Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0916 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steve Smith Martin Alvarez Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 2, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the September 2, 1997 minutes by minute motion. Motion carried 5- 0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Smith summarized pertinent September 11 , 1997 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-28 - CURTIS R. CARTER, JR./AMERICA, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustment expanding Lot 19 of Tract 26018 to the north (Bighorn Golf Club). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. PP 97-8, VAR 97-1, DA 97-3 - O. MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design for a 12,500 square foot, single story professional office/medical building, Development Agreement permitting up to 2,000 square feet of limited general commercial uses and parking reduction, and Setback Variance for said building on the north side of Fred Waring Drive between Monterey Avenue and Acacia Drive. Mr. Smith noted that the colored site plan and elevations were on display. He explained that this matter has been before the commission on several occasions, most recently September 2. In the past two weeks staff received a draft development agreement prepared by the City Attorney which was included in the commission packets. Approval of the development agreement at this point would result in a life of ten years with extensions possible and would vest the applicant's approval. The discussion this commission had been having was whether or not to recommend the project with up to 2,000 square feet of limited commercial use. That part of the discussion was not contained in the draft development agreement nor was there any discussion relative to a parking modification. As indicated in the staff report, if it was the intent of commission to recommend approval of Mr. Homme's request to the council including this limited commercial use, then staff needed specific direction as to the form that this limited commercial use should take. He asked if it could all be a restaurant, and if so, if it would be a "cold" restaurant only (not having a hot kitchen) or if they would want 25% sundry, 25% restaurant, 25% hair salon and 25% gallery, as an example. If commission was going to recommend the inclusion of a restaurant type of use, then a parking modification situation was created that should also be addressed in the development agreement itself providing for up to a 12-space deficiency depending on the extent of the use the commission would be recommending. As advised at the last meeting,- the council was working on this matter from another direction, but that would not necessarily preclude the commission from making a recommendation that they want to make to the council. If it was the commission's desire to proceed with a limited commercial use, then he wanted the commission to be a little more specific on what it was looking for and the City Attorney could develop language to that effect and it would come back to the commission at the next meeting, October 7. Chairperson Ferguson noted that procedurally when this came up before, the commission asked what Mr. Homme wanted to do with the 2,000 square foot general 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 commercial so the threshold question and the reason the commission didn't have a development agreement before them was staff wanted to see if the commission was willing to entertain 2,000 square feet of general commercial and if the answer is no, what commercial if any they would consider and then the City Attorney would draft the appropriate document and then it would come back to the commission. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked what would happen and what Mr. Homme might do if a commercial use was not approved and if he would be able to go ahead with his project. Mr. Smith indicated that the council was considering this matter from a different direction (i.e., possibly with some city participation) if it would avoid the necessity of having this limited commercial use. There was a possibility that it might get done in that fashion. It would be a second position that they would have the ability to follow if Mr. Homme feels it could pencil out. Commissioner Campbell asked if that would be Redevelopment assistance. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was a new development because last time it came before them it was basically given to them as O.P. with no commercial because the council didn't like commercial, but the commission said council wants the commission's independent opinion so they would give it to them. This was the first time he has heard about an active negotiation between the city and Mr. Homme for some sort of compromise and if that was the case, he asked if it would be appropriate to let them continue those discussions. Mr. Smith agreed it would, but didn't think it necessarily precluded this commission from proceeding. The matter was discussed with the council and there was some concern with coming in with the limited commercial and the direction was to see if there was some way to still see this property developed but without having the limited commercial in it. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was Mr. Smith's opinion that the city is bartering with the desire to have no commercial there and Mr. Homme was bartering to have a financial offset for his detriment by not having commercial there, it was Mr. Smith's opinion that if the commission voted unanimously that he could absolutely have no commercial it wouldn't affect those bargaining discussions at all. Mr. Smith said there was a third problem to deal with and that was that by his sitting there on vacant land, he was making a considerable sum of money. Chairperson Ferguson asked why they should care about that. Mr. Smith said that the city has some interest in seeing that property improved in that they are looking for certain street improvements (i.e., drainage relocation and undergrounding of utilities) and there was city interest in seeing the site developed. Chairperson Ferguson asked if staff had a recommendation for the commission. Mr. Smith stated that if it was commission's intention, and staff had the feeling at the previous meetings that the commission wished to proceed with the limited commercial proposal, if that was still the commission's wish, then staff would like the commission to define it a little more precisely so that they could put it into written form and have it become part of the draft development agreement. If the commission didn't wish to proceed in that line with the limited commercial aspect of the project, then staff would suggest that the commission just continue the matter to October 7. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Smith expected the council and Mr. Homme to reach any sort of resolution between now and the 7th. Mr. Smith didn't know. %Iwo 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson noted that the public hearing was open as continued and asked the applicant to address the commission. ark MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily in Palm Desert, said he would like to explain a little more of the situation. What happened was that he has an arrangement with Oliphant & Lizza, who are the lessees of this property. Over the past several years they have submitted several applications. The last one was submitted by Rick Muro. Because of some difficulties, mostly the widening of Monterey and Fred Waring to accommodate a right turn and acceleration lane and the cost involved in that which has always been a condition of approval for the developer to pay for the cost of that improvement, they have never been able to go ahead and do anything nor were they given approval to do anything that was economic. In his conversations with Dick Oliphant, they reached an arrangement where Mr. Homme would relieve Mr. Oliphant from his lease obligation and Mr. Homme would try to do something that was economic and consistent with what should be done on that corner. He consulted with Holden and Johnson Architects and they started to analyze the site and a big problem was when the city takes the property and adds it to Monterey and Fred Waring, they make the parcels, especially the corner of Fred Waring and Monterey, very narrow and small so that they could have no parking on the corner parcel. All the parking had to be in the back as shown on the plan. They could only get so much parking in that back area with the amount of square footage and that was how they came up with the 12,500 square feet. That was the most parking they could get on that property to accommodate that building size if it was an office building with a medical use. When they sat down to try and see if the numbers worked, 'they didn't. It was too small for a lot that was a little bigger than an acre in size. They spent extra time trying to make the building as attractive as possible in the hopes that would also help with the rental situation. In working over the numbers, the only way to make the numbers work was to get a use that could afford to pay a little higher rent and that was when they submitted the application for 2,000 square feet of general commercial. Getting the economics to work was also a consideration and having a general commercial use was that the office market in Palm Desert has been very weak over the past five to seven years and the rents until recently had fallen off considerably. One of the problems was that the office professional use was very restrictive. It allowed an office for a general office user, but most of- the uses that go along with an office use were not really allowed in the O.P. zone because of its purpose, which is to buffer residential uses from other commercial uses and busy streets. This property has the two-story apartments to the one side, the commercial wraps around the corner and the only property that really abuts adjoining residential is the parking lot on the back. The rest had commercial on the side. The idea of putting in commercial was to also make the center attractive to an office user to have some uses in the office zone that could go hand in glove with having an office nearby that would make it a little more attractive, appealing and marketable. In visiting the staff, the last conversation he had was to discuss if this could be 4 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 mitigated by the City helping with some improvements that make the costs so high. He would rather have the commercial space to be able to market this project. The competition is that general commercial spaces can have offices and a lot of people like that environment because they have other things going on around them, but an Office Professional can't have that and a lot of potential tenants move into retail spaces and industrial spaces. That was a real negative to a straight office building. The financial consideration was something that came up and was discussed and that did help mitigate the fact that the building was small and he would rather have the commercial use instead of money. Chairperson Ferguson noted that there was a catch-22 because by adding 2,000 square feet of general commercial it increased the parking demand for an already limited parking space availability. Mr. Homme concurred and explained that there was some consideration given to that, but 2,000 square feet of commercial was not really that much commercial space and for anything other than a restaurant, coffee shop or something along that line, it wouldn't need much more space than 2,000 square feet. It couldn't be a Ruth's Chris. In the past when this has come up, he would be more than happy to limit the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. He also noted that there was an adjoining parking area that belongs to the apartments that are there and it seemed like a logical thing to do, to have a joint use of the parking lots together. Instead of traffic going out and turning right on Acacia Street, they could exit by going to the exit on Arboleda off that adjoining parking lot and a no left turn sign there, just a right turn allowed onto Monterey. If the present entrance to the parking area behind the apartment building was moved to the south a little bit. It lined up now with Mr. McDaniel's house and if it was moved a little bit to the south and there was a no right turn sign there, if people obeyed the law there would be no traffic on the street. He said he had hoped there would be some way of working that out. It was one of the last pieces of property in that area in Palm Desert and has a lot of problems, but he felt it was a great opportunity to solve a lot of the problems but would need a lot of cooperation from everyone. Chairperson Ferguson recalled that the commission approved conversion/ construction of an office professional building a half a block up the street from this proposed site. There was also office space on three corners, not counting the apartment and if the City were to relieve Mr. Homme of some of the obligations which he believed the City did for Mr. Oliphant on the Muro application, he asked if it was Mr. Homme's opinion that one more office could not be built financially on that corner. Mr. Homme said he thought another office could be built on that corner. He didn't know how marketable it would be right now, but he wouldn't say that commercial was the most necessary thing to make the project fly. It was just that there was a lot of expense involved in developing and \.r 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 hopefully the City would become more involved so that the cost was a little bit less and they could build a little less square footage. The numbers work on a piece of paper but from a marketing standpoint, he felt it would be better to have some commercial. Commissioner Jonathan said that if the construction cost considerations were set aside, if they looked at filling up office professional in that area and he was familiar with the area, it was his perception that not only has demand gone up from tenants, but rents have also gone up. For office/professional/medical, the most recent example in this vicinity was the Ken Harris building and he understood that it was fully leased. His perception was that there is strong demand, an increasing trend in rents and that there was very little vacancy in that area. He asked if Mr. Homme concurred. Mr. Homme said he didn't think Commissioner Jonathan was 100% off the mark, but what people didn't see was, and he operates six or seven buildings on Monterey Avenue, and in those six or seven buildings he has about 5,000 to 6,000 vacant feet. They were not vacant because they were not leased, but because the tenants were no longer doing business in Palm Desert. They were in litigation. He confirmed that the rents have gotten firmer, but it was difficult to get more than $1 .00 or $1 .10 per square foot per month and that was what he based these numbers on. He hoped that the market would continue to get better and better, but looking at it today even with some rose colored glasses, there were still a lot of development costs for that property for 12,500 square feet. If it was 30,000 square feet, it would be nothing. Widening Monterey and Fred wed Waring really squeezed a little piece of property even smaller. He felt that Holden and Johnson did a great job. They carried the architecture around the corner with a covered parking structure. He felt this was a great corner in Palm Desert and should be really nice. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. He asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff if commission was not inclined to provide for the commercial use, if the development agreement was satisfactory to staff. Mr. Smith said it was satisfactory to staff, but it probably wouldn't be necessary from the applicant's perspective. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it was drafted without those two items, so he was confused. Those were the two items that would have precipitated the need for the development agreement and asked why it was drafted without containing those two issues. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the development agreement was generic. The substance hadn't been added because it hadn't been defined. The way it was worded now, whatever the city approved out there, the development agreement would lock it in and almost incorporated it by reference. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was strictly office professional use provided and council then wanted to make some kind of financial arrangement with the developer, if that would be incorporated into the development agreement or if the development agreement would be 1 6 u� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 eliminated and that matter handled in some other way. Mr. Hargreaves explained �..► that there would be different vehicles and they may not want to use a development agreement. Normally they use a development agreement to lock in certain entitlements for a period of time and the developer could go forward knowing that the rules wouldn't change. In this case the development agreement was being used to accommodate some variations in planning that would normally not be available without a development agreement. If commission was not going to incorporate any variations from normal planning, then the development agreement was not needed and they could get into regular contractual arrangements. With the development agreement, because of the notice, the commission has the ability to supersede their standard zoning. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was getting that uncomfortable feeling that he was being dragged into a development agreement and one that deals with issues that he didn't feel completely in the loop on. His inclination as a reaction to that is to look at the application strictly from a planning standpoint and he saw office use all around and felt there was adequate demand for more office, so to him office professional use was what was appropriate for the corner. He didn't feel a restaurant or commercial use would be appropriate. His inclination was to send it to council in that form and if council feels a compelling need to provide financial incentives in order to develop that corner under office professional or alternatively if they wanted to grant some kind of exception to the use and allow a restaurant, because they are motivated by other factors, so be it, but from his standpoint strictly from a planning perspective, he felt an office professional use was what was warranted for that corner. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan in regard to keeping the use office professional. She didn't feel there should be commercial in that small area. She noted that it was a busy corner and a restaurant less than a mile away didn't make it and she felt the corner should only allow an office professional use. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was in agreement and didn't feel that commercial use was appropriate there. He encouraged the city to pursue an increase in square footage with the use of the additional parking if that was not being fully utilized by the apartment complex or with some sort of financial assistance. Commissioner Fernandez also agreed and that it should be kept as a professional office use. He felt that the corner needed to be developed. Chairperson Ferguson noted that this parcel was in the office professional zone which could be developed like every other parcel has been development, except for the city's requirement to put in a right-hand turn pocket, ingress/egress lane, and other offsite improvements which now make the parcel very difficult to develop. Mr. Homme's solution was to add a little bit of commercial, but Chairperson Ferguson didn't think that the Monterey/Fred Waring corridor long range plan included any commercial uses. He said he did give some thought to allowing some ancillary commercial uses that would only serve the tenants of the %no 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 i building and not increase the traffic volume because Fred Waring is one of the city's busiest corridors, but didn't see how an office of that size could support ..� it and it wouldn't be financially lucrative. Like Commissioner Jonathan, he felt they were traveling into the netherworld of guessing about what might work and he wasn't a developer and they didn't have specific plans from the developer other than general commercial and he wasn't in favor of general commercial. He did favor and would encourage the city council to work with Mr. Homme to relieve him of some of the offsite obligations to return some balance to the way his property used to be and allow him to move forward with an office professional development, which is what was in the specific plan and long term general plan. If the city has made it undevelopable, then it was our obligation to work with him to make it developable again. He understood that Mr. Homme would prefer commercial, but he was not in favor of a commercial use. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would like to make the motion but needed some guidance on which way to proceed because it sounded like the commission was ready to approve what is before the commission, but maybe staff felt it would be more appropriate to continue the matter and let council deal with it. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that the staff recommendation was that if the commission was not inclined to add commercial, to simply continue it. Mr. Smith stated that if it was the commission's desire to approve this tonight, there was a resolution in the staff report of August 5, 1997 which with a few deletions could be workable, but said that the matter could be continued to October 7 and staff could have a clean version of the resolution before commission available. Commissioner Campbell recommended that the Redevelopment Agency help Mr. Homme. Commissioner Jonathan didn't feel that needed to be part of the actual motion. He thought council would gather that from the discussion, but before the commission was a precise plan and other matters.- -He felt it did need to be cleaned up because on August 5 the commission was considering the 2,000 square feet of general commercial. He recommended a continuance to October 7, 1997 to allow staff to prepare a clean set of documents. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Commissioner Jonathan wanted to leave the public hearing open. Commissioner Jonathan replied yes. Chairperson Ferguson agreed with Commissioner Jonathan and would accept the staff recommendation that they simply continue the matter and he made the point early that the commission could interpret the council's 5-0 vote one way and the council could interpret the commission's unanimous comments equally as well in the commission's minutes and would take it into account in their dealings with Mr. Homme. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. PP 97-8, VAR 97-1 and DA 97-3 to October 7, 1997. Motion carried 5-0. i 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 B. Case No. CUP 94-2 Amendment #1 - MICHAEL CASTELLI, Applicant %W Request for approval of an amendment to an existing conditional use permit to allow a 620 square foot ground floor expansion of Castelli's Andreinos plus 200 square foot loft at 73-098 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Smith noted that the plans for this proposal were displayed. He explained that the proposed building would go in the rear parking area. He noted that the staff report was prepared last week and staff received additional information today and he would cover that. Andreinos took over this site in the mid 1980's. Prior to that it had been occupied by various bar type operations. At one point it was a biker bar and had a long and distinguished history. In 1989 Andreinos added a 600 square foot expansion that was accomplished with CUP 89-14. At that time they enclosed the front patio. Onsite parking was limited so they were required to obtain offsite parking nearby. They did execute a lease for the use of parking at the vet clinic immediately next door to the east. In 1994 they appeared again before commission with CUP 94-2 and had an 1800 square foot addition request. They needed additional parking and they went and executed a lease with the property immediately east of the vet clinic. There were 27 parking spaces at the rear of that building. At this time the applicant wished to add 800 square feet to the rear. There would be 600 square feet on the first floor and 200 square feet of storage/loft area. As it turned out, the amount of parking they are leasing is enough to cover the proposed expansion, plus the loss of the four spaces onsite which is where this building was proposed to be located. The staff report concluded that the lease arrangement with nearby owners who were not open during the evening hours has worked adequately and staff was unaware of any complaints relative to this operation. That was the case last week. Today staff received three phone calls from two of the owners leasing property and an additional adjacent owner to the west. All expressed concern and indicated the leased parking may not be available after the agreement expires in the year 2002. Mr. Drell spoke to Mr. Castelli this afternoon and staff was now recommending a continuance to October 7 to allow Mr. Castelli to try and patch things up with his neighbors so that the city was not put into the position of reducing the parking further with the long term commitment parking in jeopardy. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan designated the lots to the north as future parking and understood that there is a parcel acting as a "thorn in the works". Mr. Smith explained that situation had been settled recently. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was anticipated that the public parking lot would be available by the year 2002. Mr. Smith said he would like to be able to assure the commission of that, but noted that they had no idea that the acquisition of the previous parcel Chairperson Ferguson mentioned was going to take nine years, but the city has now acquired it. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was any other impediment to the city paving it. Mr. Smith explained that the ball was now back in Dr. Lyons' hands and it was his project that created that whole concept. Hopefully he was still interested in doing the `. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 project. Otherwise, the city would have to get involved and do it. That was doable in five years, but wasn't sure it would be done. .� Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. There was no response. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. PHIL WITTE, 44-870 San Antonio Circle in Palm Desert, stated that his house was right behind Andreinos. He said he was fascinated to hear about the parking agreements because they have been parking behind his building back there since the mid 1980's. He was curious to hear what they would do when they add more space to their restaurant. He has had problems and parking back there has caused a lot of trash, there have been oil changes, they have been working on their cars, there were motors started and racing at 1 :00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. He said he mentioned this once to a blond lady who identified herself as the manager and she said she would do something about it. Since then it had been much quieter, but nevertheless they are parking on his property, there was oil dripping and grease, and there was trash. From their last expansion about three or four years ago he still had the building materials (i.e., cement, the blocks broken up from the grease trap) were sitting on his property. He also asked if they had to throw cases of wine bottles into the dumpster at 1 :30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. He said it was very noisy. Mr. Witte stated that he hasn't said much because they had been pretty good. He has stepped back there at 1 :00 and 2:00 in the morning and spoken to the people and they have quieted it down, but if the commission was to drive by right now, they would see three vehicles behind his structure, plus the vacant lot next to him full of cars. If the Planning Commission was going to approve this, he wanted to see some mitigation for his property at this point. He asked if there would be a window on the second story that would look down into his property. Chairperson Ferguson said that while staff was looking into that, he asked if commission had any questions for Mr. Witte. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Witte had ever made any complaints to the City about their operation. Mr. Witte said he has never said anything to any inspectors. He spoke to the manager and after that one time she said that the building materials that were left on his property from the cement mixing and jack hammering of the grease trap wasn't theirs. Since this was two years after the fact he didn't want to argue, but he did ask her to mitigate the noise and it had been to some extent, except for the wine bottles at 1 :30 a.m. He noted that his front bedroom was 100-120 feet away. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Witte that there would be no upstairs windows. Chairperson Ferguson asked for commission comments or a motion. 10 °"� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing CUP 94-2 Amendment #1 to October 7, 1997 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 96-18 Amendment #1 - CAMERON NEVINS, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to allow conversion of a 1385 square foot deli limited to a maximum of eight seats to a 1385 square foot restaurant with up to 48 seats on property located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road (Cam's Corner). Mr. Smith noted that the plan was on display. It showed the layout of the proposed restaurant. When the commission considered this project in 1996 they knew there would be a service station on the corner and a convenience store. The other tenants were kind of up in the air. The city approved a total of about 5200 square feet of commercial space. At one point there was going to be a video store and deli. The video store was now the Mail Bag which was similar to Mailbox Etc. The request before commission was to allow a restaurant use rather than the deli use which was limited to eight seats. As is usual, staff's main concern on this type of request was if there was enough parking available. As indicated in the staff report, as general retail uses the building itself had a parking requirement for 19 spaces and the site provided 23. When adding in almost 1400 square feet of restaurant use, the required parking was increased to 27 spaces. As part of the development of this site the commission reviewed a parcel map that altered the property lines between this site and what was then Smokey's and is now Bash's club house to the west. As part of that parcel map which moved the property line, there was also an executed mutual access agreement and a mutual parking agreement that affected eight parking spaces immediately west of the property line. Staff then looked at Bash's Clubhouse site. There was almost 3700 square feet of restaurant use with a parking requirement for 37 spaces. With the realignment of the property lines and the reconstruction of the parking areas they ended up with 46 parking spaces on that side of the property line. In total between the two projects there was a parking demand for 64 parking spaces and they would have 69 spaces. Staff concluded that there is adequate parking. Staff noted that the four spaces will no longer be available for use as expansion for either project. Mr. Smith felt the findings for the approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit could be made, noted that this was a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a specific tenant or just a general application. Mr. Smith said the sign requests were for "Sub Zero". He suggested that since Mr. Nevins was in the audience, he could describe what his concept of Sub Zero was. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the restaurant use 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 was in the same location as the deli use was going to be. Mr. Smith said it was identical. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Planning Commission spent an inordinate amount of time on this application in the spring and that entire time he understood that there was a video store and a deli and the request that was made at that time was for eight seats. He understood that the video use was replaced with a Mail Bag and he visited the facility and walked through the deli which looked like it was being built for 48 seats and asked why 48 seats weren't requested last spring and why they were now being asked for the 48 seats after the fact. He suspected that had the original request been for 48 seats. The debate on the application might have been substantially different. Mr. Smith felt that question would be better answered by the applicant. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission and answer Commissioner Jonathan's question. MR. CAMERON NEVINS, 77-071 Indiana in Palm Desert Country Club, asked for any questions. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the commission spent a lot of time with Mr. Nevins, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Godecke, Hidden Palms and this application with the understanding that the exact same square footage he was using now would be for eight seats and he was just asking what changed between now and then to have him now ask for 48 seats. He thought that discussions might have been a little different and asked why it was different now. Mr. Nevins stated that his intent has never changed. His plan was the same plan that was submitted from day one. Part of it was his fault because he didn't know the whole process when he started this a year and a half or two years ago and what was told to him was that this was what they could do because of the parking they had. When they started the plans, they didn't have a parking agreement in place with Mrs. Bash so they were limited. He wasn't going to build or design something with eight seats which wouldn't take much space. They designed and built it the way he planned from day one and what he was told was that after he reached an agreement with Mrs. Bash, then he could come in and ask for the change in use. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Bartlett could shed a little light on when those parking agreements were executed. MR. TIM BARTLETT, 73-380 Salt Cedar in Palm Desert, stated that they had originally planned a deli and he was not aware that a deli meant eight seats. He did not know of a deli in town that had eight seats. When he thought of a deli, businesses like SubKing and Togos came to mind. Chairperson Ferguson thought they asked for eight seats. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Mr. Bartlett replied no, that they asked for a deli. He was not aware that �.. a deli meant only eight seats. Chairperson Ferguson said that he didn't raise that issue at the time. Mr. Bartlett said that was because he was not aware that a deli meant eight seats and that a condition of the deli meant eight seats and he was still to this day amazed at that. He thought that eight seats didn't make sense. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the application was approved with eight seats. Mr. Bartlett said that their application, he thought, was approved for a deli and they found out later that a deli meant eight seats and that was the confusion. Chairperson Ferguson asked staff for clarification. He said that he remembered an eight-seat deli when the commission considered this application last spring. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the minutes were handy. Staff replied no. Mr. Bartlett said he didn't remember an eight-seat deli. Chairperson Ferguson said he thought Mr. Bartlett could see where he was going with his questions. �... Mr. Bartlett said he did see where he was going because it sounded like they were trying to sneak by with a deli and now wanted more seats. Mr. Bartlett said that the intention was to build a deli and that was still the intent. He said that Sub Zero was a sub sandwich deli. He was not aware that a deli meant eight seats and he didn't believe that their application ever mentioned eight seats, but he was sure they would find that out in the minutes. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that there were two tracks going here. Mr. Nevins said that he asked for eight seats because his architect said he could only get eight seats based on his then existing parking. Mr. Bartlett was saying that he thought they had 48 all along and was shocked to find out that they only had eight. His question was when the parking agreement executed. Mr. Nevins replied that the agreement was signed just prior to closing of escrow on the land. It took them that long before they knew they had an agreement with their seller and neighbor, Mrs. Bash. That was when it was signed. Chairperson Ferguson asked for an approximate date when it was signed. Mr. Nevins wasn't sure, but thought it was April 15. %or 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION StPTEMBER 16, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson asked when they received final approval from Planning Commission before he went to City Council. Mr. Nevins said that they signed the agreement after they received approval. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that after Planning Commission or City Council approval. Mr. Nevins replied that it was after City Council. They signed the agreement right after they closed escrow on the land and they didn't close escrow on the land until all the approvals were intact. Mr. Bartlett said that it was a few months after council approval. Chairperson Ferguson said they would check it out. He clarified that he wasn't being distrustful, but when he read the staff report and then visited the site and saw a deli that would either be world's largest eight seat deli or they were fully planning on getting approval for 48 seats, he wondered why it wasn't raised with them earlier. Mr. Nevins stated that it was always his intent to build the exact plan the commission had from the first time they submitted to Planning and Building Departments. He said no one asked them why this deli was so big for only eight seats. Chairperson Ferguson noted that McSorley's had a deli and the liquor store on San Pablo only had eight seats, half of them inside and half of them outside. It was not unusual and was in the city's ordinance. Chairperson Ferguson said that be that as it may, he didn't see any opposition mentioned in the staff report. He noted that he spoke to Mr. Godecke about it, but there wasn't a letter from him and he wasn't present tonight. It was just on a personal basis that he wondered why the commission didn't know about this sooner. Mr. Nevins stated that he wanted to make it clear that they had all the approvals from the city before they had the parking agreement hashed out with his neighbor. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was generally consistent with what Mr. Smith recalled. Mr. Smith replied yes. He noted that staff had the draft agreement faxed on the 22nd of April and he noted that it was not a signed version. Chairperson Ferguson asked when Cam's Corner was approved. Mr. Smith replied that council approved it January 9, 1997 and Planning Commission approved it in December of 1996. There was probably close to a five-month gap. Mr. Smith stated for the record that while staff was processing this, most of the contact was with the architect, Mr. McFadden. He met with Mr. Nevins perhaps twice in that whole process, so perhaps there was room for the confusion. Chairperson Ferguson said he could understand if his architect told him he only had parking for this much use on the deli and they subsequently 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 entered into an agreement after their entitlements that gave them more parking. ... That made sense to him but it wasn't clear in the staff report and wondered why they were coming back and adding 40 seats after their six trips to Architectural Review, four trips to Planning Commission and one or two trips to City Council. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there were any other questions for the applicant or Mr. Bartlett. There were none. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Ferguson asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked if all the surrounding residents were noticed, the same ones that were noticed when the original project was before the commission. Mr. Smith replied yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff received any comments. Mr. Smith said that he received a call from Mr. Godecke and he talked with him as recently as today. He spoke to his office previously and at that point staff wasn't clear on what the agreement with the parking said or which direction staff was going. He told him that he didn't know staff's position at that point, but he told Mr. Godecke today that staff was recommending in favor of the amendment and went through the parking numbers with Mr. Godecke to show the basis of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Jonathan asked what his general reaction was. Mr. Smith replied less than enthusiastic, but he wasn't here. Chairperson Ferguson asked if staff had an executed copy of the parking agreement. Mr. Smith replied no. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it could be clarified that it has been signed and executed and the city be provided with a copy of it. Mr. Bartlett said he would provide a copy. Chairperson Ferguson asked for the duration of the agreement. Mr. Bartlett said it was in perpetuity with cross easements for right of way. Commissioner Beaty commented that he wasn't comfortable with the shift in gears, but it didn't really matter because according to the report there was adequate parking and he could see no reason for denial. If they intended to pull one off, they did. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Beaty. She didn't recall that it was for eight seats, but that it was a deli. Now they have ample parking and she could see no reason they should be limited to eight seats. Chairperson Ferguson agreed. He noted there was no opposition, written or otherwise. The seats were limited to eight and he remembered the comments he received from a number of opponents that said eight seats would create a traffic problem and he remembered having a problem trying to conceive how an �` 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 j eight-seat deli would add to a fuel station, but be that as it may, it sounded like they obtained additional parking which increased the number of seats they could have in the deli, there was no opposition, and it looked like a quality development. He didn't have any opposition to it other than just to receive clarification as to why they were having an amendment so soon after going through such a tortured process and he was satisfied with the explanation. Commissioner Jonathan said he reluctantly concurred with the comments for the same reasons cited. He had the residents in mind and if he was a resident and didn't know about this and found out about it after the fact that there were 48 seats and more activity, he would be a little upset, so his concurrence was bolstered by the fact that this is a conditional use permit and he would be very sensitive to any concerns raised by the residents, particularly if they came back in and said they thought eight seats were approved and there were now 48. With that he concurred. Chairperson Ferguson commented that the character of that intersection and that street has changed dramatically. It was a conditional use permit with Mr. Godecke and residential and Mr. Godecke came in and received a change of zone, there was a domino effect with the houses down that side of Deep Canyon that have all received change of zones and he suspected that they would like to cross Alessandro as opposed to Deep Canyon, but there was no opposition to it. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1827, approving CUP 96-18 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. CUP 97-12 - DESERT WATER AND POWER CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a church with a maximum of 1 ,400 square feet of seating area, located a 77-530 Enfield Lane, Building "C". Mr. Alvarez explained that the subject property is located in the industrial district, specifically within the Country Club Business Park. He noted that the applicant wished to operate a church out of Building C. The proposed church would have 1400 square feet of seating area which would create a parking demand of 40 spaces. The only other uses in the evenings and weekends in that general vicinity is Gold's Gym which is located to the south. He said he looked at the parking situation out there and took into consideration parking area "A" which contains 50 parking spaces. A parking survey was conducted during the peak 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 hours of Gold's Gym which is mainly after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. The parking '�► survey indicated on each occasion there was sufficient parking in area "A" immediately adjacent to the proposed church. On all occasions there were more than 40 vacant spaces on weekday evenings. The proposed hours of operation were afternoons, evenings and weekend mornings. Staff felt parking would be sufficient to accommodate the church use in building "C" and recommended approval. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be any conflicting hours on Saturday or Sunday mornings with Gold's Gym and the church. Mr. Alvarez felt the church operation was far enough away (about 300 feet) to avoid a conflict in hours. Commissioner Campbell asked if that would be the same for weekdays as well as weekends. Mr. Smith said he visits the Palm Springs Gold's Gym and weekend mornings were not a problem. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the occupancy rate was for the complex when he conducted the parking survey. Mr. Alvarez said that from what he has seen, it was fully occupied. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he didn't have a problem with this request, but asked when staff does these kinds of analyses if they would tabulate the occupancy rates for the rest of the properties that are impacted. He said it was one thing to look at it and say it looked like there were a lot of open parking spaces when all the buildings are vacant as opposed to when all the buildings are occupied. Mr. Alvarez added that a letter from the complex association endorsing the project. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. There was no response. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant was present. The applicant raised his hand. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed development. There was none and Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Beaty asked the applicant about the origin of the church's name. The applicant didn't respond. Commissioner Campbell asked how many parishioners this church would have. MR. TOM HOVSEPIAN, 72-135 Via Viejo in Rancho Mirage, addressed the commission and stated that he was the pastor of the church. He indicated that there were about 60 adults and about 20 children. Commissioner Campbell noted that the downstairs area would hold 82 people and asked about the upstairs area. Mr. Hovsepian said that the upstairs area was the same size and was divided into little rooms that were used for offices and they would be using them for children's Sunday school. `m 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Commissioner Campbell indicated it could hold 164 people. Mr. Hovsepian said he didn't know the official statistics on footage per person, but it was 1400 square feet upstairs and downstairs. He thought it might actually be a little bigger upstairs because there was a lobby downstairs. Chairperson Ferguson asked for any other comments or a motion by the commission. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1828, approving CUP 97-12, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case Nos. C/Z 97-12 and PP 97-13 - HOWARD HAIT, Applicant Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-2 to Office Professional for two properties located at 44-650 and 44-666 Monterey Avenue. The request also includes a Precise Plan to construction a 1 ,975 square foot office building on one lot at 44-650 4 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the subject properties were located on the east side of Monterey approximately 120 feet north of San Gorgonio. The applicant was requesting a change of zone from R-2 to Office Professional for property located at 44-650 Monterey. The property owners to the south (44-666 Monterey) originally had a verbal agreement to come in and be considered under this same application to change their zone. Those property owners did not endorse the change of zone and this was after the notices had gone out. Both these properties, including properties from San. Gorgonio to the Hacienda de Monterey, were currently designated office professional. The change of zone would be consistent with the general plan and future land use for this area. The precise plan, which was requested for parcel 1 , consisted of a 1975 square foot office building and it included a replacement of an abandoned apartment structure located on the site. The access to this building would be from Monterey and parking would be provided in the rear in the form of seven spaces. The applicant would be required to secure a mutual access agreement with the property to the north in hopes that the future development of that property would provide for a two-lane access off Monterey. If the change of zone on both properties is approved, this precise plan would be consistent and would meet all the applicable standards of the office professional zone. He noted there was a letter dated September 12 from the property owner at 44-666 Monterey and it indicated some concerns with the zero lot line proposed for the office structure. He said 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 that although this was a one story structure it would have a zero lot line on the +� south side yard which was common to both parcels. Mr. Alvarez said there were two options in the staff recommendation. If commission chose to approve the change of zone for both parcels, the precise plan would be consistent and would meet all applicable requirements. He also asked for commission direction to proceed in rezoning the whole block and include it together with this application. The parcels he was talking about were the six parcels from San Gorgonio. Those parcels were currently designated as Office Professional in the general plan. Chairperson Ferguson said he understood the conversion process from residential to office professional along Fred Waring and Monterey has proceeded slow and one of the problems that was raised with the application which effected Nancy Noel's property was the reluctance of certain property owners to dedicate rear parking areas so that instead of a row of office professional with one common parking lot going along the entire back, thereby reducing ingress and egress congestion problems, they have a whole bunch of driveways like they were residences going into separate businesses. He asked if some thought had been given to requiring them to have common area parking agreements to the right and left. Mr. Smith said he thought there was a condition placed requiring the offering of a mutual access to the lots to the north and south. Mr. Alvarez said the condition offered mutual access to the north only, but not to the south at this time. Mr. Smith suggested that commission amend that condition to include providing the possible future access to both the north and the south and leave that option open. Chairperson Ferguson asked for clarification on the word SW "possible" and if it was going to be required or not. Mr. Smith said that if it was available to us we would use all available persuasion to see that it is utilized. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the way the precise plan was being presented, if parcel 2 were to be developed at minimum there would be one shared point of ingress and egress for both parcels. He asked if it parcel 1 was designed so that if parcel 2 were to be developed they would share the same point of ingress and egress and if there would be just one driveway. Mr. Alvarez said that right now it was not designed for them to share the access. Commissioner Jonathan asked why, at a minimum, that wouldn't be done. He noted that across the street there were several independently owned projects because the chairman was making reference to where in the back vehicles could go all the way down and it was used very effectively to improve traffic flow. Here on this side of Monterey he said it would be very difficult to accomplish the same thing, but at a minimum we can plan the development in such a way that at a minimum there was only one driveway for each pair of buildings. He asked why we would not do that. Mr. Alvarez said that our hopes would be that the property to the south, parcel 2, if and when it developed it would mirror parcel 1 's precise plan and was flipped over to provide for the access for the next two parcels to share. Commissioner Jonathan asked why we hope and not just condition and design this specifically so that was exactly what would happen. He said that has been done with residential projects. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson asked if our ability to effectuate these common parking area agreements be enhanced if there was a change of zone for the entire parcel. Mr. Smith didn't think it would be enhanced. With the precise plan the commission has the ability to condition this precise plan. They had to choose moving the building against one lot line or the other. They chose to push it to the south. What will likely happen is that they will have the second half of the driveway taken out of the northerly piece. If we also required the parking access to parcel 2, then it is unlikely that we would need another driveway for that one. They would connect at the rear. They would achieve the goal of one driveway for these three lots, however, were the northern lot to develop last, then they might choose to have a one-way driveway that would exit out on parcel 2. The building would be pushed against that property line and have the driveway come around the south side of that building. At this point we don't know what the timing for development on the adjacent two parcels would be but we should keep all available options open. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification because he thought that one applicant owned two parcels, but Mr. Smith was making reference to a third parcel. Mr. Smith noted that the one application had two owners which was advertised, there was a third parcel which is to the north against Hacienda de Monterey with a third separate owner. Chairperson Ferguson said that if our general plan was to have that completely converted to office professional as a buffer and to reduce ingress and egress off of Monterey, he asked if it would make sense to do the change of zone, come up with a plan for uniform parking and common area parking as to all remaining lots and then work with the conversions in the future and give them that plan Old and tell them that this is what we would like to do for uniform development, instead of proceeding in a piecemeal manner. Mr. Smith said that proceeding with the O.P. zoning over the entire six lots at this time made sense because the plan before them would not be consistent if both these lots were not rezoned at the same time. If commission only rezoned the one lot at this time, then pursuant to the ordinance it must mirror the setbacks on the adjacent lots which would remain residential and which have setbacks that the O.P. does not. It allows for a zero setback. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it was still staff's recommendation to proceed with a change of zone for just these two lots at this time. Mr. Smith said that he would prefer that the commission continue this application to a date certain and direct staff to notice the six lots for rezone to office professional. Staff would come back with that at the commission meeting of October 21 , so the precise plan would be continued to October 21 and the whole piece would be advertised for rezoning from San Gorgonio north to Hacienda de Monterey. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a mechanism for subjecting the six parcels to a joint parking plan, even if it was a vague parking plan that says they will cooperate in a way necessary to minimize points of ingress and egress and to maximize traffic flow efficiency. Mr. Smith said he didn't want to say there was not a way to do it, but staff would give some thought to it. He thought that in the case of the southerly three lots it was too late. Commissioner Jonathan noted that on the Department of Public Works condition no. 7 there was an indication that the driveway approach as shown on the site plan was not acceptable. He asked if the following language was what 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 was required to correct the problem to make it acceptable. Mr. Smith replied •. that was his understanding. Commissioner Beaty noted that there seemed to be a discrepancy between the staff report where it states that the Armentas changed their minds and their letter indicates that they knew nothing about this and were surprised when they returned home from vacation and he asked for clarification. Mr. Alvarez thought that the applicants could shed some light. Commissioner Beaty said he was still confused as to whether they still wanted to rezone their property or not. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HOWARD HAIT, 78-848 Via Carmel in La Quinta, stated that they placed the application before the commission for parcel 1 to put in an office professional on the right side of the property where there is an existing old structure that is boarded up and sits five or six feet from the property line. The idea is to remodel and maximize the use of the property. He said they used Holden & Johnson Architects who are on the opposite side of the street just further down toward Fred Waring. In their development they do have the common area parking along the back. He thought it would enhance the whole side of Monterey if they did have the parking with ingress and egress parking coming in and out at predetermined spaces. He said there were also a couple of attorneys at the south end of the street. His opinion in talking with those individuals was that they could not come to an agreement to have a common area parking lot. As far as he himself was concerned he thought it would be a tremendous thing to put it behind the building because they didn't want people backing out onto Monterey or getting into parking jams on the side or back of the building. For parcel 2, parcel 2 was notified more than once. He said he made an offer on that property which was not accepted. The real estate broker picked up a letter from the people next door and they agreed verbally to do this and after they went out and got advice to not sign anything. Anything that is done to parcel 1 would only enhance parcel 2. He asked that the commission proceed on and not delay their proposed plan to put in a professional building. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. BRETT HOMME, with STR Commercial, the owner of the property, 27- 690 Avenida Quintana in Cathedral City, said that this was designed to mirror the two properties and he felt the best scenario would be to get six properties sharing driveways so that there were only two driveways on teat street and this was made to share with the property to the north against Hacienda de Monterey. It would work that way and when the next property came on line, they would get a driveway there, but to make everyone share the driveways back and forth in a big parking lot, he thought everyone *AW 21 v MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 would be at odds. He also tried to buy the property next door. It was available but not at a realistic price. He said they were accomplishing the goal of having one single parking lot and one single access with the property to the north, but to make them do it with the property at the other end he didn't see it as a point at this time. He wanted to state that for record. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Homme talked with the people to the north. Mr. Homme replied yes. They were okay on that one, but it might be difficult for the one to the south. They were living in it was a residence, but it was available commercially for sale. He thought it was something that should have been done along Monterey a long time ago. He felt that at least this was a start to do something right for the street. Chairperson Ferguson said that he thought Mr. Homme could see that no one disagrees that it would be desirable, but the problem was the attorney, Mr. Bolas, came in and the residential neighbors to the rear were concerned about noise, light coming through from Palm Desert Town Center, Nancy Noel didn't want to give up her parking and they dealt with that. This one comes up and he felt that all the specific issues that relate to these parcels could be dealt with and then there would be two more. They would end up with three entirely separate developments in what should be a homogenous office professional area and his hope was simply to notice the change of zone for the entire section and get every property here, have every residential owner here and work out all the residential concerns and then ask the people who are reluctant why and explain the whole plan to them and see if a greater common consensus could be reached to do this right. Mr. Homme said he could appreciate that and asked if the other residents were noticed within the 300-foot radius so that everyone on that street received notification. He stated that the gentleman with the property behind him called and wanted to know if Mr. Homme wanted to buy his extra lot for parking. Mr. Alvarez clarified that the 300-foot radius was notified. Chairperson Ferguson explained that it was 300 feet from these particular parcels, not for the other parcels. Mr. Homme said that the properties were 50 feet in width. Chairperson Ferguson stated that the point was that even if they got notice, if what directly affecting them wasn't being changed to office professional, why would they care. That was what they told him. Mr. Homme said he could appreciate that, he was just trying to figure out how getting 22 people in the room would get something worked out. Chairperson Ferguson said Mr. Homme would be surprised. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 MR. TONY AMADO, 223 Santa Barbara Circle in Palm Desert, stated that he is a real estate broker and he was representing and working with Howard Hait. He said parcel 1 to the south had been informed and given notice. The question was raised if they were notified or had an objection. Their decision verbally was stated. This sounded great for down the road when they decided to sell their property and would be beneficial. Up to the last moment for some reason they were advised by "a friend who is an attorney" that it would not be a good idea. Therefore, they were reluctant to do so. Along with what Mr. Homme said, two attorneys to the south have no intention at this point of agreeing now or in the future to work out a common area or meeting of the minds. He was looking at this overall picture and an attempt to get everyone together which have already voiced disapproval and get them to a point where they would collectively come up with a common ground, which would be a good idea if they had one developer for the entire project, but they don't. By putting in a potential restriction that everyone had to agree or nothing would happen. Nothing was what would probably happen. If the ingress and egress could be designed whereby they had two buildings that would curtail the number of driveways. He said it would be a developable project. Otherwise, it would sit in its present stage. Chairperson Ferguson said his proposal wasn't all or nothing. It was to notice everyone, get everyone participating to see what the best we could do for the entire section of that block, with Mr. Hait's proposal being the vehicle. He didn't have any objection to it, but he wanted uniformity for the whole block and do a change of zone. Mr. Amado asked for clarification that Chairperson Ferguson was suggesting that all property owners be present and arrive at a mutual agreement. Chairperson Ferguson explained that as the City's planning agency, he was trying to apply a plan that would encompass the six parcels. He appreciated Mr. Amado's concerns about the two proposed, but he was also concerned about the ones that are being developed at this time. Staff asked for commission's direction to be able to accomplish that plan and he was wondering out loud if it didn't make sense to do the plan with Mr. Hait's application as the vehicle. Mr. Amado felt that was a good plan and would like to see it work. Chairperson Ferguson said that since there was a suggestion by staff to continue this matter, he would leave the public hearing open and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty asked if the Armentas were present. There was no answer. Commissioner Jonathan asked what staff was seeking specifically by continuing the matter. Chairperson Ferguson noted that it was Mr. Smith's recommendation that the matter be continued to October 21 . Commissioner 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Jonathan asked for clarification as to what staff was trying to accomplish with the continuance. Mr. Smith stated that the intent of staff by suggesting a continuance was to allow staff to renotice a change of zone that would apply to all six lots. It would make the whole block consistent with the General Plan and that would be the driving force behind it. It would also take care of the northerly lot that was left out. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that it would provide the commission with the opportunity to at least examine the possibility of creating some type of parking plan that could be imposed on those properties and if that could be accomplished or not. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Ferguson stated that his goal is to try and stop piece-mealing this conversion process. The problem was not just on Monterey, but also Fred Waring Drive. They could at least get some uniform, at least some discussion of a plan, using a change of zone for the entire block as the driving force, at least for notices to the residents and businesses and allow that time for staff to work with the residents to come up with a plan that makes sense with the broadest consensus they could achieve among the property owners in question. Commissioner Campbell stated she would be in favor of a continuance and would make a motion. Mr. Smith clarified that the Precise Plan 97-13 would be continued to October 21 and staff should be directed to readvertise an amendment to C/Z 97-12 to include the six lots north of San Gorgonio for the meeting of October 21 . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing PP 97-13 and directing staff to readvertise an amendment to C/Z 97- 12 to include the six lots north of San Gorgonio for the meeting of October 21 , 1997 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Nancy Noel's business was there with a conditional use permit. Mr. Smith concurred and said that the pediatrist's office on the corner was also there with a conditional use permit. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that the other aspect was the change of zone and no existing businesses were there because of a change of zone, they were located there under conditional use permits. As they come back in under a change of zone, the city might have additional leverage to discuss with them some uniformity. F. Case No. ZOA 97-4 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.16 of the Municipal Code, Development Standards in the R-1 zone. Mr. Smith explained that the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee considered at length development standards in the R-1 zone. Through the discussion of the staff report staff described in a general fashion the changes proposed from Zoning Ordinance Review Committee. Subsection "B" would increase the 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 maximum coverage up to 50% subject to approval of Architectural Review r... Commission. Currently maximum coverages range from 30%-35% depending upon the size of the lots in question. Subsection "G" would encourage the provision of adequate shading on glass areas on the east and west. Section 090 of the draft would create new exceptions for front, rear and side yard setbacks. He said this was a major part of the discussion at ZORC and would allow for the averaging of setbacks and on irregularly shaped lots it would allow for reductions of up to 20% of the prescribed minimum standards. In both cases that would be subject to review and approval by ARC. Section 100 would require roof mounted equipment to be screened from view; 110 would regulate location of swimming pools and specifically pool equipment; 120 would require tennis courts and sports courts to observe certain setbacks and other standards; 130 noted that swimming pools were subject to Ordinance No. 821 which relates to the closure requirements for swimming pools; 140 regulates location and screening of satellite dish antennas for those dishes in excess of 40"--he noted there were exceptions in federal law for dishes in excess of 40"; and Section 150 would regulate the location of air-conditioning equipment. He stated that this draft would replace the existing R-1 standards. Mr. Smith noted that Chairperson Ferguson and Commissioner Campbell have sat in on ZORC and have consistently attending the various meetings held. He indicated that there are seven or eight members on ZORC and everyone has strong opinions so they tried to mesh these together. As noted under staff concerns on page 2, the language that came out of ZORC was that ARC encourage a diversity of roof styles and strongly discourage gable roof dwellings which are to be located adjacent to each other at the minimum five foot setbacks. Chairperson Ferguson felt that had staff's concerns been made available to ZORC at the time it adopted this, ZORC would not have wanted it to come to Planning Commission. He said that a lot of these concerns he was seeing for the first time. He didn't disagree with the concerns, but didn't feel that the committee has had the benefit of evaluating them. He was not sure the committee would want the commission taking action without reviewing staff's concerns. He stated that he was not sure why ZORC didn't get staff's concerns before the final passage of it. Mr. Smith indicated the fault should rest with him in that when sitting in the room he lost the forest and the trees in trying to come to a compromise and agreement on something and when you step back from the situation, it didn't make sense. He said he was less than forceful in bringing forward these problems, but he did concur that in this instance where they are encouraging like under Subsection G where they are encourage adequate shading, it was meaningless. He agreed that the matter should be referred back to ZORC and asked if Planning Commission wished to give them some direction as to where they should be going on these specific issues. ARC has a policy in place under Section 080 A and asked if we needed a standard for shading of glass areas. Chairperson Ferguson said he didn't think, if staff's concerns had been shared, that this would have been forwarded to the Planning Commission for its review. They have a committee made up of a Chamber executive, a commercial real `. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 estate agent, two private developers, two architects, a council member and a planning commissioner and Mr. Smith. The views were widely divergent and he agreed with Mr. Smith's concerns and felt it was before commission prematurely. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was any reason not to postpone it to give ZORC a chance for review. Chairperson Ferguson replied no. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Ferguson asked staff if the concerns could be settled by October 7. Mr. Smith said no and recommended a continuance to a date uncertain. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. ZOA 97-4 to a date uncertain by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case No. ZOA 97-5 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.66 of the Municipal Code relating to Home Occupations. Mr. Smith indicated that this also came out of the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee. The first thing that was being changed was the name of Home Occupation to Home Based Business. The proposed amendment was a big change to the existing ordinance. At this time the only person who could conduct a home based business was the resident of the dwelling. The change proposed would permit up to two additional employees at the site. The home based business would have to be conducted within enclosed buildings (home and/or garage). In the case of a home based business in a multifamily area like an apartment, the person could have a home based business but may not have employees. Section 050 delineated the permitted uses ranging from professional offices to instructional services and home crafts. Section 080 listed prohibited uses and they reduced the size of the prohibited uses list slightly. Section 090 provided procedures for revocation; 100 allowed for an appeal to City Council; and 110 would allow for collection of the fee as prescribed in the city's fee resolution. Mr. Smith stated that this was a Class 5 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and staff recommended approval of this ordinance to City Council. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. i 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson indicated that this was reviewed by ZORC and the intent fir.. was to increase permitted home occupation uses, recognizing that it occurs anyway and they wanted to legitimize those which didn't pose any interference with the quiet, peace, and enjoyment of property and with the advent of telecommunications and computer technology, more and more people are working out of their homes and need occasional secretarial help or other temporary help, which is why they would be allowed other employees with the assumption that if it did become a problem it could be handled like anything else. He said they attempted to make the home based businesses comport with reality and make legitimate that which was already occurring and didn't otherwise interfere with quiet enjoyment of property. They went through a number of ordinances from a very specific ordinance, to the Beverly Hills ordinance, to one which they thought was very appropriate and would be flexible enough to allow City Council and staff to decide whether or not this would create a problem for the City but would not otherwise attempt to regulate or interfere with existing home based businesses beyond the requirement that if they didn't have a permit that they get one. Mr. Smith stated that they also did considerable background and found that there are approximately 650 home occupation permits issued in the city currently, but it seemed like most members on the committee knew people and in some cases many people who operate out of their homes who do not have permits. The question was how many were really out there and hopefully by broadening the scope of allowed permits for this type of use they would be able to get more of them licensed and legal. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was discussion of the enforcement aspect. Was enforcement expected to take place from complaints. For example, there was a requirement that the traffic generated not be in excess of the normal traffic patterns for residential neighborhoods and he assumed that code officers wouldn't be parked in cars watching but they would rely on complaints. Mr. Smith concurred and explained that was the current policy and there was a revocation process for people who have problems with their neighbors. Chairperson Ferguson requested a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1829, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 97-5. Motion carried 5-0. %MW 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 H. Case No. ZOA 97-6 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to Chapter 25.56.500 of the Municipal code (Hotel Development Standards). Mr. Smith informed commission that in the near future we would be receiving the hotel proposals at the Frank Sinatra/Cook Street corner. He indicated that there would be certain amendments to our current development standards for our hotels that would be necessary in order to move those applications along. Staff thought they knew what they were, but learned there might be more. Mr. Smith requested a continuance to a date uncertain and staff would schedule it concurrent with the processing of those applications when they are submitted. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing since it would be continued to a date uncertain and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing Case No. ZOA 97-6 to a date uncertain by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. CUP 91-8 - SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CHURCH. Mr. Smith noted that this item was continued to this evening in that there was some consideration that Planning Commission might reconsider the conditional use permit for Southwest Community Church. Through the Director they had been given 30 days to indicate that they can operate in a fashion that was favorably received by the community around them. Mr. Smith said he had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Richards who had brought forth.some complaints through the summer. He indicated that recently the situation had been very good and felt that his conversations and discussions with Roger Phillips of Southwest Church had been very responsive. They took care of the shininess of the roof and put some mat finish on it to darken it down. He said there had been a few problems with band practice and he mentioned that Thursday, September 11 he or one of his neighbors went over there and there wasn't any adult supervision in evidence. He felt that basically there had been improvement. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Richards would like to address the commission. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 MR. JIM RICHARDS stated that he has given the church a good report card r... but was a little anxious because school has just started again and the steel building at the church has become a community youth center. Tuesday night was junior high night. Tonight he wasn't sure what was going on but the band started about 6:30 p.m. at very high volume. They toned it down about an hour later. When he left home this evening, there were about eight skateboarders who had been at the church for over an hour and a half jumping off the steps and that noise was very unique but it was a clackity clack sort of noise. He was not addressing the issues of liability insurance and risk of an accident, but he still saw a tendency with the youth minister, Mr. Rick Baylor, to believe that the young people can supervise themselves and an inability on his part to simply go to them and say what the amplifier volume will be set at. It seemed a simple enough thing, but that has not been done. When the young people feel like it, they open the utility doors on the north end facing Hovley so that all the insulation in the building is for naught because the sound simply spills out into the field. He has gone over there and talked with them about it and they comply by closing them, but he has gone over there and there were six or seven young people with no supervisors. Mr. Baylor felt that supervision was adequate if he is in the main church building but not with the young people themselves. As to the skateboarding and that sort of thing that goes on, the church welcomed young people with open arms, but there was no one around to see if they are okay or if they are creating a nuisance. He didn't know what to conclude and would withhold judgement. He didn't want to be antagonistic and said we live in a world that is very complicated and they were before his neighborhood and he understood that. He hoped the Planning Commission would move to continue to press them to move as soon as possible and to hold to their agreement to take the building down one year from now. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that as the season comes back into swing if there are continued problems the commission will continue to go through this process. It was not an all or nothing approval and was conditional. He for one had no problem getting Southwest down here to address all the concerns. He was glad to see that some headway was made on the planning issues with the air conditioning and roof and if the youth department was still a problem, we could pursue it again with the youth pastor with the assistance of Mr. Phillips and Mr. Moore. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (September 3, 1997) Chairperson Ferguson informed commission that they were trying to work with Caltrans to participate in their logo sponsorship sign program which allows six businesses to participate. They require that the city provide trail blaze signs once the traveler gets off the freeway to actually direct them to that facility if it isn't visible from the freeway. They got bogged down on issues such as how to decide which six businesses because the effected zone can go out as far as ten miles. They asked the council for direction on whether or not they wanted to entertain these trail blazing signs similar to the model home signs now. Their indication was that they wanted to pursue it and ZORC would continue to discussion it. Home based businesses were discussed as mentioned earlier and they would be tackling signage next. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m. ' PHILIP D -LL, ecraza ---- ATT ST: i JAM S CAT VERUSON, Chairperson Palm ese lg Commission /tm 30