Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1205 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 5, 2000 7:00 P.M. - ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM ... 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. Ill. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan two Members Absent: None 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: Request for consideration of the November 21, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the November 21, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. um MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 .r VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-25 - Mr. Ronald Corn, Applicant Request to approve a lot line adjustment between Lot 19 of Tract No. 6685-1 and a portion of Lot 4 of R.S. 55/38-43 B. Case No. PMW 00-26 - Rick Somers Construction, Applicant Request to adjust easterly line of Lot 64, 20.50 feet into Lot 63. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. 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 Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 96-15 Amendment#2 - Denise Roberge, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to allow nightly amplified music entertainment in the outdoor seating patio of Augusta Restaurant located at 73-951 El Paseo. Mr. Alvarez stated that the property is located at the southwest comer of El Paseo and Portola. The property is zoned C-1 general commercial and is surrounded by commercial properties on three sides: Portola, El Paseo and Prickly Pear. A four- unit multifamily residential complex was on the south side on Larrea Street. The existing Augusta Restaurant has been in operation since 1996 under a conditional use permit. At this time the applicant was requesting an amendment to the CUP f 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 to allow nightly amplified music in the outdoor patio dining area. The patio is located on the south side of the building. Mr. Alvarez indicated that there was an exhibit included with the staff report showing the location. It was currently screened from view with an existing wall, landscaping, the building to the east, and a parking lot to the south. The applicant was asking for approval to have harpist, jazz trio, guitarist, pianist, disc jockey and keyboardist. The applicant did not indicate a time to end the music, but they indicated they would adhere to the noise ordinance for commercial noise levels. Those levels measured in decibels were outlined on page two of the staff report. Between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. the levels were 65 dbl and between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the level was 55 dbl maximum. Throughout the year city staff had approved three outdoor music events for this property under the temporary use permit ordinance. During these three permits the applicant was allowed to use outdoor music for special events such as a wedding reception and special private parties. During those three events staff did not receive any complaints. Code did not receive any telephone or mail complaints because of the outdoor music. He pointed out that on November 23, 2000 a legal notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet. There was a problem with the legal notice because it indicated that the meeting was on Thursday (not Tuesday) December 5, 2000. There were some calls regarding this issue. The date was right but the day wasn't. If the commission wished to act on this item tonight they could do so or staff could renotice the project for the meeting of December 19. If commission wished to proceed, they could hear from the public but staff was recommending approval of the request. Similar outdoor events had been held with no impact to the adjacent properties, the location was visually and acoustically screened via an existing walls and landscaping, and the proposed outdoor music area would be limited to the rear/south side of the building which was approximately 200 feet from the nearest residential property on Larrea Street. Staff recommended approval for a six-month trial period. Condition number 5 stipulated that outdoor music would be permitted for six months. That would allow staff and commission to evaluate the effects of music being played day to day. Commissioner Finerty asked what the hours of operation were for the restaurant. Ms. Roberge spoke from the audience and said that at the latest people stayed until 11:30 p.m. Commissioner Finerty asked if Ms. Roberge anticipated the music going past 11:30 p.m. Ms. Roberge said she didn't think so. Commissioner Finerty asked what time the restaurant opened. Ms. Roberge said 6:00 p.m., but the bar would open at 5:00 or 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 it could be conceivable that there would be music between 5:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. Ms. Roberge said that was correct. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. DENISE ROBERGE, the applicant, addressed the commission. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant planned to have the music nightly. Ms. Roberge said she was pretty sure they would, although she wasn't sure about Sunday night. Commissioner Lopez asked what size of bands Ms. Roberge could accommodate in the area she was proposing. Ms. Roberge said they could accommodate a rock and roll band and could accommodate 10-12 pieces. They wouldn't have that because they also had to be considerate of the diners that were in the restaurant. If the music got too loud it would defeat their own purpose in having it. It had to be at the level where it was comfortable to eat with and still was enjoyable to dance to. They tried not to keep it too loud even when they had the temporary permits. It didn't seem to have to be loud to appease the people dancing to it and the restaurant people were comfortable with the sound level. She said that she didn't want it to be a temporary permit. By having the other functions, it had proven that they weren't a noise problem and she didn't understand the reason for going through the procedure again in six months. She was sure if they became a problem they would hear about it. It wasn't to their advantage to be a problem. Mr. Drell said that from his own experience he lives next to a community center that has music. What someone might tolerate once a month or less became a little bit more of a problem if it is every day. There was a difference. Staff wasn't confident that what wasn't a problem once every few months wouldn't be a problem every day. Commissioner Finerty asked if Ms. Roberge would be uncomfortable postponing the decision to December 19 because of the legal notice confusion to make sure everyone was properly noticed since Mr. Alvarez did receive phone calls. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 ir. Ms. Roberge said that she was sure they could function on a temporary permit. They did want to have some Christmas festivities out there, but they could apply for a special use. Chairperson Beaty asked how many phone calls were received. Mr. Alvarez indicated that he received one and Ms. Monroe received one. Chairperson Beaty asked if they were positive or negative. Mr. Alvarez said he couldn't tell. Ms. Monroe said it was negative. Commissioner Campbell asked if the calls were from residents or business owners. Mr. Alvarez said one was a business owner, the other was not known. Commissioner Campbell asked if the business owner identified themselves because she wasn't sure what business would be open during the proposed hours. Mr. Drell said that the people that called realized that the meeting would be today and there were people in the audience. It would really be for the people who didn't call who might show up on Thursday. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. PAT WEBB, 73-963 Larrea (her mother was 73-965 Larrea, and the other tenant was 73-961 Larrea) stated that she was representing herself as a tenant, the three apartment units on the south side of Larrea behind Denise Roberge, her mother who was home ill who owns the three apartment units, and she was representing Mr. Richard Oliphant and Associates who own 30 units on Shadow Mountain. They were against this music. The staff report said that the city did not receive any citizen complaints when Ms. Roberge had the temporary permits. In 1998 her mother called the Sheriff several times and they went over to the restaurant to tell them to lower the music. It was at 10:00 p.m. and very loud and was still going strong. She personally went over there one night and was treated very rudely by whomever the manager was, although she didn't believe that manager was still there. Also, on the 30 units owned by Mr. Oliphant on Shadow Mountain, those were all seniors and didn't appreciate hearing that music, which carries and the decibels were the same levels they used at airports and the airport maximum was 75. She didn't want to live and try to sleep behind something that was blaring. She was definitely against it and when Ms. Roberge had the bands there, they were brought in big buses and they were parked in front of her apartment complex with the air conditioners going and they were very loud. That diesel fuel did not smell good. She said she was representing Mr. Oliphant and had the signatures of the residents in opposition. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 Mr. Drell noted that there were events in 1998 that were a problem. At that time staff worked with the applicant and told her that if those problems were repeated they wouldn't get temporary use permits approved. He asked Ms. Webb about the events over the last year. Ms. Webb said that they had been heard, but they were trying to be nice, hopefully thinking that they reported her before, how many times did they have to be reported to say that after 10:00 p.m. they shouldn't have blaring music. Mr. Drell asked if the events of the last year were just as noisy. Ms. Webb said they were noisy and they had music playing outside. It was just the stereo system and wasn't a live band. They heard Frank Sinatra playing and the wind blew the sound. When talking about acoustics, the fence was six feet high and the sound carried right over because the speakers were up higher. Chairperson Beaty asked if Ms. Roberge wanted to readdress the commission. Ms. Roberge informed commission that she has never had a band that required a bus. They had only had one complaint and it was the first function they had. They really didn't realize the noise level. Shadow Mountain was a long way from them. Ms. Webb spoke from the audience and said that Shadow Mountain was the next street past Larrea. Ms. Roberge said that was a long way from her property. She also pointed out that The Gardens has music outside, so if anyone was to complain about the music from Shadow Mountain, they should complain about The Gardens, not them. She said she tried to run a nice, clean business and not offend her neighbors and their property unfortunately was in a major commercial area and everyone developed around them. They had never had a problem with the churches or anyone else as a neighbor. They would be sensitive to their sound. They didn't want to offend them and she apologized if one of her managers did offend Ms. Webb. That wasn't the way they normally worked. The city did need some entertainment and it desperately needed a place for people to go to listen to music that was well 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 tow managed. She didn't know if the commission read the article in the newspaper about K.D. Lang being in Palm Springs. Everyone was saying how great it was to bring in a performer like K.D. Lang and to have a place to go. She couldn't express how often people requested music. It was a need in the city. They didn't have a good place for people to go to listen to music and dance. They would try to manage it the best that they could. Chairperson Beaty asked how they wanted to handle the matter of the legal notice. Mr. Alvarez said that if it was the commission's direction, staff would renotice the hearing with the correct date and continue it to December 19. Commissioner Campbell asked if Ms. Roberge would be able to have a temporary conditional use permit granted if she wanted music prior to December 19. Mr. Drell said that even if it was approved there was a 15-day appeal period. (Ms. Roberge spoke from the audience and said she wanted to have it for New Year's.) Mr. Drell asked for direction from the commission. Commissioner Campbell said that they have had other people come before the commission with smaller restaurants and they had to revoke their conditional use permit. With this applicant, she has had temporary use permits and it was a small restaurant. It was a large venue she had with the restaurant and art gallery. These events were booked in her gallery months in advance or even a year in advance. People booked it for the following year. She thought that Ms. Roberge was very conscientious about her neighbors. There were more businesses around the area; more so than residents. That might have been more of a residential area years ago, but now it wasn't. It was being surrounded by commercial. The location of the music was well secluded. On condition number five, Commissioner Campbell stated that she didn't feel Ms. Roberge should be penalized to have the conditional use permit for a six-month period. If Ms. Roberge has the conditional use permit and violates it, the commission could revoke it. She was in favor of granting the conditional use permit with the elimination of condition number five. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't have any problem with the legal notice saying Thursday, rather than Tuesday. Today was December 5 and he was comfortable moving forward on it. He was hopeful that the music wouldn't be a problem to the neighbors, but he had his concerns. He was very sensitive when commercial areas encroached on existing residential areas. The applicant was seeking a change to the existing conditional use permit so obviously the applicant was happy and proceeded with the plans for this economic venture without the music, so this was a departure to what had originally been approved and could pose a further encroachment upon the neighborhood. He was concerned, but he r.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 wanted to give it a shot. His suggestion was that they allow the request for Friday and Saturday only for three months and if it wasn't a good situation, hopefully the neighbors could live with it for three months and the commission would hear from them at that time. If there was a problem, then the applicant had an opportunity to work with the neighbors to resolve the problem, and if the problem could not be resolved, they were in a position to revoke the CUP in such a way that it hasn't caused too much damage to the residents. He felt that was a reasonable compromise. Having the applicant come back for a temporary use permit he didn't feel was a hardship. Commissioner Lopez said he also didn't have a problem with the legal notice. He said he has often had concerns with amplified music on an ongoing basis. In the desert music and sound traveled, especially if there was any kind of a breeze, so he was concerned about the amplified music. If there was an ability to provide entertainment for diners where they had piano music or guitar music that would be non obtrusive to the individuals living in the area because he knew they were going to have a problem with that. But he did agree that they should give them the opportunity and that it needed to be on a probationary period. He would agree with the three-month period for Friday and Saturday to see if that was something that might work because he did think they had to be sensitive to what the effect would be on an ongoing basis of music playing every night. He thought there would be a difference between having that and every once in a while having a wedding reception. He would be willing to consider a limited amount under a probationary time frame and agreed with Commissioner Jonathan on that compromise. Commissioner Finerty said she was a little perplexed how the apartments on Shadow Mountain and Larrea found it disturbing, but the diners didn't. She could see if it was a harpist, a jazz trio or something similar. Her concern was with the keyboardist and the DJ and she thought that was when it could get really loud. Another thing they usually required was hours as well as nights and that had been consistent. She was uncomfortable not having set hours. She would be willing to try it for three months, two nights a week and that would give all parties a chance to work it out. But she wanted firm hours so that they had some parameters to work with which wasn't uncharacteristic of commission conditions in the past. Chairperson Beaty said he was opposed initially, but he liked the concessions or changes proposed to the conditional use permit. He strongly felt they should come back and review. He felt three months was a good idea, two nights was a 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 good idea, and a time limit was a good idea. He asked if for suggestions on the hours. Commissioner Finerty noted that they were talking about the bar opening at 5:00 p.m. and the restaurant closing at 11:30 p.m. Her concern was after 10:00 p.m. and felt that was where there might be a problem. She suggested 7:30-10:30 p.m. to see how that worked. Then they would have some experience with allowing the music after 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that some people here in the desert went to dinner at 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. was too late. Mr. Drell said that staff didn't really care how early they started and could start at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Finerty suggested 5:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Mr. Drell said that the limit should be on the upside, not on the downside. The other issue was that during the day ambient noise levels were pretty noisy and he didn't think it would be a problem then. It was when traffic noise got quiet. Basically the decibel levels were for a commercial zone. Once it crossed the street, it entered a residential zone and there were different decibel levels applicable in a residential zone. He believed it was 10 decibels lower (45 decibels). Commissioner Finerty asked if they wanted to require it to go to 45. Mr. Alvarez said that the ordinance said that the sound level limit between two zoning districts should be measured at the higher allowable district. Mr. Drell recommended having it the other way. In the desert, when it was so quiet, even noise levels that were significantly lower could be heard because of the difference in the ambient noise levels and whether you like Frank Sinatra. Commissioner Finerty asked if they measured the decibels from the properties affected, so that would be from the location of the apartments. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Beaty commented that it was specified that it couldn't leave the property boundaries. Mr. Drell said that as an example, when they did the noise analysis for Ruth's Chris, the goal was to achieve the residential standard. The noise level in that situation was in the 40's. Commissioner Jonathan said the issue in his mind right now wasn't so much the decibel measurement as much as it was how the neighbors were going to perceive it and what the applicant would do to mitigate those issues. He suggested moving forward at this time with approval but amending condition number five to provide for a three-month period for the amendment to the CUP and limiting the amplified music to Fridays and Saturdays no later than 10:30 p.m. He made that a motion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Finerty. Commissioner Campbell asked about New Year's Eve. Commissioner Jonathan suggested a special permit. Mr. Drell said that those sorts of events neighbors had an expectation of a little bit of noise because people had parties in their own homes. Chairperson Beaty called for the vote. %1W 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 a i Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2032, approving CUP 96-15, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21- Richard Hughes, Applicant Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low-Density Residential (R-1)to District Commercial and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. Mr. Drell explained that a draft traffic study was completed. There were some corrections that needed to be made as a result of staff review. They had not been completed and he was confident it would be ready for December 19. He was assured by the Traffic Engineer that the corrections should be forthcoming. Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. He asked if the applicant wished to address the commission first. Mr. Hughes said he would reserve his statements until December 19. MR. DAVE HART, 74-657 Gary Avenue, thanked the commission for the opportunity to speak. He said he spoke last time and would be brief as possible. He pointed out that this area is zoned for low density residential and not commercial. His question was why they were changing the original plan. Over at Sagewood when the neighbors thought there was going to be a Wal-Mart going in, they raised the same kinds of issues. As Commissioner Jonathan put it, they had an issue of encroachment of commercial in a residential area. He asked what the current availability was for commercial property in Palm Desert. He said that if there was plenty of available property, he asked why they would build a bowling alley and complex like this next to a high school. He asked if the commission 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 had an opportunity to look at the educational code to find out how many feet a school building should be away from a place with a liquor license. He asked about the environmental impact issues. He said there were a lot of rumors flying around about this project and the neighbors in this area wanted to know if this was the beginning of the end of their neighborhood. They wanted the commission to share their five-year plan and their 10-year plan. There were rumors such as the high school being changed to a middle school. He knew that didn't necessarily affect the project. A lot of school people didn't want to speak to the commission because they had a lot of other things coming down the road to talk to the commission about. There was a rumor that if the developer didn't get this project then there would be commercial property going in behind Gary Avenue. He asked what the plan was for the future. MS. DIANE TYCE, a resident of 42-511 Stephanie Circle since September 27, 1967. She said she has seen a lot of things come and go and a lot of things that had been promised and a lot of promises that had never been kept. She was not here to come on November 7 which was an election day, but then that was what was usually done with meetings. All the time there were postponements and postponements and she asked if they were going to postpone and postpone until they could have a quick meeting the homeowners didn't know about and this project could be ram rodded through or if the decision was already made. She said her children were grown, but she saw children now that always had to march by a complex like this coming home into their neighborhood. They had commercial area just above them and there was a lot of property still open there that wasn't being built on yet. She suggested building up there. With cigarettes and things like that, children liked to hang around convenience stores, bowling alleys and all. A lot of times they had money and could get someone older to go in and buy them some of the booze out of it or cigarettes out of the stores. She looked at this with the lights, noise and criminal potential, the late hours, and said that people that had homes located closest to it would start selling out and guess who would come along and pick them up cheat. She implored the commission to not change the zoning and keep it residential and let the project go elsewhere. While she was sitting here this evening, she noticed that Mr. Drell commented on constant noise being harder to take in an area. She asked if they could imagine what it would be with a bowling alley, a restaurant, a cocktail lounge, open until 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m., all the lights and those that came out that have had a few too 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 many maybe getting turned around coming through their neighborhood and all. Apparently Mr. Drell lived close enough to hear music. She lived at the end of this neighborhood and people that have had parties clear at the front closest to Cook Street could be heard, but they didn't have parties that often. Usually it was a birthday party. She had been very fortunate to live in this area and have wonderful neighbors. Yes, they had renters in there, but she was sure they could check throughout the years that they have had very little police activity with criminals in there and really hated to see it go the way so many areas have gone by people that wanted to get in cheap when there were industrial areas and places for restaurants and thinks like that which were already zoned for it. MS. JONNIE LANE,42-570 Christian Street, informed commission that she goes home from Cook Street, to Sheryl, and to Christian. This had been empty for quite a while and now knew what was going on. She didn't see why they should have a commercial area in a residential area. They had been there a long time and if people were waiting to get into the bowling alley to wait for lanes to be open, they would be wandering outside and wouldn't just be standing there. They would walk into the neighborhood and the neighborhood didn't have street lights, so no one knew what house they would break into or whatever they were going to do. She was against it. MS. TARA VORCE, 74-861 Merle Drive, stated that she grew up in this neighborhood. She moved there when she was 11 years old and was now 28. She has a six-year old daughter and it had been the best neighborhood she could ever have dreamed of to grow up in. With the high school across the street and the quietness, there was no crime per se like around in Cathedral City where they have a bowling alley or in Indio where they have their bowling alley. It made it a dump. She was afraid that their neighborhood would become what those neighborhoods became and she begged them for future generations growing up in her neighborhood that they have the same opportunity that she had in knowing everyone in the neighborhood and not criminals and houses looking bad because they were selling so cheap. MS. MEGAN LONG, 74-795 Gary Avenue, said that she had lived in that neighborhood since she was four and she was now 14. She thought that was probably the best neighborhood she could have lived in. She has ' 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 %W been to a lot of friends' houses and they had nice neighborhoods. She said hers might not be that nice, but it was safe and didn't have many robberies and knew that most people didn't want their neighborhood to be taken away or something bad happening to it. It had been a good neighborhood. She started going to the high school this year and didn't want to have to move or have something happen to their house because they had just built on. It meant a lot to her mom and family that their house was still there and in one piece. MR. JERRY VAN COOk, 74-547 Merle, stated that he has been there the last 20 years and his oldest daughter just moved out. His youngest daughterwas 13 and was going to graduate middle school. He agreed with comments already made, but hadn't heard comments about the gas station. That would bring more trouble to the neighborhood and would be open 24 hours eventually, although he didn't know what it was scheduled for right now. That would mean more traffic. He was against the project and commented that it had been a peaceful neighborhood for years and was very proud to live there. It was just recently fixed up by the city and they had done a wonderful job. He hated for it to go down the tubes with this project and plan. MS. MOREEN HEIMSTRA, 74-862 Leslie, said they had many concerns about this project. At the last meeting a little lady that lived in the complex apartment condos right in the center said something about them not wanting to lose their view. She got a chuckle out of that one because when they put their development in they all said the same thing. They were told they were all low profile, the two story units were going in the center, there would be a three-foot berm out front and they would not lose their view of any of the mountains. She said they had not seen the mountains since. They were completely gone for everyone on Christian, Clifford and Leslie. One thing that concerned a lot of them was Rebecca, the back entrance into the village. They were told by the council years ago when the industrial park came in that that street would not be put through to the industrial park so there wouldn't be any access. They were crossing their fingers that they wouldn't allow that street be opened. They didn't need back people coming in. That just added to the crime and everything else. She didn't know how each of the commissioners would feel about having a bowling alley right across the street their houses. Most people would not care to have that to look at, a brick wall to look at, and the noise from it. One thing that was `BW 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 hard for her was the fact that these people would be leaving at midnight, 1:00 a.m., and they had teenagers in the neighborhood. She had lost both of her sons in the past four years and she thought of these kids that would be going out on dates and coming home at midnight and what if someone was coming out of the bar drinking out into a residential neighborhood. They didn't need that and she said she was terrified of that. If they put a complete wall up on Sheryl and had no access whatever to Sheryl and they kept the neighborhood a neighborhood that would be one thing. But she really did not care to see anyone leaving that bowling alley late at night with their children and their neighborhood. The golf course was beautiful, it was green, it was pleasant and even they had a shortage of parking. Many days they would find them parked out on the dirt so there wasn't parking for them. She asked how many lanes the bowling alley would be. There were usually four people per lane. If they had a league going, she asked many lanes times 20 times four. She asked how much parking would be there. They didn't have enough parking for the facility there now. She was against the project in a residential neighborhood. Up on Hovley, in the industrial park, this was a perfect place for this. She talked to a couple of ' kids from the high school that said it would be neat to have a restaurant and asked them how many went to the restaurants in the neighborhood. They said they didn't go over there and when she asked them why they wanted another one and they said they might want to go sometime. Might didn't constitute having a restaurant in a neighborhood that was a residential area. They really would like to keep it zoned residential. MS. KARIN TINEN, 74-622 Gary Avenue, said this has been her property for a great many years. It was a good community. There was a sense of community among the residents, even people who were tenants. She thought it was unspeakable to consider putting in commercial zoning in a residential community. Why in their front yard? They weren't Indian Wells people so they couldn't hire legal counsel to about this business for them. The very idea of a bowling alley in that location was a horror. She said she knew this would be the big money maker for the developers but it was so negative, so wrong to do it in the middle of an old residential community. She couldn't imagine that anyone could go ahead and do that, not in their front yard. Why theirs? There was no shortage of available land in the desert. It was an abomination when they considered it was just up the street from a public high school. They had relatives in San Bernardino who went through that and it wasn't even near their schools. A business interest 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 put in a bowling alley and there was a terrible situation with drug trafficking there. The young people in their family were warned and an effort was made to keep them away from the kids who frequented that place and this was almost predictable. No. Not in an old residential community with so many people and so many children and retired people. This was not the thing to do. It was absolutely very wrong and very, very negative. MR. SEAN HANSEN, 42-741 Christian, stated that just before the meeting today at 5:00 p.m. he was outside with his children, a one and two year old and they were on the sidewalk riding their bicycles and tricycles and the traffic coming through there was so bad he had to go out into the street to tell people to slow down because it was scaring him. Right across the street from his house and down the street from this development. He didn't want this to go in. He didn't like it and there was already too much light from the golf course and they had nothing to say about that. They just did it. It scared him because his kids were growing up and the cars going through there and the traffic was speeding through there. Last week there was an officer at the corner and a motorcycle screaming through their neighborhood and the only thing he did was tell him to slow down. He didn't do anything about it and he said it really affected him. He was a kid once, but the officers always told them to take it somewhere else and out of the neighborhood. The only thing that really affected him was his children growing up and the traffic that came into their neighborhood from the golf course, it turned around because they didn't know where they were going, and the traffic was his main concern. That went along with the gas station as well. Commissioner Finerty stated that she appreciated everyone coming out. The commission heard testimony on two different nights and from her perspective the testimony and concerns were very compelling. Chairperson Beaty assured the audience that no decision had been made and there was no plan to ruin the neighborhood. Chairperson Beaty asked for a motion to continue this case to December 19. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09 and PP 00-21 to December 19, 2000. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 Chairperson Beaty said that it sounded to him like there was some confusion about the proposed plan and he encouraged the developer to try and schedule a meeting with these residents to give them his exact proposal. That was up to the developer if he wished to do that. C. Case No. CUP 00-19 - Christopher M. and Michelle M. Jefferies, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow short-term rental of a single family dwelling located at 47-825 Sun Coral Trail for periods of not less than one week and not to exceed 12 weeks total in any calendar year. Mr. Smith noted that the city recently amended the R-1 code section to regulate through a conditional use permit the rental of single family dwellings for periods of less than 30 days. The property was located at 47-825 Sun Coral Trail. The applicants for the past several years have rented their home in one-week increments and longer. In order to continue to do this the applicant required the approval of the requested conditional use permit. It was their proposal to limit their application to a maximum of 12 weeks in any calendar year and for periods of not less than one week. There was a letter included in the packet dated November 18 which outlined people they have rented to in the past and the typical length of stay. They were dealing with a transient occupancy. As indicated previously, he noted that the applicants have operated for some five years and in their letter they outlined the rental terms. The applicant was also concerned that they were providing an enjoyable stay for their tenants while maintaining the peace and privacy of their neighbors. Staff discussed this matter with Code Compliance staff and they had not received any complaints relative to this operation. Findings for the approval of the conditional use permit were outlined on page two of the staff report. Mr. Smith felt they could be made and it was a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. The recommendation was for commission to approval the conditional use permit subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution which ranged from requiring that the appropriate conditions be imposed by the applicants to assure the continued peace and privacy of the neighbor, that the applicant post in the premises the rules of the house regarding music and pool noise being kept to a minimum before 10:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m., that tenants of the premises not have parties with outside guests not listed in the rental 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 agreement, maximum of eight persons, maximum of three automobiles, and a maximum of 12 weeks per year. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. The applicant was not present. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MRS. DIANE HARGELL, 47-821 Sun Coral Trail, said that she didn't know about this until today. The applicant wrote in her letter that there was never any problems. There had been problems but they were addressed to her. She was wonderful about taking care of them, but she wanted to know if from this time forward she was to address them to the city. Mr. Smith said that she could, but she would probably get a quicker response addressing them directly to the applicant. Mrs. Hargell said they had some pretty bad things like just about burning down a palm tree and things of that nature. Mr. Drell said that she should address the concerns to both the city and the applicant. Mrs. Hargell said that her concern was if the appiicant should sell and someone else bought the property. Chairperson Beaty asked if she had a problem with the request. Mrs. Hargell said no. She just wanted some clarifications. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell asked if the house were sold, if the permit went with the house. Mr. Drell said yes. Conditional use permits went with the land. They licensed land uses, not people. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant lived in this home part time or full time or if these were guests with the applicant living there or if it was strictly a rental property. Mr. Smith said he believed it was a rental property. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 Commissioner Jonathan indicated that when there wasn't a guest, it would be vacant. Mr. Smith said that, or the applicant was there. Commissioner Jonathan said it was their home and they weren't just the property managers. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mrs. Hargell said it was vacant when no one was there. The Jefferies came occasionally, maybe two or three times a year. Mr. Drell said it was a second home for them. Mrs. Hargell said that was correct, but when it wasn't rented it was vacant. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the period of rental was not to exceed 12 weeks in any calendar year and asked if staff knew if the history was such that the rental period in the past had exceeded 12 weeks. In one case someone stayed there five months. Mr. Smith explained that in terms of longer than 30 days, they were transient occupants to a single tenant. Those were beyond the scope of the ordinance. Mr. Drell said those were normal residential rentals. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was staffs sense that periods of less than 30 days might exceed 12 weeks in this case. Mr. Smith said no. Commissioner Campbell said that seeing they never had any complaints from the neighbors and neighbors had the keys to the home and they kept in touch with the Jefferies, she didn't see any problem and moved for approval. Commissioner Finerty agreed and now the neighbors knew they were to inform the city of any problems. She seconded the motion. Chairperson Beaty called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2033, approving CUP 00-19, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 D. Case No. PP-17 Amendment #1 and VAR 00-07 - Donald Peck, Sanborn A/E Inc., Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to an approved precise plan of design for a retail building on the vacant lot at 73-300 El Paseo to increase the approved size from 8,000 square feet to 9,500 square feet and a parking variance of five spaces to accommodate the larger building. Mr. Smith stated that the request was two fold in nature. First the applicant was seeking approval of an amendment to an existing approved precise plan of design to increase the permitted building area from 8,000 square feet to 9,500 square feet. This was a vacant lot on the north side of El Paseo. The second part of the application was a parking variance of five spaces to accommodate the larger parking lot. When commission reviewed this, the applicant intended to provide the parking on the north section of the lot in an area of common parking. He was immediately north and adjacent to El Dorado Bank. The site was generally flat and �.. rectangular in shape 100 feet by 233 feet. They were talking about an infill situation between two existing retail buildings. This was one of the last remaining vacant lots in this section of El Paseo. The parking area is "semi-organized" in that there is a common driveway through the middle and then each individual building as it constructed in the past has constructed their own parking lot. Some join together and others don't. The revised plans have extended the length of the building by some 13 feet. This altered the six feet deep colonnade which formerly existed across the front. In plan form it looked the same, but in actual fact the colonnade had become compressed. The matter had not been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. It would be before them on December 12. The north elevation retained its previous character. Staff was recommending in favor of the parking variance. Mr. Smith noted that staff did not do that very often. Staff did a brief parking survey. He looked at the north end of the El Dorado Bank property. It had 27 parking spaces in it and in the middle of page three of the staff report, whenever staff went out there was a maximum number of five cars. Today staff received a letter from El Dorado Bank. The representative of the bank concurred with that and said most of the time there were none. Staff felt comfortable that the parking variance being requested would not create an impact on the rest of the neighborhood. In order to approve the variance the commission must affirm the findings. Staff felt that in this circumstance they could make the four findings affirmatively. There was a telephone call and staff received a letter 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 which was circulated to commission from Vicky Thomas, the property manager for property to the west at the north comer. She expressed concern that there would be additional traffic in the alley, thereby increasing liability to her site on the comer. She recently paid claims to people due to damage for lack of maintenance in the alley. Mr. Drell commented that this area had on it the same public easement which exists in President's Plaza and all the parking lots on the north side of El Paseo with the exception of the old Lucky's/Office Max lot and the Jensen's lot. The County got the back 100 feet of each one of the lots as a public easement. The alley was a public easement. While in President's Plaza the city created assessment districts and took over the responsibility of maintaining them, for whatever reason the city had not done that here. They took over the alley that is in the same condition that runs between Portola and El Paseo on the north side. His understanding was that it is the City Engineer's recommendation that the city take over the maintenance of this alley and conceivably they would propose, if the property owners wanted, to create an assessment district for the common maintenance of the entire parking lot which was in fact a public parking lot because of the existence of the public easement. One of the issues was that normally they have to go and negotiate with owners of adjacent parking lots to get ' access agreements. Here the agreement already existed in that there was a public easement on the El Dorado Bank parking lot. They were proceeding with some engineering to do reorganization for the parking lot west of Sage all the way to Highway 74 where there was some disorganization and maintenance problems. They also had the same public easement. This area was unique in that it was in fact a public common use parking lot because of public easements. Mr. Smith said that in conclusion, staff felt the amended precise plan could be approved and that the requested parking variance could be supported. He recommended approval of both, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DONALD PECK, 5911 Rio Valley Drive in Punzell, California, informed commission that he was a long time resident of Palm Desert for some 30 something years. The commission had all the information on what he was trying to do. The architect and builder were also present and could answer questions the commission might have. Commissioner Campbell asked if the buildings were leased yet or if any portion of the building was leased. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 Mr. Peck said no,they were in negotiations with a company but it had been long and drawn out. Hopefully they would get it resolved, and that was just for a portion of the building. The rest of it was still waiting. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. ALAN SANBORN, 1227 South Gene Autry Trail in Palm Springs, said he was the architect on the project. He explained that the building itself with the new depth in the rear basically lined up with all the other buildings on the site and the parking laid out the same way the other parking lots did, so it was consistent with what was there now. Originally the building sat back a little bit and there was extra landscape because they couldn't access or use that land for more parking because of the linear nature of the existing parking lots. Now days with a lot of the Water District requirements they wanted everything like water meters and fire hydrants along the alley which ate up a lot of space that would normally be a parking space or two. The nine spaces fronting the alley from the bank site would basically meet `.. the square footage criteria. MR. RICHARD ROEMER, a lawyer representing the Thomas Family Trust that owns the building on the southeast corner of Sage and Highway 111, a rather large office building in that block, addressed the commission. He said he wouldn't repeat what Vicky Thomas wrote. He assumed they had all seen her letter and had reviewed it. His client was not objecting to the development of this property. His purpose tonight was to expose the commission to what he believed was a problem which he believed had not been addressed by the city and he didn't entirely agree with the things that Mr. Drell said. First of all, there was nothing of record that established a public easement for this roadway. Nobody maintained it that was why they got caught with a pot hole. The person who damaged her car came to the city. The city told her to go back and see his client and get them to repair it that it was their responsibility. If it was a public easement, then the public should maintain it. But there was nothing of record indicating that was the case, nor did the title company indicate there was a public easement. All they could ascertain was that they own to the middle of the alley and it wasn't in a common parking lot or a common driveway. It was an area that had been used without anyone thinking about it until this arose. He wasn't even sure if the applicant went to EI Dorado Bank and told them they had 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 to maintain to the middle of that street that they would be too happy with that conclusion. He thought that this problem had to be addressed by the city and he was encouraged by the city engineer's recommendation that the city take over the maintenance and that was what he was really talking about. The maintenance of this alley. If something wasn't done, they would certainly object to the increased traffic through that alley if they had to maintain. As far as the title company was concerned, they own it and his client's desire if that continues was to close it off. He felt that if the rest of the property owners along the rear of that alley were aware that they would have to be liable for the maintenance and the possibility of any damage or accident that occurred on that street that they would also be inclined to shut it down too. He raised the problem but had no solution except the one Mr. Drell alluded too and that was that the city take over the maintenance. If it did, that presented no problem for them. Mr. Drell stated that he has seen documents of records that indicate that it is a public easement that was recorded by the county and they accepted them in 1981. When they took over the responsibility for President's Plaza East and West, they accepted all of them. There was a map and he suggested that Mr. Roemer talk with the city engineer and see what it meant. They had a document that showed a public easement there. Mr. Roemer asked if that had ever been furnished to Ms. Thomas because she was inquiring about it. Mr. Drell said that he would have to apologize to Ms. Thomas. When she inquired at the city relative to the responsibility, she might have been given complete information. There was further investigation by the city engineer and Mr. Drell suggested that Mr. Roemer visit with the city engineer and inspect the documents. It was the city engineer's opinion that there is an easement there. Mr. Roemer said the question wasn't whether there was an easement or not, the question was who would maintain it. Mr. Drell said that the recommendation of staff was that the city maintain it. Mr. Roemer said that would make them very happy. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan informed the commission that in order to avoid the potential appearance of a conflict of interest, he would be abstaining from the discussion and voting on this matter. Commissioner Campbell stated that she frequents those stores along the north side there and used that alley. The alley was in bad shape. At least during the day they could see the puddles and knew not to go there, but at night they couldn't see anything and it really needed major repairs. Also, she was wondering if the parking lot in the back would be made all one lot. At the Lobland and Waring building there was a separation there to the next building. She asked if that would all be opened up and made one lot. Mr. Drell said that on the south side of the lot there would be continuous access up to the last parcel. The last parcel on the comer, the way it was developed and the way that the building was offset closer to the street, it didn't look like there was a way to efficiently incorporate that last parking lot on Lupine. From Sage to the last parking lot it would all be a continuous aligned aisle. Commissioner Campbell said that anytime she was there she had no problem finding a parking space. If the bank was willing to supply the extra parking spaces to this project, she was all in favor of the project. Commissioner Finerty concurred. As long as they had the letter from the bank saying they were willing to provide the five parking spaces, she felt that would be fine. Commissioner Lopez stated that this gave them the perfect opportunity to continue to push for this. Having gone through that alley, he knew it was in bad shape. He thought they owed it to the tenants of the area and to their community to do everything possible to improve it. They needed to do something to upgrade this area. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2034, approving PP-17 %NW 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 Amendment #1 and VAR 00-07, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). Mr. Drell recommended that the commission make a minute motion recommending to city council that the city take over the maintenance of the alley if and when that proposition was taken to the council. Commission concurred. Commissioner Finerty asked if there was in fact an easement that has been place, if it was the city's responsibility to reimburse costs. Mr. Hargreaves said that they had to know all the facts in each situation. What could happen was that when the property was subdivided on the map, they show an offer for dedication of the easement to the public. That would happen particularly in the county where there would be an offer of dedication and the county and/or the city might not accept it. Until the city actually accepted the offer of dedication or actually moved in there and maintained the street, the city had no responsibility to do so. It didn't mean there wasn't a public easement. There could be a public easement because the public used it to gain rights over time and the mere offer of dedication often created a public easement. The public has a right to use it but the city did not have a responsibility to maintain it or a responsibility for whatever damage might occur out there. If the easement was on your land, you have a responsibility to maintain it. If other people are using the easement, they have a responsibility to contribute to the maintenance. If they wanted to sort it out on their own, the property owner could go to everyone else that was relying on that alley and insist that they contribute a proportionate share of the maintenance of that roadway. Typically trying to arrange something like that was almost more costly than fixing their part of the pavement and it made a lot more sense to have the city go in there and actually accept it into the city road system and maintain it and engineer it at the city standards. Commissioner Campbell said that right now it looked like the only parking lots maintained behind those buildings were the Lobland and Waring building and the one right next door to the west. Otherwise, the rest was not well maintained at all. No one took care of their parking lots in the back. There were pot holes there. Mr. Drell said that in President's Plaza, the city paid in essence the cost for bringing the parking lot back up to standard through redevelopment and then created an assessment district for ongoing maintenance. People got themselves a new parking lot gratis and then paid for the ongoing maintenance. As part of this project the parking lot directly to the east didn't currently align. They had a plan to align it and were proposing that the work they were going to do with the parking lot to the west they would fold in that and perhaps the whole thing into that project. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, recommending to the city council that the alley and parking lot be maintained by the city. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. CUP 00-20 - Denise Hughes, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 96 square foot massage establishment within the existing skin care business sat 73-833 Country Club Drive, Suite 106. Chairperson Beaty noted that the address should read 73-833 El Paseo, not Country Club. Staff concurred. Mr. Smith said that the applicant currently operates a beauty outlet some 875 square feet. She wished to offer a 96 square foot massage establishment in the facility. The commission received a floor plan showing the potential layout. Staff talked with Ms. Hughes yesterday and she requested a little more flexibility in the hours. For the most part it would be by appointment and was requesting the hours be expanded from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Staff had no problem with that and wouldn't have a problem if it was 24 hours in this location. A conditional use permit was required for licensing of these establishments. The property is zoned C-1 and massage establishments were permitted in the C-1 zone. Due to its limited size staff felt it would be compatible with the surrounding uses and with her existing health establishment and facials. Staff felt the findings for approval could be affirmed. This was a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. Staff was recommending approval subject to conditions as amended for the hours. Commissioner Lopez said that her correspondence said 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., the conditions say 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Smith suggested amending condition number seven to read 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. That would give her an opportunity for growth. Commissioner Lopez noted that the area was limited to 96 square feet which was the one room. If business got really great and the facials and retail switched to massage, he asked how that would be handled. Mr. Drell said that the applicant could ask for an amendment. Mr. Smith noted that the other employees would also have to be licensed. Mr. Drell indicated that the potential here was limited, but it went back to a potential parking problem. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 i Commissioner Finerty noted that she might end up needing more than one employee. Staff concurred. Chairperson Beaty o ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. She said no. 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. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2035, approving CUP 00-20, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. ZOA 00-10 - City of Palm Desert, Applicant Request for approval of a resolution recommending to too the City Council an amendment to the Municipal Code, Chapter 25.58 (off-street parking/landscaping of parking lots). Mr. Smith explained that the request was three fold in nature. First was an amendment to the existing ordinance as it relates to our obtaining landscape area within parking lots. The city last updated parking lot design sections in 1990. In the past decade they had learned that the bigger the planting areas, the better the trees did. The goal here was to create more planter area without killing the parking lots and making them totally inefficient. They had gone through and amended the zoning text to make it consistent with that. He indicated that they were recommending a reduction in the size of parking spaces in some instances. Current provision for parking spaces was 18 feet plus 2 feet of overhang. In 1998 they undertook a study which was reviewed through Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and they looked at the cars in the parking lot and found they ranged in size from 14 feet to 21 feet with the vast majority being in the 14 feet to 16 feet range. The current requirement was 18. Commissioner Jonathan noted that some cities have a 16-foot requirement. Mr. Smith concurred. He said that staff was suggesting through various sections of the ordinance where the spaces were too 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 r.. double loaded the creation of a seven-foot planter area, go with a 16Y2 feet deep space with 2 feet of overhang which would give them 18Y2 feet. That would effectively reduce the size of those spaces by one foot and a half. Along the perimeter where they didn't get the double loaded situation, they need a five and a half foot planter area with typical spaces being 16'/Z feet, but every third space would become 15 feet plus 2 feet of overhang. That would only happen every third one, which was park of the shade requirement of the ordinance. The goal of that was to achieve 50% shading of parking lots. Most of the trees hadn't been lasting 10 years. They had to do something to try to maintain trees. They would still maintain the 24 foot two-way drive aisles. The third part was an amendment to the existing parking lot design section which had a chart with every degree from five to 90 degree parking spaces. They were doing away with that and were coming up with parking stalls that were nine feet wide and was the same as they currently were at whatever angle with the drive aisles as shown in that portion which varied. All two-way were 24 feet and the one-way aisle depending upon the angle range from 13 feet to 24 feet. The current code provided for compact parking spaces but only where they were in excess of the minimum number required. They were going to do away with that. It was something that had never been used but there was language that would permit someone with a parking lot �+ of more than 100 spaces and a large number of employees to ask for compact spaces. They would up the wide of compact space back to nine feet. The current says eight feet. It would also become a flexible depth depending upon the geometry of the site. It would be an approval through this body only and would have to make sense in that circumstance. If someone came in with 13 foot parking spaces they might consider it rather than just having it not work out with the rest of the lot. Commissioner Campbell asked about the tree provision. Mr. Smith said that there would be trees. Commissioner Campbell asked if cars would be impaired with the two-foot overhang. Mr. Smith said no since the tree would be in the center of the seven-foot area. Mr. Drell said that up until now it had been four feet. At four feet there was a problem with certain cars that had knocked down a few trees. Mr. Smith didn't think there had been any claims against cars hitting trees and damaging the cars. Commissioner Jonathan said they weren't creating a hardship for developers because the total was the same. Mr. Smith concurred that the geometry of the land was still the same. Mr. Drell said they were increasing the amount of landscaping but they weren't taking any room from the buildings. Commissioner Jonathan said that as he understood it the 16Y2 feet was within a range that other cities have and most cars were now 12 feet. He thought that %NW 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 should generally be okay. Mr. Drell said that our 24-foot standard was based on a full sized automobile in West Covina in 1972. Even now what was now called a full sized car was the length of what was a mid size in 1972. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that once in a while those big Cadillacs could be seen. Mr. Drell said that the only vehicle that didn't fit was one employee's who has a full sized double cab pickup truck which also had a very short front end for some reason in terms of the front of the tires to the front bumper was short. Mr. Smith noted that Commissioner Finerty spoke with Spencer Knight, the landscape manager, asking to add into the design criteria and specs for parking lot trees Mesquites and Palo Verdes. Mr. Knight indicated he had no problem with that. Mr. Drell said he thought they were already in there. Mr. Smith said no, they had been removed. Mr. Smith said he had a conversation with Commissioner Campbell and she asked about putting in Rosewoods. He said he didn't have an opportunity to review that with Mr. Knight. Commissioner Campbell said that they were the best trees in the desert. Mr. Drell said that they planted some trees in President's Plaza that were called Rosewoods and they had been unable to really identify what they really were. Commissioner Campbell said she called the nursery where the city purchased them in Bermuda Dunes. Mr. Drell said that developers would have the ability to propose any tree. This was just the path of least resistance. If they had a tree they wanted to plant and could make their case, then it could be appropriate. They also wanted a variety of trees. They didn't want people to put all their eggs in one basket. Commissioner Campbell said they wanted good shade trees. Mr. Drell said that if people wanted to experiment with a tree, then it wouldn't be in the entire lot. On the other hand, they had reservation with the Oaks. He warned them that especially at this time of year that if they parked under one in our parking lot, to not park too close to them. Because they got aphids and sprayed a sap onto the cars. He said they were considering taking them out. They planted a tree and for a little while thought they were great. Then over time learned that there was a problem. They learned some of the problems with Mesquites: that they couldn't put root guards on them and that they needed pruning religiously, but they did grow. Every tree typically had some down side. The only shade that was probably fool proof was a carport. Commissioner Campbell said that Rosewood was doing good. Mr. Drell concurred that it was doing quite well. Commissioner Jonathan said that they wanted to add the Palo Verde. Mr. Drell said he thought it was in there. Commissioner Finerty said that when she talked with Mr. Knight, they discussed the Palo Verde and Mesquites because they provided excellent shade. Commissioner Jonathan questioned the Palo Verde providing shade. Mr. Drell said it did for most of the year. Commissioner Finerty said they have them in their association and they 28 �j MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 were huge and provided their best shade. What Mr. Knight expressed to her was that they had to be watered appropriately, trimmed properly and he felt they would do better in the larger planters. He suggested that they add them in and as the designs come in, they could review it. Chairperson Beaty asked if they had removed the Carob tree and if anyone else was offended by the smell of it outside. Mr. Smith said he would like to add one last item. Out of Commissioner Finerty's discussion with Mr. Knight, they would add a definition on page 8, so it would be 25.58.370 "J"Tree Removal. Tree removal included but was not limited to foliage, branches, limbs, trunk, crown, roots and any other underground material. In the text of the ordinance they talked about tree removal and they wanted to have it tied down. With that staff recommended approval. Commissioner Finerty said she felt it was excellent. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing. There was no one present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. The public hearing was closed and Chairperson Beaty asked for a motion. Action: e.. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036, approving ZOA 00-10, subject to conditions, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2037 adopting "Design Criteria and Specifications for Parking Lot Trees", and adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2038, approving "Design Standards for Off- street Parking Facilities." Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. A written presentation of the water district's projects within the City of Palm Desert. Chairperson Beaty pointed out that it looked like they were going to landscape the Cook Street frontage and that was an excellent idea. He wondered why they hadn't done that before. Commissioner Campbell noted that it looked like there would be construction for a long time. �Mw 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, determining by minute motion that the future projects as described in the Coachella Valley Water District report dated November 7, 2000 on file in the Department of Community Development is in conformity with the city's General Plan. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (November 29, 2000) Commissioner Finerty indicated that they were still trying to figure the appropriate height for the building at the conference/hotel site. She noted that the commission had debated whether they should be two stories or one story or three stories to accommodate the residents. They were also looking at the parking and were taking the commission's number of approximatley 300 spaces and looking at a variety of sites to get to 300. The elevation rendering was in Mr. Yrigoyen's office if anyone wanted to see it. Mr. Drell said that would be coming to the commission relatively soon. They had not filed an application yet. They had not done the elevation of the parking structure which would be facing the clubhouse. 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) 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 XI. COMMENTS A. Commissioner Lopez noted that the case that was continued to December 19 could have a lot of people attending. Mr. Drell said that there would be a sound system available for that meeting. B. Commission asked about the meeting scheduled for January 2, 2001. Mr. Drell indicated that both he and Mr. Smith would be absent and that there were no items scheduled for that meeting date yet. It was the consensus of the commission to cancel the January 2, 2001 meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: I" 2 _ �az PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperso Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm v.� 31