Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0718 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 18, 2000 low 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Members Absent: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Senior Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 20, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the June 20, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent actions from the June 22, 2000 and July 13, 2000 City Council meetings. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 26562 Amendment #1 - BOB ROSS, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a tentative tract map for a 687 unit residential development, 18 hole golf course and 225 suite hotel on 420 acres located east of Portola Avenue North Of Frank Sinatra Drive. B. Case No. PMW 00-11 - INDIAN RIDGE HOMES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between common area lot 57 and golf course lot 146, Indian Ridge Country Club. r.r C. Case No. PMW 00-13 - INDIAN RIDGE HOMES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between lots 52, 53, 54 and 55 of Tract 28227, Indian Ridge Country Club. D. Case No. PMW 00-14 - INDIAN RIDGE HOMES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between lots 32 and 33 of Tract 28227, Indian Ridge Country Club. E. Case No. PMW 00-12 - L.V. INVESTMENTS, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between parcels A and B of PMW 90-09 to 98' northerly of present location for property at 42-100 Beacon Hill. F. Case No. PMW 00-15 - DESERT SPORTS GROUP, Applicant Request for approval of lot line adjustments to accommodate the proposed uses within the subject development and transfer title 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 for property more particularly described as APNs 653-690-001 thru 011 , 653-690-013, 653-420-018 and 019, 653-410-013 and 014. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. Vlll. 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. Case No. CUP 90-14 Amendment #1 - LAKSHMAN WICKREMESINGHE, 11M Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to increase the permitted number of students to 96 and add a 36' x 40' modular classroom unit at the rear of the property located at 73-930 Santa Rosa Way. Mr. Alvarez noted that in 1990 the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit allowing a 36-student preschool at 73-925 Fred Waring. At that time there was a condition requiring the school to utilize parking spaces on the adjacent property to the east which was a church. At this time the applicant was requesting approval of an amendment to the existing CUP to increase the student capacity to 96 students and to allow installation of a 26' x 40' modular classroom in the rear yard of 73-925 Santa Rosa. He pointed out the location of the proposed modular building off to the eastern side at the back end of the property identified as 73-930. Currently the applicant owned all four parcels. The fronts of the Santa Rosa properties were cut in half and divided with a fence. The rear part was used as open space. The applicant was proposing putting in the modular on the easternmost parcel. A description of the required parking was included in the staff report. The r.. City's off street parking ordinance required two off street parking spaces for 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 each three employees plus one loading space for each eight children. As noted, 96 students would require a total of 12 off street loading spaces and the applicant indicated he would have a maximum of eight employees or teachers which required six. The total required parking spaces was 18. In the draft resolution there was a condition of approval requiring the applicant to secure a parking lot use agreement with the adjacent property to the east which was the church. The agreement would satisfy the parking requirement set forth in the ordinance. The existing conditions of approval limited the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and that would remain the same. Mr. Alvarez felt this use was an ideal cross use not only within this multifamily residential zone, but adjacent to a church which had under utilized parking on weekdays which could serve the school. The limited hours of operation and outdoor activities set forth in Resolution 1455 made this preschool compatible with adjacent uses. Another condition of approval required merging the three parcels which housed the existing building and the two parcels directly behind it and to the east. For purposes of CEQA, Mr. Alvarez stated this project was a Class 1 categorical exemption and no further documentation was necessary. Mr. Alvarez recommended approval and adoption of the draft resolution approving the amendment subject to the attached conditions. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant had now acquired the extra parking spaces being required. Mr. Alvarez replied that there was a letter included with the staff report that had an additional eight spaces, but staff was asking the applicant to secure the additional three for a total of 18. Vice Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LAKSHAM WICKREMESINGHE, 73-910 Santa Rosa Way, stated that they had already obtained the approval for the parking. Mr. Drell asked if he had received approval for the full 18 spaces required by the amendment. Mr. Wickremesinghe said they had all together about 22 spaces. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 bow Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a gate shown on the map and asked if that was where cars entered to park at the school or if they entered from Fred Waring. Mr. Wickremesinghe said there was no entrance on Fred Waring. There was only an entrance on the side. Commissioner Campbell said that there was a fence running behind the duplexes. No one could enter from Santa Rosa way either. Mr. Wickremesinghe concurred. Vice Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. `ow It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1998, approving CUP 90-14 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. B. Case No. CUP 00-10 - GABRIELE LUETKE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 96 square foot massage establishment within the existing skin care business at 74-924 Country Club Drive, Suite 160. Mr. Smith explained that the applicant had a skin care business in the Desert Springs Marketplace commercial development approximately 1 ,400 square feet in size. The applicant wanted to add massage as a service to her customers and she had gone through the other appropriate permits per the ordinance. This was the last step. The facility would operate by appointment only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. There was a huge parking field in front of Albertson's and Rite Aid and this was located between those two businesses. Mr. Smith explained that the findings were outlined on pages two tr.. and three of the staff report. He stated that this was a Class 3 categorical 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION J U LY 18, 2000 exemption for purposes of CEQA. He recommended approval subject to the conditions. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. LENA PATTERSON, 74-924 Country Club Drive, Suite 160 in Palm Desert, stated that she currently did the skin care at that location and they would like to offer massage. It would compliment the skin care customers that come in for facials and waxing and then they could go to the next room and get a massage. They were right across the street from the Marriott and the Marriott had approached them and asked them if they would consider taking their overflow for massage during the season. She felt it would be a nice complement to the community and a nice service to add. Commissioner Campbell asked Ms. Patterson if she already had a masseuse who had a license and all the required qualifications. Ms. Patterson said yes. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1999, approving CUP 00-10, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. C. Case No. TPM 29782 - HOMME CONSTRUCTION, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map for commercial condominium purposes for the previously approved office complex at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 Mr. Smith noted that in February and March of this year the commission approved an office complex including a restaurant facility on the subject property. The applicant was now requesting approval of a tentative map to allow commercial condominium to be established. Approval of the map would allow the applicant to sell off individual offices and/or buildings. Findings for approval of the tentative parcel map were outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report. Mr. Smith explained that the development proposal was previously assessed and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified. No further documentation was necessary at this time. Approval of the parcel map would not impact the previously approved precise plan. It would only affect the applicant's ability to finance the project and its ownership. He recommended approval subject to conditions. Vice Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily in Palm Desert, stated that he was present to answer any questions. tow Vice Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2000, approving TPM 29782, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. D. Case No. CUP 00-06 amending PP/CUP 96-10 - MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to an existing precise plan/conditional use permit for a Mobil gas station, convenience store including beer and wine sale for off-site consumption and drive-thru car wash on 1 .58 acres at the northeast corner of %NW Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 36-650 Cook Street. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 Mr. Smith noted that the site plan and landscaping plans were on display for the car wash and convenience store. He explained that in April of 1997 commission reviewed a development proposal on this site. At this time the applicant was requesting approval of the revised plan as shown. The revised proposal would be typical of most Mobil layouts seen on many corners. The car wash would be located on the north side of the property with a stacking lane along the east. The convenience store was located at the east side of the site facing Cook Street with the canopy and pump islands adjacent to Cook Street. The canopy would extend for approximately 120 feet along Cook Street. Access to the site would remain as previously provided for. Circulation around the pump island, convenience store and car wash was acceptable. He felt the stacking for the car wash was adequate. The plans as shown were presented to ARC at its June 13 meeting and were given preliminary approval. Commissioner Gregory abstained and Commissioners Connor and Van Vliet were absent. Mr. Smith explained that the architecture was contemporary and remained interesting. The convenience store was 16%2 feet high, the car wash 16 and the canopy had an overall height of 18 feet, 19 feet if including the architectural projection on top. The site plan provided for significant landscape planters around the perimeter where large trees were proposed, particularly at the intersection of Cook and Gerald Ford. The project met the setbacks for the district, met the parking requirement and the findings for approval of the precise plan were outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Mr. Smith stated that there was a substantially similarly project reviewed and approved in 1997. At that time a Negative Declaration was certified and Notice of Determination filed. No further review was necessary at this point. In conclusion he stated that the previous application as approved was more creative and more interesting. The current plan was functional and would meet the ordinance provisions for setbacks, landscape areas and building height. In fact, it did meet the parking requirement. He noted that there was a sentence included that was from an earlier version that he thought had been eliminated, so he wanted to correct that. Mr. Smith recommended approval subject to the conditions. He also indicated that the applicant might discuss conditions relative to the Public Works requirement of a bus shelter and Mr. Greenwood was prepared to respond at that point. With that, he asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked for the height of the berm on the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford. Mr. Smith replied two to three feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if that berm would hide any of the canopy and building. Mr. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 ilk. Smith said no. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be eight to ten foot palm trees planted in that area. Mr. Drell said some were acacias and then at the corner there were palm trees and then more acacias. Mr. Smith indicated there would be four palms on the corner and then acacias toward each end of that planter area to the north and east. Commissioner Campbell asked what the colors of the building would be. Mr. Smith distributed a sample board to the commission. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Smith to enlighten the commission more on how the previous plans were more creative and interesting compared to the current proposal. Mr. Smith said it was designed with the car wash and convenience store on the corner. Mr. Drell thought that the substantial difference was that it was a reverse design with the canopy behind the car wash and the convenience store with the convenience store facing away from the street. Part of the change was generated by the fact that it was no longer a full service car wash which required both a staging and detailing area. Vice Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. i� MR. FRANK URRUTIA, Urrutia Architects, stated that he just wanted to address some key issues with regard to the design of the project. After his presentation Mr. Ken Barton would discuss some of the conditions of approval that needed some clarification or that they had some issues with. With regard to the architecture and landscaping, some of the reasons they came up with this direction of design were pretty much dictated by a lot of the guidelines established through the original development plan, which they were also part of, and that being that this design would be of a desert contemporary style. They felt they had achieved that with this design. It was certainly in keeping with that guideline requirement. One of the things they wanted to do was keep the project as low profile as possible. They didn't want to create any large massing elements. In contrast to a lot of the more typical Mobil stations that were their prototype, this had a thin section with a canopy. They wanted to keep it as low profile as possible. The maximum height was 18 feet and the building was at 16'/2 feet. The car wash was also 16 feet. These were not high buildings. In contrast, their new on the run prototype design had large pitched type roofs and the canopies also contained a large pitched type of roof element. They didn't feel this was what was appropriate here so they came up with a 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 i design approach to emphasize the low profile, more contemporary design. The colors were also different. They weren't the typical Mobil scenario. They also tried to just maintain the necessary type of signage that was required using reverse channel lettering and no can signs. As far as the landscaping and how it relates to the site and compliments the architecture, the buildings were setback as far as they could get them. The intent there was to push the buildings back as far as possible and try to create more landscaping in the foreground than in the background. As an example, the minimum requirement for landscaping was 30% and they were providing 35%. They had gone even a step further with the landscaping. As the landscaping plans were being refined, they were also proposing that at each entry to this project that there be interlocking pavers that would be installed at each of the two entry points. Regarding setbacks, the store was 110 feet back from Gerald Ford and 165 feet from Cook. That was a significant setback. The majority of the landscaping was in the front portion of the project. There was a minimum width along the street frontages of 20 feet and in some cases as much as 35 to 40 feet, as shown on the Gerald Ford side where it turned into kind of a bowl area. Landscaping was fairly heavy in terms of the amount of planting and the sizes. This was done intentionally to provide some screening and to provide a much more enhanced corner approach. Most of the trees were shade type trees and were going to provide some massing which in conjunction with the berming and the underneath growth would add to provide additional screening. Regarding stacking, the stacking for the car wash was behind the convenience store so they were screening the cars from Cook Street with the building. Those were the main issues he wanted to clarify and emphasize the reasons why they did those things. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was very concerned about the height of the canopy and Commissioner Hanson pointed out at the ARC meeting of June 13 "...that the revised plan makes the canopy the predominant feature." She also noted that Commissioner O'Donnell concurred with that and stated that he didn't like to see gas stations that have gas pumps located on the corner and one of the beauties of the original plan was that "it was great because it didn't even look like a gas station." Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Urrutia what could be done to mitigate the size of the canopy. She understood that the berm was only going to be two to three feet in height. The canopy would Mai 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 r.. be 16%2 up to 19 feet and 120 feet wide. She asked if the canopy needed to be that high. Mr. Urrutia said that it needed to be that high to maintain clearances. Commissioner Finerty asked how high the average vehicle was that they were expecting to serve. Mr. Urrutia said they could be around 14 feet plus the fuel trucks that had to service it. The fuel pumps were located in the front section. Commissioner Finerty asked if there was any room to lower the height of the canopy. Mr. Huntsberry aid that there was a minimum of 13'8" to the bottom of the canopy for clearances for delivery trucks and other types of vehicles like that. If they made it any lower they'd be hitting it. `.. Commissioner Finerty asked if 16'6" was the top of it. Mr. Urrutia said they were at 19 feet now to the very top of the canopy. Mr. Greenwood informed commission that the maximum legal vehicle height was 14 feet in California. Mr. Urrutia said they were at 14 feet right now to the underside and they had a five foot parapet. The design of the parapet was such that there was a one foot skirt and then it stepped back so that the parapet was designed to not look as massive and there was also a color change in the design. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification regarding the stepping element. Mr. Urrutia indicated that the side section of the canopy was overall five feet from the undersides to the top, but in between they had a skirt, like a drop socket that was a foot high and then the main canopy extended out another foot and then up three 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 feet and then back again a foot and up a foot. It was part of the design element. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that in Palm Desert there has been a significant problem with large trees growing in many of the centers so that they would provide adequate screening and asked Mr. Urrutia how many trees were provided now. (Mr. Barton spoke from the audience and said there would be 45 trees total.) Commissioner Finerty asked why there was a change from a full service car wash to a drive-through car wash. MR. JIM HUNTSBERRY with Mobil Oil, 135 Privateer, Marina del Rey, stated that the previous applicant, which wasn't Mobil Oil, proposed to do a full service car wash, one where the employees would dry and drive the vehicles through. Their car wash was self service only. It would be totally automated and there would be no people outside on the lot drying or servicing the vehicle. It would just be all self serve. That was the purpose of their car wash. They changed it because that was the way they market their facilities. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked what signage would be on the facility facing Cook or Country Club, or if the only signage would be that shown on the canopy. MR. KEN BARTON, 2322 West Third Street in Los Angeles, stated that they were the Civil Engineers for the project. Facing Cook Street there would be a sign above the entrance. There would also be a sign to the right of the storefront. Facing Gerald Ford there was a sign facing Gerald Ford on the left hand side. There would be two signs on the car wash, one facing Cook and one facing inland toward the property. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that there would also be a monument sign. Mr. Barton concurred and indicated that there would be two canopy signs as well. Those all fell within the allowable signage. Regarding the canopy height, Mr. Huntsberry said that he wanted to provide clarification. He didn't want to cause confusion that they wanted to build them higher than they needed too, but the bottom was 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 per their standards for clearance and the reason for the additional height over their standard type canopies was partly architectural. Mr. Urrutia was trying to achieve some separation by having a band underneath and then some bands on the top for the architectural element so they let him do that and that achieved some of the height that they might not normally have. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was also for insulation and shading purposes. Mr. Huntsberry said he didn't know if they insulated them or not. Commissioner Campbell asked how many employees they were planning to have. Mr. Huntsberry said there would be two employees on at all times and during peak hours up to three or four. They would be a mix of part time and full time employees, but for safety reasons there would always be two employees. Commissioner Campbell asked if the pumps would only be self serve or if there would also be full service available. Mr. Huntsberry said it would totally be a self serve station. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Huntsberry said it would be open 24 hours. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if semi's would be able to fill up at this location or if it was strictly for automobiles. Mr. Huntsberry replied that they were not encouraging large transport vehicles to pull in there. Their experience was that they didn't go to these facilities, but truck stops. Vice Chairperson Lopez noted that on the plans there was a truck. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 Mr. Huntsberry said that was their tanker. They had to lay that out to make sure they could access the facility in a safe manner. Mr. Barton noted that the architectural treatment on the canopy accounted for two of the five feet of the canopy fascia. This site would have diesel fuel, but it was only for vehicles. It wasn't laid out to take large trucks. Regarding conditions of approval, there were three Public Works conditions he wanted to bring up. The first one was a concern on their part regarding the transit requirement found in number 12 D. In looking at their site and knowing that they have a shared ingress/ egress off of Gerald Ford and not too far down the street there was a turn onto Cook, he didn't physically see how they had adequate frontage to be putting a transit stop on Cook for this facility. It seemed that it would make more sense to have it closer to the College or east of their property. He said he knew that Planning staff had been looking at that as well as Public Works and his suggestion was that it might better serve the community and be a safer, better design if it was located somewhere else. Mr. Greenwood said that Public Works made this comment as a place holder for transit. As commission was aware, Public Works rarely received comments from Sunline at this stage and it has occasionally become a problem later in the process where either Sunline or City Council felt there should be a bus stop, so they put it there as a discussion point. He did agree that this site would be difficult to place a bus turnout or bus bay on and he also agreed that if transit was going to serve this area it would serve the college and there would certainly be stops on the college site which would be just across the street. He would leave it to the discretion of the Planning Commission at this point as to whether they should still continue to hold the place or do away with it. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if when going north on Cook Street down toward the freeway, he asked if there was a turn lane to get into the facility or if they entered right off the right lane. Mr. Greenwood said that Public Works condition 12 B required a turn pocket into this site. Mr. Barton said that the second item he wanted to bring up was clarification on the paragraph immediately following the requirement for the transit. It talked about the street design requiring an eight-lane facility and as a point of clarification, it was their understanding that the existing right-of-way to centerline was 67 feet in width and what the 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 city was requesting was a five foot dedication to take the centerline to 72 feet. Mr. Greenwood said that was correct. They had worked with some unique right-of-way and lane configurations to be able to accommodate eight lanes in the future and still have at least a minimally acceptable parkway width, but they were recommending 72 feet. Mr. Drell asked what that did to the project. Mr. Barton said it didn't impact it in that the sidewalk would go two feet into the existing landscape area, but them some landscape areas would flow out into the right of way. Mr. Greenwood pointed out that if they did widen the road to eight lanes, some landscaping would be lost at that time and that would be at least 10 years in the future. Mr. Barton said his last point was condition 13. There was a line in there that referenced a truck that would make deliveries and its radii and they should make it from the right-hand turn pocket. In talking with Public Works this afternoon, they agreed that the number three lane would be adequate for the truck and trailer to make that turn. A truck dealer couldn't make that turn from the right hand turn pocket, but it could from the number three lane. That was the conversation that he had with Joe Gaugush today. In terms of the conditions, Mr. Barton said those were the only comments he had. He thanked the Planning staff for all their assistance. There had been a lot of dialogue back and forth and he appreciated that. He wanted to emphasize that they made an effort to try and take some of the undesirable elements and push them back further on the property. That was why the car wash was back where it is and as mentioned earlier, it was in the very back corner where all the stacking and the car wash operation was removed from the right-of-way area. Mobil thought that was very important to do. The car wash would be 120 feet away from the street versus being adjacent to the street. All the stacking that would be visible would also be placed far behind. Commissioner Campbell asked about the easement to the east of the property. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 Mr. Barton said it would be a shared easement for ingress and egress purposes. Commissioner Campbell noted that the plans showed a car entering from Gerald Ford to the car wash. If there weren't any cars there they could pull in straight to the car wash, which was a shorter route. Mr. Barton concurred. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one present to speak in favor or opposition and the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell said that when looking at the plans and drawings, she really liked what she was seeing. She felt it was a nice, clean look and she liked the landscaping arrangement. She loved the colors and felt they were very appropriate for the desert and thought that the way it was located farther back it would be very well camouflaged. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Finerty stated that she also liked the colors, but she really preferred the original plan. With the canopy being the predominant feature, it wasn't what she would like to see as the gateway at Cook Street entering in our city. She would vote against it because she didn't feel the canopy was adequately screened. A two to three foot berm was inadequate. She didn't know if there was any way of lowering the canopy and raising the berm. It didn't sound as if there was a whole lot of extra room. She would prefer the canopy being back as shown on the original plan. She felt the original plan was classier. She was also concerned about the large shade trees actually doing well and providing the screening as intended. Sometimes they just didn't work that way and with those comments she would be opposed to the project. Vice Chairperson Lopez said that he also shared the concern with the height of the canopy. In his overall view of this when they do look at this location coming down the hill, it would begin to somewhat hide itself behind the landscaping. If the berms could be made higher it would help a little bit. The challenge the applicant would have with this project was to maintain the landscaping over the years. Again, he wanted to reiterate that they weren't 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 r.. talking about what it would look like the first, second or third year, but in the years to come - to maintain the landscaping and be something that Mobil would also be very proud to have in Palm Desert as well as being an element when first entering and then leaving our community. That gateway or entrance and exit from the city was very popular and would get even more popular as development continued in that area. It would be a very busy intersection with high visibility. Overall he felt the project looked good and he would be in favor of it. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Vice Chairperson Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 2-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Vice Chairperson Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001 , approving CUP 00-06, subject to conditions. Motion carried 2-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted limp no). E. Case No. ZOA 98-5 Amendment #2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendments to the sign ordinance - political signs. Mr. Smith informed commission that in 1998 Planning Commission sent the council two previous versions of a political sign ordinance. The council failed to act on either of those recommendations. Over the past few months the city attorney worked with council to draft an acceptable amendment. That was what was before the commission. It would basically repeal the current section 25.68.620 and replace it with provisions prohibiting political signs in the public right-of-way, requiring property owner permission to locate them on private property, did not require a fee and said signs would not be placed in a manner that would create a hazard to the public health or safety. Staff recommended that the commission forward the proposed amendment to the city council. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked for clarification with regard to taking the signs down and the time frame being difficult to enforce so it wasn't included in the +.. ordinance. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Political free speech ran 365 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 days of the year. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if someone put up their sign, had an election, including general election, then they could just leave them up as long as they wished. Mr. Drell said that they could be running in the next four years and start now to advertise. Vice Chairperson Lopez said he had a problem with that. One of the things he has always had a difficult time with was when elections were over, and there were all kinds of signs including paper signs, cardboard signs, very nice wood signs which he helped put up, etc., but it was also difficult when they were blowing around in the wind and turned into debris. Commissioner Campbell asked if he removed the signs he put up after the election was over. Vice Chairperson Lopez said yes, the next day they got them down. Commissioner Finerty said she had a question for the City Attorney. She asked if the commission was correct in understanding that the city council didn't want a time frame for the signs to be removed. Mr. Hargreaves said he hadn't been involved in the loop so he wasn't sure what the city council wanted. He thought from a legal standpoint that there was a concern given the current case law that a requirement that they be removed within a particular timeframe would be unenforceable and would render the ordinance unconstitutional. He knew on the other hand that that requirement was frequently imposed by different cities. He cited a Riverside newspaper article talking about Fontana and they just enacted restrictions that required them to come down. He wasn't in that loop so he couldn't tell the commission what the council was looking for. Mr. Drell didn't think it was a result of City Council direction. From a technical point of view, free speech was free speech unless it impinged upon public health and safety. He said that they could enact an ordinance and probably 95% of the people would comply since most people obey ordinances and most people didn't sue cities regardless of how arbitrary and capricious they were. The City Attorney was simply saying that if they were to follow the constitution as interpreted by the courts, it was part of free speech. The rest of the sign ordinance regulated commercial speech. This was different and therefore there was great deference given to it other than in cases where it was creating a physical hazard to public health and safety. They could try and maybe forward on to council that the commission had that preference that that section be added. He asked if there was a severability clause they could build into the ordinance. Although in this case there was so little to the sign ordinance that even if they were to lose the entire thing through a case it was a minimal risk. Commissioner Finerty asked if she was understanding it correctly that if someone didn't take their sign down at some point Code Enforcement would 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 contact them. Mr. Drell said no. From a practical point of view most people would do it any way. Most property owners after an election would take down the signs. He questioned at what point an old sign became litter. Commissioner Finerty said that another concern was now they had the primaries in March and the general election in November and eight months was kind of a long time to keep a sign up. It appeared that with the current ordinance they had a pretty good success rate at getting people to take down their signs. Mr. Drell said that the city really hasn't enforced the ordinance. Commissioner Finerty asked if people came to the Planning Department counter asking for it. Mr. Drell replied that in the last 10 years there probably hasn't been any enforcement of the ordinance and most of what had happened, other than signage on public property, basically this was the ordinance that they have been enforcing over the last two or three elections. He said it was like anything else. Should they pass a law they thought they could get away with or should they pass a law that they knew conformed with case law. He said that the risks were probably relatively minor. If they had a very complicated ordinance that the city wanted to preserve and the chance of having it thrown out because of this, they could think about it, but if we were sued, they would probably win. Vice Chairperson Lopez pointed out that normally the people who didn't have a successful campaign left everything up. The successful ones took them down because they had somewhat of a sense of responsibility to take them down because they were now representing the city or at least had some responsibility to their constituents. He said he saw that at the last election where several people that ran still had signs up several weeks afterward. Mr. Drell didn't know, but would check with Code Enforcement, whether they have actually gone out in the past and contacted people. Typically the organization that put them up was gone, so there was no one to contact. Whether they could hold the candidate themselves liable he wasn't sure. Staff could find out whether Code Enforcement has ever gone out and tried to enforce that part of the ordinance in the past or whether ultimately they just disappeared by themselves. Commissioner Campbell asked about when signs were placed on private property and the applicant had to secure the permission of the property owner. She pointed out that a lot of times there were absentee owners. Mr. Drell said that staff could always check if permission was obtained, but it was superfluous because obviously the owner had the ability to enforce it themselves. If the property owner wanted to deny consent, they didn't need i... a city ordinance to take the signs down. He said that an important part of it 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 was to remind people that they can't just put signs up on other people's property without their permission. It provided the property owner with a little bit more clout in getting rid of it. The more important part was that they couldn't put up signs on public property. Commissioner Finerty said that she liked the idea of reminding people that they ought to take them down ten days after the election, too. Mr. Hargreaves said that they could put in the ordinance something that was directory rather than mandatory like "City Council as a matter of policy requests that candidates remove their signs as part of their civic duty and to maintain the beauty of the community." Vice Chairperson Lopez thought there should be something so that they weren't just left up. Commissioner Finerty agreed and wanted the ordinance to so say something about it so that they weren't just silent on it. Because then it was like they didn't care and it wouldn't matter if they ever came down. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked where they went from here. Mr. Drell noted that the commission was making a recommendation to council and the recommendation was that the ordinance contain a provision requesting the removal of signs ten days after the election. They could let the City Attorney mull it over and think of a way to make it as inoffensive to the constitution as possible. Mr. Hargreaves recalled mulling this over several years ago and they came up with a plan that required permitting among other things and the city council didn't want to get that involved in it. The other alternative was to adopt the ordinance the way it is and run it through an election and see what happens and if there was a problem respond to it as best they could. Mr. Drell asked whether a finding could be made because typically these signs weren't maintained. At some point they became litter and at that point he questioned if they could be deemed a public nuisance. Mr. Hargreaves stated that as long as a person wanted to make a political statement and had that on property where they were entitled to do so, they could. The issue was that at some point after the election whoever was making the statement in reality didn't care any more and the sign became abandoned. There was a presumption that it was abandoned after the election. Mr. Drell said that if they said that they were running in advance for council four years from now, then there was no law that said when they could start their campaign. Vice Chairperson Lopez noted that when the wind starts blowing where some of the signs were, it didn't take long for them to become debris. Mr. Hargreaves recalled that they discussed a requirement that signs be brought in and some kind of a stamp be j put on them that established that someone actually owned it and assumed responsibility for it and then if it ended up blowing away or becoming a 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 nuisance, that they were responsible. That was a rather cumbersome process. Mr. Drell said that the city didn't want to look like they were approving people's signs. He suggested that the commission make the recommendation that there be a provision added relative to the removal of signs and then between now and the council meeting the City Attorney could include that as a suggested addition. Vice Chairperson Lopez stated that he would like to do that and make it part of the motion. Action: It was moved by Vice Chairperson Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Vice Chairperson Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 98-5 Amendment #2. Motion carried 3-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (June 21 , 2000) Commissioner Campbell said the committee identified and prioritized sites for future Art in Public Places projects. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (July 18, 2000) Commissioner Finerty indicated that there were no items that concerned the Planning Commission. E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (July 12, 2000) Mr. Smith stated that they looked at six different ordinance amendment, three of which would be before the commission on August 15. One would help control short term rentals of single family dwellings in the R-1 district; one would deal with the proposed amendment to reduce setbacks from carport structures to in effect allow them to be measured from the curb face rather than from the property line. They would not have accessory buildings in rear yards. It would go back to ZORC again for more discussion. Telecommunications would be before commission. Changeable copy signs would go back to ZORC before coming to Planning Commission. Mr. Drell said that included signs that provided information of general public interest in addition to time and temperature. It was a request from A.G. Edward's to have the DOW and NASDAQ shown on a monument sign. Mr. Smith said that they could also put political free speech on it, too. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that Commissioner Jonathan would want to know about the 1 :1 setbacks and if that would be coming before the commission on the 15th. Mr. Smith said it wouldn't be ready for the 15th. That would go back to ZORC and they didn't meet until August 30. He wasn't sure when that would get back to commission. XI. COMMENTS 1 . Mr. Hargreaves explained that the process that the commission was engaged in from time to time ended up in litigation and Best, Best & Krieger follows the case law and gets published opinions. One case came down a month ago that he thought the commission might be interested in reading. It dealt with a lot of the issues that were raised in terms of conflicts and evidence that had to be present to deny conditional use permits. He felt that it bore some similarity to the case the commission considered about a year ago that had to do with a night club. Vice Chairperson Lopez noted that it was Caesar's Emperor. Mr. Drell updated the commission that the city was probably going to reinitiate a revocation of the CUP because the owner has never kept up on his payments to the Sheriff. Off and on the Sheriff ceases to 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 provide the required security. It had been very quiet out there, but in essence he wasn't providing the required security. Commissioner Finerty asked what should be done if he was in violation of his permit. Mr. Drell said that staff was one day away from sending out legal notices for a hearing and he showed up with a Sheriff and $14,000 and got himself current again, so it wasn't scheduled. Commissioner Finerty asked what he currently owed. Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure. Commissioner Finerty asked how many times the owner didn't make his payment or how long the Sheriff wasn't getting paid before the commission could act. Mr. Drell said that as soon as they saw he wasn't complying they could initiate the process. Commissioner Campbell asked how many notices the owner had to have. Mr. Drell said that the direction was to initiate a hearing. The good news was that it had been very quiet and there were no incidents. He thought that even though they haven't been paid the Sheriff's Department had been keeping a close watch on the business. Mr. Hargreaves stated that he had copies of that case for the commission if they wanted to read it. 2. Vice Chairperson Lopez observed a house on Portola between Fred Waring and Highway 111 that was boarded up and now had an abandoned vehicle in the front yard. Mr. Drell said that the city was in escrow to buy the property and once they closed escrow, which should be rather quick, they would be demolishing the house. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a citation on the vehicle's windshield. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. PHILIP DREL Secretary ST, JAtfES LOPEZ, Vi e h irperson PAI`n Desert Planni C mmission /tf*l 23