Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0416 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - APRIL 16, 1996 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * `r�r I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 08 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Jim Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Jeff Winklepleck Marshall Rudolph Mark Greenwood Steve Smith Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: � Consideration of the March 19, 1996 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the March 19, 1996 minutes by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent March 28 and April 11, 1996 city council items . VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 24632 - V/S ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a tentative tract map subdividing 80 . 6 gross acres into 241 ` single family units and a CVWD well site located at the southwest corner of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 B. Case No. PMW 96-2 - CRAIG/DORY DEVAL AND ROBERT/ANITA � HOWARD, Applicants Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 78 and 79 within Tract 24539, Belmonte Estates . C. Case No. PMW 96-3 - BELMONTE ESTATES ASSOCIATES, L.P. AND LEO/KATHY WALTERS, Applicants Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 83 and 84 within Tract 24539, Belmonte Estates . D. Case Nos . PMW 96-4 and PMW 96-5 - BELMONTE ESTATES ASSOCIATES, L.P. , Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 24 and 25 and lots 39 and 40 within Tract 24539 , Belmonte Estates . E. Case No. PMW 96-6 : � � CHRIS/KRISTIN HERMANN AND LORI/FRED CHAFETZ, Applicants Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 15 and 16 within Tract 24539 , Belmonte Estates . RICHARD/YOLONDA SPENCE AND ARNOLD/GAIL WEISLER, Applicants Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 30 and 31 within Tract 24539, Belmonte Estates . BELMONTE ESTATES ASSOCIATES, L.P. , Applicant Request for approval of a lot line ad�ustment for lots 60 and 61 within Tract 24539, Belmonte Estates . � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 � BELMONTE ESTATES ASSOCIATES, L.P. AND EDNA MAGALDI, Applicants Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 61 and 62 within Tract 24539, Belmonte Estates . F. Case No. PMW 96-7 : BELMONTE ESTATES ASSOCIATES, L.P. , Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 47 and 48 within Tract 24539, Belmonte Estates . TED AND ROSEMARY DETTLAFF, Applicants Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 51 and 52 within Tract 24539, Belmonte Estates . NORMAN AND VIRGINIA MATOSSIAN, Applicants �"' Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 54 and 55 within Tract 24539 , Belmonte Estates . REGGIE/ROSE BENNETT AND TERRY/ELAINE BURNS, Applicants Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for lots 75 and 76 within Tract 24539 , Belmonte Estates . G. Case No. PMW 96-9, TT 26562 - SUN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to reconfigure the existing five parcels so that the parcel representing the future golf course stands on its own. This is for the Desert Wells project located east of Portola Avenue north of Frank Sinatra Drive which recently received a one-year time extension. �.r 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 � Action: � Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, 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. This request was continued to the April 16 , 1996 meeting pending receipt of a written withdrawal . The letter of withdrawal was received. No further commission action was necessary. Action: None. � B. Case No. CUP 96-14 - EAGLE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES, � Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 1640 square foot church facility in Suite 103 at 75-105 Merle Drive in the S . I . (service industrial) zone. Mr. Smith noted that four weeks ago the commission reviewed a request for a temple in the industrial building immediately to the east of this property on Merle Drive. This proposal was considerably smaller and had a very ample supply of parking in that it was at the east end of the Chapman College University property and there was a lot of parking, some of which was covered. This was a Sunday church operation so that it would fit well from a parking perspective with the temple on the property immediately to the east. Staff didn't perceive any parking problems. If there were, there was adequate street parking which staff made a case for during the last hearing on the temple property. Staff recommended approval and adoption of the draft resolution. i � 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 ` Chairperson Beaty o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB REARDON, Advisory Board of the Church and a Rancho Mirage resident, stated that he was looking forward to starting a small church there and as they grow, they would look forward to moving on, but it was a temporary use now. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this proposal . There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He requested comments or action from the commission. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1733, approving CUP 96-14, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . `` C. Case No. PP 96-3 - O. MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to allow the conversion and remodel of an existing 2030 square foot duplex to an office and a 570 square foot addition at 44-331 Monterey Avenue in the O.P. zone. Mr. Winklepleck explained that the request was to convert an existing duplex to a single story office use with a height of 14 feet. The project would meet all the requirements of the office professional zone and had received preliminary architectural approval . He explained that access to the north behind the existing duplexes would tie into a proposed duplex (which would be before commission on May 7 ) and those would both eventually tie into the parking lot of the Holden and Johnson building to the north of that. Staff recommended approval . Chairperson Beaty o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 � 1 � MR. MICHAEL HOMME, a Palm Desert resident and the � applicant, stated that he was present to answer any questions . Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jonathan stated tha� Mr. Homme, as well as Holden & Johnson, have done an exemplary job in that part of Palm Desert and he felt they were a quality team and that the project looked very nice. Chairperson Beaty concurred that this would be a welcome addition. 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. 1734, � approving PP 96-3, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . � � D. Case No. TT 27370 - SANDPIPER HOMES, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a 16 lot single family subdivision on the south side of Hovley Lane approximately 500 feet east of Avenida Arcada in the PR-5 zone. Mr. Winklepleck indicated that the project was a 16 lot single family subdivision similar to many up and down that portion of Hovley. The minimum square footage was 10, 130 square feet and ranged up to 12,000 square feet. The project would be marketed as a custom lot single family subdivision and each home over 15 feet in height would be reviewed by the Architectural Commission. He stated that he wanted to make one clarification in the requirements for the R-1 10, 000 zone setbacks . The applicant requested that the side yards, instead of being 20 feet combined 8 feet minimum, that they be the R-1 8, 000 square foot standards which was 14 feet combined with a minimum of 5 feet. That was based on the width of the lots which were 72 feet. Based on the width of ; 6 'r'ri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 �•• the lots staff concurred with the request and recommended approval with that change. He also noted that for the two lots facing Hovley, they would be required to meet a 10 foot street side yard as well . Chairperson Beaty o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE SMITH, a resident of Bermuda Dunes, stated that they have worked with staff and agree with all the conditions of approval . He indicated it was pretty much the same subdivision that has been done up and down the road and he was the planning engineer on Hovley Court, the development next door. Chairperson Beaty asked if any wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was happy to see the 10,000 square foot lot sizes and felt the unique situation on the lot widths warranted the exception down to the R-1 8, 000 standards for the side yard setbacks . '� 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. 1735, approving TT 27370, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . E. Case No. CUP 96-12 - MS. MARIE ELAINE MALONEY for MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF THE VALLEY, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and conditional use permit to allow a 3535 square foot building expansion and to increase the permitted number of students from 60 to 120 children to amend the maximum age served from five years to 12 years and to reduce the required parking lot from 40 spaces to � � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 � � 15 spaces for the existing Montessori � School at 43-250 Warner Trail . Mr. Smith stated that there was an existing Montessori School operating at Warner Trail and Mountain View. It was approved by the County in January of 1992 . At that time the County imposed certain conditions on its operation. They limited the school to a maximum of 60 students serving a maximum age of 5 years . As well, they required the provision of 40 onsite parking spaces . The property at that point and continuing to this day also operates as a church. There was a parking Iot of approximately 46 spaces . The applicant indicated on their site plan 46 parking spaces and in driving through the lot staff noted 52 spaces . At the time the report was written there was one interested neighbor. He called staff and visited the Planning Department. He was the property owner immediately to the south on Warner Trail . In discussions with him it seemed that if they could create some buffer between him and the school operation that he might be amenable to the expansion in that he expressed concerns with respect to noise and kids throwing objects into his swimming pool . Staff came up with condition #13 to move the wall and plant some trees. In the last two days staff received 10-12 : additional written comments as well as several phone calls . � People were concerned about the proposed expansion. They also expressed concern with respect to the future proposal of an apartment complex that had come to light for the remainder property at the Montessori School . Tonight the only item before the commission was the proposed expansion of the Montessori School, but in reading through the letters from the area neighbors, there was a blending of the concerns . He indicated for the record that in the staff report there were four written pieces of correspondence from James and Debbie Hiestand, Adele and Willis Blackmore, Coleen Richey Delong, and Terri and Randall Wade. In the past two or three days additional written correspondence was received from Elizabeth Cousins, Mr. and Mrs . John Oliveira, Jim and Rosemary Rusk, Dale Michael, Mr. and Mrs . Donald Sabala, Jane Peters and Family, David and Chris Walton, and a second correspondence from Adele and Willis Blackmore. In the first correspondence they had expressed no concern with the expansion of the school, but in the second correspondence they continued no opposition to the school, but were concerned about the apartments . Entering into this discussion also was the Project Area 4 Advisory Committee, which was an ongoing committee of the Redevelopment Agency ta oversee the future planning and development for this whole area. There were � eight members on this committee so there were eight members � , 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 '� from the community in that area. They are Charlie Ash of Palm Desert Country Club, Marjorie Harlan of the Palm Desert Resort Country Club, Cynthia Finerty of Desert Breezes, Joyce Friscoe of Robin Road, Sid McClellan of Woodhaven Country Club, Reynaldo Ortiz with College of the Desert but who also lives in the area, Dorothy Brown of Oasis Country Club, and Russ Campbell of Baron Circle, plus numerous city employees . In the interim they have also entered into the discussion and were requesting to see this proposal . They were requesting that after listening to the input tonight from the residents that they would prefer the commission to continue the matter so that it could be referred to the advisory committee so that they could have an opportunity to comment on the proposal . Mr. Smith explained that there was an existing 2800 square foot facility and the applicant was requesting to expand it by 3500 square feet and increase the number of students, increase the age served, and decrease the size of the parking lot. From a parking perspective the city requirement is that they provide parking based on the number of teachers or instructors plus they looked at the number of children served. They needed one drop-off or loading space per every eight students . That would provide eight loading spaces and parking of approximately seven if they assume ten instructors, which would be one per 12 students . He 'r"" summarized that the County approved the use of the former church site for 60 students . At this time they were looking to expand the building approximately 3500 square feet, which would take it to approximately 6400 square feet total . Enrollment would be increased to 120 children and increased the age served to 12 years . There was also a request from the area advisory committee asking that they be allowed to review the matter, which he understood they could do two weeks from tomorrow and the next commission meeting was three weeks from tonight. It seemed to lend itself to the three week continuance. Staff urged commission to hear the concerns of the area residents and with that proviso staff revised the recommendation. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GARY BRASHEAR, representing Marie Elaine Maloney, a resident of Newport Beach, stated that there was a preexisting use of a preschool and all he was talking about was an expansion. As far as the number of parking spaces, he supposed there was a lot of give and take in that because they have plenty of land. As far as the seniors apartments were concerned, he wanted to dismiss rr�r 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 that now, it wasn't a problem. That shouldn' t be talked � about tonight. The seniors was not a part of this at all, so he would go ahead with the expansion of the school . There were some problems of traffic, so they did a traffic use study today. They went out and took a traffic poll and he wanted the commission to write down some of the figures . From the north from 8 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 a.m. there were 181 cars . To the south there were 175 cars from 8 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 a.m. Coming into the school from 8 : 00-9 : 00 a.m. were 25 cars . In the afternoon from approximately 2 : 00-3 : 00 p.m. coming from the north the traffic was 171 cars, traffic from the south was 135 . Coming into the school were 29 cars . If the cars were multiplied by two there would be 50 cars in the morning and in the afternoon there would be 60 cars . He felt they were well within the bounds of a two lane highway in the city limits . He wanted to carefully point that out as mitigating any problems of a traffic issue. The next issue was that Ms . Maloney now operated a second campus over in the recreation facility at the Palm Desert Community Center, so all they were doing was bringing that school which was a mile away and blending it into the existing school . Both schools have been in operation for several years . Ms . Maloney was consolidating expenses and bringing the students into � one school . He didn' t feel the traffic was a problem and as far as the school it has been in operation for many years . They met on the 13th with several of the area residents and had a precise approval from the residents . They asked each one of them as they left the meeting whether they approved of the project. Each one of them did so. He was at the meeting as well as Elaine Marie Maloney. He felt the commission was getting a gross, false picture of those who do approve and those who don't. He noted again that this was a preexisting use that has been existence for years and so has the other school at the community center and the traffic count was mitigated. The parking shouldn't be a problem because there was plenty. He asked Mr. Smith if the ratio was 1 space for every 12 students; Mr. Smith replied one drop off space per 8, which gave a total of 15 . Mr. Brashear asked from the city' s viewpoint what parking ratio he needed for 120 students . Mr. Smith replied 1 drop off space for every 8 students, which equaled 15 and 2 parking spaces for every three instructors/teachers or people that would be there--for the purposes of the draft resolution and the conditions contained therein staff assumed 10 instructors/employees 10 °11� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 ��.r which would create a need for 7, so 15 plus 7 equals ZZ . Mr. Brashear said that he had no problem with 22 spaces . He felt that stated their position. He said they had several people who wanted to speak on their behalf. Commissioner Jonathan asked in what capacity Mr. Brashear was representing the applicant. Mr. Brashear replied that he was the agent/developer. Commissioner Ferguson stated that the problem he had with this was that they were talking about a seniors project and a school expansion in terms of what a lot of the comments had been directed to by the people sitting in the audience. It was impossible for him to know, because he didn' t know what the seniors project was because it was not in front of him, what comments were directed at what. He met with Ms . Maloney today and walked the premises of the school and looked at the surrounding community and neighborhood and based on the school part of the application he personally did not have problems with it, although he was looking forward to hearing some of the testimony tonight. When Mr. Brashear said just to ignore the seniors project, Mr. Brashear put it in issue. Unfortunately, it was not before the commission tonight, it was in Project Area 4 which had a representative of that � committee present. He was talking with Commissioner Jonathan about the parking issue in terms of what got cut off by this new seniors project, and wondered if the new seniors project would even be evaluated in a light favorable by the city and that tended to, whether they wanted it to or not, overshadow the application which he felt was somewhat meritorious . It was almost impossible for him to view the school in the abstract, although the applicant would like the commission to do that. His specific point was as it related to when Mr. Brashear said to ignore the seniors project was if it meant that the parking requirements indicated by Mr. Smith would be met under the school ' s plan as currently before this commission. Mr. Brashear stated that what was before the commission was only the preschool, only the school . They have submitted nothing, no application, nothing whatsoever and may not on the seniors . They might not ever submit anything. They were talking to the area residents and being honest with them, that is ail they were doing. There was no mention at all of any application to the city, nothing was submitted. � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 ; Commissioner Ferguson said that he was out there toda and � Y saw a 46 space parking facility and all of a sudden they were talking about parking spaces that would be roughly half of �hat. He asked if that parking lot would be maintained as currently configured. Mr. Brashear said it could. What he was trying to extract was the number of parking spaces actually needed and he understood that to be 22 . They would like to have allocated 22 spaces . If they don' t go seniors, they would want to develop the other part of this into something, although he didn' t know what it would be. Seniors was an idea, that was all it was . They have talked to the city about a playground and about selling to the city as a playground recreation center. Seniors was one of those ideas, but was not being met with the greatest reception. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Brashear understood that if commission chose not to continue this item, but voted on the project, if the school was to receive a favorable vote that would in no way foreshadow the commission' s reception to a seniors project. ; Mr. Brashear acknowledged that the seniors project had � nothing whatsoever to do with this application. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there was any discussion about the perimeter fencing or wall that would be used at the site during the neighborhood meeting last Wednesday. Mr. Brashear replied yes and indicated that one of the only problem matters was that they originally talked about putting up a block wall and many of the residents pointed out that they would not be able to see over it and wouldn't know what was going on behind the block wall and asked them to install ten foot pillars with chain link fencing and a lot of landscaping. They would work that out with the city, but that was the main issue. The other issue was the seniors and that was for another time. They just wanted to be honest with the residents about what they were thinking. Those were the only items that were discussed. When they left that meeting last Wednesday, he shook hands with each person and asked them if they were in total agreement and they replied absolutely. Each one of them. He didn't know what happened since then, although he had some idea. � The last thing he wanted to point out was what he � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 � thought would mitigate the perceived traffic problem would be a four-way stop sign at the corner of Mountain View and Warner Trail . He thought it was a mile in each direction to any other existing stop sign and they would pay for those stop signs and make sure that was taken care of to mitigate what was perceived as a traffic problem, but they didn' t feel there was a traffic problem. Mr. Rudolph clarified for the commission that the applicant was correct when he stated that the only issue before commission tonight was the application on the school issue. Regardless of what the comments might be, the only thing they could legally consider was the one issue tonight, not what some future issue might be. Commissioner Ferguson stated that his comments were directed to the fact that he understood that maps were shown to people with the seniors project in place and comments commission received invariably mentioned the seniors project inextricably intertwined with comments about the school as if the blight from one was bleeding over to the blight from the other. He supported the school as he saw it today. When he read the staff report and took a look at the letters he +` didn' t support it. He had to actually go out there and separate fact from fiction and see what was actually going on here. The problem he had was that it was "tainted" by this project that wasn't in front of them, that didn' t exist, that they couldn't consider, and yet he needed to evaluate the environmental impact according to the staff report and it was impossible to do that when the comments regarding the environmental impact were inextricably intertwined in the project that wasn't in front of them. His inclination at this point was to try and weed through it and if they couldn't do it, continue it so that the Project Area 4 Committee could review it. Mr. Rudolph said that to the extent that the commission could weed through it, they needed to do that and discard the irrelevant information. Commissioner Ferguson concurred. Mr. Drell stated they needed to do that especially in that the proposed senior project was not permitted right now by the zoning of the property and, therefore, it was not being even remotely considered since this was an R-1 zone. He noted that the zoning might end up as a recommendation going through the Project Area 4 Committee to make it R-1 40,000, which was the opposite direction of a multifamily senior project. The city was under no obligation nor compelled to "" 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 < seriously consider any other use than a single family � dwelling on that parcel . Mr. Brashear said that as the last comment he would make about the seniors project was that they were trying to deal with the area residents in honesty and they said over and over that this was only a vision of what might be. It was not cast in stone. They also mentioned past talks with recreation and parks with the city and this had been before the city, EDA, etc. , since June. He also wanted to comment that it had been a month or more since this had been in planning and they had heard nothing about anyone else' s jurisdiction over this and had he known that he would certainly have mitigated that and talked with those committee members to put this before them. He didn't understand how that happened yesterday and today. It didn' t seem quite right. They should have been talking to those folks and it didn' t make much sense. Mr. Drell clarified that one of the problems was that between the time the application was made and complete, there hadn' t been a Project Area 4 Committee meeting. This project, for the benefit of the applicant, was put on a rather accelerated � schedule to try and get them to hearing and in retrospect � that was a mistake. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. JOYCE FRISCOE, a resident of Robin Road, stated that she lived 345 feet from the project so she didn't receive a notice officially. She also serves on the Project Area 4 Committee and she didn't hear about this project from either way. She heard about it when some concerned residents left a flyer on her door over the weekend. She was a bit surprised when she found out it was coming before the Planning Commission tonight since she hadn't heard of it prior to that time. She was not involved in any of the neighborhood meetings . It wasn't until some concerned residents passed those flyers out so that neighborhood was aware of what would be happening this evening. At this time, as Mr. Smith mentioned, she felt strongly that the decision needed to be continued so that the proposal could be considered by the Project Area 4 Committee. They have been in existence since November-December of this last year and they were a committee that was actually to take place 14 "� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 � shortly after the annexation and did not happen. It happened when another project was proposed and they took notice. She stated that she wanted to read an excerpt from a letter that they received as residents in October of 1995 in regard to another project that was on a fast track and they didn't know about it until right before the hearing time. This letter was from Ray Diaz dated October 20 . One paragraph read, "A meeting will be scheduled for this discussion and you will receive written notice. " That was going to be a neighborhood meeting by the proposed development. "I wish to apologize to you and your neighbors because such meetings have not occurred. When the merger of Palm Desert Country Club and the City of Palm Desert occurred all of you were promised that proposals in the area would be handled the Palm Desert way. The Palm Desert way is to meet with area property owners, discuss the proposed project, identify area concerns and attempt to resolve them, The core of the Palm Desert way is to be certain that citizens in the area of the project have early opportunities to know and comment on the proposal . " Subsequent to that the committee was formed and they have started the process of working on a specific plan. Obviously that takes time. In addition '�' to that as they moved along they found the need to address some areas because when they were annexed the streets, especially Robin, Mountain View and Delaware, were one acre lots with residences on them for the most part. They were currently zoned R-1 9, 000 so they felt the need to go before the city council and ask for rezoning and wanted to be on record for that so that when anything came into the area before the specific plan was finalized, that at least they would be able to consider it because current zoning was R-1 9,000 and they knew things could come before the planning commission in the meantime. That was why it was important, and she was sorry that the applicant was not notified that this project should have came before the Project Area 4 Committee, but perhaps in trying to accommodate him and everyone some got shortchanged. She felt that it needed to be continued and wanted to go on record that her initial opinion, and it was sketchy because she only had information passed on to her by other people about the project, was that they were looking at that area and were trying to keep it residential . Most of the streets were developed with very large homes and it was definitely residential . There were two churches on Warner Trail and she felt � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 5 � that everyone accepted the fact that those churches were � there and she didn' t have a problem with that. The preschool that had been at the Baptist church two lots away from her now had moved to the Palm Desert Country Club Center. Now this proposal would really change a bit of the makeup. She saw it turning from a small preschool to more of a commercial enterprise, like a Learning Tree status . She tried to picture what the Learning Tree looked like on Washington and tried to picture that in her neighborhood and had a hard time seeing that this was what they really wanted for their neighborhood. Traffic was a consideration and she could appreciate the fact that the applicant had taken the time to add that up, but they were also looking at traffic in the specific plan and trying to cut down traffic. They have Mountain View and Delaware that go through to Washington. They have been dirt roads so they don't get a lot of travel now. In the near future they will be paved so there would be more traffic and with the Southwest Church going in there would also be more traffic. The school would only add to that, although perhaps not in substantial numbers, but enough to add to the problem. She also felt the noise was a definite impact. For a while, and she was not clear as to how many children were located at the present ,�,� location and how many were located at the other center, whether it was 60 total or if there were more than 60 students attending now. She knew that when they were located in the Baptist Church and they had one lot between them with no particular barriers, it was very noisy with the children when they were in the playground. They didn' t mind that, but multiplying that by three of what they had and having older children would have a noise impact on the area which they wanted to keep residential . She asked the commission to continue their decision until the Project Area 4 Committee had a chance and perhaps the applicant would come and make his presentation, perhaps there would be other neighborhood meetings, but she really felt more time needed to be given. MS. COLEEN RICHEY, 77-550 Mountain View, stated that her house was about 25 feet across the street from the church. She called that location a church because it was a church for over 20 years and she talked to one of the original church members and they even had a rule many years ago that a person had to be 65 years or older � to go to that church. This church had been around # 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 �' forever and when she bought her property, this was a sleepy church and people would be there on Sunday and perhaps have a garage sale once or twice a year. It was very quiet. She wasn' t at the earlier mentioned neighborhood meeting because she has a post office box and she had been there two days prior, on the lOth and she believed that was the day of the meeting. If not, she knew she got the notice the day of the meeting and was not able to attend because of prior commitments . She has lived on Mountain View for about 14 years and bought her property, a one acre parcel, for the peace, privacy, land and guietness and she paid a lot of money for it. She said that the parcels were very expensive and there were some beautiful homes . It was mentioned by the developer that there was a preexisting preschool there right now, but it was her understanding that there was a conditional use permit. She was never notified about the preschool going in. She just knew that all of a sudden there were some kids out there and she thought they were church kids . Somehow Montessori came along and being so close to this school she did hear quite a bit of noise and did see traffic. She said that from the inside of her house looking out the living room window she could see the parking lot, so she did see "'�' traffic constantly. She asked if there was a professional environmental impact report. If one was not included she would like to recommend that there be one. She noted that Mountain View was a dirt road and there were only three streets in Palm Desert that were dirt roads, which created a lot of dust because of traffic . Since the city came in she understood that they oiled/watered the road. This was a quiet, private church when she bought her property and things have turned around since then. A church was not a profit organization but Montessori was a business and businesses tended to want to make a profit. She said per child full-time it was over $500 per month. Right now $5, 000 times 30 or 60 would be $30,000 per month. Double that to 120 and that would be $60,000 per month. That was a profit and a business . It would bring more traffic and noise. As far as what was mentioned about the apartments, she knew that they couldn' t really talk about that, but it was her understanding that the people who own this property also bought another acre parcel just recently or they were in escrow. There was intent to do more. She didn't believe the purpose was to build a home on this R-1 property. She was afraid that if they continue or were not allowed to build the `. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 � apartments, they might expand the school down even � farther and would go from 120 kids to 240 kids in a beautiful residential/equestrian area. She believed in the CC&R' s that this property was called Lazy Acres . They were mostly one acre parcels . These properties would be three to four times more expensive than a house on nearby Warner Trail or Palm Desert Country Club. If she would have ever thought there would be a school that would be built across the street from her she never would have bought her property there. She wasn' t talking about lowering property values, but it would be hard to sell her house and would probably lower her property value, although she wasn' t planning on selling. Right now there was a lot of loitering at the church parking lot at night. The police were there. There were beer bottles thrown around in the church parking lot and they were also thrown across the street at her house. It looked to her like a couple of times that there might be drug deals going on. She didn' t feel it was a very safe place at this time. She was burglarized two times during the past six years and both times coincidentally it happened at the church/Montessori 5chool also. One time a lady' s purse got stolen and close to the very same time her house was burglarized. � Another time her window was broken and at the same time the Montessori School window was broken that same day. 5he felt that a school belonged down Washington Street, like the Learning Tree and Tiny Tots, not in this residential area. She was very concerned about the expansion of this business farther down the road. If this was expanded or allowed to go on, there were probably some acre parcels left and it would lead the way to allow others to buy and build more schools in that area and this would establish a precedence. She was never notified about the preexisting use of the school . There was also talk about a playground by the developer but with the problem that was already there with the loitering she didn't feel it would be a good idea. She would be against the school expanding, however if it looked as if there was any possibility that this would not happen and they were allowed their expansion, a block wall would be necessary and a lot more work done on an environmental impact report, block walls, making it attractive, making it aesthetic, making it improve the area and providing security gates, although she was against any expansion at all . The CC&R' s were very strict in that area and the county had ; even tougher and more stringent rules on what could be ` � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 ` done with their property and how many cars they could have and what they could have there. If the city was going to honor the county' s prior CC&R' s, this would be going way overboard. She believed that the city was planning to keep the existing CC&R' s that were there before the annexation and this would change it quite a bit. MS. DEBBIE HIESTAND, a Palm Desert resident immediately adjacent south of the property under discussion, stated that she was concerned about the traffic . The traffic count was fine, but if they doubled the number of students there was a possibility of 60 more cars per day. The noise factor also concerned her. She was a nurse and was looking at the possibility of working the night shift soon and kids up to 12 years old made a lot more noise than kids up to five. She would be trying to sleep during the day and she was concerned about noise. Decreasing the number of parking spaces was also a concern because being a school and increasing the age of the students, they would have special events and all the families would be present and those cars would be parking along their roads, Warner Trail and Mountain View, for those events . She wanted to bring up the � issue of the apartments because they did receive a notice and it was discussed at the meeting last week that they would move the south boundary of the school 80 feet to the north. The obvious reason for that was to create some development in that area. The development Mr. Brashear discussed at the meeting was senior apartments . The noise factor has been an issue and that was one reason she and her husband requested a buffer zone between them and the school . Their discussion included moving the boundary about ten feet and putting up some trees and creating a nice looking boundary as well as decreasing the noise. The 80 feet was not necessary and created a problem for them because of the possibility it would provide. She said that this was a residential area, they have single family homes in that area and wanted to keep it that way. They didn't want to see this business grow. MS. KATHY MAGID, stated that she lived in Bermuda Dunes, but owned the property directly across the street from Montessori and two of her children were still going to Montessori . She has an older one that has graduated. She said she was present because she believed the school was a unique situation. They should have the expansion `. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 1 j of the school because Montessori was a philosophy of education. What they were trying to teach these children was world information to become good citizens, academics, and math and any student that came out of Montessori usually went to other schools and excelled. That was why the parents were interested in having their children stay there. Regarding traffic, up until last year their older children were up at the Baptist Church and the traffic was the same. They increased to 5th grade this year and they were the same students . It wasn't a big traffic movement there. The school was there before many of the homes were there. Her children started there nine years ago. When it started the preschool, kindergarten and first grade were together. As far as the senior center, they as parents were not happy about it. They didn' t ask for approval from the parents . That was just an idea to bring the seniors in with their life experiences and expose them to the children to say that there were many professions out there like an airline pilot and to talk with the children about their World War II life histories . They weren't trying to bring them in to make low income housing or anything like that, but more to have a senior center where people that have lived could come in and � help to educate their children in world events, math, sciences, and arts . The addition they are talking about right now was 20 students . Right now the school had 60 students and they were hoping to maintain that for next year. They were not looking really to make it grow. They wanted a 4th and 5th grade class of 15 students and that was a combined class . First and second grade would be a 15 student combined class . The biggest group of students they have were preschoolers . They were being taught reading and math. That was where the biggest draws come. By the time they go into first grade most people feel they have had a good head start. That has been the philosophy of Montessori . The traffic on the roads was half an hour daily and even with that there wasn't a problem because a lot of the parents have the students staying after for ballet, theater, song and dance. She has two children and most parents have at least two children. She felt there would probably be 75 families with multiple children attending the school, not 120 families . As far as the church being 65 years old to be a member of it, there was no constitutional law that would allow them to put an age limit on this . � The area they were talking about was family homes . This � was a family system. Gerald Ford went in down the 20 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 ��"" street. Their children were in uniform in a very controlled situation. They were well mannered and well educated. They were just trying to keep them together so that when they go into the 7th grade they would excel, not to increase the finances. Ms . Maloney did everything herself, the building, the electrical, the teachers, and all the supplies . She didn't do any fund raising on the property except for possibly a garage sale. They were doing fund raising in Palm Springs, not on this property. She believed they had the right to have this and if the commission saw the results of what their children were learning at this school they would understand why the parents were so supportive of this school . Their children go in and breeze through things . They were valedictorians, they were being accepted at Stanford and those were only the ones who had this as preschool education. They go into any of the public schools . The students were taught with hands-on. Chairperson Beaty asked for a clarification as to what grades were being taught at this school right now. Ms . Magid replied preschool . Fifth graders were at the Palm Desert Country Club. irr Commissioner Ferguson asked if Ms . Magid had any other connection with the school other than being the mother of two children attending school there. Ms . Magid said that she and her husband also owned the property directly across the street, which they rented out. MS. FRAN HACKER, a resident of Warner Trail, stated that in the mornings and afternoons it took her 15 minutes to get out of her driveway right now. They have three schools on their street and asked why another one was needed. It wasn't fair. They moved into a residential area, not into a school district. They were just making this for profit and she didn't think it was fair to the people who have lived there for ten years . MR. DALE MICHAEL, a resident of Warner Trail, two doors down from the school, stated that he didn' t receive a notice about the neighborhood meeting. He would have been there. He was concerned about what happened in his neighborhood. They don' t live on a two lane highway, but a two lane residential street with a 25 mph speed irr 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 � � limit. Throughout this city there were little churches . +� If they made this a precedent to make this a full fledged private commercial school, then they would have to change that precedent to apply to any other area that wants to do the same thing. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Michael where he got that from. Mr. Michael stated that they have a residential neighborhood that originally started out as a church, then a preschool, and was now a commercial private school . If there was another area with a small church and they decide that they want to become a school, the commission would have already said that no matter what the residents say, they could go ahead and do it, if the commission allowed this project. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he hoped Mr. Michael didn't view the commission' s role in that light. Each situation was particularized to the residential neighborhood involved and the commission was looking at his neighborhood. No one had stood up and said that because it was done somewhere else it � should be done here. He said that they weren't setting precedents here and he was a lawyer and tended to take those � sorts of statements seriously. This was Mr. Michael ' s neighborhood and what the commission did with this neighborhood would not effect what they did anywhere else. He wanted that to be clear. Mr. Michael said that one other thing was that staff addressed the parking area, 15 spaces-one space for every 8 children, plus teachers equals 22 spaces and that was for the school . He asked if there was any way to address the parking for a church. Mr. Smith replied yes, that it was based on the number of seats and floor area in the sanctuary. Mr. Michael asked if staff had looked into that issue. Mr. Smith replied no in that staff was given to understand that the church was being phased out and if that was not accurate, then staff would have to look at the number of parking spaces associated with the church and the applicant would be required to provide a minimum, either the school facility minimum or the church facility minimum, but � whichever was the greater of the two calculations . 22 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 � Mr. Michael said that was where a lot of them got the wrong impression when they moved in and bought their house. They thought this was a church with a day school or little preschool to go with it. They were not informed of their future plans and a lot of them could get burned and that hurt. Chairperson Beaty said that he thought they were dealing with another circumstance in that the County allowed some things that the city inherited. MS . CHRISTINE MADRUGA, a parent at the school, stated that she was taken aback when people make comments regarding her paying tuition for her children. This was a choice she and her husband chose to make. She was a taxpayer and her taxes went toward public schools and it was their choice to pay for private school . She also said that the school was grandfathered in from the county with its use permit. They have always had their elementary kids as well as the preschoolers . They were not trying to bring in new bodies . They were a small group of people that chose to keep their children at the school they are at. It was important because they had their children at the Baptist Church under a lease and � they had to move over to the association building. It was important to get this through so that they could continue their kids in school . That was her choice and the choice of the other parents . As far as any fund raising, she was head of the parents group and they were doing all of their fund raising off the campus . They would not be having family functions, they never have and they never would. Also, crime was everywhere. She has been a resident in the desert for 23 years and when she moved to La Quinta, it was a small place where she could ride her horses to the top of the cove and count porch lights . She couldn't do that any more. Every place was growing in the desert. She also resented the fact that people, and it was the seniors thing that had everyone up in arms, she asked since when it was a crime for someone to try and make a living. MS . TERRY WADE, a resident four doors away from the Montessori School, said that they didn't even know it was a Montessori School until the sign went up. It wasn't a church any longer, it was the Montessori School of the Desert. None of them were informed other than by the sign going up. She wanted to discuss the speed on the street and she lived in the dip. People come down � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 i � � the street and hit that dip and her house literally � shakes . She has children that ride bikes and play in the front yard and it scared her because of the people going up and down the street. With the a.m. and p.m. traffic they already had, the kids coming back and forth from school and many came from Gerald Ford down the street and were either walking or riding their bikes . She actually dropped them off and picked them up because of the traffic issue. She didn't like the traffic on the street . If they added that many more students to the church, there would be that much more traffic and traffic going quickly up and down the street. They also needed to look at the issue that these were one acre lots on Mountain View Road. They were custom built homes and some of them were gorgeous . She thought that doing this and making this a large business would not do much for their neighborhood. She knew there were two churches on either side of her and they dealt with Sundays being full and services on Wednesday nights and they got very loud. She could hear the children at the preschool four houses away during the daytime at her house. Bringing the age up to 12 years would triple the noise level . She didn't feel it was a good idea. This � was a residential area and she wanted it to remain � quiet. Crime was also escalating in the area. MR. ED HACKER, 43-830 Warner Trail, stated that he moved there ten years ago because it was a quiet street and was relatively country. Now they have a large school at the corner of Fred Waring and the traffic had gotten so bad that it was a race track. They were talking about increasing the size of the school and the posted speed limit was 25 mph but there was a Warner Trail speed limit which was how fast their cars would go from one stop sign to the next. He didn' t feeZ it was a safe place and was worried about the property values dropping even more. They couldn't even sell the property for what they invested in it ten years ago. That was not the school ' s fault but he was afraid that with what they were trying to do and the size of it and whatever they wanted to do later, that the property values would decrease a lot more. He would like to see the commission vote against it and enforce these people, and if they know where the school is they knew where he lives, the addresses are there, and they should not be getting a notice the day before the meeting. They should have known about it a long time ago. If those � people knew how to find the school, they knew how find � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 `' the residents of Palm Desert Country Club and Warner Trail that would be effected by this project. He asked the commission to see that they do that. MS. CHRISTINE LONG, a Palm Desert resident, stated that she has three children attending the Montessori School and she was surprised at everyone's opinion, especially about putting up a sign which they haven't had for 11 years . They kind of wanted to have it, but this explained the type of principal/director they have. She has never wanted to be a high profile school . That was not going to change. The woman wants to give their children the best education they can have with continuity. To say that their children have started to contribute to the crime or any of that was almost ridiculous . She said she has been driving there for almost nine years and they move very quickly through the parking lot and the Montessori philosophy was not to hang around because their children need to be educated. They don' t have many things after school or even parent meetings . They were organizing, but didn' t remember ever having their parking lot full . The school would not be increasing in size that much and Ms . Maloney has even said that they were trying to fill their 5th grade "� which only has nine children in it who have started a preschool, which is one of her children who has blazed a trail to open every further grade. There is no hope of going any further than 6th grade and there was even a chance that they would not have a 6th grade next year because the numbers might not be up. They would like a larger school and have supported the Palm Desert area, and Ms . Maloney has supported the Palm Desert area for a long time and they have run from every little corner trying to find places to put their children and were conscientious people and didn't try to do anything that was bad for the community. They try and enrich wherever they are, never trying to be a problem. Now they want their children to be educated in one spot. As far as high walls going around it and devaluating property, she could appreciate everyone 's concerns . The price of homes have gone down dramatically all through the Coachella Valley and it wasn't because of the Montessori School of the Valley. Crime is wherever it is and she was not thrilled with it either. Her oldest child was ten years old. The crime that might be in the neighborhood or graffiti, their children weren' t even around that school afterwards . Any problems in the area have been a consequence of that area, not because of the � 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 i , � school . She didn't know if there was a problem there, � but if they said there was, there must be. They just wanted a school for their children and they were not talking about a mega profit center here. What they have is a school with very few students and very few teachers . A private school doesn't make a lot of money. She pays the tuition and it wasn't cheap and she has three children attending. She believed it was not a big prof it center and they were only making ends meet. They were trying to grow and Ms . Maloney at her own personal expense was making this happen. She hoped it went through because she didn't feel it would hurt the area at all . It hasn't hurt in the past and as far as traffic was concerned and being afraid to come out of your house because the streets shake might be true, but she didn't know that it was because of the parents driving down the street. As far as play time was concerned and three times as much noise for older children, they have a total of 20 children from the 3rd to the 6th grade right now and they didn' t all play together. They have time frames of a half an hour to 45 minutes . Even after school they were not allowed to run outside. She knew it sounded like they were going to increase it a lot and people were a little frightened, � but she didn't think it was realistic . They were not rrf�l growing past a certain amount because they were not growing any bigger. She would like it to grow bigger because she was a parent and she loved this education. They weren't getting any larger and she didn' t think it would hurt anyone if they were there. MRS. MONAGHAN, 43-170 Warner Trail, owner of the house on the corner directly across Mountain View from the school . She stated that she was all for this project. For those people that were upset because they never knew the Montessori School was there or was going to be there, many years ago they were all notified, anyone that lived there at the time, that they were going to put the Montessori School in. When they bought the church they were told exactly what was going to happen and that they would eventually have complete control of the building and at that time they would remodel and expand. As for property values, she would much rather see a nice, neat building properly landscaped, fenced and gated so that no one could get into that parking lot at night to play games, climb on the roof, try to set the building on fire, go over with their boyfriends and smoke when they were supposed to be at home, let alone 26 J MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 '� whatever else went on over there. They all at numerous times have chased kids out of there and off the roof. She would rather see this nice building landscaped over there then what they have now. The building was old and not particularly aesthetic to look at. As far as the kids, they would not all be out there "raising cane" at one time. She would much rather listen to the kids then some of the stuff going on in the neighborhood. She would love to see them get a four way stop on that corner. That would help slow down the traffic that was going fast between California and Fred Waring. If they were really going to really put the school in and put in a turn out for them to drop of f their kids, it would really help everyone getting out even during the school rush morning when they have 160 people taking their kids down to Gerald Ford School . As long as it was done properly and was landscaped, and they did not like the idea of a block wall fence because there would be a blackboard for the graffiti kids . With an open fence and bushes they could see if anyone has jumped the fences and were messing around there at night and they wouldn't have a blackboard for them to paint graffiti on. As far as their property values, if it was done nicely she couldn't see it lowering their property � values and she probably has as much invested in her house as anyone on Mountain View. She was all for the project as long as they do it right. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant wished to readdress the commission. Mr. Brashear stated that he would like to answer some of the questions brought forth. The preschool children would be moved 80 feet north of the Hiestands and they were aware of that. Secondly, the older children would also be to the north and closest to Mrs . Monaghan and they would have recreation at varying times during the day, but all of that would be to the north. The noise factor was somewhat mitigated, not all but somewhat mitigated. Certainly the problem with the Hiestands was mitigated and they did that purposely, not to add seniors, but for them. He felt the four-way stop sign would be the answer to a lot of the comments he heard regarding traffic. He said they would pay the cost for that. They did not buy a lot; he called a man by the name of Joe Acre and asked him if his lot was for sale. That was two weeks ago. He hasn't called him back, nor had Mr. Acre called him. He doubted they would go � 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 � � � forward on that. As far as the parking, there was � plenty there and they would do what was necessary. Finally, he said this was a preexisting use for preschool and he didn't see any reason from what he had heard that would put them in a position where the proposal could not be approved. If the commission wanted to mitigate other things, they would certainly do that. As far as devaluation of property, he felt it would be the opposite because it would be well landscaped and well maintained. He also said that Ms . Maloney was the most conscientious person that he had ever known. His son when they were in the valley attended that school . The school was outstanding and most of the teachers were present at this meeting and he felt this was the best school he had seen and that was why he was involved. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Brashear to clarify that he said that the only reason the southern boundary line was moved 80 feet to the north was to move children. Mr. Brashear replied no, they did that to mitigate the noise factor impacting the Hiestands . The children at i recess were right against their wall and things were � being thrown across . They mitigated that by moving the fence 80 feet to the north. That was the reason for doing that. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there was someone here tonight from the school, like an administrator, that knew the actual goings on at the school . MS. ELAINE MALONEY, the owner and administrator of Montessori School of the Valley, stated that they have been located at 43-250 Warner Trail for the past 13 years . Originally she leased from United Church of the Desert for eight years . Five years ago they purchased the property and have expanded their school . The purpose of being here tonight was to receive the approvals to consolidate the schools, the elementary with the existing school . They currently have 70 children enrolled in the school . Their goal was to reach 100 although they were applying for 120 children, it was just to give them more leeway, but they didn' t expect to go much beyond 100 children. Commissioner Ferguson noted that several issues had been raised tonight concerning noise from the increased number of 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 '` kids and what their play time hours would be. He asked what she envisioned in that regard. Ms . Maloney indicated that the children 's play time is staggered throughout the morning. The preschool children have 45 minutes play time from 10 : 30 a.m. to about 11 : 15 a.m. There were two groups of 15 children out at one time. When they bring the elementary children to the site the same process would go on. Children play in the morning and not in the afternoon. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Ms . Maloney envisioned enlarging the play area along with the actual physical improvements as well . Ms . Maloney said they would extend the playground to the north of the property. The preschool would have its own playground where it was currently and the elementary children would have their own playground to the north of the property. Commissioner Ferguson asked if they have had a problem with crime at the facility. r"`� Ms . Maloney replied yes, crime has increased within the last two to three years . They have had problems at the school as expressed by the neighborhood. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Ms . Maloney felt the improvements being suggested would help mitigate that problem. Ms . Maloney replied definitely. The property would be walled in and enclosed. There would be security gates and that would keep the vandalism down. As it was right now, the property was wide open and there seemed to be no way to control this . It was going on everywhere in that community. Commissioner Jonathan asked Ms . Maloney to elaborate on the current church use on the property presently and for the future. Ms . Maloney stated that the church membership had dropped off drastically within the last three to five years . There was a church and she bought the property and leased it back to the church members . There were � 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 � currently 20 people that attended on Sunday mornings for � one hour. Commissioner Jonathan asked if she envisioned that continuing for a period of time. Ms . Maloney replied that it was not definite. Their church board would make a decision within the next year. Chairperson Beaty stated that he would leave the public hearing open since there was a suggestion to continue it and he asked for comments or suggestions from the commission. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was not particularly in favor of continuing the matter. A lot of people had come to the meeting and the applicant was expecting a response. He was regretful for whatever miscommunication took place that hadn't enabled the Project Area 4 Committee to meet on this subject but didn't think that the people here tonight should pay the price for whatever error was caused. There was a lot of testimony taken and they had invested a lot of time and he was not sure that continuing the matter would help them render a more thoughtful decision. Chairperson Beaty disagreed. He said he didn't understand � why the Project Area 4 Committee wasn't advised and it sounded like the city was partially responsible for that and he felt this committee was owed the opportunity to look at this . This is their area of responsibility. It was not the school ' s fault, or the committee' s fault, but he would hate to go ahead without hearing their comments . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was torn evenly down the middle. He knew Mrs . Friscoe and knew Project Area 4 and what it was supposed to represent and it seemed to him that what they were doing here sort of flew in the face of all of that. He also knew from hearing the folks speak tonight and talking with Ms . Maloney today about how this came about that it was his impression that there were a lot of things and concerns that people have that could be addressed if a forum was provided for all of them to sit in one place and talk meaningfully about them. He felt a lot could be done with capital investment on this parcel in a way that would preserve the integrity of the neighborhood, help minimize crime, wouldn't drive down property values, would help them get a stop sign, and basically bring an improvement to the overall community, but that decision could not be made by the � developer alone. Whatever happened between the meeting � 30 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 `+ between the residents and the developer, obviously something got crossed somewhere and he felt that the Project Area 4 Committee could step up to the plate like it was designed to and try and achieve the consensus he hoped it could achieve and therefore a part of him favored a continuation. The other part of him said no, the applicant has done everything that the city has asked her to do and agreed with the comments that Commissioner Jonathan pointed out. He felt she was entitled to a vote on this matter, so he would like to break protocol and ask one more question of the applicant. He asked what sort of adverse effect Ms . Maloney would suffer if they allowed a modest continuation for Project Area 4 to come in and give more meaningful and constructive comments on the proposal . Ms . Maloney stated that it could definitely delay their expansion program and they would probably be having to let 40 children leave the school because they had no other area to go to. It would be a great disadvantage and they would not be able to get under construction. As it is, it was going to be very tight to be able to finish this by September. They would disappoint a whole community of parents, parents that have strongly supported their school for the last 12 to 13 years . The � commission heard from two parents tonight that have been with the school for nine years and have supported them very strongly. They offer a very rich, unique curriculum and it was something they wanted to continue and offer to the people of this community. Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn' t know which way the commission would go if pressed to a vote tonight. He knew that he had very mixed fe�lings, on the one hand he felt this was a very worthy program that deserved expansion. On the other hand he was very concerned about the fears of the residents and their concerns . In an ideal situation her needs could be met, as could theirs . He agreed with Commissioner Ferguson that there appeared to be room for compromise and resolution. If pressed, he didn' t know which way the commission would go, but it could be an advantageous thing for everyone if perhaps they could have a postponement of three weeks, not so much for the committee to come back with input, but for the committee perhaps to organize some kind of cooperate effort amongst all the parties to find resolution. That might ensure success for everyone. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mrs . Friscoe if it would be possible for her committee, as a personal favor, to extricate �"" 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 � ,� the seniors apartment project out of this because he sensed � a lot of people' s heartfelt opposition to this was anticipating that if they took half a step in this direction, they would have this project looming over their head. He did not know what the pro ject was about, but he did know that there has been some interest expressed by the Project Area 4 Committee in reviewing it. He asked if it was possible for them to do that. Chairperson Beaty felt they also needed to throw out the idea that this was going to become a whole block school . That was not what they were talking about with this proposal so it couldn't be considered as an option. If that were to happen it would have to come back. Mrs . Friscoe stated that she was here because she sits on the committee and was totally unaware of this project and felt it was something that by right should go before the committee. She said that she has eliminated the senior project. She was not at the neighborhood meeting so she didn't hear what went on at that meeting. She was not even here considering the senior proposal . She was here because of the present application for the school, which she felt should go before the committee. � � Commissioner Ferguson said that he sensed a lot of opposition � that "come hell or high water" there was nothing that anyone could ever do that would change their mind and what he was asking them to do was have the applicant approach this in good faith and negotiate with the residents . What he was also asking was to negotiate in good faith and come up with a resolution that betters this community and to use Project Area 4 as the vehicle for making those discussions take place. Mrs . Friscoe stated that she thought that was why they were here. There was a lot of confusing information given at the meeting so they wanted to really clarify what was going on and to address some of the issues which she felt would be very fair for both. Mr. Brashear stated that he and Ms . Maloney talked and felt the three week continuance was acceptable. He felt they could still make it and appreciated what the commission was saying to them and felt they could sit down with the area residents and exclude the seniors project talk and come up with something. Commissioner Ferguson asked when it would come back to the } commission. Mr. Drell replied three weeks, to the 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 �•• commission' s next meeting on May 7 . The Project Area 4 meeting was scheduled for May 1 . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he wanted to make it very clear that what he personally was looking for from the committee was not so much additional input, because he thought they would just be hearing from more individuals who would echo what was said pro or against, and what he was personally looking for from the committee was to act as a facilitator to bring the two parties, meaning the developer and the residents that were opposed, together in an attempt to resolve the very real concerns or to determine if there is an adequate resolution to mitigate those concerns . If there is, great, they could come back on the 7th and put it on paper and move forward for a better neighborhood. And if there wasn't, let the commission know that and they would proceed from there. Commissioner Ferguson commented that it was not the commission' s position to tell Project Area 4 what to do and he thought the commission might have a representative on Project Area 4 shortly, but he wanted to see the input from Project Area 4 be about Project Area 4, taking into consideration the needs of this particular community, but � also recognizing that they did need schools, they do have to go somewhere, where the best place in a larger regional area such as Project Area 4 would be to put them, and have sort of a broad base set of inputs . He felt the commission would benefit from having that input at the next meeting. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Chairperson Beaty and the two commissioners that the commission should move this to the May 7th meeting. They really didn 't want to hear any more testimony, but hopefully they could get everything summarized so that they could go ahead and just vote on it so they could proceed with the project. Commissioner Fernandez agreed with all the commissioners . He also concurred that the Project Area 4 Committee needed to get together with the developer and come back to the commission. He felt this was a very positive thing from what he had seen, but felt it needed to conform to the residential area. Chairperson Beaty called for a motion. �` 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 Action: „�,� Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing CUP 96-12 to May 7, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . F. Case No. CUP 93-7 Amendment #1 - KACOON BAR & FILL, Applicant Request for approval of amendments to the existing conditional use permit to allow Kacoon Bar & Fill to operate from 11 : 00 a.m. until 11 : 00 p.m. daily and to permit live music in the patio from 6 : 00 p.m. until 9 : 00 p.m. located at 73-405 E1 Paseo, #32 A. Mr. Smith stated that the commission was being asked to set the hours of operation for the Kacoon facility from 11 : 00 a.m. to 11 : 00 p.m. daily and they were seeking approval of live music in the patio between the hours of 6 : 00 p.m. and 9 : 00 p.m. There had been a three or four piece band operating in the patio area presumably with amplification and there were complaints received. Upon reviewing the file it was noted that they were not approved for live entertainment r% and the hours of operation were not regulated. The applicant worked with the property owner in that it was staff ' s understanding that several of the complaints were a result of businesses in the complex complaining to the management, hence they came up with a proposal to allow the live music in the patio in the evening between 6 : 00 p.m. and 9 : 00 p.m. They were recommending in favor of that subject to the live music being, "In the patio in the form of a single, non- amplified acoustical guitar player/singer permitted between the hours of 6 : 00 p.m and 9 : 00 p.m. nightly" . As well, yesterday staff received from the Sandroc Homeowners Association property management firm a response to the legal notice and they in paragraph two stated, "We need to go on the record in urging the Planning Commission to limit the music permit to the above description and to insist that loud speakers and microphones not be allowed in any permit you may decide to grant. " With that staff recommended approval of the hours as requested and to the non-amplified music and singing. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. 3 4 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNTNG COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 �'^' MR. CLEMENTE TRANCOSO, with TRA Inc . Architects, stated that they agreed with the conditions of approval from staff . He asked if there were any questions . Commissioner Campbell asked when they had the player there one time if they were only using a microphone. She didn't think it was amplified, but asked if they were allowed to use a microphone or if it was just their voice. Mr. Trancoso replied that it was just the singer' s voice. He felt it was very low and was less then the requirement of b5 decibels . Commissioner Campbell said that when she was walking on E1 Paseo she thought the music and singing was nice. Mr. Trancoso felt it created a really nice atmosphere on E1 Paseo. Commissioner Campbell said that it was nice, especially for The Humidor that the commission just approved there. Commissioner Ferguson noted that he has eaten at the restaurant, listened to the music which was amplified lowly, '� and he enjoyed a cigar from The Humidor. Chairperson Beaty asked if the music was or was not amplified. Commissioner Ferguson said that it was amplified at a very low level . It was a single, low guitar and just a voice mike that was very nice. Commissioner Campbell felt that the food was excellent also. 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 asked for commission comments or action. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1736, approving CUP 93-7 Amendment #1, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . �` 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 a G. Case No. PP 9 0-12 Amendment #1 - STEPHEN W. ANDERSON FOR +� COLD CALL COWBOY PRODUCTIONS, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the approved precise plan to permit the conversion of an existing attic to a library for the owner' s exclusive use only, in the building at 75-100 Mediterranean. Mr. Smith indicated that there was an existing office operation that was an extremely high intensity office use on the site. They had an approval back in July of 1990 and the project was finally built in late 1994-95 and at the time that it actually got built they had to preclude the applicant from using the upstairs area because it wasn't what was approved by the Planning Commission. The commission approved 8600 square feet and if the attic area was included, it would be around 10,000 square feet total . The applicant was coming to the commission with a proposal that he be allowed to gain access to this attic area that has been designed for a substantial floor load with the understanding that it be used exclusively as a library for the owner' s personal use. Staff ; did not have a problem with the library, but wanted to be � assured that that was all it was going to be used for. He felt that the conditions on the draft resolution would allow staff to have that level of comfort. Staff was recommending in favor of the application and he asked for questions . Commissioner Ferguson asked if the problem with the second story was that if it became usable potentially as office space, that there weren't enough parking spaces to support the use, and that was the only problem with it. Mr. Smith concurred and indicated that the parking lot there was very full . As part of the Certificate of Occupancy issuance the applicant agreed to provide offsite spaces, 12 spaces within 300 feet and if they were to see this upstairs area become additional office at a similar intensity to the downstairs, they would not be recommending in favor of this because the parking just didn't exist, but if it was going to be used for an exclusively personal library, then staff didn't have a problem with it. Commissioner Ferguson asked if by personal that meant that none of the employees could go up there and grab a book. Staff deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Ferguson stated he would ask the applicant that question. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the � applicant to address the commission. � 36 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 '� MR. BRIAN LUDDINGTON, representing Mr. Anderson as his contractor, stated he was from Palm Desert. MR. STEVE ANDERSON, owner of the company, stated that in regards to the office upstairs, in 1990 Bill Wilson owned the property and plans and he bought the property from Mr. Wilson in 1994 and the plans were already put together. The upstairs was on those plans and originally because of the way it was reinforced it was going to be an exercise room. His company has experienced significant growth in eight years and the exercise room got deleted from downstairs as well as upstairs . To get upstairs, the only way would be through his office. They were talking about putting a stairway in through a closet that was in his office. For his business he speaks all over the country and had a business that was devoted to sales and marketing. He has an extensive library of books, tapes and videos that was actually filling up his house and his current office now. It would just be for his use as a library and the commission was welcome to walk in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week unannounced and surprise him. There would not be anyone going upstairs other than himself . There would be no access other than inside his office to the � upstairs and it would be strictly for the personal use as his own library. Chairperson Beaty asked how the city found out that this was happening and what prevented them from just putting in this use upstairs . Mr. Anderson said that they came to the city. Mr. Smith indicated that they asked for a building permit to put in the stairway. Commissioner Ferguson said they were being honest. Mr. Smith concurred that they were being above board. Mr. Anderson said that to alleviate the commission' s concerns about parking, the building they were in now, he has already purchased another piece of ground on the corner of Boardwalk and St. Charles and they would be breakinq ground on another 15,000-16 ,000 foot building which would be before the commission shortly. They were meeting with architects now. He also had, in addition to the 10,000 square feet, he leases space within 300 feet of his existing building at two different � 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 � � locations . One has 3200 square feet and the other 9,000 � square feet. There was plenty of parking in those two areas to offset that. There would be no additional employees in this present building. The only person who would use it would be him so there would be no additional cars there. He noted that he would be back before the commission soon with the other building. Chairperson Beaty noted that it was good to see that some people are doing good in today' s economy. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Jonathan commented that back in 1990 when the Cook Street area was being developed the commission had very grave concerns that had unfortunately been realized and that was that all those buildings came in under warehouse/ industrial parking, which was two spaces per 1, 000 square feet and were converted to office use which requires four spaces per 1,000 square feet. He has had an office in that area for seven or eight years and there wasn't plenty of a parking anywhere. He sometimes visits clients on St. Charles � and he has to park a long way away because those lots were � very small and the street parking was full . He thought the current applicant could be a major contributor. A warehouse/ industrial building that was converted to office professional use without adequate parking. Because of that background and history he was not inclined, and he felt that staff had those same concerns but tried to find a way to be nice about, and if they could truly limit this applicant to truly using it only for his own use, that it would be okay. He didn't see the need to be nice because the transgression has already occurred. Unfortunately it was difficult to come in at this point for the rest of the commissioners without that background and not having that history and this seemed to be a simple application that looked innocuous enough, but there was really a major problem going on. Because of that history he has a great sensitivity to the abuse that is taking place in that area, so he would not be in favor. Mr. Drell clarified that this particularly property was parked and planned as an office building. It has very close to four spaces per 1,000 . Commissioner Jonathan said that he might have looked at the wrong property, because it didn' t look that way to him. Mr. Drell felt the project was within � one or two spaces to 4/1,000 based on 8,600, not 10,000 38 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16 , 1996 � square feet. What happened was that commission approved 8, 600 square feet and possibly Mr. Wilson or whoever Mr. Anderson bought the plans from produced working drawings for 10,000 square feet, and when they submitted those working drawings to building department for plan check and when it came back for a tinal review it was noted that it was for 10, 000 . It was approved as an office building and the problem was not that they tried to convert an industrial space to an office space, it was just that the character of his office use was more intense than a typical one. The requirement for office use at 4/1,000 was an average because some people used more and some less . His use happens to be specifically more, which reinforced the insistence that they eliminate the attic initially, but they also made sure that he agreed and cooperated. Knowing that he needed more parking for his employees, that was why he agreed to the additional offsite parking. But he was an office use in an office building. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would withdraw his objection because he might have had the wrong property. He said that when they look at the new proposal for 16,000 square feet, the applicant would know what his concerns would be. Mr. Drell said that they could require on his new property that he include those extra 12 spaces above and beyond what his own 16 ,000 square feet would require to � provide extra spaces for this use. Commissioner Fernandez thanked the applicant for his honesty in coming to the city to obtain a permit. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Fernandez and she was in favor of allowing Mr. Anderson to have this private library. Commissioner Ferguson said that he felt a little misled by the staff report, there was a sentence that said given the history of this development and the tightness of the parking in the area staff was being particularly careful with this request. As he understood it the applicant bought the property as built and was not the one that submitted the plans . Mr. Drell clarified that Mr. Anderson bought the property with the plans and he constructed the building. Commissioner Ferguson asked if he followed the plans as approved by the city. Mr. Drell replied no, and said that Mr. Anderson bought plans that he thought were approved by the city. The commission approved conceptual plans and there were working drawings produced and being submitted to building department. The process then was that prior to the permits being issued, those working drawings are reviewed to � 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 :� make sure they are consistent with the preliminary approval and that was where the plans deviated. Staff and Mr. Anderson probably learned for the first time that the plans deviated from the preliminary approval and the approval of the Planning Commission. That was when it got cut back to the originally approved 8,600 square feet, not the 10,000 square feet. Commissioner Ferguson asked if any pallor that may have existed with respect to this super-reinforced attic space with this closet stairway could be imputed to Mr. Anderson. Mr. Drell replied no, that Mr. Anderson submitted plans he thought were legitimate and the city said he couldn't do it and he then agreed and deleted the stairway and took out the air conditioning and it was not currently accessible, air conditioned space now, which was what he was asking for now. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Smith if Mr. Anderson decided to use it for non-office space, but wanted to make a warehouse out of the attic, if that would change the analysis at all or if there was a reason staff was keying this to a library use. Mr. Smith replied that the library was what Mr. Anderson asked for. If he were to say warehouse space, staff would have the same concerns to insure that it would be used for storage purposes . Essentially a library as described by Mr. Anderson was storage, which in this case + happens to be for video tapes . Commissioner Ferguson said � that the city wants non-office space in the attic . Mr. Smith clarified that the city does not want another employee on this physical premises . Commissioner Ferguson asked if it was called out in the conditions of approval that the number of employees should not exceed a certain number. Mr. Smith replied no, in that staff didn't know how many employees were there now. Commissioner Ferguson asked the applicant how many employees were there now. Mr. Anderson informed commission that there were 46 to 48 employees . Mr. Drell noted that the conditions did state that this particular space would not increase employees, it was just difficult to enforce. What they would really be looking at was if staff perceived that the situation was worse, the first thing they will look towards is to see if the attic is being used. Theoretically in any office use, once the building was built staf f didn't regulate how many employees they have as long as the use is being used for what it was designed for. Commissioner Ferguson said that the reason he asked the question was that if they were going to monitor this, it seemed to him that they need to know how many employees currently exist so that if that number increases, the city will have a benchmark to measure against it and it should be part of the record. If he heard Mr. Anderson correctly, he said 46 to 48 . Mr. Anderson said that he didn't know the 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 � exact number, but felt it was between 46 and 50 . Mr. Smith stated that he had no idea although he knew they had 32 parking spaces on the site and they were always full and there were several spaces on the street that show in the pictures he passed out, so 45 to 50 was probably about right, assuming one person per car. Commissioner Ferguson asked if separating the library issue, the applicant was in compliance right now in terms of parking spaces per square feet and office space that he currently uses . Mr. Smith replied yes . Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that with an 8,600 square foot building, and this was typical of that area, if they were coming in under warehouse/industrial they would be required to only have 17 parking spaces . It was very typical that a building that size out in the Cook Street area did have 40 to 50 employees who all drive their own cars . Before they even talk about the UPS delivery person trying to make their way through and clients trying to find parking and so on, they were already somewhere around 30 spaces short. If they were lucky enough to come in at the full office professional, then there were 34 spaces for that size of a unit and unfortunately in that area, the office usage was a lot of the small cubicle-type offices which were much more labor intensive. They wouldn't typically have a lawyer ` spread out with a lot of filing or a big library and a low number of employees . They typically had a high intensity use. This was just a typical situation out there and he has been edified here that this one is better than most, because they were already essentially at the office professional parking and even that was short. Chairperson Beaty called 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. 1737, approving PP 90-12 Amendment #1, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . �Irr 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 � H. Case No. ZOA 96-1 (amending ZOA 94-3} - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to city council of a time extension for the provisions of Ordinance No. 772 which relates to signs for pedestrian traffic, special event signs, and temporary window signs . Mr. Smith indicated that some commissioner' s might recall that in January of 1995 the commission reviewed a recommendation from the Sign Task Force. At that point they were looking at liberalizing the pedestrian signs, specifically along E1 Paseo, liberalizing the provisions for window signs throughout the business community in the city, and creating the possibility of special event signs to be coordinated through the Chamber of Commerce. The matter made its way through the city council in April of last year and it was adopted. The major issue with the council was the increase allowed for window sign areas, which at that point every business in the city was limited to a maximum of five square feet regardless of business size. As a result of Ordinance No. 772, everyone got to move up to a basic ZO � square feet sign except the businesses along E1 Paseo, and they through their input sought only permission to do ten square feet. Businesses greater than 50 square feet were allotted larger than 20 square feet of temporary window signage under Ordinance No. 772 . This was a very major step in the eyes of the council so they put a sunset clause on the ordinance. This ordinance will expire May 15, 1996 if the city doesn't act to extend it. Staff has started the process and the recommendation tonight will be forwarded to the city council and they would do with it what they pleased. They were not seeking to change anything at this point. They were seeking to remove the sunset clause and make the terms permanent. Staff had the matter of this ordinance reviewed by Bob Leo at the Chamber and he sent a memo that was included with the staff report package and he feels that the business community is supportive of the ordinance and that was basically confirmed by Mr. Ramsey of the Code Compliance Department. Giving people greater amounts seems to have resulted in more people remaining in compliance. They seem to have been satisfied with the 20 square feet. Staff also asked Commissioner Campbell to comment as the representative from the business community. She could speak for herself, but she did indicate some concern with a few businesses still failing to be in strict compliance. With that, staff 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 ` recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council removal of the sunset clause and that the ordinance become permanent. Commissioner Campbell stated that her only concern as discussed with Mr. Smith was that some of the businesses do not comply with the ordinance and she asked if there could be an amendment to the clause or to the ordinance to confiscate the signs . Mr. Rudolph said that he wished he could give Commissioner Campbell the answer she was looking for. It bothered him when there was non-compliance with code provisions anywhere in the city, but case law in regard to abating any sort of nuisance, whether it was an illegal sign or something else, if it was on private property, they couldn't just confiscate it even though it violates the code. They had to go through certain procedures that the constitution requires in the way of notice and opportunities for hearing. Basically under the current case law they were strongly advised in most instances that they could get an abatement warrant, or a court order, to take private property. There were situations with signs where someone just put them in the public right-of-way or if it was a traffic hazard or other certain things like that where they can take them down right away, but if it wasn't causing an � immediate traffic problem or something similar and it was on someone' s property, they would have to go through these necessary steps . That was the legal problem that prevented them from doing that. He did say that they could have language in the ordinance to let people know that this was something that could happen. The ordinance did refer expressly to the zoning section that deals with abatement of signs, Section 25 . 68 . 100 . It wouldn' t have to refer to it, but the section covers any illegal sign and gives express powers and directions to do the things she was asking for. This was enacted at a time when the case law gave cities more power then they have right now. They could put something in, but enforcement of that type of a thing providing for confiscation if there was an illegal sign would be a problem. Commissioner Campbell asked what they could do when the ordinance specifically says that certain verbiage should be allowed on open signs and people have other things on the sign. Mr. Rudolph stated that if it violates the code it could be abated and there was a procedure to do that. If for some reason the city wasn't doing it, he didn' t have an explanation for that. He knew that code compliance personnel have far more things in the city to abate then they have the resources to abate and it could be a priority issue. He didn't know if that was a factor here, but there was a way r"� 4 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 legally to take those signs down. It would involve first sending the notice to the property owner that there is an illegal sign, giving them a chance to take it down or request a hearing if they contend that it isn't illegal . They might think they are in compliance. Commissioner Campbell said that she was talking about a particular one and they have gone through that many times . She didn't know if they pay a citation. Mr. Rudolph said he wasn't aware of any particular case crossing his desk. If someone just flouts the law they could get an abatement warrant as is done for any other nuisance in the city. If someone has an old car or trash in their yard, the city could go to court and get an abatement ordinance and they could take the stuff away. This was no different from that. If it is an illegal sign and they have had their chance at due process, get a court order and take it away. Commissioner Campbell said that was what she was looking for. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty called for additional comments or a motion. � Action: � Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1738, recommending approval of ZOA 96-1 to city council . Carried 5-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS List of Discussion Items for the Joint City Council/Planning Commission/Economic Development Advisory Committee Scheduled for May 16, 1996 at 4 :00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room. Mr. Drell indicated that the commission would have until the next meeting on May 7, 1996 to submit any discussion items for the joint meeting agenda. Action: None. � 44 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 �' X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. XI . COMMENTS Commissioner Ferguson asked staff when the commission was going to select representatives for Project Area 4 and Section 4 . Mr. Drell indicated that commission could do that now. Chairperson Beaty asked what the boundaries were for Project Area 4 . Mr. Drell replied Fred Waring, Washington, it includes Palm Desert Country Club, Indian Ridge, Oasis, Woodhaven, and The Resorter. There were two things involved, the Project Area 4 which was the RDA committee, and the Specific Plan Committee which was the city' s . The RDA area stops at Country Club. The specific plan extends up to the freeway taking in the big, vacant Equity Directions piece in the industrial area and the big commercial area at the northwest corner of Country Club and Washington. Mr. Drell said that if the commission was interested in having an ex officio participant, council concurred. Commissioner Ferguson noted there were two committees, Section 4 and Project Area 4 . Mr. Drell clarified that Section 4 was now �" being called Desert Willow Resort of Palm Desert Committee and they meet along the same schedule as the Planning Commission, the first and third Tuesdays from 3 : 30 p.m. to about 5: 00 p.m. Chairperson Beaty asked if that was an open meeting. Mr. Drel l repl ied no. The Pro j ect Area 4 Committee meets the first and third Wednesdays and that one was an open meeting. Chairperson Beaty asked if there was a volunteer. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he brought this matter up for two reasons, he would like to have someone at the Project Area 4 meeting involving the Montessori School, but he would not be here on May 7th. As far as the Section 4 Committee was concerned, he would be willing to jointly attend that meeting with another commissioner if there was someone interested in doing so, or if no one else was interested he would do it alone. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was interested in doing it. Commissioner Ferguson noted that they could do these meetings on their own, they weren ' t fixed appointments for a term of years and if it becomes a hassle, they could appoint someone else. Commissioner Campbell indicated she could do the Project Area 4 Committee meeting and asked for the days and times of those meetings . Mr. Drell replied the first and third Wednesdays . The meeting after that would be May 1 . Commissioner Fernandez asked what time they meet; Mr. Drell replied 3 :00 p.m. Commissioner � 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1996 a a � � Fernandez stated that he was willing to attend if it was a � joint effort with another commissioner. Commissioner Campbell stated that she and Commissioner Fernandez could attend that meeting. Commissioner Ferguson asked if the Desert Willow meeting was an agendized meeting. Mr. Drell replied yes . Commissioner Ferguson asked if it would be sent out. Mr. Drell said that it would be sent out to him. Commissioner Campbell asked if both meetings would take place at city hall . Mr. Drell replied yes, the Desert Willow meeting was in the Northwest Conference Room and lately the Project Area 4 meeting was in the Administrative Conference Room. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the council has advised the RDA to give the Planning Commission quarterly reports . Mr. Drell concurred, but said that since it was relatively close to the joint meeting those reports would begin after the joint meeting. Action: Commissioners Ferguson and Campbell will share attending the Desert Willow Committee meetings . Commissioners Fernandez and Campbell will share attending the Project Area 4 � Committee meetings . � XII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting to May 7, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 18 p.m. PHILIP D LL,- ary ATTEST: � .� , � ' PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm E � � 46 �