewhere. That would satisfy that particular need. He noted that he drove past the facility every night and there was a bit of a traffic jam when patrons were using the facility. He suggested some type of window covering along the Portola windows which were fully open to the traffic; it didn't need to be anything fancy, he wasn't talking about wooden shutters or blinds, but temporary paper covering or something suitable that would be adequate, between four to six feet up minimum from the ground level so that the view was partially obscured. He was suggesting that as a condition of approval . With those revisions, he would make a motion for approval . Mr. Drell added that in response to the video tape and the specific complaints, staff informed Ruth' s Chris and the valet company that unless they address the problem identified by the neighborhood, they would revoke that particular valet parker' s permit. Unfortunately, staff relies on the neighbors to tell us whether the city' s response was � effective. If they are telling us that there hasn't been a significant improvement in the last two or three months since 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 the ultimatum was given, that was what Mr. Oliphant, the owner of Ruth' s Chris, and staff needed to know so that the threat to the valet parking service could be carried out. I f that was the best this valet service could do, then it' s not good enough and he would no longer be in business on that site. He was sure it was a very lucrative valet parking contract, probably one of the most lucrative in Palm Desert, and he was sure there were other people who could operate it. The abuses seen on the tape were not inherent in the use, there was an absolute disregard for common courtesy and should be able to be corrected. Chairperson Beaty asked for clarification from Mr. Winner that he has an agreement with Ron Gregory regarding those parking spaces and if those were the same parking spaces they were now asking to use. Mr. Winner indicated there were 16 parking spaces that were partially covered; he has had an agreement with Ron Gregory since the parking lot was put in that no cars would park in those spaces at night. Those spaces were 13 feet from his bed. Chairperson Beaty asked if that agreement was in writing. Mr. Winner said it was a verbal agreement he has had � with Ron Gregory for four years . On the other side it was wide open parking. Mr. Oliphant said those were not the same spaces . That was the reason Ron Gregory restricted the number of spaces to ten because he didn't want to violate that agreement. Mr. Drell noted that there would still be no parking up against that wall on the east side of the parking lot, which was the resident' s west wall. Those covered parking spaces that park into that wall would still be prohibited and not used. He asked Mr. Oliphant if those spaces were the ones toward the building and front of the building. Mr. Oliphant replied yes, the spaces toward Portola. Chairperson Beaty asked how the commission could possibly restrict the use of those ten spaces to only the people using the Fitness Mart. Mr. Drell said that because all the other spaces were valet parked by Ruth' s Chris valet parkers, there were essentially only three business using that lot: Tsing Tao, Ruth' s Chris and now the Fitness Mart. He asked if the aerobics people could use the valet, because he understood they do use the valet service. Mr. Muro said that was correct. Mr. Drell said that in essence they were increasing 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 the total number of spaces and those spaces would not be '` restricted to the valet, they would be open spaces . The Fitness Mart people were the ones most likely to use them. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that those spaces right now were not being used by anyone; Mr. Drell replied that right now none of Ron Gregory' s spaces were used other than by people who stay late in those of f ices . The change would be that the spaces towards Portola would be available until 8:00 p.m. They would not be available to the valet until midnight, but only until 8 : 00 p.m. when the aerobics classes closed down. Mr. Oliphant said it was not their intent to allow the valet to use any spaces they weren' t currently using. It was only by instruction by Rick Muro to those people who use that class to show where they can park. He didn't intend to allow Ruth' s Chris to use them. Commissioner Ferguson asked what Mr. Oliphant' s experience was with the traffic volumes and the parking there in the late spring, summer and early autumn months . Mr. Oliphant said it was very light, both restaurants dropped substantially. r.. Commissioner Ferguson stated that the staff report said that Mr. Muro successfully negotiated a lease with 111 Town Center and asked Mr. Muro if that was true. Mr. Muro said that was true. They had letters from them with negotiations in price per square footage, common area benefits and they actually had in a meeting with him and all the other tenants brought it to everyone' s attention that they were not going to renegotiate not only the existing tenants ' leases, because they were only paying common area charges and no rental fees at this point in time, but they also were not going to be continuing through the entitlements they got through the City Council and Planning Commission. They were entertaining three bids at that time for the sale of that business . Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Muro had an executed lease before he terminated his existing lease. Mr. Muro replied no, he did not. Commissioner Campbell stated that she concurred with � Commissioner Jonathan. She felt that for the temporary time they would be there that the additional ten spaces would be 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 adequate and that they should stay open until later because when she gets off of work and wanted to exercise, everything was closing. She would be in favor of them having the ten spaces and to stay open until 7 :45 p.m. for the classes and closing the facilities at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was supportive of the concept of helping out a local businessman, particularly a long-term local businessman and one that he knew. Notwithstanding that fact, he did not support the elimination of condition #7 but would support in part a modification to it during summer months iE that could be worked out. He felt it would be a total abdication of their responsibility as commissioners to increase a known, existing problem that needed to be addressed. Both of the adjacent residents indicated a problem with evening hours and limitation of the use would limit the evening hours. The applicant indicated that the number of people in the evening class was relatively small . He didn't like to limit when people could or could not do business because he was a very free market person, but there was a problem there and the commission was charged with taking care of that problem. He sympathized with the problem faced by the applicant, but he did not believe his problem should become the city's problems and didn't think with the compromise worked out by Mr. Smith that it would become the city's problem as drafted. He would support the application based on the express representation by Mr. Oliphant that TUMF fees would not be paid after next February and there would be no further aerobics use after one year from the date that they first opened. He would support the application in its entirety but would entertain modification to condition #7 during summer months only. Other than that he was generally supportive and genuinely appreciative of the staff work and the effort that went into this. Mr. Smith asked for clarification about the October lst date to vacate. Commissioner Ferguson stated that when he read the staff report it sounded like there weren't a lot of assurances as to the alternative use and then in the oral report he heard more about some plans and assurances and the applicant said he was very comfortable, so he did not need to add an October lst date, particularly in light of Mr. Oliphant' s explanation about the TUMF fee situation. He was comfortable the use would not be in longer than one year. Chairperson Beaty agreed with Commissioner Ferguson and asked when the applicants expected the evening business to subside (i .e. what month and what time for the evening classes) . 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Mr. Oliphant stated that Ruth' s Chris ' business started �+ dropping off at the end of May and started up about mid November. Chairperson Beaty said that he was in agreement with Commissioner Ferguson about wanting to help but trying to stay away from that evening problem. He asked the other commissioners how they felt about allowing May 15 through November evening classes and prohibiting evening classes outside those dates . Commissioner Campbell asked if they were just talking about the evening classes for Suite J. Chairperson Beaty concurred. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he expressed how he felt and put a motion on the table and thought there was a second and called for the motion to see how the commission stands . The motion was not to eliminate condition #7, but to modify the hours by extending them one hour and a half and that would impact the next month and perhaps three months into next year. It was a temporary situation and he felt with the addition of the ten parking spaces that this was one particular instance where the commission could afford to be a little flexible, particularly because of the track record � of the applicant and the intent and objective that he has and the benefits that would accrue to the city at that point. For those reasons, he was in favor of modifying condition #7 and the motion as amended would stand. Chairperson Beaty stated that before taking action on the motion he would ask for further commission comments . Commissioner Fernandez stated that he was in favor of the amendment as expressed by Commissioner Jonathan. Chairperson Beaty called for a second to the motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-2 (Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Ferguson voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1730, approving CUP 96-6, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-2 (Chairperson Beaty and Commissioner Ferguson voted no) . � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Chairperson Beaty asked if Ruth' s Chris was operating under a conditional use permit. Mr. Drell replied that all restaurants were. Chairperson Beaty asked for assurances from staff that this would be followed up on and remedied somehow and noted that Mr. Oliphant indicated that he would cooperate. Mr. Oliphant said they were working on that. Chairperson Beaty asked if the permit was up for review. Mr. Drell concurred. F. Case No. CUP 96-8 - PARCIVAL LTD. dba DOUG ARANGO'S, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the patio expansion for approximately 30 seats at the former Dominick Mancuso`s Trattoria located at the northeast corner of E1 Paseo and San Pablo. Mr. Smith explained that Doug Arango' s has operated in the Von' s center for some time. They wish to relocate into the former pominick Mancuso's Trattoria at E1 Paseo and San Pablo. There was an existing conditional use permit in � effect for that restaurant. It did not include the patio d�ning that Doug Arango's wishes to develop. There was a rendering of the view from E1 Paseo looking to the north. The matter received preliminary approval from the Architectural Review Commission, subject to some architectural details on the roof and various items. He also noted that the patio area extended approximately two feet into the public right-of-way and either the plan would have to be narrowed down to take it out of the public right-of-way or they would have to obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department. Either way he felt the request for 30 seats could be accommodated. Th�re were 75 parking spaces available onsite. Staff did not conduct a parking survey. With the major use not there he felt the results would be less than meaningful . There was a lot of street parking available and the existing 200 temporary parking spaces directly across the street on the Ahmanson site and when Saks develops there would also be 200 spaces in the parking structure available for general use. He stated that he was not aware of any parking problem that was in existence at this time. Staff didn't feel the additional patio dining here would impact adversely. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution which put a maximum number of seats indoor and outdoor at 125 � people. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson noted that Mr. Smith indicated in the � staff report that the previous outdoor dining permitted was on the north side of the building and asked if that was issued as part of the previous conditional use permit in connection with this property. Mr. Smith said it was issued with one of the conditional use permits on this property, he wasn't sure which one. Commissioner Ferguson wanted to know if it was still valid. Mr. Smith explained that it was only good for one year if they failed to implement it and as this was done in 1983, it had expired. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT EVANS, 72-695 Highway 111, stated that he was present to answer any questions . Commissioner Ferguson asked when he planned to open. Mr. Evans replied October 1, 1996, although he was presently open at another location. Commissioner Campbell stated that she liked their plan to have the entry right on E1 Paseo and didn't see any problem with taking two feet from the sidewalk because it was a wide '� sidewalk. She felt it would be very inviting. Mr. Evans asked for clarification on the condition that required staff/employees to park offsite at the Ahmanson temporary parking lot where The Gardens would eventually be. He wanted to know what the recommendation would be upon the cons�ruction of that plaza and if it would still be a requirement when The Gardens was complete. Mr. Smith explained that there would be a period during construction when the parking would not be available. Once the parking structure was available, they would be encouraged to park there, especially during the lunch hour. Mr. Evans asked if that was public parking. Mr. Smith replied that there were 200 spaces there for the public. Mr. Drell clarified that the entire parking lot would be public parking, it was just that they were required to build 200 additional spaces above the requirement to insure that there would be space available for users other than the center. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or � OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 testimony was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he fully supported the change from Dominick Mancuso' s to Doug Arango' s. He enjoyed the restaurant, but had not en joyed the vacancy and felt this would fill a wonderful restaurant and a wonderful place on E1 Paseo. He said he knew the applicant and knew he ran a fine establishment and was more then happy to have it on E1 Paseo. Actfon: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1731, approving CUP 96-8, subject to conditions . G. Case No. CUP 96-11 - FITZHENRY FUNERAL HOME, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of ; the Episcopal Church Monastery to a � funeral home on the R-3 zoned site located north of San Gorgonio Way between San Pablo and San Rafael . Mr. Smith explained that the property was originally built in 1958 by William Boyd and it was run as a hotel . In 1977 the Society for St. Paul Religious Order of the Episcopal Church acquired the property and the city approved a conditional use permit to operate a monastery which has operated on the site since 1977 . Using the wall map he described the location of the property and the location of the existing facility. They would retain the one northerly driveway from San Pablo which provides driveway access and carport facility. This would be a caretaker' s residence. There would also be a maintenance facility. They would retain the existing driveway connections off of San Rafael and the vacant property on the north end of the complex would be developed with a 33 space parking lot. In discussing the request with the applicant, they indicated that the primary activity would be meetings with families to plan and arrange services and viewings where the families gather the night before the funeral . Small services would be held at this location but large services would be held at the local churches . This was how they work within their existing facilities in Indio and Coachella. Part of staff ' s task was to determine what constituted small and large. The plan called for the 33 space parking lot. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Staff looked at the parking lot requirement per code and '� given the spaces indicated staff determined a parking requirement of 27 spaces and the applicant was proposing 33 offsite parking spaces . The applicant indicated that when they have more people than they expect, towards the upper end of their service level, they would provide valet parking and traffic direction people. Assuming two people per car, if they were expecting less than 66 attenders at a service, then they didn't need the valet parking. They have an absolute maximum limit set at 88 people. With the valet parking they felt they could get in the extra 12 cars in the parking lot. A maximum of 88 persons attending with a likelihood that they would occupy 44 cars (two persons per car) . They feel they can get the 44 cars on the site. Staff received letters from Mr. Fife, Dominique Ann Holmes on Royal Palm, Carol Baringer at 73-575 Catalina, and the letter from Mr. Holmes . The letters expressed concern regarding traffic circulation. Staff suggested a condition requiring signs to direct people exiting the site to turn right and proceed south on San Rafael back on San Gorgonio and across onto San Pablo. Commission also received additional written material this evening from Dr. Richard Dorst of the Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church, Mr. Hast of the Abbot and Hast Publications, Reverend Hall of the St. Margaret' s Episcopal Church, Dr. Moore of the Southwest Community Church, and Dr. `` Costa of the Religious Science Church. The concern staff had when first meeting with the applicant was if the use could be controlled enough to bring it into this community which was residential in nature north of San Gorgonio. It was not an easy call, but staff felt the findings could be met to approve the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions imposed. Staff asked for any questions . Commissioner Jonathan asked if other than the correspondence mentioned, if telephone calls or visits from any of the surrounding residents were received. Mr. Smith replied that he was visi�ed by Mr. Holmes two-four times, he missed telephone conversations with Mr. Fife although a letter from him was received. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this went through the usual notification procedures . Mr. Smith answered yes and indicated that 37 or 38 legal notices were mailed and staff received back the four letters he referred to initially. Mr. Drell said staff also received a letter today from the adjacent property owner of the apartments directly north of the parking lot. Mr. Smith noted that the Ietter was from the Littles. Chairperson Beaty o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. � 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, I996 MR. VINCENT ROVER, 74-741 Joni Drive Suite C in Palm Desert, spoke on behalf of Fitzhenry Funeral Home and stated that he wanted to emphasize some of the points made by Mr. Smith. Site selection-this was an ideal site for the Fitzhenry family for this business . It had a low key, comfortable, non-institutional and non- commercial feel . It was also a central location in the city of Palm Desert and central in the valley. It was an inward turning site that provided privacy and was very serene. Once inside it was walled and the building turned in towards the center of the site and felt isolated and private. Site improvements-the Fitzhenry family intended to abandon all of the driveways on the San Pablo side with the exception of the grounds keeper quarters on the upper left and just to the east of that building was the maintenance shop. They plan to use only two of the interior buildings for viewing. The pool and spa in the center would be replaced with turf to emphasize the park-like atmosphere on the inside of the site. The Fitzhenrys reviewed signage with the planning staff and understand that this is a residential area and allowable signage is a 20 square foot sign (four by five) . He noted that there was an apartment complex just to the east of the site and it had a sign ; that complied exactly. They intend to blend in and be � very discreet and low key with this private business. They also plan to add a parking lot to the north as was discussed. Parking and exiting from the parking lot would be directed by an employee to go only south on San Rafael and then only west on San Gorgonio to San Pablo. There would be no street elevation changes . On San Pablo/San Gorgonio/San Rafael there would be no street elevation changes to the building or landscaping other than the driveways removed on San Pablo and the new driveway needed for parking on the north and the permitted signage. From an exterior view, no hearses would be stored on the site. There would be an errand van that would either be stored in the parking lot or in one of the existing carports because five of the buildings have carports that front on the street. MR. JIM FITZHENRY, 82-975 Requa Avenue in Indio, informed commission that his Father came from Chicago in 1951 for a job in the Caachella Valley and started his own funeral home in 1955, which had continuously been under their family' s operation since then. In the last three years they obtained the property across from Coachella Valley Cemetery to expand to further serve the ' citizens in the lower end of the valley. They feel the time is appropriate now for the citizens of Palm Desert to have a first class, family run caring funeral home 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 within their city. He said it was difficult to express � the pride he has in his profession. He was born and raised at the funeral home and was proud of what his father did for a living. It was his choice to go into this profession, as well as his brother's choice. They have both raised their families at the funeral home facilities and they were proud to say that their children do very well having been raised in a very loving and caring environment. Their purpose in being in the funeral industry was to assuage grief, not to create problems. They were there to make it a little easier for people to go through a very difficult time. This location offered them that opportunity to provide that service to the Palm Desert community. The atmosphere was very serene and peaceful . The monastery has done an excellent job in maintaining that. It was very rewarding to receive the warm regard from people who thank them for what they do. Being able to offer the Palm Desert community this service at this facility would be a sacred obligation they would hold dear and follow through to the best of their capacity to make not only their family proud, but the city of Palm Desert as well . He reiterated that they have no problem with the conditions and were fully aware of traffic concerns . � Commissioner Ferguson noted that the application said that one of the primary activities at this location would be meetings with families to plan and arrange services and viewings . He asked if there were also services and viewings at the facilities . Mr. Fitzhenry said their intent was to afford the opportunity for viewing and small services at this facility. They would be restricted by parking for a maximum of 88 people. If they were planning a larger service than that, they would contact the person's church or ask where the family would like the service held. Most people liked to have services at their own churches and facilities and they do more and more of that. They were into celebration of life to recognize a life well lived and those were generally smaller gatherings . They even had an opportunity to have coffee and danish served and this facility with the individual housing afforded that opportunity. Commissioner Ferguson asked if this location was in a cemetery district. Mr. Fitzhenry replied yes, the Coachella Valley Cemetery � District which services Bob Hope Drive to the Coachella Valley Cemetery, which was located at Avenue 52 and 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 Jackson. All that meant was that the property taxes within that district help to support that cemetery. A non-resident would pay a surcharge for burial privileges in that cemetery. On the other side of Bob Hope it was the Palm Springs Cemetery District. The charges even with the surcharge at Coachella Valley are less than the other establishment. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. CAROLYN LITTLE, 38-765 Rancho Las Cerritos in Bermuda Dunes, her mother's residence was at 72-929 Bel Air in Palm Desert, and her apartments were at 44-591 San Rafael. They were the property owners adjoining the planned facility. She stated that commission had her letter in support of this facility. She wanted to add that she has known the Fitzhenry family personally and went to school with some of the children. They have helped her family through grief, through the celebration in the loss of her father seven years ago and her father-in-law this year, and they have supported many families. She was for them beyond just that type of relationship, and for them because of their established rapport with the people with whom they deal . She recalled her fears being alleviated as she visited their facility in Indio and Coachella. She said her husband served as "Principal for a Day" and had an opportunity to go to Coachella to visit their facility there and when he came home he said it was not at all like he thought, yet they had been through the process from the outside coming in. Here he was, a professional from the community, actually going into the back and found it to be an extremely positive experience. They were in favor of this and hoped the commission took into consideration the fact that they did ask all of their tenants how they felt and there were no concerns or complaints from the nine tenants . MR. DANIEL RONDO, 44-7�1 Monaco Circle in Palm Desert, an Associate Rector at St. Margaret' s Episcopal Church on Highway 74 . He said it was his and Reverend Hall ' s hope that the commission would be able to work with the Fitzhenrys and the neighbors to make this happen. It was their belief and experience that they were a fine group and would provide a valuable service to the community. His experiences with them had been very positive and their care and concern for families he would like to hold up. From a pastoral point of view he welcomed their services here in Palm Desert and their presence here. As they become neighbors and members of 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 our community, they become better known by us and it �•• would be a mutually beneficial situation here. Fitzhenry' s has an excellent reputation working with folks during a very difficult time. He has witnessed this himself. They felt that Fitzhenry's would provide a needed service here in Palm Desert as they help bury those who have died and comfort those who survive. He believed they would become a valued member of the community. MS. MARGARET COLLINS, 73-575 Catalina Way, which is on the northeast corner of the property in question. She said that she has managed the apartment complex for Mr. Fife for the past 13 years and on sitting in the side yard on evenings many times there have been near accidents. She felt there should be a stop sign there. San Rafael came to a dead end at Catalina and was concerned that this use would create a traffic hazard in this area. She was not against the mortuary being there, but felt that they should find another location because this was an R-3 zoned area. MR. HERBERT HOLMES, a Royal Palms resident, stated that he listened to the eloquent speeches . His position was that a funeral business was not suitable in a high �+ density, existing family neighborhood. It didn' t work. Funeral processions, people in mourning over their lost ones was just not a happy scenario for a neighborhood. They could talk about the celebration of life but this was a serious proposition. He asked every member on the commission if they would like to live next door to this project. There were other locations in Palm Desert that would be suitable and he hoped the commission would listen to the residents on how they feel about that project in their neighborhood. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Holmes received mailed notification of this hearing. Mr. Holmes replied yes . Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Holmes was within 300 feet of this property. Mr. Holmes replied yes . MR. BRUCE NORMAN, 44-684 San Benito Circle, stated that he was a homeowner two blocks from the proposed site. He was in favor of having them in this location. It ` would be a great site improvement in that general intersection with the Circle K and other businesses . 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 1996 There were enough apartments already. This would be a well enclosed and he was in favor. � MR. ROGER SMALLEY, 44-591 San Rafael, a resident of the Little's property adjacent to the proposed project. He felt that type of business would be a good neighbor because they would maintain the property and take care of it. MS. CAROL RITTER, 73-340 San Nicholas, a couple of blocks from the proposed project, stated that she was very familiar with the site since she had been around it since 1977 and really Felt it related very well to the surrounding area. She did not object to the use and felt it fit the site very well and would not change the aesthetics of it. For those reasons and as a local person for over 50 years she did not object and hoped the commission would consider passing it. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would take Mr. Holmes up on his challenge and said that he personally would not have • a problem living next to this facility. He looked at it, at � the renderings, drove by the property, and read all the � letters in favor of it including letters from almost every major church organization in Palm Desert. He understood from talking to people in the industry that there was no mortuary in this mid-valley area. He supported this project. He had taken particular note of some of the letters in support and agreed with some of the comments, but when considering the health and safety, particularly with respect to crime and the way that the properties are maintained typically given the abundance of evidence presented to the commission, a very positive feedback from people who have actually experienced living next to a funeral home and he felt it was a wonderful thing to have in that area and supported the findings of staff and the drafted resolution. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Ferguson and she was always under the impression that the corner was apartments and felt with the funeral home and how they would maintain it, painting the buildings or having a lot of plantings around it t would make it a little more warm instead of all the gravel right now and it would be very good for the community. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he was alsa in favor of .� the project and had required the use of Fitzhenry and they � 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARGH 19, 1996 did an excellent job and were very professional and very � caring. He welcomed them to the community. Commissioner Jonathan said that he came to the meeting tonight with an open mind on this application. Part of the reason he was undecided was because he felt the neighborhood would benefit from this use because it was getting to be more of a problematic area and felt a funeral home had a sobering effect on a surrounding area, and a positive effect. On the other hand he was concerned about the feelings of the surrounding residents because they were there first and if they objected there would be a problem, but he was persuaded by those present and they seemed to represent most of the feelings of the surrounding residents which was in favor of the project, which persuaded him. He concurred with the other comments and was in favor of the application. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he didn' t want to ignore the traffic safety concern and asked for staff comments . Mr. Drell identified the location as San Rafael at Catalina, where there was an uncontrolled "T" intersection. The stop sign would be on San Rafael . Mr. Greenwood stated that this could be done. Commissioner Ferguson modified his comments to say that he supported the application with that being accomplished. Chairperson Beaty asked if a traffic study � would need to be done. Mr. Greenwood explained that the base leg of a "T" intersection had to yield the right-of-way to opposing traffic anyway and in this case the stop sign would just clarify that issue. Chairperson Beaty stated that he wholeheartedly supported and welcomed the Fitzhenrys . He had honestly wondered where he would go if he needed services and what his wife would do. He asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1732, approving CUP 96-11, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. ` 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, I996 X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. � XI . COMMENTS Commissioner Ferguson asked where the commission stood on the Redevelopment Agency briefinq. Mr. Drell stated that they declined to provide one. Their comment was the reason we were having the joint meeting with the City Council and Economic Development was to provide the commission with a briefing and now that the date has been set and will occur, their response was that was the purpose of that meeting. Commissioner Ferguson asked when that meeting was; Mr. Drell replied Thursday, May 16 at 4 : 00 p.m. at which time there would be the ability to discuss these things with the City Council, as well and Economic Development Rdvisory Committee. Mr. Drell stated that in terms of the meetings Redevelopment conducts, i .e. Section 4 or Project Area 4, the commission was invited to attend those meetings . XII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner � Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 18 p.m. PHILIP DRE L,_SQc�r-etary ATTEST: I " � `�- • � PAUL R. BEATY, C airperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � 34