Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1003 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER �.. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty 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: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez too Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 19, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the September 19, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent September 28, 2000 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-23 - SEVERIN & COMPANY LLC AND DAVIDE & COMPANY LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines for lots located at the southwest corner of Portola and Country Club Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. j Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or 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. VAR 00-03 - BROOKE BERGH, Applicant (Continued from September 5, 2000) Request for approval of a variance to the required front setback from 14 feet to 7 feet for a carport structure in front of the residence at 77-310 Wyoming Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that council gave second reading to the ordinance amendment for carport locations at their last meeting. That meant that this applicant could go through that window with respect to her carport structure. She had been to Architectural Review Commission and they gave her some direction and she was preparing plans to that effect. He said that the variance was no longer necessary and the matter should be tabled. That was staff's recommendation. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 Chairperson Beaty called for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, tabling Case No. VAR 00-03 by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. B. Case No. VAR 00-05 - MARICELA GUTIERREZ, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to Section 25.58.220 to allow the construction of a single care carport to replace the existing two car garage located at the southwest corner of Merle Drive and Claudia Street, 74-733 Merle Drive. Mr. Alvarez informed commission that the applicant was requesting a variance to Section 25.58.220 to allow the construction of a single care side entry carport to replace an existing two car garage. He noted that the existing two car garage (18' x 24') was converted without benefit of a permit. A notice to stop construction was issued by code enforcement, which resulted in the request for the variance. Section 25.58.220 required that all single family houses maintain two covered parking spaces within a carport or garage. The applicant in this case was requesting a variance to that section to allow the conversion to take place or to exist and would replace the two covered parking spaces with one side entry carport. The side entry carport was 10' x 20' deep and was proposed in front of the existing two car garage. Although this structure met the current requirements of the side entry carports, which was 16' from face of curb, the application did not meet the two covered parking spaces requirement. Staff outlined on page two of the staff report findings and could not affirm required findings A and C. Lack of room inside a residence which was driving the variance was a self-imposed hardship to create more living space. Additional living space was not an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance that would allow for the affirming of the requirement. For those reasons, staff was recommending denial of the variance request. Commissioner Campbell referred to the photograph of the existing structure and asked if it was legally finished. Mr. Alvarez stated that it was semi finished. The garage door was removed and a wall and window put in. Commissioner Campbell said it looked like it was painted the same color as the 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 house and looked completed. Mr. Alvarez said it was complete in its form, but the intent was to stucco that portion. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MRS. MARICELA GUTIERREZ addressed the commission. She said they weren't planning to close the garage like that. They just did that because the door was coming off and she had two little kids and they went inside to play. She talked to Pedro, one of the code officers, and he told her to get a permit. She suggested trying to add a carport. Since she has no space in the back of her house that was why she wanted to keep the garage closed and stated that she wanted to put in a carport for two cars but the city said she needed more room. She talked to Martin about it to try and get a solution to work this out. He said that perhaps by making it sideways it would work. Now that she got this, she read that it was for one car. The driveway was 26%2 by 26. She drew the diagram herself and she was told she couldn't put in a lot of driveway cement, so that was why she thought that having it just one sided would probably work. She suggested having it for one car because she wanted to try and have a carport. She only has one car, but needed the place because that is where the kids have their toys. At the back of her house she didn't have that much space and in the front they suggested putting up a fence and were told they could only put it 16 feet from the curb, so that wouldn't help them. They wanted to do something so that they wouldn't have to remove the garage. It wasn't finished. The paint looked almost the same and was extra they had from the inside, but it wasn't finished. Commissioner Campbell asked how many children Mrs. Gutierrez had. Mrs. Gutierrez said she has two children, a six and a seven year old. Commissioner Campbell asked how many bedrooms there were in her home. Mrs. Gutierrez said there were three bedrooms, but her husband was disabled and he took one room and the other one was for the kids. L 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 Commissioner Campbell asked if she was using the garage space as a play room for the children. Mrs. Gutierrez said she knew they were safe there. She had to be with them at all times, but it was a safe place. They told her about putting up a garage door, but if they did, kids always wanted to experiment so her fear was them trying to open the door at all times and having an accident. Besides, the front of the house was part of where she could have her kids be and play but if there was no fence, that was why she kept the toys and things outside in the garage space. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. ISADORA HASSMAN, 42-601 Claudia, stated that many of them have lived in these homes before it was part of Palm Desert. Some of them did convert the garages. If there was something that they needed to know, she felt that everyone should have a standard plan for it. She asked if there was a standard plan for these additions that were appearing so that she would have it for a future reference in case she needed it. Chairperson Beaty said there were rules and some of them had been discussed. Mr. Drell explained that the ordinance recently adopted by council would allow carports to be constructed 20 feet as measured from curb. Which brought them typically about 12 feet closer than they were currently allowed in most neighborhoods. Most neighborhoods had a 12-foot public parkway and then the property line. It did allow greater opportunity for more of the older homes to add a carport. On the other hand, for those that were built to the minimum, it still created a problem since the size of a carport is 20 feet and the setback is 20 feet, they still only had room for 12 feet of carport. There would still be many houses that were not going to qualify to be able to build a garage. Ms. Hassman asked for clarification that it had to be for two cars and not just one. Mr. Drell said that if the home was legally converted under the County and the County didn't compel her to replace it, then she could replace it with one it 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 because they were legally nonconforming in the existing condition. Therefore, any space added was voluntary on her part. For those property owners who were in the city and had two cars, they were conforming to Palm Desert's ordinance. Once they were conforming, they couldn't change their condition and become nonconforming. They couldn't eliminate those two spaces without replacing them with two spaces. Apparently the County let people eliminate the garage without replacing them. Palm Desert's ordinance required that they replace what they eliminate and stay in conformance with the ordinance. For those that were converted in the County, they were in a different category than the applicant before the commission who converted this year and was subject to Palm Desert's code. Ms. Hassman asked if she were to convert a back patio into a room that would handle a wheel chair for a disabled person, if she would come to get a permit first or if she would ask the builder to do it. She asked how that would be done. Mr. Drell said it was up to her. She could come to the city and get a preliminary approval to do it and show that she was in conformance with the zoning code in terms of setbacks. Typically, unless she was skilled and experienced, she would have her builder ultimately draw up the plans and submit them to the Building Department for a permit. Ms. Hassman asked if that also included the interior if she had to knock out a bathroom wall. Mr. Drell said yes. Those sorts of things a builder would do. He suggested that she give the city a call to discuss this. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant had any further comments to add. (Mr. Alvarez interpreted for Mr. Gutierrez.) MR. ALVARO GUTIERREZ was here on behalf of his wife in relation to the conversion of the garage. He had one concern he wanted addressed. On Merle Drive the public right of way was 11 % feet from the face of curb to the property line. He was in awe that the city owned that much or had control of that much land in front of his property and wanted clarification as to why. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 Mr. Drell explained that there was thought that at some future date there might be sidewalks. Typically there were sidewalks, then utility easements. That was how the subdivisions were laid out. Mr. Gutierrez reiterated the concern that his house was left with minimal setback to begin with because of that wide right of way which now left him with 15 feet of setback. Normally it was greater than that. Again, he wanted to see if there was some other solution to work something out. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said that while she was sympathetic to wanting kids to play in a safe place, she felt the overall standards of the city for a two-car garage should be upheld. Where she lives, they have rules that people must park both cars in the garage because they didn't want the clutter on the street. Anytime they could upgrade a neighborhood by putting cars in garages rather than having everyone with their cars parked outside and where they have the possibility of creating sidewalks would upgrade the neighborhood. For that reason she agreed with staff's conclusion and would move to deny the request. Commissioner Campbell agreed. She thought that it was a poor excuse to enclose in a garage because the garage door was broken to use this as a play room. She agreed with staff's recommendation to deny this application and seconded the motion. Chairperson Beaty said he was also in agreement. There were reasons they had these standards and he felt they should be maintained. He hoped that the applicant was made aware of all the restrictions when they purchased that lot. He called for a vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. `. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021 denying Case No. VAR 00-05. Motion carried 3-0. Mr. Alvarez explained to the applicant that there was an appeal process to the City Council and which had to be filed within 15 days. C. Case No. CUP 00-13 - NATURAL WELLNESS/KATHLEEN SITYPTYCKI, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 650 square foot massage establishment located at 73-338 Highway 1 1 1 , Suite 6. Mr. Alvarez noted that the applicant currently operated a 650 square foot natural wellness facility located at 73-338 Highway 1 1 1 . This was within the Crystal Palms courtyard. Her business provided nutritional counseling and retail sales of health supplements. The applicant wished to provide an additional service in the form of massage treatments. As commission was aware, in order to provide this service the applicant had to obtain approval of a conditional use permit. A site plan was included in the staff report which showed that the single room massage treatment room would be 325 square feet or one half of the existing unit. Obviously that was confirmed by the single room use. The applicant indicated that she would operate on an appointment only basis, one on one, and her hours of operation would be 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. In processing the CUP, staff looked at the land use compatibility: its compatibility with adjacent properties, businesses and any parking impacts. After visiting the site various times, staff felt there was ample parking in this area. The parking demand could only be two parking spaces, the operator and a client. There were eight spaces provided in the rear of the building and additional parking on the street along the frontage which was typically used by the businesses in that area. He concluded that this limited size of a facility would not have an impact on the immediate vicinity and recommended approval subject to the attached conditions. For purposes of CEQA, the project was a Class 3 categorical exemption. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 ` o Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. KATHLEEN SITYPTYCKI addressed the commission and said she was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Beaty asked if Ms. Shyptycki had the necessary licenses for the massage business. Ms. Shyptycki said that she currently was an out call therapist in Palm Desert and had been for ten years. To do the establishment process, she had to get a conditional use permit first, then go through the same thing she did ten years ago. Chairperson Beaty asked how long something like that would take. Ms. Shyptycki said she didn't know since it was the first time she had done something like this. \.r Mr. Drell said it would take a couple of months. Ms. Shyptycki said she was told that since she didn't have to go through the whole background part of the process it could be less. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty said she thought the proposal sounded great. Nutritional counseling, health supplements and massage were in everyone's best interest and moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022 approving Case No. CUP 00-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. D. Case No. ZOA 00-09 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation to city council of approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.25.016, setback requirements in the O.P. (office professional) district. Mr. Drell said that this was a code section that the Planning Commission requested to be amended and he would be suggesting some different wording for the amendment. Chairperson Beaty noted that this was a case that Commissioner Jonathan was very interested in. Commissioner Finerty suggested that they move to continue the matter until he was back. Mr. Drell questioned approving it now and moving it on. Commissioner Finerty said she wanted to make sure Commissioner Jonathan was happy with this since he had waited so long and patiently for this. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing Case No. ZOA 00-09 to October 17, 2000. Motion carried 3-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of a request by area residents to initiate a change of zone for property located on the east side of Highway 74 south of El Paseo between Imago Galleries and Le Paon Restaurant. An oral report will be given by Phil Drell. Mr. Drell explained that the substance of the request was that the residents would like future buildings limited to 30 feet in height as opposed to the current PC-4 code which permitted up to 35 feet. The solution to that with the least amount of impact on land uses of that property would be initiation of a change of zone from PC-4 to C-1 , which was the zoning of the adjacent f 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 property on El Paseo. The good news for the property owner(s) would be that C-1 zoning actually provides greater flexibility in land use. They could still build hotels but they could also build El Paseo type retail as well. The bad news was that it pretty much eliminated the possibility of a third story in a hotel if hotels were built. But if the Planning Commission wished, they could direct staff to initiate a change of zone from PC-4 to C-1 . Chairperson Beaty asked if there was only one parcel that would be effected. Mr. Drell said there were numbers of parcels but they were all owned by one individual foundation. Chairperson Beaty asked how the leadership of the Foundation felt about the proposed change. Mr. Drell suggested hearing from the initiators first. Commission concurred. MS. FRANCES STERLING, representing the property owners who now reside across the street from the area under discussion, addressed the commission. She indicated that at the last meeting Mr. Theiller listed the reasons for their concerns with anything higher than 30 feet. They still felt that way. There was so much in the area they felt had gone over the height somewhat. They felt that area should be an extension um over El Paseo, which did have the 30-foot height limit. With the access road east of Highway 74 it would be another nice street for visitors and shoppers to come up rather than seeing large buildings and 35 feet was not in keeping with Palm Desert's height for the whole area. Chairperson Beaty asked what the height was of Imago Gallery. Mr. Drell replied 35 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked how high Le Paon was and Mr. Drell indicated it was single story and probably 16-18 feet. Club 74 was at 30 feet and the towers were probably higher. They would still be able to do the same sort of architectural projections as seen on El Paseo. Most of the newer buildings on El Paseo were between 24 and 30 feet. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. MR. GREG OLSON, representing the owner of the property which was the Hubbard Foundation, R.D. and Joan Dale Foundation. He said that unfortunately he wasn't at the last meeting where the residents articulated their concerns. He heard through the grapevine what some of the concerns might be and he briefly wanted to address the commission. He said that Mr. Hubbard on behalf of the Foundation 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 purchased the property in 1994 and 1995 based upon the zoning of PC- 4 with the idea of building a three-story hotel. If for some reason it was rezoned, it would greatly affect the value of that property. The second point he wanted to make was that one of the concerns of the homeowners was the Imago Gallery and the fact that aesthetically it wasn't as pleasing as some people would like. His response to that was that it had nothing to do with the Hubbard Foundation and he didn't think it was appropriate to take any action out on this property owner as a result of what was previously built on someone else's property. Secondly, Mr. Hubbard is the primary owner of Bighorn Country Club right up Highway 74 so if the concern is that there would be something unsightly built next to the Imago Gallery, he would suggest that people simply look up the road and see that what Mr. Hubbard has done in the past, which was nothing but first rate. Something built there by Mr. Hubbard might take away from Imago's eye soreness. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on a three-story hotel height. j Mr. Drell said that for a modern hotel 35 feet was needed. Most first class hotels needed nine feet for the rooms, then there was the structure between the floors and often the first floor was actually taller than that since it contained the lobby. Then four or five feet was needed at the top for parapet equipment screening for flat roofed structures. Something like the Courtyard Hotel which had a pitch roof came in at 44 feet. Having 35 feet was about minimum for a flat roofed type three story hotel. Commissioner Campbell noted that the property grade had an elevation going up the hill. Mr. Drell indicated that the developer could work with the grading so that the higher side would be dug into the ground so that at the highest side the height would be less than 35 feet, but then the first floor would be looking at a landscaped slope. But at the lowest side it would be 35 feet unless the whole thing was sunk. Commissioner Campbell asked if it would be possible to excavate and make it three stories and still retain the 30 feet limit. Mr. Drell said yes. They would measure the 30 feet from existing grade. If someone chose to lower the existing grade then it wouldn't be counted against them. He indicated that the number of floors wasn't the concern. It was the total building height. What they were talking about here was initiating a process which would include a public hearing back here before the commission and ultimately the City Council in which there would be complete noticing of surrounding property owners and obviously the property owner would have further 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 `o opportunity to make their case that this was an inappropriate rezoning of the property. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Olson if he had any kind of a ballpark plan as to when a proposal for a hotel might be forthcoming. Mr. Olson said no. He knew that they had gone out and talked with different investors as well as various developers as far back as 1997 for a three-story hotel and as recently as 1999 for a three-story hotel. The intent right now was to eventually build a three-story hotel. When that would actually take place he couldn't comment on because he didn't know. Chairperson Beaty asked if it would be possible to do an excavation type of thing as mentioned. Mr. Olson said he was a lawyer and didn't know. He was sure that Mr. Hubbard and the Foundation would be willing to try and work with any thoughts or ideas that would be presented to them. Their big concern was that they paid money for a piece of property with the intention of doing something to it and now homeowners were trying to rezone it and since he wasn't at the last meeting he didn't know why. Chairperson Beaty explained that it was basically because it would block the view of the mountains. That was the stated reason. He asked Mr. Olson if the property would be more valuable as a hotel or as retail. Mr. Olson said it depended on who you asked, but in their estimation a hotel was more valuable. Being in retail, Commissioner Campbell agreed that it would be more valuable as a hotel right there. Mr. Olson said that Mr. Hubbard on behalf of the Foundation had looked into various alternatives such as retail. Chairperson Beaty asked the purpose of the Foundation was. mw 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 Mr. Olson said it was a 501 C3 and was for charitable purposes. It is a Texas corporation. Commissioner Campbell said she would prefer to wait to see what was going to be proposed in the form of a hotel or other development before making changes. Chairperson Beaty stated that he was in agreement. He wasn't sure it was appropriate to just change it. Mr. Hubbard has done class developments, but with this many people in the area upset he thought Mr. Hubbard would probably try to work something out. He wasn't in favor of initiating an actual change of zone at this time. Commissioner Finerty said that she felt the commission recognized the issue before them with regard to Imago and thought that they were sensitive to the residents' concerns. When a project comes before the commission the residents would be noticed and they would deal with the height issue at that time, keeping in mind that the lower in height the proposal was the better. Chairperson Beaty restated that the commission was not in favor of any particular action at this time. Action: None. 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. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 XI. COMMENTS None. X11. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. r- PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: -XK J S K. LOPEZ, ice irperson a Desert Planning om ission /tm 15