Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1005 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 5, 1999 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER rr.. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Members Absent: Jim Lopez Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 21 , 1999 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the September 21 , 1999 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated there were no pertinent September 22, 1999 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 ..ri VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PM 24255 - EDC CONSULTANTS, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension for a parcel map permitting 100 commercial/industrial lots on 173 acres located southerly of Dinah Shore Drive extended, easterly of Monterey Avenue and southwesterly of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. Vill. 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 moo Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. TPM 29246 - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, Applicant (Continued from May 18, June 1 and July 6, 1999) Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide one parcel into two single family lots. Property is located on the west side of Portola Avenue, 700 feet north of Catalina Way at 44-491 Portola Avenue. Mr. Drell said staff determined that there wasn't a legal justification to deny the parcel map, although the city was proceeding with the general plan amendment. More importantly, there was discussion regarding the eminent widening of Portola. Inquiries had been made about the city purchasing the property and they'd offered the lots at a very reasonable price and staff would be taking that to the City Council at their next meeting to get authorization to buy them. The first stage in these sorts of situations was when the property goes on the market for sale, the city buys it. That was the easiest way to acquire right-of-way and that was probably what would happen with this parcel. The District still wanted to go ahead and had paid their engineers and 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 wanted to get approval of the tentative parcel map. The District told staff that they probably would not go ahead if the city were to buy it and if the land got redesignated. But they still wanted the commission to act on it. Staff was recommending approval. Commissioner Campbell indicated that since this would be before council at the next meeting and would probably be going ahead with the widening of Portola, the commission really couldn't hold these people back. Mr. Drell thought it was probably a moot point either way. He thought that the District's position was that they've paid the money and engineered their map. At this point in time it is consistent with the city's ordinances and therefore the District was asking the city to approve the tentative map. Most likely it would not be recorded. Chairperson Jonathan said he realized this was a request for a tentative parcel map, but the condition of the property was not good. There was a boarded up house there that was deserted or vacant. He asked if there was a mechanism apart from this particular application or process to deal with that. He said that if it was purchased by the city and converted that would be fine. Mr. Drell said that if it was purchased by the city, the house would be demolished and the "hanger" as well. If it wasn't, then Code Enforcement would be sent out so that the property is maintained. Commissioner Campbell asked if a condition could be placed that if the city didn't buy the property that something had to be done with the hanger, since it was over the height limit. Mr. Drell said that was an interesting question. He questioned if they could condition removal of a non-conforming structure on a map. Mr. Hargreaves said that normally the non-conforming use sections of the code said that the use could not be changed or modified and he would assume that parcelization would be a change or modification and at that point it should be brought into conformance. Mr. Drell said that a condition could be added that all improvements on both parcels be brought into conformance with the requirements of the current R-1 zone. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was a condition they could place in case the city didn't purchase the property. Mr. Drell concurred and indicated the issue was whether a map could be considered a modification. The parcels being created were conforming and those parcels in no way impacted the conforming nature of that hanger in that the hanger was a hold over from a semi-industrial use. Mr. Drell indicated that the condition could be appealed if CVWD didn't like it. Mr. ,,. Hargreaves read code section, 25.76.030 said that while a non-conforming 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 residential use exists on any lot, no new use may be established thereon even though such new use would be a conforming use. Mr. Drell said that basically any permit or improvement to the lot in the future would require the bringing of the non-conforming building into conformance. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE SMITH, 73-185 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, stated that the reason this had been continued was he assumed because the city was looking into what the city wanted to do with that structure. His client had no problems with the current conditions of approval. If there was something on there, it would probably have to conform upon occupancy and the structure would have to come up to code. Chairperson Jonathan said that a concern was the lack of occupancy, appearance and condition of the property without occupancy. Mr. Smith thought the reason they had trouble selling it was that it was too big and they thought that by dividing it into two parcels it would be easier to sell and then it would be occupied and that problem would probably also go away. Commissioner Campbell said their concern was with the hanger. Mr. Smith said it looked nicer than the gas station they saved in Palm Springs. He said he understood and realized it was a preexisting non- conforming use. He didn't know how long it had been there but hoped it wasn't historical. Commissioner Campbell asked if he concurred with the proposed condition. Mr. Smith said the condition that it be brought up to some kind of code was okay, as long as it was legal. Mr. Drell said that basically it would say that all improvements on either parcel be brought into conformance with the current R-1 zone. Chairperson Jonathan suggested a time limit so that if there was an intent to sell to the city, maybe within a year or two. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 Mr. Smith said it looked like the city was going to end up with the property. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campbell said she would move for approval with the addition of that condition. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that the condition would be to bring existing structures up to code. Mr. Drell said it could within six months of the recordation of the map. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1944, approving TPM 29246, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. HDPP 99-2 - YOLANDA FUENTES MENDOZA FOR ROY W. CARVER, Applicant Request for approval of a hillside development plan to allow grading and construction of a 3,200 square foot single family dwelling on a 7.5 acre site in the hillside residential zone at 72- 275 Upper Way West. Mr. Drell explained that the proposal was for a single family home. Exhibits were on display. It was a very unusual site. It has a relatively flat kind of a hog back which erodes after crossing a drainage to get to a lower bench which was about half way down from the top. In most cases, developers tried to situate themselves at a high point to get a view of the valley. In this case this was one placed down about half way down on a bench with the primary focus of the house a view of a rather dramatic rock formation in the canyon. As a result, with the exception of a few houses right on the edge of Mountain Back or Sommerset, the development would probably not be visible from anywhere in the valley. Those units over there, even though they could have a �., spectacular view of the mountains, they all had garages facing the mountains. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 In terms of size, it was moderate sized 3,200 square feet and designed with height, etc., and met all the aspects of the intent and purpose of the zone. To the greatest extent possible they would do a re-naturalization of all disturbed slopes. In terms of design, the area was very consistent with the hillside ordinance and staff was recommending approval.. In looking through the file it was unclear whether staff sent out legal notices to all the adjoining properties. Unfortunately the secretary who might or might have sent them out was on vacation. So staff was recommending that the commission open up the public hearing, take as much testimony as possible, and staff was renoticing it for two weeks from now. This was going to go to city council anyway three weeks from now, therefore, they will not be delayed in getting to City Council, but it would make sure that any one of the four or five property owners that had interest would get noticed. One of the property owners was the City of Palm Desert. He showed the location of the city- owned property. Although staff would be recommending approval, to make sure that noticing was done properly, he recommended that the public hearing be left open and the matter be continued two weeks. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. There was no response. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this item. There was no response. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing HDPP 99-2 to October 19, 1999 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. CUP 99-10 - CRYSTAL GOBLET CELLAR, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 662 square foot retail wine and crystal store with a type 20 off-sale license at 73-200 El Paseo, Suite 3C. Mr. Alvarez noted that the applicant proposed to operate a 662 square foot retail store providing retail sales, vintage wines, port, champagnes and a wide array of crystal stemware. The business would operate from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The business would provide retail sales 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 ftm only, no on-site consumption would be allowed. This was based on the Type 20 Offsale License. He stated that there appeared to be no impacts based on the conditional use permit request. The project was considered a Class 1 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and staff was recommending approval, subject to the conditions. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ERIC KROONER, 73-200 El Paseo #3C, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Campbell welcomed Mr. Krooner back onto El Paseo again. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1945, approving CUP 99-10, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No. PP 98-7 - PERFECT BALANCE/LUIS PEREZ, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow the remodel and conversion of an existing single-family residence into a 1,722 square foot office located on the south side of Fred Waring Drive, 480 feet east of San Pascual Avenue. Mr. Alvarez noted that in September of 1997 City Council approved a rezone for two properties located on the south side of Fred Waring about 400 feet east of San Pascual. This property was one of the two properties rezoned to office professional. The applicant filed a precise plan and site and elevation plans were on display. The precise plan included a 522 square foot addition r.., to the east side of the building for a total of 1,722 square feet of professional 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 office use. The business owner owned an account firm named Perfect Balance. The business would operate from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Per the elevations, the architectural design would provide a significant improvement to the existing residence. The existing carport structure would be removed to give access to the rear parking lot. The building would remain single story, 19'9" high and the exterior colors would be earth tone tan stucco colors. The building would maintain adequate setbacks to meet the office professional standards. Those setbacks were outlined in the staff report on page 2. The project received preliminary approval from the Architectural Review Commission with two conditions. One, reducing the drive aisle width from 18 feet to 14 feet; and two, installing a 7-foot planter along the rear property line with 18 foot stalls to accommodate a larger planter area for parking lot shade trees. The property would gain access from Fred Waring. A dual access would be maintained for this property and the adjacent property to the west, which was also zoned office professional. A mutual access easement would be recorded as a condition of approval. The 14 foot wide drive aisle as conditioned by the ARC was acceptable and adequate to service this property initially until the adjacent property fills in the remainder of the 24-foot drive aisle required. In terms of parking, there were eight parking stalls located in the rear of the property, which was sufficient to meet the office professional parking standards. He believed the findings for approval could be met and deemed the project to be a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. He recommended approval, subject to conditions, and asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked what the height of the apartment building was to the east of this property. Mr. Alvarez stated that they appeared to be 24 feet high, two story. Chairperson Jonathan ogened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. GABRIEL LUJAN, GLS Group at 74-854 Velie Way, Suite 5, in Palm Desert, stated that he represented the architectural firm and he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Lujan had any idea when the adjacent property would develop. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 Mr. Lujan indicated that at this point they weren't involved with that property and it was a separate owner. His client did have a question about Condition No. 22 requiring a preliminary soils report. He felt that all he was doing was putting in a parking lot and remodeling an existing building. They were adding 500 square feet, but it was to the left side of the building, so for them to go to the expense of a preliminary soils report for such a small job, it didn't make sense money-wise and he was asking whom they needed to talk to see if that could be taken out of the conditions. Mr. Alvarez said that staff would have to check with Public Works. Mr. Drell said that the condition could be changed to include "or as approved by the Director of Public Works" so if Public Works could be convinced, the applicant wouldn't have to come back. Chairperson Jonathan said that they would modify that condition to give an "out" to let the applicant work directly with staff on this issue. If they agreed, then the applicant wouldn't be bound by this particular condition. Mr. Lujan thanked the commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Chairperson Jonathan felt this was the perfect implementation of the Palma Village Plan and that the appearance was lovely and he especially appreciated the joint access with the adjacent property so there would be as few ingress and egress points along Fred Waring as possible. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1946, approving PP 98-7, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 E. Case Nos. PP/CUP 98-19 Amendment and PP 99-12 - SELECT PROPERTIES LLC, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the master plan of development (CUP 98-19) and a precise plan of design for a non- gasoline automated car wash on parcel 8 of PM 29068 located on the north side of Country Club Drive west of Desert Country Circle at 77-880 Country Club Drive. Mr. Drell stated that back in August commission denied a request for a car wash at the corner at Country. The applicant was directed to relocate the car wash toward the back and they did what the commission requested. They redesigned the site and placed the car wash against what would be some retention area toward the back of the site. Site 1 returned to being a restaurant site. Associated with that they renumbered the various buildings. Substantially the rest of the project was the same. What was buildings 9 and 10 were at one time connected now became 6 and 7 and were separated. Building 8 which was Gold's Gym was now building 4; what was building 7 1 is now 5 and the others were still undetermined pads. Those changes were made. They weren't substantial and he anticipated that when these things really happened they would be seeing some changed architecture since the buildings were separate. In general the applicants responded to the direction of commission and staff felt they now had an acceptable location for the car wash and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. STEFAN MUDRY, 77-900 Delaware Place in Palm Desert, asked for questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Mudry was willing to do the changes required by the Architectural Review Commission regarding the planter. Mr. Mudry said yes. There was a large area at the entrance. It didn't show on the small rendition of the site plan, but it was 60' x 12' and it would be planted in respect to the rest of the landscape. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that Mr. Mudry didn't have any problem with it. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 Mr. Mudry said no, they would love to do it. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Mudry could give commission a little bit of a narrative on the landscaping. There was a requirement for 30% and he wondered what kind of landscaping the commission would see. Mr. Mudry said they would have to do the same thing as the rest of the project. As far as specific landscaping, he wasn't sure exactly what that would be. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that they saw the detail earlier on the landscaping plans, but sometimes things didn't end up as green as they appeared on drawings. He was hoping that this time it would be an exception. He thought the project would end up with 17,000 square feet of landscaping, which was rather substantial. Mr. Mudry said that because they were left with that large parcel when everything was changed around to make them work on that back piece, they did have a large area of landscaping. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that since the applicant did take to heart all the comments the commission gave them, she was in favor of the project and would move in favor of it. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Commissioner Beaty said he also concurred and appreciated their cooperation. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff for both cases. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1947, approving PP/CUP 98-19 Amendment #1 , an amendment to the master plan of development, and 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 adopting Resolution No. 1948, approving PP 99-12 for the car wash, subject to conditions. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION TO CONFER WITH LEGAL ADVISOR REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) CITY OF PALM DESERT VERSUS J. M. MADERA LLC (CAESARS EMPEROR), RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. 12724. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was the commission's wish to convene into closed session. Mr. Drell indicated that it was staff's recommendation that before proceeding with an action on this matter that the commission be fully informed of the background on this case. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was the commission's desire. Commissioner Beaty asked if they should take care of other issues first and defer this. Mr. Drell explained that there was a Sheriff present who would speak and staff didn't anticipate a lengthy closed session--five minutes at the most. Chairperson Jonathan explained that the commission would withdraw for just a few minutes into closed session and they would be back out in just a few minutes. Commission concurred. The Planning Commission went into closed session at 7:45 p.m. Chairperson Jonathan reconvened the meeting at 8:04 p.m. B. CASE NO. CUP 99-8 - CAESARS EMPEROR, APPLICANT Per Planning Commission direction on September 21 , 1999, presentation of a resolution of denial for a request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 10,000 square foot restaurant and, after 9:00 p.m., a bar, lounge and nightclub with dancing including live music and disc jockeys in the building located at 72-600 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Drell stated that staff was still recommending approval of the CUP with conditions as outlined. He believed the conditions had been shown to be effective in addressing the problem and hoped they would not be required in perpetuity and would invite an amendment that this conditional use permit would be reviewed within some fixed period of time, perhaps three months, 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 just to see if they were still effective or if they were still required or needed to be modified or made less stringent. There was a problem out there and staff believed those problems had been cured and the applicant had the opportunity to demonstrate on a longer term his commitment to being a good member of the Palm Desert community and staff was therefore recommending approval. Staff also provided a resolution of denial if that was the commission's pleasure to adopt. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wanted to address the commission. MR. CHARLES KOLLER, 225 S. Civic Drive, Suite 1-2 in Palm Springs, stated that he represented the owners of this project. The owner was actually an LLC and at the meeting with him was Mr. Jesse Jimenez. Chairperson Jonathan asked in what capacity Mr. Koller represented the applicant. Mr. Koller said he was the attorney. Mr. Jimenez was present if the commission had any specific questions that Mr. Koller couldn't answer. First, he wanted to apologize to the commission for not being here at the last meeting. That was a complete communication mess up and they did not know that the meeting was being held. It was certainly no disrespect to this body and they felt it was sufficiently important that they should have been at the meeting and they were tonight. He asked the commission to accept their apologies on that. As far as the CUP itself, they worked long and hard with staff, the Sheriff's Department, with the city's attorneys to come up with a business and project that would be a benefit to the city of Palm Desert. They had an inauspicious beginning that was something even they didn't like. They understood the concerns the city had and they have done everything the city asked to make this a better place. He didn't know if the commission had been told or not, but since implementing the recommendations by staff for the operation of this facility, there have been next to no problems and the only problems were those which should have been caught by anybody doing any kind of business of that kind anywhere and they were fact taken care of right there on the premises. He thought there were two public intoxications that were taken care of and if they looked at that in the context of other establishments of the same type, it was even less than they have experienced in the same amount of time. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 They thought they had done everything that they needed to do. He also explained that one of the problems that happened when the establishment first opened was a thing called Club Aftershock, which was not the main business of his client's establishment. The establishment was a pizza and pasta place that on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights after 9:00 p.m. had live music and turned into a nightclub type operation. The Club Aftershock was a very specifically promoted event that was no longer taking place there. It was in that context that they had the problems they had. Since they at 9:00 p.m. kind of let down the restaurant's operation brought up more the music and dancing so they haven't had the problems they did. They have no objection to a consistent review by this body or any other body to determine if they are in compliance with what staff wants. They were in constant contact with staff and they would like to do what they needed to do to make sure this was a good operation. Based on that he was present to answer any questions the commission had regarding this situation and he understood the commission's concerns about the last meeting and again apologized for that. Commissioner Campbell asked what the days of operation were. Mr. Koller said the restaurant was open seven days a week. The "nightclub" operation, which he felt was a bit misleading because nothing changed except there was live music or DJ music and the dance floor was opened up, but those hours of operation were just Friday, Saturday and Sunday and they go from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Campbell asked if on the other nights of the week the facility closed before 2:00 a.m. MR. JESSE JIMINEZ, 72-600 Dinah Shore Drive, stated that was his business. He said he appreciated the Sheriff's Department who had done a great job. He had them there Friday, Saturday and Sunday. They were there from 9:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. He had two sheriffs there and they had done a great job keeping up with the type of clientele that neither he nor the commission would want at his place. They didn't show up there anymore. Right now it was a better environment. The restaurant hours were Tuesday through Sunday from 1 1 :00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Since the Rancho Mirage Theater opened, he wanted to see if he could be open until 10:00 p.m. since he started 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 Ur getting clientele from there for pizza. The nightclub hours, if you could call it a nightclub, the dancing and entertainment were on Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. Mr. Drell asked for clarification that Monday through Thursday the business would close at 10:00 p.m. and on Friday, Saturday and Sunday the restaurant would close at 9:00 p.m. and the nightclub would be open from 9:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were closed on Monday. Mr. Jiminez concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said he had a question and asked if Mr. Jiminez was familiar conditions of approval that had been placed on this application: using a deputy, licensed uniformed security personnel, metal detectors, etc., and asked if in Mr. Jiminez's opinion what would occur if those types of conditions were removed. If there weren't deputies out there, weren't metal detectors and so forth. Mr. Jiminez said that to be honest, with the sheriff's department he was set for a four-month trial with the sheriff's department and if the sheriff's department decided not to have any more sheriffs there, he would like to have at least one there every night that the nightclub was open because that has helped him a lot. The people that were not wanted there, when they drive by there and see the patrol car there they just leave the premises and don't stop there at all. If that was to happen, if those conditions were to be removed, but he learned his lesson from the things that happened there. He was trying to be more secure with his security personnel, but he would like to have the sheriff's department there, at least one during the four-month trial. Chairperson Jonathan said that made a difference and it was very likely that he would say that if the sheriff's presence was not there, if there weren't metal detectors checking for weapons and so forth, he felt there might be a reoccurrence of the previous problems. Mr. Jiminez said it was hard for him to tell. It was not something he could not predict. In any place where there is not good security or the sheriff's or police department weren't there at those types of places, sometimes that will happen and it was a sad thing that happened at his 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 a place. He said that happened at other places, other nightclubs, and there were fights mostly every night. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification regarding the four-month trial, because she didn't see that any where in the injunction as far as the sheriffs being there on a four-month trial basis. She didn't see a time when it was supposed to end. Mr. Jiminez said it was the first time he had a meeting with Mr. Drell. He had that at home, a list. When they went to court, it wasn't put in there, but he believed it was 120 days. He would have to take a look at it. Mr. Koller said that he thought that Mr. Jiminez was misunderstanding the conversation with staff and what they agreed to at court which was now, even though it was considered a preliminary injunction, it went as long as the court said it goes. There was no sunset date on that. They discussed with staff giving it a four-month trial to see how it works and they incorporated that into the court injunction which makes it as long as the court says so. There was no sunset on it. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Jiminez was involved with Club Aftershock. Mr. Jiminez said no. He said that they used to do that at Chillers in Palm Springs last year. During the period of time when they were out of school and on vacation, they used to do it at Chillers. Commissioner Beaty asked if he meant spring break. Mr. Jiminez concurred. He said he asked the promoter to give him a letter from the Palm Springs Police Department as to how they did over there. He didn't continue to request the letter from him, so the promoter did it one Wednesday and that was when everything just went okay and the next Wednesday Alcoholic Beverage Control were there and it was a good lesson because they kept a check all the time. That was a lesson he learned and that was no longer there. That type of clientele didn't go to his place any more. Mr. Hargreaves said that in the conditions there appeared to be some confusion with regard to the age restriction. He thought it was a condition 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 a.. that was worded 18 and then it was to be changed to 21 . He asked what the understanding was with respect to the age. Mr. Koller said that was his fault. The original condition as discussed in the original meeting which became the original preliminary injunction was 18. He misunderstood that from his client when they went to court that in court they had changed it to 21 , then when they discussed it with the sheriff's department they also understood it to be 18, so they went back to court again to get it changed back to 18. The current state of the injunction was 18. Mr. Drell said that this was a bar after 9:00 p.m. and thought that typically bars were restricted to age 21 inside the bar itself. Mr. Jiminez said that at night they also sold pizzas, during the dancing hours mostly. But it wasn't a bar. When he applied for a conditional use permit, he applied as a restaurant with dancing and entertainment. Mr. Drell asked if his ABC license required age 21 restriction after 9:00 p.m. to. Mr. Koller said no, not if he continues to sell food. Once he continues to sell food, then it was open to the general public and there were no restricted areas. Commissioner Beaty asked if it was a full bar or just beer and wine. Mr. Jiminez said beer and wine. Mr. Drell clarified that it should be age 18. Mr. Koller said that was what they were requesting. Mr. Drell said that the condition, if it was so approved, the age would be 18, not 21 . Mr. Jiminez commented that the reason he picked that area was because it was away from residential houses. It was more or less in the right spot because that way it wouldn't be a public nuisance since there were no residential homes in that area. He really wanted to thank the 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 commission if they approved it and he thanked the Sheriff's Department for doing a great job at his place. Chairperson Jonathan asked staff for clarification that condition number 3 was changing from age of 21 to age of 18. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission wanted to reverse its motion to deny, if they would have to go back to a public hearing. Mr. Hargreaves said no. Mr. Drell noted that both resolutions were in front of the commission: one for approval and one for denial. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell said that she go with the court order for the three years and since Club Aftershock was no longer there and they had a new insight as to the days of operation and the club was only operating Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from 9:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. and the restaurant from 1 1 :00 a.m. until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. and as the sheriff informed commission, there haven't been any problems so far and she would be in favor of granting them their conditional use permit and having a six-month review. If a problem occurs, the CUP could come back for review and they could issue new conditions on it. Commissioner Finerty stated that because of the problems that have taken place her perspective as a Planning Commissioner for what she wanted the image of Palm Desert to be did not include the type of activities that have taken place at this facility. She was really concerned for the safety of our citizens and when they had to have two sheriffs, metal detectors, security personnel on staff to operate an establishment in our city, she felt that something was fundamentally wrong. She didn't know in her heart if two months was long enough for the applicant to have demonstrated compliance and a total turnaround. She would think that just having been issued the injunction, they could expect perfect behavior, but in her mind two months wasn't long enough. Therefore, she would be uncomfortable with going along with the conditional use permit. Commissioner Beaty said he didn't think he understood. They weren't proposing to release or relieve any of the court conditions. Commissioner Finerty acknowledged that. s i 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 Commissioner Beaty said he wholeheartedly agreed with Commissioner Finerty's feelings that they weren't interested in having those types of clients in our city for any reason. Maybe some of them live here, but he would like them to go somewhere else and cause problems. But he was swayed by the deputy's report that since the court conditions were imposed, there haven't been any problems. He would be in favor of granting the conditional use permit with a structured review. Chairperson Jonathan said that the last time he as a commissioner dealt with this parcel it was a Bubba Bear's. A little kid's restaurant. Somewhere along the line it went from a Bubba Bear's to a nightclub that stays open until 2:00 a.m. and serves alcohol and has had problems. He didn't remember approving that use. He thought that use had proven to be a problem and, therefore, his conclusion was that what the commission approved originally, which was a restaurant use, was fine for that parcel. Anything else was not appropriate. He thought on the basis of land usage, he didn't have a problem with the restaurant aspect of the operation and he would be willing to approve that. With restaurant use hours would be 1 1 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. He thought that was fine. They could serve pizza and that was close `.. enough to what was there before. He didn't see that was a problem. He did see that anything beyond that would be a problem, so as the application is before them, he was not prepared to give approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff to approve the project. Motion failed on a 2-2 vote (Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioner Finerty voted no). Mr. Drell explained that basically this was a no action, therefore, they would refer this directly back to the City Council. Mr. Hargreaves said that was right because technically in order to deny it they would have to have findings and denial. Given the 2-2 split that probably wasn't going to be possible either, so it should be referred onto the City Council. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they had to formally do that, or if it would happen automatically. Mr. Hargreaves said that in order to deny it, the commission would have to adopt findings in support of it. Chairperson Jonathan said he meant for this to go to City Council if it would happen automatically. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they needed further action. Mr. Drell asked if they needed to try an alternative motion. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 that they have before them the resolution of denial. He asked if they wanted a motion to approve the resolution of denial just to be on record. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Jonathan, approving the findings to deny the project. Motion failed on a 2-2 vote (Commissioners Beaty and Campbell voted no.) C. REQUEST BY RENEE BARIBEAU FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TO INITIATE A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT CATERING KITCHENS IN THE O.P. ZONE Mr. Drell said this was initiated by specific request by a potential caterer. The request was to list it as a conditional use in the O.P. zone. The commission had before them the minutes from the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee which took up this item. Part of the confusion resulted from the applicant's description of the worst case potential for the business which described it as serving up to 100 meals per day. He thought the perception and potential impacts of that, dinner houses didn't do 100 dinners per day, kind of scared off the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and influenced the staff recommendation that something that was potentially that intense in terms of food preparation might not be compatible in the O.P. zone. Subsequently the applicant said that she probably wouldn't want to do 100 meals per day and if she did, she probably wouldn't want to be at that location either, so one of the advantages of having it as a conditional use was that a caterer could arrange for four parties a month up to 100 meals per day. In any particular location, some locations might be deemed by commission to be unacceptable for any sort of catering activity. Others might be acceptable for the four or six or one party per week. Others might be acceptable for a higher intensity use and that might be something the commission would deal with on a case-by- case basis when applications came in. He thought that there were probably some people who do catering in their homes right now as a home occupation that they didn't even know about. By listing it as a conditional use they weren't committing to any particular application. Based on the merits of each particular request, the commission would have the ability to approve, deny, modify, or limit. If the commission felt that inherently at any intensity the use was unacceptable, then the commission would act not to initiate. All they were doing here was initiating the amendment process. Members of the public 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 couldn't initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Only the Planning Commission, City Council and the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee was given a blanket ability to initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. ZORC declined the request, although the applicant was not able to attend the meeting to make her case. Chairperson Jonathan noted that staff was recommending against expanding it. Mr. Drell said that for uses that would generate 100 meals per day, staff would recommend against. The applicant would have the opportunity to explain her concept and he thought that if someone wanted to cater one event per week, that use was probably overall less intense than a potential office use, so it could vary from less intense from what was typically approved in the O.P. and that would be something that could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. He didn't feel all that threatened by the potential of having it listed as a conditional use based on the understanding that chances were that 100 meals per day was not an acceptable thing that would be approved. Something considerably more limited could be. Chairperson Jonathan asked if a conditional use was differentiated from a permitted use. Mr. Drell said yes. A permitted use was something that they were entitled to as a matter or right and didn't need to go through a CUP process. The only thing they could conceivably argue about was the design of a facility. With a CUP the commission could determine that a particular location or intensity was unacceptable entirely, wholly, in a limited fashion or whatever, for good cause. Chairperson Jonathan asked if a use had to be listed in the Zoning Ordinance under the CUP listing in order to be allowed or if someone could come in and ask for something that wasn't specific. Mr. Drell said that the Determination of Uses Not Listed section was for people that occasionally asked about something. If staff determined that it was similar enough to one of the listed uses to either be a permitted or conditional use, typically on things that weren't listed staff has allowed them to apply as a conditional use. But by doing that they were kind of setting a precedence and if they then allowed someone to apply for a conditional use permit, then they apply and the commission approves it, then they were kind of saying that other people in similar situations probably could get approval as well. Chairperson Jonathan said it would be subject to a CUP as opposed to a permitted use. Mr. Drell concurred. He didn't think they had ever allowed an unlisted use to be a permitted use. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 MS. RENEE BARIBEAU, 54-145 Avenida Obregon, stated that she was hoping to move to 73-765 Fred Waring Drive. She asked if the commission had questions for her. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was a member of Zoning Ordinance Review Committee, Ms. Baribeau wasn't at the meeting and they had quite a few questions because they didn't know how she would use the home or the guest home or if she would be living in the home or guest home and how she would conduct the catering business. They had quite a few questions of her and she wasn't there to answer them, so they took it on their own as to their thoughts but she would recommend to Planning Commission that Ms. Baribeau go back to the Zoning Ordinance Committee again so that all of the members could ask her all these questions and get some specific answers as to what she really wanted to do on that piece of property. That would be her recommendation. Continue and have her go back to ZORC. Ms. Baribeau said she would be happy to do that. She was at an art camp for a month. She received a scholarship to paint for a month and that was part of why she was asking for this because she wanted to be able to pursue other interests and live in the house and do a few parties a month so that she had a well-balanced life. When she said 100 meals per day, being a chef, that was like four vegetable lasagnas, a couple of salads and a couple of carrot cakes. It was a perception on her part of what she was thinking, not that she planned to do 100 meals every day to people's houses or anything with that kind of a use because that wouldn't be acceptable to her life either. Commissioner Campbell asked if Ms. Baribeau was also thinking of providing sandwiches or fruits for some of the office professional businesses around there. Ms. Baribeau thought that in the long run that would be a welcomed service in the Palm Desert community. As these buildings were being built, there would be a great need for the office luncheons, business meetings, and all those people wouldn't be getting into their cars going out to lunch elsewhere, just from a traffic standpoint. That wasn't what initiated this, but if that was a service that she could provide, she would probably be able to do that too. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 Commissioner Campbell said that was going on right now and she saw that in her parking lot. They had baskets and ran into the businesses to sell sandwiches or salad. Ms. Baribeau said that she researched this a long time and what she found was that Palm Desert had a real shortage of really approved licensed kitchens. There were several kitchens on El Paseo that wouldn't be acceptable to her as a catering kitchen because they weren't fully functioning kitchens. What she would like to have was a fully functioning kitchen so that she doing it legally. She didn't want to do something and then shut down by the Health Department or anything like that. That was why she was in front of the commission. Commissioner Campbell didn't think the other people were legal and probably didn't have a license. Ms. Baribeau said she would like to be legal. Chairperson Jonathan thanked Ms. Baribeau for being at the meeting. He thought they were talking about two things. One was the office professional zone itself and the other was what Ms. Baribeau had in mind and he thought it was very important for the commission and ZORC to differentiate between the two. What might be right for Ms. Baribeau in that specific location may not be right throughout the city in the O.P. zone. When ZORC considers this matter, he hoped that they didn't consider Ms. Baribeau, but the O.P. zone in determining whether it was appropriate as is, or if it needed to be modified. He didn't see a need to continue this matter. It was under miscellaneous and if ZORC wanted to send the commission a request or if someone wanted to suggest a modification to the zoning that would be fine. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there were different methodologies for having that particular use permitted in that location, and it was permitted in other parts of the city, but she was asking if she could have it there. Whether that was a conditional use permit, an application for a change of zone or general plan, there were different methods to do that. Changing the zoning itself or the wording of what the zoning allowed was another option, as he understood it. Mr. Drell said that in examining all the possible options, making it a conditional use in the O.P. zone he believed was the most viable. O.P. zoned properties had a lot in common. They were all similar to this location, all single properties adjacent to a residential area and an arterial or major thoroughfare. Chairperson Jonathan said that all he was saying was that if they wanted to 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 consider the O.P. zone itself that was fine, but that was an independent consideration. Mr. Drell concurred. The issue was not the specific application of Ms. Baribeau. The concept/principle of if there were circumstances where uses like she has described, if the commission would be inclined to approve them anywhere in the O.P. zone and if their answer was no, then it would be kind of dishonest to hold it out as a possibility and then every time someone applied they denied them. Basically they had to envision that once there were, and they put it in the zone, there had to be some circumstances in the commission's mind that they would potentially approve them. If not, they shouldn't be in there. Chairperson Jonathan said that what was before them was a request to initiate a zoning ordinance amendment. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan noted that ZORC was telling the commission no, the staff report was saying no, and asked for the opinion of the commission. Commissioner Campbell said she would vote to have Ms. Baribeau go back to ZORC and answer all the questions that they hadn't been able to have answered. Chairperson Jonathan asked if as a Planning Commission she was not inclined to initiate the zoning ordinance amendment. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Finerty said that at this point she was not inclined to initiate it, but if the concept was going back to ZORC, she would like them to look at the possible of advantages and disadvantages of having business people be able to walk to an establishment to grab a quick sandwich and then walk back without having to get into their car. She thought there might be something there in certain areas of the city. Chairperson Jonathan said that they were open to it if ZORC wanted to address the issue and then bring it up to them at a later time. He said no formal action was required and they would suggest that Ms. Baribeau address it with the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and wished her luck with her project. He thanked her for being present. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Smith was on vacation, but when he returned he would be setting up a meeting and would let her know. Action: None. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 D. REQUEST BY SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CHURCH FOR A TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF CUP 91-8 AMENDMENT REGARDING USE OF METAL BUILDING Mr. Drell said that he would give the staff report and then he would have the City Attorney make some comments about the general issue of conflicts of interest. He indicated that the metal building was first conditioned to cease in 1998. It subsequently got an extension to 1999. Staff informed the church of the impending expiration of the use and while they wouldn't proceed with removing the building due to the Temple Sinai application, staff did inform them of our intent to enforce the expiration provision of the use. They submitted a letter which staff deemed to-be an application to extend that use to January 1 , 2000, which staff had scheduled a public hearing for on October 19. In it they requested that they be allowed to continue operating until that time when a decision is made. Staff was recommending that the failure to file a timely application didn't automatically extend their use. They had ample time to do that, therefore, denying the temporary request and they would have a hearing on October 19 to deal with the formal request to extend the use until January 1 , 2000. low Chairperson Jonathan noted that staff was simply suggesting that the temporary use permit has lapsed and it would remain lapsed until they come in formally with the public hearing application process. Mr. Drell concurred and pointed out that it would take place at the next meeting. Mr. Drell said there had been a request to provide some discussion relative to conflict of interest as it relates to this case. Mr. Hargreaves explained that the question was raised with respect to the participation of members of the Planning Commission that may participate in various religious organizations that have applications before the Planning Commission as to whether or not that was a conflict of interest. Under the California law, they looked at conflicts as: one, a statutory scheme under the political reform act. The bottom line there was a financial conflict. There was a very detailed set of statutory guidelines that say if they have financial interest then there is a conflict and they could not participate. He didn't believe these kinds of situations that they were talking about here had to do with those kind of financial conflicts. The other kind of conflict was a common law conflict. The idea there was that when they are elected or appointed to a public office that in the exercise of that office they needed to have the public interest in mind and not be unduly influenced by personal 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 concerns. That kind of a conflict was much more difficult to break down with specific guidelines, but general advice that they give the planning commissioners was that when they find themselves in situations where they might be questioned as to those kinds of conflicts, that they examine their own thinking processes to make sure that when they participate in the matter that they feel that they can do so based on the general public interest and not on personal interest. That was how they generally discussed those kinds of conflicts. They left it up to the planning commissioners to resolve those issues on their own. He believed that in acting on the applications that have been before them, the planning commissioners have had those ideas before them and have resolved them in favor of participation, at least with respect to the matters that have been before the planning commission in the recent past. Chairperson Jonathan asked for questions of staff or counsel. There were none. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the request came from Southwest Community Church and asked if there was a representative of the church that wished to address the commission. 1 MR. RICK BAILARD, 78-635 Forbes Circle in La Quinta, stated that he was one of the pastors there. He said he went around and talked with some of their neighbors, but not all of them. Mr. Bass and Mr. Richards. He went to three other homes and people were not home. He asked them if they would be in favor of this extension and both of them said absolutely. It would be better for programs to be done inside the building. That was why it was created, so that noise was inside instead of outside the building as far as noise. They were asking for that extension until their building was built and then they would no longer be on that property. He said he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Jonathan explained that the application for the extension would be heard in two weeks. What they were really addressing this evening was whether in the interim since the existing permit has lapsed, between now and the 19th, whether they would be permitted to use it. Mr. Bailard said they would withdraw the request then. They were fine. They were just trying to follow the guidelines the city set up to make sure they do it right. , 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 %W Commissioner Beaty noted that commission received a handwritten letter and asked if there was an event on the site, on Sunday. The letter said there was an outdoor event with loud amplified music and a public address system. Mr. Bailard said there was their service on Sunday and they had a high school and junior high service in that metal building, but because they couldn't meet in that building then they moved the service right in front of their foyer area, which was common ground. Commissioner Beaty clarified that because they couldn't use the metal building, they had it outside. Mr. Bailard concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked what they couldn't use the main building for that event if they weren't holding any other services. Mr. Bailard said there were 1,000 adults in there. So they had 300 high schoolers and junior highers outside. r.. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was in the parking lot area. Mr. Bailard said it wasn't a parking lot, it was a grass patio area right in front of the foyer on the main site. Mr. Drell said there were some other issues raised in the letter relative to the maintenance of the parking area, which had apparently gotten rather dusty. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was related to what was before the commission tonight. Mr. Drell said technically not, but it was something that could be seen, in the interim between now and the 19th, they should try to be as good of a neighbor as they could. That was an issue that would probably help to address. He gave Mr. Bailard a copy of the letter. Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't sure that they needed to address the letter at this point. The applicant already agreed not to use the building while . the permit was expired and they would be back in two weeks and they could address those issues more fully with him at that time if it was appropriate then. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 Commissioner Campbell asked if that meant that next Sunday or Saturday they could not hold services outside again and make amplified noise. Mr. Drell said that under the existing permit they could have outdoor activities on the original church property. They couldn't extend past 10:00 p.m. and they had to be well supervised, etc. Another matter was the degree of noise. Chairperson Jonathan thought the venue for addressing those issues would be when they reapplied for the permit for the metal building if those issues were in fact related to that or if someone wanted to address the existing conditional use permit violations they could address it then or at any other time as well, but the item on the commission's agenda was simple and the applicant had been very cooperative and agreed not to use the metal building for the next two weeks and they would see him back in a couple of weeks to work out whatever issues there were and enable them to move forward with their plans. He commented that the new campus looked wonderful and was a fine addition. He asked if the commission had anything else to add. Mr. Drell noted that someone else wanted to speak. MR. JERRY WILEY, 40-900 Avenida Estrada in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He showed the commission a file folder that went back about three years and contained all the problems they have had with Southwest Community Church. He understood that they were going to put off the hearing until October 19, but his question was what would happen if they violated the codes, the conditions, the ordinances like they did this last weekend. He had proof that they used the metal building when they were instructed by the Planning committee (i.e., Phil Drell) not to use the building. For three years Southwest Community Church had been breaking their promises to the nearby homeowners. They were sick and tired of it. All they were asking for were three months of peace where they didn't use the metal building. Three months was nothing compared to the three years of aggravation they have had to put up within regard to this matter. He wanted to know what could be done. He submitted the letter. The gentleman in the back didn't really respond to the letter and apparently the commission said that they probably could not, but he would like a response from the gentleman, the pastor, on these violations just to see what he had to say about them. He didn't even know about them. He would like to hear his response and what he planned to do with regard to this matter. Commissioner Finerty stated that in all fairness, Mr. Bailard was just handed a copy of the letter just a few moments ago. From a cursory look at the letter, 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 tow the complaints were primarily dealing with church matters as opposed to metal building matters. The issue they were supposed to be focusing on as she understood it was the use of the metal building. Mr. Wiley asked about the violations that have occurred this past weekend. Commissioner Finerty asked what violation he was specifically referring to. Mr. Wiley said he was talking about church members and staff entering and exiting the metal building on Saturday and Sunday, both days. The parking lot had 30-40 bright orange cones that had been left out there for approximately 2-3 weeks. Those cones were terrible looking and weren't supposed to be out there. The church used to place them and then pick them up on a daily basis. They've left them out there for the past two or three weeks. That was a violation of the city ordinances, a violation of the CUP. The parking lot they have over there was supposed to be maintained. It was half dirt and half grass. They had a lot of people in there Sunday. The dust from all the people going and �+ coming for the two or three services they have on Sunday blew into their pool and into their house. David Moore and his people over there agreed with the residents on many, many occasions to address and handle any of these ongoing problems. They had not done that. The other problem was the outdoor event that supposedly was legal. If they looked in the conditions of approval for Case No. CUP 91-8 Amendment, it said there shall be no amplified music or public address systems used by the church for any outdoor event including at their existing facility at 73-251 Hovley Lane West. That was any event on their existing property or on the five-acre parcel. That was a violation he had and he wanted to know what could be done about those ongoing violations. Commissioner Finerty asked if the conditions of approval that Mr. Wiley was alluding to had expired. Mr. Drell said no. The only condition that had expired was condition number 6 dealing with the metal building. That was the only one that has a date on it. In terms of their use and intent, that condition that refers to the use on the main building would still be in effect. Commissioner Finerty indicated what they were saying was they approved r..► conditions on Resolution No. 1793 but only some of those conditions apply 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 now while others do not. Mr. Drell said some expired. He pointed out that the assumption when they approved any of those conditions was that they were approved on the assumption that on September of 1998 the church would have moved off the property and all the uses on the existing site would continue,.but the use of the metal building was end. As part of the agreement by which use on the parking lot metal building was to be allowed, in essence the CUP on the whole facility was amended. The amendment didn't just deal with the metal building and temporary parking lot. It dealt with the use of the whole facility. Mr. Wiley concurred. Chairperson Jonathan stated that it sounded like Mr. Wiley had some very valid concerns. Mr. Wiley thanked Chairperson Jonathan. He pointed out that the letter was received on October 4 at Phil Drell's office. To his understanding and knowledge there had been nothing done, there had been no investigation and he was advised that a gentleman by the name of Shawn was going to go over to the property this past Saturday and Sunday and inspect it. He hadn't heard anything. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Wiley had worked with staff on any of those matters before. Mr. Wiley said yes, he has had numerous meetings with Phil Drell. Jim Richards had also had many meetings with Phil Drell. They had talked with Steve Smith and they brought up everything. Just for the record, they had no quarrel with Temple Sinai. The adjacent community to Southwest Church which would be purchased by Temple Sinai, they had no problems with that. He worked personally with Mr. Burt Kaplan on numerous occasions. Chairperson Jonathan said he thought that Mr. Wiley had some very valid comments and thanked him for bringing them to the commission's attention that the CUP does contain certain restrictions about amplified music and about maintaining the lawn and so forth. He said that this matter, or at least a related matter, the expiration of item number 6 was before the commission in two weeks formally with the public notice and so forth. He wanted to invite Mr. Wiley to join the commission again at the next meeting and they could 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 tow address not just the extension, but the CUP in terms of if there were any violations that they could deal with it and find a way to live as neighbors for an additional number of months, or deal with it forcefully if there wasn't a way. These conditions were there for a reason and if there were persistent violations, they needed to deal with that forcefully. Hopefully they could find a way to resolve it to Mr. Wiley's satisfaction. He thought that the meeting in two weeks would be the venue to address that. Mr. Wiley said his question to Chairperson Jonathan would be what should he do if the Southwest Community Church violates any of these things. Chairperson Jonathan said that if he was Mr. Wiley, he would document those violations and bring them to the attention of city staff. Mr. Wiley said he has done that. Chairperson Jonathan said that if Mr. Wiley would continue to do that during the next two weeks, then they could address those issues then. Mr. Wiley said that a Sheriff's report had already been made on the incident Sunday. He had tried in working with Southwest Community Church, Roger Phillips, Rick Bailard had his number and knew where he lived. He said he was home all day today. Mr. Bailard said he talked with some of the neighbors and he would double check that and find out if what he said was true, but it was his understanding that they did not give the okay for that, but he would follow through with his procedure. If they violate anything between now and then, he had the right to call the Sheriff and to make the complaint. He tried to be a nice guy with regard to this issue for three years. He got a lot of lip service from a lot of people here and on Sunday he realized that he had to build a paper trail on this organization and the only way to do that so that there was definite proof was by using the Sheriff's Department. It was as simple as that. Chairperson Jonathan said that was understood and he looked forward to the possibility of resolving all of these issues. Mr. Wiley thanked the commission. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anything else on this issue. Action: The request was withdrawn. No action was taken. E. REQUEST BY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN FOR WELL 5681 PROJECT LOCATED EAST OF DEEP CANYON ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE WHITEWATER STORMWATER CHANNEL. Chairperson Jonathan noted there was a letter in their packet and asked if Mr. Drell wanted to add anything. Mr. Drell said no, they haven't had any problem with these wells. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was adjacent to dwellings/ homes. Mr. Drell said it was adjacent to the wash and dwellings. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the homes were on the west, east or south of the well. Mr. Drell said it was a parcel required in the tract as a well site. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the surrounding residents knew that this was a well site. He indicated that wells could be loud. Mr. Drell said it was shown on the tract map as a well site, so theoretically when the tract was originally approved it ..r was designated as a well site. It was at that corner. Chairperson Jonathan said that he had personal experience and it worked out because the well person was cooperative and did everything they could in burying the stuff underground. But when they bought their house they didn't look at some tract map and didn't know there was a well across the street. His concern was for people that didn't know that and the next thing they knew, there was this thing making noise on Sunday morning when they were trying to have coffee in their backyard. This one was fine, but in the future he suggested that they have a procedure, maybe not a public hearing, but something so that the surrounding residents had an opportunity for input, maybe in the design, not just a yes or no, before it appeared there all of a sudden, which tended to happen. Mr. Drell concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, determining by minute motion that the above noted project is in compliance with the Palm Desert General Plan. Motion carried 4-0. F. REQUEST BY CITY OF PALM DESERT TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION s ORDINANCE TO STIPULATE THAT GRADE ELEVATIONS OF LOTS 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1999 SHALL NOT VARY MORE THAN SIX (6) INCHES PLUS OR MINUS THAT SHOWN ON APPROVED TENTATIVE MAPS. Mr. Drell noted that commission had a report and a recommendation to approve the amendment. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, recommending approval of amendment to Municipal Code Section 26.24.220A1 to the City Council. Motion carried 4-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR f PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. PHILIP DRELL,tecretary ATTEST: SABBY JONATHA Chairperson Palm Desert Plannin Commission /tm 33