Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0903 �•''� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 too 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez tow Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 20, 2002 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the August 20, 2002 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent August 22, 2002 actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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. t t A. Case No. PP 89-13 Amendment No. 1 - O. MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant (Continued from August 6, 2002) Request to remove a condition that requires the applicant to provide a minimum 42-inch wide opening in the east wall to allow pedestrian access from the residential area to Monterey Avenue. Said property is located on the east side of Monterey Avenue, north side of San Nicholas Avenue, also known as 44- 250 Monterey Avenue. The applicant submitted a letter withdrawing his request. No further action was necessary. _Action: None. B. Case No. PP 90-9 Amendment #1 - 0. MICHAEL HOMME, Applicant Request to remove a condition that requires the applicant to provide a minimum 42-inch wide opening in the east wall to i wild 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 ` O allow pedestrian access from the residential area to Monterey Avenue, also known as 44-300 and 44-350 Monterey Avenue. The applicant submitted a letter withdrawing his request. No further action was necessary. Action: None. C. Case No. ZOA 02-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from July 16, 2002) Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.21 (Second Unit Senior Housing) to be consistent with current state law. Chairperson Finerty noted that this was an open public hearing from July 16, two 2002, and that staff was requesting a continuance to October 1 , 2002. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, continuing Case No. ZOA 02-02 to October 1 , 2002. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. CUP 02-23 - MR. DICKINSON AND MR. MARLER, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 602 square foot detached accessory building in the required rear yard setback at 46-215 Golden Rod Lane. Mr. Bagato explained that the applicant was requesting a conditional use permit for a detached structure. His property is zoned R-1 20,000 and the required year yard for this lot is 25 feet. Per Section 25.56.280, the applicant could be allowed to locate a detached accessory structure in the required year yard setback upon approval of a conditional use permit. rr.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 He said that the property has an existing single family home currently being remodeled. The adjacent zoning and land uses are the same at R-1 20,000 and all have existing homes. The project is a 602 square foot detached guest home. The height of the building would vary. Closest to the rear it would be 10 feet and as it steps back 20 feet from the rear property line there was a patio that increased a foot in height for a total height of 11 feet. The building was setback from the property line 10 feet where it was 10 feet at its closest point so it met the 1 :1 ratio. At the 1 1-foot height it was setback 20 feet and also complied. Structures would only occupy 5.4% of the required rear yard setback. The architecture of the building would match the existing home. Mr. Bagato showed a photo of the home and indicated that it has an existing stucco finish with a stone veneer trim around the building. The elevations for the detached structure showed that it would match the same style of architecture. On August 13, 2002, Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project and approved it. For CEQA purposes, this was a Class 3 Categorical Exemption and no further documentation was necessary. Mr. Bagato said the findings were made for approval in the report and staff's recommendation was approval, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Bagato said that the closest portion of the guest home would be ten feet setback from the rear property line. She asked how far the adjacent home was setback from the property line. Mr. Bagato explained that it was the side yard setback of the other home and the setback was around 20 feet. The other property behind it was extraordinarily large because they combined two lots. There was actually a sunken tennis court that would be below grade behind this wall and then the home was pushed up farther to the street so there shouldn't be any impact from the rear of the property to that home behind that property line. Commissioner Jonathan indicated he had some questions regarding the zoning requirements. According to the staff report, the normal requirement for the rear yard setback for this zone was 25 feet to the main structure. Mr. Bagato said that was correct; that was the building envelope area. Commissioner Jonathan said that the exception to that was for these detached structures, which then had a 1 :1 ratio. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the maximum occupancy of 25% was not of the rear yard, it was of the rear yard setback area, Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that staff computed the actual 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 setback using three sides of the property to get a square footage. Mr. Bagato said that was right. They calculate the distance by the 25 feet to determine the amount the applicant was allowed to have and then he calculated what the applicant's space would take up. Commissioner Jonathan asked why they were looking at a ratio of the structure to the setback area and what the purpose was of doing that. Mr. Drell explained that the percentage didn't apply to all the setback area, just to the required rear yard. Once that building started occupying most of that rear yard, it would be perceived as the main building. They wanted it an incidental use in that rear yard. Even if it met the setback requirement of a detached structure, if it completely filled up that required rear yard of every bit left it would be perceived almost as if it was a house. They wanted 75% open space for sure. Commissioner Jonathan said he could follow up on that separately, it was just curious why the restriction wasn't a percentage of the full rear yard. Mr. Drell said for the area that is not the required rear yard, someone could build a house. The detached accessory regulation only applied if someone was building outside of the main building envelope. They weren't going to restrict a little building if someone could get their whole house into that area. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that there used to be some restrictions about mother-in-law quarters having to do with kitchens. He asked if that still applied to these types stand alone structures. Mr. Bagato said yes and offered to put that in as a condition. He said that they would need two more parking spaces to have a kitchen. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LEWIS BISHOP, 44-645 San Onofre in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He stated that he was the designer for Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Marler. He said they were trying to make a guest house fit in the context of these larger lots on the south side of the city. He thought the context Mr. Drell allowed for in his discussion with the percentage of coverage in the areas in question was very astute in trying to design something that is compatible both with the neighborhood and with the uses with how the people who own the property wanted to use their property. Trying to provide a maximum amount of open space and still provide them, since they have a house that is about 50 years old, with +r. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 j on theproperty. That was the purpose. He a little extra guest quarters p p asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez assumed this would be a place for family members to stay and would not be used as a rental. Mr. Bishop said that was correct. It wasn't visible from the street under any circumstances. This was purely for the use of the guests of the owners of the property. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she went and looked at this house and was very impressed with how it looked, especially after hearing it is 50 years old. She thought they had done a beautiful job in redoing it. All the homes were very nicely redone or were new homes. She was in favor of the project and moved for approval. a j Commissioner Tschopp said he would second the motion. MAI Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2150, approving CUP 02-23, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. TPM 30769 - BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide one 2.269-acre parcel into two commercial lots. The property is located at 74-550 Gerald Ford Drive at the northwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Urbina informed the commission that this was parcel one of a commercial parcel map that was approved by the City Council in 1997. In December of 2001 the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for an Arco 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 mini mart with pumps occupied as which the souther)g p p p� y portion of the project site. At the time the Arco mini mart conditional use permit was approved, there was a conceptual approval for a fast food restaurant on the northerly part of the existing parcel. The purpose of the parcel map was to allow the property owner to divide the property into two parcels so that he would be able to sell off the northerly portion for a fast food restaurant user. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving Case No. TPM 30769, subject to the findings and conditions of approval. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on parcel one and parcel two. She asked if parcel two would be for fast food or parcel one. Mr. Urbina clarified that parcel two would be for the fast food restaurant. Commissioner Jonathan asked why this didn't come through as a lot line adjustment and why it was a parcel map since the uses were previously approved. Mr. Urbina explained that -the parcel map waiver application for a lot line adjustment could not be used to create a new parcel. This was one existing parcel and they would be creating two so the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City required a tentative parcel map `r.. application. Commissioner Jonathan thanked Mr. Urbina. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ALEX QUEVAS, 2322 West Third Street in Los Angeles, addressed the commission and stated that he was present representing BP. There were no questions for the applicant. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2151 , approving Tentative Parcel Map 30769, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. �.r 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 j F. Case No. CUP 02-13 - FRANCIS J. SMITH, Applicant •� Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow short- term rentals of a single-family dwelling located at 73-426 Joshua Tree Street. Mr. Bagato informed commission that since 1998 three complaints had been received. Two were regarding excessive noise and an unusual amount of cars on the property due to the short term rentals. Since the R-1 zone was changed there had been two conditional use permits processed for short term rentals. The first one was at 47-825 Sun Corral which was approved because it was felt that it complied with the R-1 zoning. There wasn't any excessive noise or complaints. The second location at 73-015 Amber was denied because of its high intensity use with noise and traffic and was a nuisance. Mr. Bagato explained that this applicant for the past several years has been operating his house with short term rentals. He operates it a few different ways. For a number of months mainly through November and February and sometimes in March he rents to one family. Then he indicates from April to May he is at the residence and it was right around the end of May and July where the short term rentals come in for about a week period or a month. He said this CUP would only apply to the short term rentals, not the long term rentals. The complaints were mainly around June and July and focused around noise around the pool area as well as excessive cars parked in front of the property and sometimes blocking other driveways. The applicant indicated he wanted to provide a good service for the neighborhood and didn't want to be a problem. Staff came up with some conditions that should help meet the goal of this conditional use permit to make the short term rental operate in the same manner as a normal residence would. The conditions included the applicant posting some house rules that should prohibit outside amplified noise/music before 10:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. and that the rental agreement have a maximum of six people with three cars and a maximum of six additional daily guests. Those conditions were added to address the complaints. Under CEQA Mr. Bagato said this was a Categorical Exemption and staff recommended adoption of the draft resolution approving the conditional use permit subject to the conditions. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked about Condition No. 4A. It said that outdoor amplified music is prohibited before 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and he thought 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 that needed some clarification. Mr. Bagato agreed and agreed it should say before 10:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Finerty asked why they would want to allow outdoor amplified music for 12 hours a day in a neighborhood. Mr. Bagato said that if they comply with the noise ordinance a normal resident would be allowed to do the same thing. Chairperson Finerty pointed out that once they had amplification, it was reasonable that people next door would hear it quite loudly and they wouldn't be in conformance with the noise ordinance. Mr. Bagato said that was true and in that case the neighbor would call the sheriff to handle those situations. The majority of the complaints were after hours so staff felt this condition would apply to the after hour complaints that were submitted to the Code Enforcement Department. Chairperson Finerty asked if the applicant requested a time frame where there could be outdoor amplified music. Mr. Bagato said no. Chairperson Finerty didn't think it was really needed. They could just say there was no amplified music. Mr. Drell said that they could impose any conditions the commission felt was appropriate. Chairperson Finerty noted that she lives across the street from Southwest Community Church and she could speak with much experience about outdoor amplified music and could tell them that even across the heavily trafficked Fred Waring Drive it was extremely loud and she could only imagine what it would be like living right next door to it. Mr. Drell indicated that amplified music meant someone playing a radio. He thought it was a little unreasonable to prohibit someone from playing a radio. That was amplified music. Playing a little cd player. They weren't talking about a rock concert. Amplified music was anything that was electronic. Chairperson Finerty said that since noise seemed to be one of the issues it seemed appropriate. She noted that within her development around their pools they require people to use headphones so that people around the pools and people in the surrounding area are not disturbed. If they were going to have people run in and out at this location, they needed to do the best for the neighborhood. Commissioner Campbell said she thought the same thing regarding amplified music. If it was just radio music that was one thing, but if it was amplified it makes them think it was going to be really loud. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 MR. FRANCIS SMITH, 13600 Montague Street in Arleta, addressed the commission. He said that today he spoke with four neighbors, straight across the street, behind him and on both sides. He asked them if they had any trouble at all. None. Nobody. There was no music. He didn't have any loud music. There were only two little radios in the house and they were both clock radios to wake up with. There was no noise and he said he didn't even understand why he needed this permit. He had one busy body old lady and she came to his house today and said she knew he was going to a hearing and she wouldn't attend, but she had some suggestions. She asked him to put a list of some things that his people needed to do. He said, "Such as what?" She replied that the trees were too tall. He asked, "What trees?" There were seven trees taken out two years ago. He asked what the trees had to do with it. She said that the kids that come down there go over in the neighbor's vacant lot and ride their bikes. He told the commission he has elderly people that come to stay. Two and three people come for the winter from Canada, Ireland, and from wherever and they didn't bring little kids. The only kids that came down there were his grand kids and he had never had a bicycle in that area yet. He said she was very apologetic for what she said. He said again that he still didn't understand why he needed a permit. He said he would like to know where three complaints came from. He couldn't find any. He has rented out for 28 years. Most of the time it was for three months, November, December and January to someone. February-March maybe to somebody. He might come down for a month to do some work on the house. He was a fireman. He has a lot of fireman friends. He has ten grand kids. They come down occasionally, but he didn't rent it out to individuals for two and three days. It was too much work to do something like that for two or three days. He didn't rent it through an agency. Every person that goes into that house sees him first. He gives them the key. He could have some problems because people lie. Last week three young women were coming down. One was the daughter of the chief of the fire department and he was his fireman 23 years ago. His daughter came down and there were three girls. He said it turned out that another girl came down and there were four. She was called away on Saturday. The other girls brought in six girls from Bakersfield. He asked how he was going to know that. They left the house filthy and walked away. He came down to clean it up. That could happen. But there weren't cars out there. He asked all the neighbors f how many cars were out there. There were two or three. Someone Uj 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 might come and visit and have another two g people. He said the commissioners had parties and four or five cars in front of their house once in a while. This is a very quiet area. All there is up there are people walking by and he doubted if there was anybody in the room complaining about him even renting this house out. He had no idea why they made him get this except one person complained. There was no noise. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Smith if he had a real estate agent to take care of this. Mr. Smith said no. He does it himself. If anyone wants it, they call him. Nobody else handles it. Never had in 28 years. It was advertised in the police magazine in L.A., two firemen's magazines and on the internet. So everyone that came went through him. Chairperson Finerty thanked Mr. Smith. �r. Chairperson Finerty asked anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MRS. GERI DICKS, 73-370 Joshua Tree Street, informed commission that there were two houses between her and Mr. Smith's house. She said she has never complained about it, but he may rent to one couple but there were weekends where there are six and eight cars there. The people he rents to bring boom boxes. There might be just two small radios in the house, but they bring their own boom boxes and there were people who sit in the front yard drinking beer and there was a lot of traffic on the street as a result of it. She could hear the noise from the pool in her back yard. She had never complained about it, but it has been short term rentals for a lot of years there and she would like to not see a short term rental. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this application procedure exists to protect �... the residential nature of a neighborhood. The residential nature is something 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 he felt was sacred to a neighborhood. It was important to avoid converting +� that nature from residential to commercial and that was the reason for this procedure. Normally the way this worked, someone came in with an application, got approved and if there were problems the commission heard about it and then the application could be revoked. Here, very candidly, was a situation that has been a problem for a number of years. He wasn't very sympathetic to the applicant's noted lack of understanding of why the process was required because apparently in June of 2001 he was made fully aware of the requirement and failed to file for an application. Now they were getting it, but they heard there were still problems. Mr. Smith spoke from the audience saying that he would like to address that. Chairperson Finerty explained that it wasn't the appropriate time for him to speak. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he didn't see the point of testing the waters by issuing a permit for this. He thought they were already made aware of a problem situation and that in his mind justified a denial. Commissioner Campbell also noted that the staff report said that Code Enforcement was called four times; 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2002, and Mr. Smith didn't do anything about any of the complaints until now. Also, when something happens there to the home, if there was any noise or any problems like that, the neighbors could only call Code Enforcement and not a real estate agent, which probably wouldn't help either because even if they have a telephone number and the complaint comes in at 10:00 p.m., they wouldn't be able to find the real estate agent to take care of the problem. It is a very quiet neighborhood and she wasn't in favor of approving the permit. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought the documentation of the problems with noise over the past several years reinforced the fact, even though the applicant said he only has small radios within the house itself. He didn't think he was aware of all the disturbances that occur with the people who were renting the home. The applicant may in fact know some of the individuals; he may not. In that particular location in that residential area which was a relatively quiet neighborhood, he would agree with a denial. Commissioner Tschopp said that based on the staff report he would say that Mr. Smith had some work cut out for him if he wanted to rent the unit for a short term and he should probably get to know his neighbors better because an absent landlord burdened the neighbors and everyone else in an area to ad 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 have to contact him with a problem as opposed to the applicant being there or an agent of his being there able to take care of the problem. Given the history in the report, he wasn't in favor at this time but if the applicant wanted to continue this, he could meet with his neighbors and perhaps look at some type of way to properly monitor and take care of the problems as they occur and not the following week or even later. Chairperson Finerty agreed with the other commissioners. She noted that regrettably, those who rent for a short term come here with a totally different mind set. They want to go out by the pool and they want to party. To them it is vacation. For those who already live here, they value the peace and quiet and the two just didn't mix. She asked if there was a resolution of denial. Mr. Drell said no, but said that they should give the applicant a chance to rebut the testimony before acting on it. Chairperson Finerty asked if the applicant wished to give rebuttal. Mr. Smith readdressed the commission. He asked how many years Mr. Jonathan said this has been going on. Chairperson Finerty asked for clarification that the applicant could rebut the public testimony, not the Planning Commission's comments. Mr. Drell said he could make a statement in his general defense to address issues. Chairperson Finerty pointed out that they have never done that before. She realized that she should have allowed him a chance for rebuttal after the neighbor spoke, but not generally to rebut what the Planning Commission says. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that typically they give, especially if a denial is occurring, applicants an opportunity to offer explanations or address issues the commission has brought up. It was the commission's prerogative, but typically they would want to give the applicant the opportunity to address the issues they have raised as the substance of their denial so that it's on record that he had all opportunities to respond. Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Smith to continue with his rebuttal. Mr. Smith said he wanted to show the commission some papers if they would like to see them. Chairperson Finerty asked him to bring them up. (Mr. Smith tossed them to Commissioner Jonathan.) Chairperson Finerty asked Mr. Smith to return to the microphone so that his comments could be heard by the clerical staff. `w 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 J z Mr. Smith stated that when they asked him about this more than a year and a half ago he immediately sent a check in. He sent it to everybody in the department--the Fitzgerald, to this person, to that person. Nobody did a thing. They just kept going on. Everything was there that they wanted but they kept putting it off, putting it off, putting it off. Finally he came down here about May because he thought it was Shawn Kilpatrick that went to the house and told the people that it was a nuisance and they would have to get out. It was a nuisance because the wall was cracked in front. No other reason. And it was a relative of his in the house. Mr. Kilpatrick said he was going to put them out. So his relative called him and he called Mr. Kilpatrick and said, "You're going to do what?" Mr. Kilpatrick said there were some conditions he had to do and he had to come down to do it. He told him that he sent them the check. He sent everything a year ago. Who was holding their feet back? He said he would like to ask where 73-470 was? Two doors away from 73-426? He talked to all five of the neighbors today. Immediate neighbors that he has known for 20 years that have been around there. Turning and looking at the woman who gave testimony, Mr. Smith told her she wasn't his next door neighbor. He didn't even know where she lived. Chairperson Finerty thanked Mr. Smith for his comments. Mr. Smith said that if he knew where she lived and she complained, all she had to do was come up and tell him. She said she never had so how did he know what was going on down there. But he talked to all five right next door to him today and everyone said, "No problems." Chairperson Finerty indicated that now the commission had given the applicant his rebuttal and Mr. Drell had the paperwork. Regarding the paperwork, Mr. Bagato clarified that the CUP was never filed last year. Steve Smith sent the applicant a letter to start the process. From his understanding there was a check sent to Business License for him to try and get a license, but the Business License Department didn't contact Planning to say this was related and no CUP was ever filed last year in 2001 . Then there was a follow-up complaint again where Mr. Kilpatrick came to him to address if the CUP had been processed last year and there was nothing on file at this address, so he started the process once again. But they did find out that there was a check sent to Business License which was a separate department, separate funding, but no CUP was ever filed last year. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 tam Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anything that Mr. Drell wanted to add. He said no, that was accurate. Typically the reason why a check would not be accepted was we don't take people's money for a business license until we know they have an approved use. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that regardless of the paper trail, his concern and focus continued to be on the sanctity of the residential nature of the neighborhood. Clearly there was a history of problems. He would feel more sympathetic if they had an applicant that came to them and said he recognized there had been problems, took responsibility and offered some proposed solutions. Instead what he heard was an applicant in denial that said there is no problem, the problem was with his neighbors. So he wasn't at all convinced that the problems would go away and therefore, he didn't see that allowing a conditional use permit was justified in this particular case. On that basis he moved for denial. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was any further discussion. There wasn't. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, denying the request and directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting, September 17, 2002. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case No. CUP 02-22 - HUGH V. JORGENSEN, Applicant Request for approval of a full service car wash and auto detailing facility at 42-185 Washington Street. Mr. Urbina addressed the commission. He explained that the project site is a vacant pad that is part of the Palm Desert Country Club shopping center. The project site directly fronts on Washington Street. Access was provided by two existing right-in right-out driveways on the north and south sides of the project. There were reciprocal access agreements with adjacent parcels. Surrounding land uses included a Jiffy Lube facility to the south, a parking lot for the Sav-On drug store to the west, a parking lot to the north serving Albertson's and to the east was Washington Street and the Ralph's community shopping center in Bermuda Dunes. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Access to the project site would be via the rear or the westerly property line. There would be enough room to stack 1 1 cars before entering the car wash facility. There would be room for stacking and drying approximately 13 vehicles once they exit the car wash facility. The code requires a minimum of 16 parking spaces. Over 30 were provided. The car wash facility would be substantially screened from Washington Street by the building itself and a connecting wall that varied in height from six feet to ten feet. There was existing landscaping at the site on Washington Street and along the northerly property line. New landscaping would be added. There would be a 32-foot deep front landscaping setback created along Washington Street. Mr. Urbina noted that the elevations had a very unique curvilinear style. The colors would match the existing Palm Desert Country Club Shopping Center. The materials board on display showed the colors. The building would have three types of exterior stucco surfacing: smooth, textured and scraped. The roof materials would be a polyurethane with light brown core sand granules applied on the top surface. A sample of that material was provided. Staff recommended that Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 02-22 based on the findings and conditions as stated in the resolution attached to the staff report. Commissioner Tschopp said he had a question on the parking on the driveway to the south. Pointing at the location on the map, Mr. Urbina explained that was part of the Jiffy Lube site parking. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that was existing. Mr. Urbina said yes. Mr. Drell clarified that it is existing parking right along the entrance access aisle. Mr. Urbina noted that to the right, they could see part of the existing parking on the Jiffy Lube parcel. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that from the plans it looked like there would be an egress onto Washington Street next to this parking. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Urbina concurred. He explained that is an ingress/egress from the Jiffy Lube parcel onto Washington Street. Commissioner Tschopp asked if this parking was part of Jiffy Lube and didn't count toward this applicant's parking spaces. Mr. Urbina confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp was curious how that would work because it looked a little unsafe with people making right-hand turns in there and people backing out, but he assumed there hasn't been any problems. Mr. Urbina said that he visited the project site and none of those parking spaces at Jiffy Lube were being used. Because there was an abundance of other adjacent parking at Jiffy Lube, staff didn't anticipate an 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 t` issue with those Jiffy Lube parking spaces. The Jiffy Lube parking spaces would likely be used to park vehicles that may have been left for servicing at Jiffy Lube. Mr. Drell thought a more important issue was those parking spaces weren't a subject of this application or within the control of this applicant. If they were part of the Jiffy Lube parking, they weren't part of the common parking. Mr. Urbina wasn't sure if they were part of the reciprocal parking agreement. Mr. Drell thought all of the parking spaces in a center like this were reciprocal but didn't know if they were built as part of the Jiffy Lube project. Mr. Drell indicated that if it was a bad decision, it was one they made a number of years ago. Fortunately, they hadn't heard of any problems. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that Commissioner Tschopp's concern was the right ingress conflicting with those Jiffy Lube spaces. Commissioner Tschopp said that was correct; people pulling out and creating an unsafe condition. If it wasn't a part of this application, they wouldn't address it at this time. Mr. Drell concurred and agreed that typically they didn't want parking spaces backing onto a main entrance aisle and if they had ever parked in a space like that, sometimes they had to sit there a long time before getting out. He thought maybe Mr. Jorgensen, who has done a lot of i... work in that center, could say whether those spaces even existed prior to Jiffy Lube going in. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HUGH V. JORGENSEN, 8743 Warren Vista Avenue in Yucca Valley, California, addressed the commission. He said that every time he has worked on this project those spaces had been there as part of the shopping center itself. He pointed out where they were contained with their property lines and setbacks. Therefore, that was part of the shopping center itself. He had never heard that it was part of Jiffy Lube and had never seen it in any of the plans he has from the other architect stating that these were part of Jiffy Lube. He said if they wanted, they would have to back through the records and check it out when Jiffy Lube was first accepted to go in there. But every time he has worked on this project, those had not been considered as part of Jiffy Lube. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anything else Mr. Jorgensen would like to add. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Mr. Jorgensen noted that about four months ago they submitted a preliminary plan as a miscellaneous item and received some approval and that was why they kept going on this project. To make it very architecturally looking they kept the same curves they showed before. The main thing was that they created a complete enclosure that would be screened from Washington, it was screened as people come in and they tried to hide everything to it including the electrical and mechanical. The mechanical was all on the roof area up there. That took care of it. The electrical went to the back side which was hidden by the car wash entry as they come into the tunnel. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any questions for Mr. Jorgensen. Commissioner Tschopp believed the center was sold four or five years ago and asked if the current owners retained architectural control over the buildings that go into the center on the various pads. Mr. Jorgensen said they had him as doing all the designing on all the projects. Whatever they came up with they came up with something compatible. They wanted this one to be a very good project. Distinctive. When he first talked to Mr. Drell quite a few months ago, Mr. Drell told him that if it wasn't distinctive, forget it. That was part of it and was on the record before. They tried to make it fit into the center, but have a new flavor. Because this was the new type of architecture that was happening. If they looked at The River and all the others, they have all these curves with arches happening. That was what was happening in architecture now. They were getting away from triangle and T-square architecture now. Mr. Drell asked if the owner of the center was in concurrence with the design. Mr. Jorgensen said yes, there was a letter on file about the concurrence of the owner of the shopping center on this project. He said they have an area that he could have put parking into, but they decided to just carry it right across because there was an ingress in the original project and they landscaped it. In doing that they were trying to suppress the building. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any other questions. There were none. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 OPPOSITION to this project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was very impressed with the whole project and when Mr. Jorgensen came in front of the commission a few months ago she was in favor of the architecture and she was sure the other commissioners were also. It was very free flowing and she was very impressed with all the landscaping that would be added on the Washington side that would also blend in with the architecture and would be screened nicely and wouldn't just be another square building there. She was in favor and moved for approval. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He stated that he spent some time with Mr. Jorgensen in a brief meeting where he talked about his thoughts about the project. The two areas he had of concern were access/flow of traffic and parking. He thought Mr. Jorgensen had done a great job. The architecture was very unusual and he liked it. He thought it would add to that shopping center, the atmosphere and the entire atmosphere of that mall area right there on Washington. He felt good about it and thought it was a good project. r.. Although it didn't pertain to this project, Commissioner Tschopp asked staff to look at that parking on that right-of-way. He believed it was there prior to the City annexing it to the city, so there might be a problem, but should be looked into. He thought the car wash in this vicinity was probably needed. The architecture was very unique and modern and different from what currently exists at the center, but he thought it would look well and meet a need in the area. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and added that he liked the design and if it sounded like they weren't belaboring and nitpicking a whole list of issues, it was because in his opinion those issues had been adequately mitigated. Otherwise, they'd be spending a lot of time about traffic circulation and backup and a whole host of issues. He complimented the applicant on doing a great job in mitigating all of those issues so that they didn't have to deal with them now. He thought that staff had a hand in that as well. What was before them looked very good and he was in favor. Chairperson Finerty said she was in favor. It was the snazziest looking car wash she had ever seen and she really liked it. She thought it would help the center because right now the architecture was a little boring. She also complimented Mr. Jorgensen. He had brought a project before them previously 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 and they had a lot of concerns and that project didn't get approval. He came back under Miscellaneous where they discussed the potential for the car wash and all the issues had been addressed. She thought it was a nice way to proceed and thought it was really nice when things worked out the way they should. She asked if there was a second to the motion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2152, approving CUP 02-22, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Jorgensen thanked the Planning Commission for being so considerate and doing what they should do. IX. MISCELLANEOUS 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. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (August 27, 2002) Chairperson Finerty indicated that it was an informational meeting. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) t� 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 �.r G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: CINDY FINER Y, dhairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission AM `.. 21