Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0804 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 4, 1998 r.. 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Cindy Finerty i.. Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Phil Drell Steve Smith Dave Erwin Martin Alvarez Mark Greenwood Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the July 28, 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the July 28, 1998 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 'r None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 .r VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Continued Case No. DP 12-79 Amendment - HAHN/PALM DESERT, INC., Applicant (Continued from July 7 and June 2, 1998) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and amendment to a Development Plan for a 172,562 square foot expansion to the Palm Desert Town Center and 956 space single level parking deck. Project involves additional retail space, 2,200 seat theater expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care facility. +� Project located on property generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1 , Monterey Avenue, Town Center Way and Rancho Grande Drive. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open and was continued from the July 7, 1998 meeting. The applicant was requesting a continuance to August 18, 1998. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing Case No. DP 12-79 Amendment to August 18, 1998, by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. PP/CUP 98-11 (Revised) - MELANIE PLACE PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an 11 ,957 square foot office and studio 1111110 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 tow addition at KESQ TV, on two lots on the east side of Melanie Place immediately north of the existing KESQ facility at 42-650 Melanie Place. (APNs 634-142-003 & 004) Mr. Smith noted that the site plan was on display. The applicant, Melanie Place Partners, acquired the property north of the property that was before the commission in early July. At that time they were requesting a parking modification and a five-space parking reduction from the code requirement. At that time the commission deadlocked on whether to grant the approval. The applicant took it into his own hands and acquired the property north of that piece and they have now designed a small parking lot showing five parking spaces and connection through to the parking lot on the site in question. With that amendment staff recommended approval of the application. All the rest of the proposal remained the same (i.e., the architecture, the size and the use). Staff imposed in the draft resolution condition number 6 which requires the applicant to deed restrict the five parking spaces to use by this property in perpetuity. With that, everything else was the same. Staff recommended approval. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOE DUNN, Cal West, stated that their firm was the architects and engineers for the project and he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was in favor of the previous proposal before the additional parking spaces and he was in favor now and would move for approval. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he would second that motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 It-was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1881 , approving PP/CUP 98-1 1 (Revised), subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. CUP 92-3 Amendment #2 - MARK DEMILLE, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit, transferring 640 square feet from an existing 1 ,280 square foot restaurant entitlement to an adjacent 2,000 square foot mini market with an on-sale beer and wine license, located at 42-005 Cook Street #106. Mr. Alvarez stated that this property is located at the northwest corner of Cook and Vellie Way. Back in 1993 the commission approved Conditional Use Permit 92-3 Amendment No. 1 which granted K.C.'s Mini Mart a 2,000 square foot mini mart entitlement. The property owner now wished to transfer 640 square feet from the former "Factory", a 1 ,280 square foot restaurant entitlement to the adjacent unit which is K.C.'s Mini Mart. This restaurant entitlement transfer would not impact parking since no additional restaurant use was being added. Staff recommended approval subject to the attached conditions. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RON SOSHER, representing Mr. Demille, stated that he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move approval of the project. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he would second the motion. Commissioner Beaty said that he frequented K.C.'s Mini Market and while not ever having an easy time to park, he had always found a space and he would concur. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissj aer Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1882, approving CUP 92-3 Amendment #2, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No. TPM 28865 - JAMES BROWN, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide an existing 2.4 acre parcel into two parcels. Property is located within Ironwood Country Club on the east side of Della Robbia Lane, 300 feet south of Crosby Lane. Mr. Alvarez indicated that this property is located within Ironwood Country Club. The zoning is R-1 20,000. The request is to subdivide a 2.4 acre `.. property into two lots. He pointed out the map on display. Parcel one would consist of a 74,186 square foot lot which would retain the existing residence, the three accessory structures, and the tennis court. Parcel two located toward the southeast portion of the property would be 31 ,484 square feet. Both parcels would gain access from Della Robbia Lane, which was parcel one. Parcel two would gain access via a 25-foot easement running along the west and south property line of parcel one leading to parcel two. The only issue which staff found was the 15-foot setback on the side yard which is required in the R-1 20,000 square foot lots. Community Development Department Condition No. 5 required an amendment to the property line to adjust for that 15-foot setback. Tentative Tract 28750 approved in March of 1998 consisted of 18 lots. Once this property developed the two properties would gain access via the two-way ingress and egress between the existing row of palm trees. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RON KOESTER, the civil engineer for the project, said he would like to address staff and specifically ask for an amendment on Public Works Condition No. 3. They would like to tie that amendment into either the NOW 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 I grading plan or the building plan. He said it wasn't exactly clear if that was a condition tied into approval of the tentative map. He asked for some type of verbiage similar to conditions 4 and 5 where those were both tied into the grading permit. Mr. Greenwood said it would be okay to defer that to the building permit or grading permit. Mr. Koester replied that either one was fine with them. Mr. Greenwood stated that he would prefer grading permit. Mr. Koester concurred. Regarding the condition under Riverside County Fire Department, he asked which cul-de-sac the condition was referring to when it said to upgrade the existing fire hydrant at the end of the cul-de-sac. He wasn't sure which hydrant that was referring to or exactly where that fire hydrant was in relation to their project. Mr. Drell indicated that Mr. Koester would have to ask the Fire Marshal. Mr. Koester agreed and asked for any questions. There were none. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty asked if the applicant was comfortable with the conditions as they are with regard to the fire hydrant or if he wanted to wait until a clarification could be obtained. Mr. Koester spoke from the audience and said he would prefer to go ahead now. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would move for approval. Mr. Erwin asked for clarification that the approval included the modified condition regarding the grading permit and the lot line requirement. Commissioner Beaty concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 %ftr It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1883, approving TPM 28865, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. E. Case Nos. GPA 98-4, C/Z 98-5 and PP 98-10 - 3 D PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment and change of zone from low density residential (PR-5) planned residential five dwelling units per acre to office professional (O.P.), a precise plan of design allowing up to 87,750 square feet of office professional use and negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto for 8.02 acres at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Smith noted that the plans were on display. The request consisted of three parts. A general plan amendment, change of zone from residential �• currently zoned PR-5 with a requested change to O.P. (office professional) and the precise plan of design which, if approved, would allow up to 87,750 square feet of professional office use which was denoted on the site plan with ten buildings. The two buildings at the corner would be two story while the remaining eight units would be single story. He showed on the site plan the location of Portola, Frank Sinatra, and buildings A and C which were the two story units when viewed from the corner at Portola and Frank Sinatra. When viewed from the parking lot side those two buildings would appear single story due to the grade change on the site. The remainder of the buildings, buildings B & D through the rest of the site, would be single story. Colored elevations were also on display and they were in the commission's packets. The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval to the revised plan and to the revised elevations. In the case of the general plan amendment, Mr. Smith explained that staff liked to come up with reasons to justify the change. In this instance Frank Sinatra Drive is designated as an arterial street in the City's Circulation Element and Portola is a major thoroughfare. At some point in the future both streets could be expected to carry high volumes of traffic. Placing residential units this close to that traffic volume would likely lead to difficulties with noise emanating from the streets. Staff didn't feel the site was a good residential location. As well, placing the office professional use in this location would serve to buffer the residential area to the north. It r.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 was not unlike what was done along Fred Waring Drive and Monterey where professional office use was encouraged along the major arterials to help buffer the residential areas to the interior. He pointed out that the property at the southwest corner of the intersection, directly south of this site, is currently zoned PC-2, which is a district commercial use which at some point in the future would be a commercial center probably anchored with a supermarket. Typically those uses wait for the local population to be there before they go in and wait for the customers. The applicant would rather go in and serve a need rather than waiting for that need to be established. The site has one access point from Portola which would be right in and right out only and two access points to Frank Sinatra. The westerly most one would be right in and right out, while the one at the center point of the site would be right in, right out and left in. From eastbound Frank Sinatra a left turn into the site could be made. The project would provide 388 parking spaces. The requirement for the building area is 351 spaces. Recently the parking requirement for medical and dental offices and clinics was increased to six spaces per 1 ,000. He pointed out for the applicant's benefit that he would be limited to 18,500 square feet of medical office use and the rest of the facility could then be typical general office use. On page three of the staff report the setbacks of the buildings to the streets and other property lines were outlined. He noted that at the west end of the property is the K & B development. For the most part the project borders the retention basin on that site. The extreme northwest corner of the site backs onto one of the homes at K & B, so there would be a parking lot adjoining that home. Units at the west end of the site as noted previously were single story and quite low profile single story office buildings (buildings D and B). For purposes of CEQA a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared for certification. Staff felt the amendment to the general plan and change of zone could be supported. The property would be difficult to develop residentially and future traffic levels could negatively impact on the residential units this close to the intersection. Staff recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the project and that a Negative Declaration be certified. Chairperson Campbell asked what the property to the north of the proposed project was zoned. Mr. Smith replied Planned Residential, five units per acre. Chairperson Campbell asked for the difference in the height of the office buildings versus the K & B homes. Mr. Smith said that the single story } buildings would be 17 feet in height. He indicated that single family homes 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 o.. could be as high as 18 feet, but didn't think the K & B homes were quite that high. He thought they might be in the range of 16 feet. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DICK BAXLEY, the 3 D Partnership representative, stated that he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. MINA ZELLER, 37-912 Hollister, stated that she bought this home for her retirement and put all of her life savings into this home. To her shock she understood that they want to put a business area right next to it. They were told by Kaufman and Broad that would be a residential area. She bought her home half a year ago and if they were willing to give her money back, she would gladly move because she wouldn't want to live next to a business area with the associated dumpsters, noise and people looking into her backyard. She felt it was amazing that the City allowed Kaufman and Broad to build a residential area and now there would be a rezone. She asked why the City let K & B build in the first place if they knew it wasn't a good residential area. She also felt that there should be another hearing because most people on Hollister have not moved in. Their houses were in various stages of completion and they probably never received any notice, those adjoining homeowners there, and they should all be notified and there should be another hearing. She felt everyone there would be very opposed to it. Commissioner Beaty asked Ms. Zeller to explain where her house is located. Ms. Zeller said it was the first house off of Frank Sinatra, adjoining where the business area would be. She said that all the homeowners on Hollister weren't finished and people haven't moved in. There were probably three people who have moved in there. All the people haven't been notified and didn't know. She felt they should be given a chance to back out of their contract and thought most of them would. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 log Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification on the buffer between the homes on Hollister and the proposed development. Mr. Smith said there would be a six-foot wall on the property line, a landscape strip with trees and typical landscape ground cover which would be on the inside of the wall and then the parking lot. Chairperson Campbell asked if there would be any empty land between the wall of the parking area and the residence. Mr. Smith said no, the wall would be on the property line. Mr. Drell asked for the width of the retention area. Mr. Smith explained that there was a CVWD well site retention basin that extends 296 feet north and it was the full depth of the units to the north, approximately 120 feet. Commissioner Beaty asked staff to show them the location of the wall and retention basin on the map. Mr. Smith did so. Mr. Drell asked commission to refer to the zoning exhibit map B which showed the lots in relation to the lots at K & B. Commissioner Beaty asked Ms. Zeller if the well site was immediately south of her property. Ms. Zeller concurred. Commissioner Beaty noted that Ms. Zeller's property would be adjacent to a parking lot, not to a building. Mr. Smith concurred. Ms. Zeller said that the well site was south of her house and now she would have a business center on the other side. Ms. Zeller said that it wasn't zoned for offices yet and she felt that the residents should be given a chance because they all bought with the understanding that there would be a residential area next to them, not a business area. She asked that they at least be given a chance to back out of their housing contracts. Kaufman and Broad didn't even know about this proposal and didn't tell anyone. Commissioner Beaty noted that the commission didn't know until Friday when they received their packets. Commissioner Beaty asked Mr. Smith if Ms. Zeller's property was the only one impacted since all the other residences on Hollister were located north of this proposal. Ms. Zeller felt they would all be impacted along the wall. Mr. Smith replied that Mrs. Zeller would be the only one that is physically adjacent to the property. MR. HAROLD SIDDONS, 37-816 Driscoll, stated that he was a friend of Ms. Zeller and he was against the rezoning because it would start a precedent. When one business went in, they would eventually have 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 businesses all the way down. Everyone else's backyards would be next to a business. Once the precedent was started, they would have to go with businesses all the way through there because they sure wouldn't get any houses in there. He has been a resident for about 15 years and has a house on Deep Canyon, a condo which he said the City ruined and he couldn't even sell it because the City widened Deep Canyon and because of Lucky, traffic on Deep Canyon runs all night. He had to get out because his bedroom was right there and he couldn't sleep because there was so much traffic. He moved out to K & B and now he was running into business again. He felt there had to be some place the City was going to leave for houses around there. There weren't many left for moderate income people and he was retired and it was within his means to get a house and now he would be stuck with businesses next to him again. He knew what it was like at Deep Canyon, but when Lucky went in all of south Palm Desert now went down Deep Canyon to go to Lucky. There was a nice big four and eight-lane street at Highway 1 1 1 and Deep Canyon and it might as well go down. �.. Chairperson Campbell asked where Mr. Siddons' home was located in relationship to Ms. Zeller's. Mr. Siddons explained that he was on Driscoll just a block away in the corner house on Driscoll. He was the first house in this new section. MS. AMY PALMER, 37-648 Driscoll, which is a street over, asked if the grade would be lower than the houses or above the houses. The reason she was asking the question was because when they purchased their homes they had to be graded to a certain extent per the City because of flooding, water runoff and that type of thing. She wanted to know if the grading would be lower or higher than the homes and what zoning code would be in force for these--if it would be medical buildings or what type of buildings were going up and what kind of businesses would be allowed in these buildings. They have many children and retirees. She and her husband purchased their first home and there were new families with small children and it was a concern when they have lots of traffic around small children. She said she was from Orange County and had dealt with a lot of building and big streets and traffic and she loved it out here but she didn't like to see it grow so big tow that children had to watch what they do, where they play and security. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 too Those were her concerns and she wondered if she could get those questions answered tonight and needed further checking. She said she just received the notice on Saturday and needed more time. She works full time so there wasn't any time to get any records or find out what has been offered or what was going on. She asked for a postponement of some kind to find out what was being offered and what they planned to build there. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Smith what types of uses could be placed there. Mr. Smith replied lawyers, dentists, doctors, insurance agents--a wide variety of professional office uses. Chairperson Campbell asked if it would be about a foot higher than the homes. Mr. Smith said that the plan he had didn't indicate the pad height level for the residences. It did note what the pad heights would be for the buildings in question. The site fell from north to south and the curb at the west limit was at 275 and the westerly most building (B) has a floor level at 279.5, but he wasn't sure they could necessarily conclude that it would in fact be above the homes to the west because proceeding north it would rise. Building B was 17 feet above the pad. Ms. Palmer asked if the grade would be above what their homes are at. Mr. Smith said he didn't know. He knew what height the pad was proposed to be, but he didn't know what their home heights were. Ms. Palmer felt that was something that needed to be looked at and if Kaufman and Broad had to follow these restrictions when they bought the homes, then anything around them should also. She said it wasn't that they get a ton of rain, but it could happen. Chairperson Campbell indicated that staff could check into that. MS. DENISE CULKIN, 37-729 Hollister, stated that she, also, was very shocked and didn't know what to make of the notice she and her fiance received. One of their first concerns when they looked at the houses at Kaufman and Broad was what was going to be built around there and they were specifically told that it was residentially zoned. Something she didn't think could be changed. They were very shocked to see that and while it was said that only Ms. Zeller would be physically impacted, that might be the case but she felt they would all be impacted as 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 homeowners. They wanted to live next to more houses and have more of a community, not to live by professional buildings. Her feeling was that once one threshold of buildings went in, more would follow and to compare them to Fred Waring, and not to insult Fred Waring, but if they wanted to live in an area like Fred Waring, they would have moved to Fred Waring. They bought a house out in Kaufman and Broad because they wanted to live residentially and the houses around Fred Waring and behind the businesses weren't houses that were very high in value. She felt this would also bring down their value. Saying it was a dangerous area in which to build houses made them feel bad because they were right smack dab on Frank Sinatra, but if they had more houses around them, then maybe safety would be a moot point and maybe there would be another stop sign or stop light in the center of Frank Sinatra to slow down traffic, and the same with Portola. There were many housing communities built on very high traffic corner areas. Victoria Falls in Rancho Mirage was right on Bob Hope. There was also Mission Hills and then Desert Falls right on the corner of Cook and Country Club, not to mention all the country clubs on Country Club Drive. Because they *MW have gates and are setback more, if that makes it more safe, she asked why they let Kaufman and Broad build there. It made them feel like they weren't good enough and they could just slap in some professional buildings as a so-called buffer. The fact that there might be a grocery store built across the street some day, some how, that still wouldn't be right next to them. That would be across the street and might be very convenient for them to go shopping at, although there was a grocery store just down the street and she didn't know if that was just a ploy to make this project seem more attractive. She and her fiance were getting married in November and this was their first home. They plan to have children and live there for a while. Her parents bought a house across the street from them and they were retired and moved back from France and were settling in and they would actually be on the back side of where Ms. Zeller lives. It wasn't physically impacted, but when one went in many would probably follow. She felt this hurt their trust because they put in a lot of dreams and hopes into these houses. They were their homes and for ten buildings, they wanted to make their lives different. She doubted that was worth it. She wondered what kind of houses would be built behind professional buildings and if they would be lower income than theirs because who would want to be right smack tow behind a professional building. She felt those were all things that 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 needed to be considered and to realize that they are like pioneers out there. They were one of the first ones on Hollister and before they were built, it was windy and sandy and they endured all of that because they knew that one day it would be great. There were the Marriott Villas buildings behind them and that would have a beautiful golf course, the university was in the area and they thought this would be good for property values and now this. She said it shot down their dreams a little bit and felt the City needed to stop and think and let the desert grow as a community more instead of trying to halt it and turn it into Fred Waring. She didn't want it to be like a Fred Waring. Fred Waring had so much traffic. It didn't make much sense to her. MR. RICHARD COHEE, 37-604 Hollister at the north end, said he wanted to echo the concerns of everyone else. He said he and his wife just got back in town tonight and found the notice on their front door. There were obviously a lot of concerns that had been voiced and he felt that people needed to step back a few minutes and evaluate things. He said that his parents live off of Tamarisk and Highway 74 and they went through the same thing with Deep Canyon Tennis Club. They were told that there wouldn't be any two story houses and the pads would be down. He said they might as well have bought two story homes because the single stories could look back into their yards and that was probably the concern. If the pads are high, people would be able to look over their fences. He and his wife bought there thinking the area would be residential and no businesses or homes would be around it and that was what they wanted. MS. FABIANA HOSTLER, 37-632 Hollister, stated that like the other homeowners, she, her husband and her daughter just moved in about a month ago and they have the same concerns. The first thing they questioned when they looked at these homes was whether it would be zoned for business and the first thing they said was that it was residential and resort to the left and they were pleased with that. They made a bad investment about 10 years ago in Cathedral City and it took them 10 years to get out of their house because they bought in a very windy area and they didn't realize the effect of that and they wanted to move so badly and couldn't. She thought that could happen to Kaufman and Broad. If they were to put the businesses right in the front that wouldn't encourage residential uses on the north end. It 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 would just bring in more businesses and they would end up with grocery stores behind them. Because the homes are more affordable, it wouldn't increase the value, it would just bring it down. When they started looking in Palm Desert the first thing they wanted to make sure was that they got into a community where they knew they would be able to get their money back in five or ten years if they were to sell and not have to rent it out and make a payment for the difference on the mortgage, like they were doing right now. If this were to happen, she knew they would be stuck and wouldn't be able to make money or even want to stay there. They have a little girl and didn't want to be smack in the middle of a community full of businesses around them. As to what was said earlier about it not being a good area for residential, she disagreed because there are a lot of homes and communities. Off of Monterey there were Merano homes and they kept expanding. Monterey was a lot busier than Frank Sinatra and the trend for Frank Sinatra starting from Palm Springs from the Ritz Carlton going all the way up it was all residential. There were private country clubs, the Annenberg residence and it was a beautiful street and then they would i., get to Kaufman and Broad and this would be on the left. It didn't even flow right. She thought there was a lot to be considered and this was people's lives and dreams as brought out earlier. She said it really did affect them and made it difficult. They were so pleased to move in and have a nice future to look forward to in a nice family community. Individually she didn't think the commission would be pleased if a business went right next door to their homes. Their backyards did face that and potentially they could have businesses right in their backyards also even though they were a little bit farther away from Frank Sinatra. It could potentially affect them and in two years they could be before the commission again trying to fight that from happening. Mr. Baxley readdressed the commission. He said it wasn't his intent to create this kind of a problem. He stated that clearly these people had a right to be concerned about values and they could argue about the points. He didn't believe it would depreciate their property values and said it wasn't their intent to depreciate their values. He thought they were wonderful homes and the addition of high quality single story office buildings with professional tenants would benefit them. He said he certainly hoped that was the case since that was their intent. It was their intent to start on the eastern two story buildings and build the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 westernmost buildings at the very end of their program. He didn't know what Kaufman and Broad grades were but believed they had to be very similar to them and they didn't intend or desire to have their buildings looking down on theirs at all. That was something that wasn't going to happen and he felt very comfortable with that. To say what might happen north of his property, he couldn't address that. He indicated that specifically his parcel was quite wide from east to west and very narrow going north to south. It was only 280 feet. That was next to impossible to develop in a residential fashion. He just couldn't see it or imagine it. They did need the zoning approval to go to office professional and so it was in the Planning Commission's hands. He thanked them for their time. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty agreed with Mrs. Culkin when she said that she believes that more professional buildings would follow like on Fred Waring and it was true that the proposed buildings looked like they belong on Fred Waring. She wasn't pleased with the architecture and was questioning at this point whether she was even in favor of the change of zone. She wondered if it would be beneficial for the applicant to meet with the homeowners because apparently most of them weren't even aware of the proposal until this weekend to see if there might be any common ground that could be realized with a continuance and at the same time meet with Architectural Review Commission and maybe do something to kind of spice up the current architecture proposed. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with Commissioner Finerty. He heard the concerns of the residents and believed the city and probably the property owners should get together and communicate a little bit with the community and neighborhood and let them know exactly what is happening and why they want to do this and then bring it back to the Planning Commission or City Council. At this time he wouldn't approve the proposal. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would concur. He indicated that Exhibit B was included with commission packets and asked if the width of the parcel } in question was different from the width of the parcels to the north. Mr. Smith said it was. Mr. Drell said they included the road dedication. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 Commissioner Beaty asked if, as was a concern of the residents, all of these parcels were going to be undevelopable as residential. Mr. Smith stated that he didn't believe that. He believed the properties to the north were developable as residential uses. Commissioner Beaty asked if the width, north and south of this parcel, was the same as the next parcels. Mr. Smith thought the parcel had 280 feet of depth north to south and was less than the others at 330 or 333 feet. Mr. Drell said they were about 50 feet narrower. Commissioner Beaty said he would be in concurrence with his fellow commissioners and was in favor a continuance so that the developer could at least discuss the issue with the homeowners and bring it back at a future date. Chairperson Campbell stated that she also concurred with her fellow commissioners. She said that initially she was in favor of changing the zone to office professional but she didn't like the buildings and felt they didn't go with the general plan. There was Kaufman and Broad to the west and a golf course and a very upscale community with fairway homes to the northeast that would be similar to Indian Ridge and the buildings that were shown to them did belong on Fred Waring and not in that location. From all of the r.p opposition that she had heard, she would also be in favor of continuing this matter and have Mr. Baxley get together with the homeowners and see if any of their problems could be solved. She was in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would move for a continuance and asked the applicant if he would like two weeks or one month. Mr. Baxley felt that two weeks would be sufficient. Mr. Drell indicated that one month was probably what was needed. Commissioner concurred. Chairperson Campbell reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing GPA 98-4, C/Z 98-5 and PP 98-10 to September 1 , 1998. Motion carried 4-0. F. Case No. ZOA 98-5 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendments to the sign ordinance regarding political signs. rr 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 Mr. Smith indicated that during the past election campaign there were some problems with regulating certain political signs and our ordinance was deemed to be unenforceable. The City Attorney's office and Zoning Ordinance Review Committee had been working on this matter. Essentially, if adopted, they would delete the current standards and establish a completely new section in the ordinance. It was a request from ZORC that they separate it from the sign ordinance itself. They were looking at a difference between commercial speech and noncommercial speech. This new code section, Section 112 of the Zoning Ordinance, would regulate noncommercial signs. It would create five categories of noncommercial signs based on the location. In the case of occupied single family homes, basically that was unregulated. A concern in the past has been signs on vacant residential lots and that would be covered under Category B which limits signage to 12 square feet total. Category C dealt with temporary noncommercial signs on developed lots in other residential zones like churches and day care facilities. "D" covered developed lots in the commercial and industrial zones. "E" covered vacant lots in commercial and industrial zones. He said that "F" was an interesting category in that if a commercial or industrial user has approved permanent signage, he/she could take it down and put up a noncommercial sign to that size. He felt the ordinance was reasonable and the City Attorney's office advised that it is enforceable. He noted that the ordinance requires that signs be taken down within seven days after an election and they could go up for a maximum of 90 days. All the uses except the occupied residential units required a permit that would be issued through the city and there would be some sort of approval affixed upon the sign. There would be no charge for the permits and they would be reapproved if the 90 days ran out. He thought they were reasonably protecting both sides of the issue and hoped they would be able to limit the number of signs on vacant lots which in his observation had been a problem in the past. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that if they wanted to put up a political sign on a vacant lot, this new ordinance said that they would have to obtain the permission of the owners of that vacant lot and bring that to the city. Mr. Smith said that was correct and it would be limited to 12 square feet on the lot so if there was already one there at eight square feet, they would be limited to four. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 Commissioner Fernandez asked who would police the signs after the seven days as far as making sure that they are removed from the lots. Mr. Smith stated that part of the requirement of the permit is that they sign a statement agreeing to take it down, but ultimately it would fall upon the Code Enforcement Department. Chairperson Campbell asked if they would be ticketed if the signs weren't removed. Mr. Smith said there is a provision for penalties as outlined on page 9 of the draft ordinance. It was an infraction and the fine wouldn't exceed $500. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and 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 Campbell asked for commission comments. Chairperson Campbell stated that she was in favor of the proposal and would move for approval. Commissioner Fernandez concurred and said he would �.. second the motion. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Finerty spoke to the motion and informed commission that this whole issue was initiated by Mr. Rick Post who had an objection during the last campaign which she felt was without merit and she disagreed with the registration requirement. Signs were part of the political process and part of running a campaign. She liked seeing signs during election time. She also felt that having to go through this process was going to be a disadvantage to any challenger and that one of the key issues in a race was name recognition and by imposing these restrictions she saw it as giving any incumbent an advantage and therefore she would be opposed to the political sign part of this ordinance. She felt it was a relatively short period of time and knew that with the campaign she was involved with, they took the signs down the next morning. She felt that was a very reasonable process. She disagreed with the proposal. Commissioner Beaty expressed his confidence in City Council and city staff and concurred with the motion. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). `.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 ri It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1884, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 98-5. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST FOR A DETERMINATION OF USE FOR THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITY TO 73-220 HIGHWAY 111 (THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND SAN MARCOS). Mr. Drell explained that basically an auto repair specialty shop, other than being listed as a definition in the zoning ordinance, wasn't a listed use in any zone in the city. Historically they have allowed them as a matter of right in the service industrial zone and they have been allowed in the commercial zone if they were associated with a gas station. The applicant operated one in association with a gas station. The general question was if it could be considered as a conditional use without a gas station in the general commercial zone and then was asking specifically for some feedback on a particular site, which he would ultimately have to come back and apply for, located at the old Texaco station with the self-serve car wash. The problem that was created was that it was proposed that the gasoline sales portion of that business be abandoned for various reasons. He said it has never been that successful as a gas station and the cost of replacing the tanks and everything else didn't warrant it. The applicant was being eased out by Chevron from his existing site and he wanted to locate and build a new project. Mr. Drell noted the site plan was on display and the applicant would have to ultimately apply for it depending upon the Commission's direction. He said the applicant would be upgrading the existing car wash site with simply a specialty auto repair. He indicated that question one was if the applicant should have the opportunity to apply for a conditional use in the C-1 zone for specialty auto repair without the association of a service station which primarily sells gasoline. Secondly, if it was deemed that the applicant could go ahead, he wanted to say for the applicant's future information that his plan was showing only five parking spaces and one handicapped space. Given staff's experience with auto repair, typically people come in the morning and there are two or three turn over of cars. Not everyone's got worked on eight hours a day, and there are 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 employees. He said Mr. Williams has a very good history of auto repair and attracted a lot of business. Staff's conclusion of the layout was that it was short parking. Chairperson Campbell asked how many employees there would be. Mr. Drell directed the question to Mr. Williamson. MR. KEN WILLIAMSON addressed the commission and said that currently he has seven employees, which included a secretary and himself. Chairperson Campbell asked about the lack of parking. Mr. Williamson said he didn't realize he was short, but his main concern was whether or not he could use that location for this purpose and if he could, then he could make arrangements to readjust the existing property and eliminate some part of the existing car wash. o. Mr. Drell agreed that if the car wash was eliminated there would be plenty of room. Mr. Williamson said the car wash was an integral part of the property and the selling price of the property. He said he probably could do without the car wash if the selling price was different, but the selling price was including the existing business. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would have no problem with the use of the facility; obviously the parking was a problem but he felt that if that could be worked out he wouldn't have a problem. Chairperson Campbell noted that there was a parking lot in the alley. Mr. Drell stated that was a parking lot for the Enterprise building, which was a two- story office building two stores down. That was their parking lot. Behind this use was a preexisting city commercial business in a home. It was a window tinting business that has been there since before city incorporation. In that it was very low impact they have continued to let it continue. Long term there might be more parking, but he was stuck with that building there now. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 r .ri Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Williamson would maintain the sale of gasoline. Mr. Williamson said no and indicated that the gas tanks had already been removed. The property owner left the existing canopy up and planned to leave that up and the existing closed mini mart building he would eliminate and he could possibly negotiate some parking spaces on some property close by. Commissioner Beaty noted that five parking places would probably be difficult with the employees even without vehicles coming in for repair. Chairperson Campbell stated that she wouldn't have a problem with a use like this either. The plans showed enough landscaping to camouflage it in some way, but the problem was parking. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with the other commissioners. He said he t has used Mr. Williamson's services and felt the business was clean and organized. He had no problem with the project if the parking could be fixed. ..r Commissioner Finerty concurred with the other commissioners. Mr. Drell stated that the action would be a minute motion to make the determination that specialty auto repair could be considered as a conditional use in the C-1 zone. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, determining by minute motion that specialty automotive repair can be considered as a conditional use in the C-1 zone. Motion carried 4-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (August 4, 1998) Commissioner Finerty said it was basically an informational meeting. The south course is on schedule. The clubhouse might be delayed 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 because they are trying to find local contractors who are very busy so it was taking a little longer to get figures in. So far everything had gone to local contractors. There was still discussion with regard to potential hotels which was ongoing and they should know more in the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Beaty asked if the proposals came in as expected. Commissioner Finerty said yes and they are still being reviewed. It was briefly discussed because they have gone back to one of the parties for more negotiation. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any names. Commissioner Finerty said it was marked confidential. 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 - (No meeting) r.. XI. COMMENTS Mr. Smith informed commission that staff distributed copies of the Del Webb Specific Plan which would be on the August 18, 1998 agenda for the prezoning for the future annexation to the city. Commissioner Finerty asked if the fiscal impact report was contained in the information. Mr. Drell replied no. He said it was still ongoing. Commissioner Finerty thought that was kind of an important issue. Mr. Drell said that it was important to the annexation of the city and staff could give it to the Planning Commission for their general interest, but it wasn't a zoning issue. Commissioner Finerty asked if that would include only Del Webb Sun City or if it would include Bermuda Dunes. Mr. Drell said it would include some reanalysis of Bermuda Dunes, analysis of just Del Webb, and also the sphere change included a triangular area south of Frank Sinatra where it hits the freeway. It also included separately and cumulatively the areas to the west up to Tri Palms but not including Tri Palms. They would determine which combination of areas ultimately would be more financially beneficial to the city. tow 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1998 i 3 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California ..� /tm j 24