Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0218 ��'�� MINUTES r.. _ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING '�� , . TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � � �. �. � * � � * .� � .� � �. � � * �. .� .� � .� � .� * * � �. .� � � � � � .� * * * � � * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None �.. Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Chairperson Finerty adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 6:46 p.m. RecLuest for Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) Threatened Litigation in connection with Case Nos. ZOA 02-02 and associated cases. r..� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 .ri IV. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING Chairperson Finerty reconvened the regular meeting at 7:15 p.m. A. REPORT ON ACTION FROM CLOSED SESSION. Action: Chairperson Finerty stated that there were no actions to report. V. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairpe�son Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. VI. APPROVQL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the January 21 and February 4, 2003 meeting minutes. t Action: � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the January 21 , 2003 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained►. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the February 4, 2003 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. VII. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent February 13, 2003 City Council actions. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ; �.r� 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 2003 �...► IX. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-01 - PORTOLA COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION c/o GHA PALOMA GROUP I1, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between Lots "K", "J" and 206 of Amended Tract Map No. 11215-1 B. Case No. PMW 02-26 - RICHARD AND MOLLY McKENZIE, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 19 and 20 into one lot (Parcel "A") for the purpose of single family residential development on Vale Crest in the Canyons at Bighorn. Action: '"' It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner �opez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. X. 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. ZOA 02-02 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from July 16, September 3, October 1 , November 21 , 2002 and January 21, 2003) Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.21 Second Unit Senior Housina. Chairperson Finerty noted that the pubfic hearing was o en and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. �... 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 a Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion continuing Case No. ZOA 02-02 to March 18, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Jonathan asked if part of that recommendation was for the subcommittee to reconvene in closed session. Commissioner Campbell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff would follow up in scheduling the meeting. Mr. Drell said yes. B. Case No. CUP 02-14 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant (Continued from November 21 , 2002 and January 21 , 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 930 square foot, one-bedroom detached second unit with a carport for two parking spaces located at 44-574 Portola Avenue. � Chairperson Finerty asked if staff had anything further to add. Mr. Urbina showed the commission a site plan of two of the conditional use permit sites. He stated that CUP 02-14 was the one located one parcel south of EI Cortez on Portola. The applicant purchased the property from the City's Redevelopment Agency and it currently had a distressed uninhabited house that the applicant intended to rehabilitate. The purpose of the conditional use permit was to request approval of a secondary unit. Mr. Urbina stated ihat the applicant's application complied with all of the requirements of the existing second unit permit ordinance. A detached two-car carport was proposed in the rear yard that would be accessed off a private alley from EI Cortez. The existing ordinance required second units to be attached. There was a condition of approval that a trellis be constructed connecting the secondary unit with the main unit. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 ... Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 02-14 based on the findings and the conditions in the draft resolution. Chairperson Finerty noted that the staff report on page three stated that there would be a private alley. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. There was an existing 10-foot wide easement across the rear property lines of Mr. Beauvais' properties and the adjoining property owned by Don and Trish Mohr. The Mohrs agreed to allow the reciprocal access. Chairperson Finerty asked who would maintain the private alley. Mr. Urbina said it would be the three property owners. Chairperson Finerty asked if they were responsible for sealing it and maintenance. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Commissioner Lopez noted that in the staff report it said that "to insure the above steps have happened, staff is recommending a condition of approval that specifies sequential building permit steps that must have happened before the proposed second unit can be created." That was �" part of the conditions of approval as listed in number five. He asked if the applicant was aware of that item in the conditions. Mr. Urbina said he was made aware of that and he was in agreement. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that in the staff report, Mr. Urbina outlined a number of requirements that must be met in order to comply with the second unit zoning ordinance and CUP. The first one was pretty self evident. There is an existing single family unit. No issue there. The second one required that the second unit be incorporated within the living arsa of the existing primary dwelling. That was the purpose with regard to application 02-14 and doing the trellis connection. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. And also applying for a building permit to expand the existing unit before he created a second kitchen. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that also addressed condition three which limited the increase to no more than 10% of the existing living area. So mathematically it would be in compliance at that point. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan noted that number four was for rental purposes, but there was a requirement that it be for one or two persons 60 years of age or older. He thought that in this particular case, 02-14, that would � be the case. Mr. Urbina said that would be correct because it was not 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 :� � currently occupied. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were okay with the two off-street pa�king spaces. Mr. Urbina said yes. Commissioner Jonathan noted that number six was that the new construction would comply with the various setbacks and all other conditions. He asked if they were in compliance with all of that. Mr. Urbina said yes. Commissioner Jonathan noted that number seven was adequate sewer and water services and they were in compliance with that, so there was really no significant departures from the ordinance in this particular instance. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of this project. MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS, 74-041 San Marino Circle, said that he just wanted to address the commission to say that he was ready to come into full compiiance in whatever way the commission saw fit that he come into and he would be happy to oblige any department head in any way he could to facilitate this. He thanked ' the commission for their time. � Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the commission was only discussing the application for CUP 02-14, the Portola unit. Chairperson Finerty said yes. MR. TODD ESTENSON, 74-043 EI Cortez, add�essed the commission. He asked if that setback was six feet or eight feet. If it was six feet, he asked if Mr. Beauvais' roof was only going to be six feet tall. He thought the setback was as high as the building and six feet seemed strange to him. He said it was interesting how they were going to shove all of this in there. He pointed out that Mr. Beauvais already had the corner unit as a duplex. Now he was putting in another one behind that one and another one in the right hand corner. And he was in cahoots with the neighbors and they were going to get another one on the left hand corner, four feet away from his boundary. i � � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � He stated that the alley runs right next to the home on the left, the 74-041 home. They had to put a little block retainer wall to keep the house from sliding into the alley. He found it kind of strange that they were putting all of this into ihis little area of land. He thought it was quite interesting because he has the lot next to it, which was basically the same size. He was finding out a lot of neat ideas, He hoped they didn't okay this because they could see this property, then the next one and then the next one. He was sure it was going to keep going because once the neighbors give up, that was what was going to happen. He hoped the commission was making sure the setbacks were correct and the little trellises were fine. But he saw a lot of stuff on a little piece of property. If the setbacks were correct, he didn't know someone could park like that against someone's wall back there. He thought that was strange. He was getting some good ideas though. He thanked the commission for their time. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak in � OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp asked staff to address the comments made by Mr. Estenson. Mr. Drell said he thought Mr. Estenson was referring to the setback off of Portola and that setback was created by the widening of Portola. The City was faced with whether we would prefer provide housing for people or destroying it. The decision was to preserve the house. Based on the requirements for the widening on Portola, that setback got reduced. But that was all part of the compromises reached when a city evolved and changed and there was existing housing and they needed to widen the roads. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the second implied comment. The houses on up Portola changing to the same type of configuration. He asked if that alley would be able to handle that traffic. Mr. Drell said no. We have an ordinance and technically, although we've had the ordinance for 20 years, we haven't had the flood. Most people don't necessarily � want to do that. But technically if another property owner any where in 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 = the city could comply with these requirements, then they have the ability to be approved. Mr. Urbina added that the main reason for the private alley was because of the widening of Portola Avenue. The Public Works Department would not allow any new driveways on Portola Avenue to meet off-street parking. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were comments by the commission. Commissioner Lopez stated for the record that he participated in the meeting of November 1 , 2002. He missed the meeting of January 21 , 2003, but he had reviewed the minutes of that meeting very extensively and felt comfortable participating in this evening's actions. In reviewing the information provided and looking at the locations, Commissioner Lopez thought that CUP 02-14 fell within the current guidelines and moved for approval. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. In reviewing the requirements, staff � indicated that the application was in compliance and he was prepared to second the motion. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that the widening of Portola necessitated some changes in existing housing and in that area and this was probably as good of a way to get all of that done and hopefully still have something the city could be proud of. He was in favor of this particular unit. Commissioner Campbell noted that they were only speaking about this particular unit which she sees on Portola every day on her way to work. She was in favor of this application as long as Mr. Beauvais comes into full compliance, but he would be on this one. Chairperson Finerty didn't believe that the addition of a trellis made a unit attached. She believed it was still detached and was, therefore, in opposition to this application. � Chairperson Finerty noted there was a motion and a second and called for � the vote. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FE_BRUARY 18, 2003 �r.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 1 (Chairperson Finerty voted no►. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2184, approving CUP 02-14 subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Finerty voted no). C. Case Nos. CUP 02-15 and VAR 02-04 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant (Continued from November 21 , 2002 and January 21 , 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 522 square foot attached second unit and variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet to allow a carport for two parking spaces for property at 44-536 "'�' Portola Avenue. Mr. Urbina stated that this property was at the southeast corner of Portola Avenue and EI Cortez. The second unit was existing. The applicant obtained building permits for remodeling. The applicant said that the second unit was already there when he bought the property; however, since these homes were constructed in the 1940's, it was difficult to find evidence that there was a secondary unit previously approved. That was the purpose of the conditional use permit. To seek approval of the existing attached second unit. He said the applicant was also proposing a detached carport in the rear yard. Previously staff had requested that the applicant file a variance application to reduce the rear yard setback which he was proposing at eight feet for ihe carport. After further research of the existing Zoning Ordinance, staff discovered that the carport qualifies as a detached accessory structure and the Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard setback of one foot of setback for each foot of height. His height for the carport would be eight feet which would make the proposed eight-foot setback be in compliance with the existing Zoning Ordinance. Thus the � variance was no longer necessary and was withdrawn. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � Mr. Urbina stated that the conditional use permit complied with all except one of the existing second unit requirements. The existing tenants in the second unit were under the age of 60. The applicant was requesting that he be allowed to keep those existing tenants to avoid eviction and staff was recommending a condition of approval that all future tenants be 60 years of age or older. Staff recommended approval of CUP 02-15 based on the findings and conditions in the resolution. Commissioner Tschopp noted that in the staff report it stated that research conducted by the City's Code Enforcement Division concluded that there was no record of a conditional use permit. He asked how that came to light. If it came to light with the applicant applying for a permit or if Code Enforcement stumbled upon it. Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure. He thought Mr. Beauvais could answer that. He knew that one of the units was discovered when two mail boxes went out on the street. He wasn't sure if it was this one. Mr. Beauvais asked for the question to be repeated. Mr. Drell said the question was what initiated the Code � Enforcement action. MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS said he wasn't exactly sure what the Code Enforcement act was on that particular property. With regard to the two properties on San Marino Circle he knew what the enforcements were and he had been working diligently on that. Two weeks ago Code Officer Finley reinspected his properties. Mr. Drell said the question was what the incident or event was that prompted the citation, if he knew. Mr. Beauvais said that Mr. Drell might be right in that there were two mail boxes that came to his attention. That might be it. Specifically, he couldn't say. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any neighbor complaints that might have initiated the process. Mr. Beauvais said he wasn't aware of a neighbor complaint. He knew there was an inspection that he had come under investigation. He stated that before everybody in this moment, he �r/ 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 � admitted to being somewhat confrontational with Code Enforcement. It was his opinion through the past four or five years that as hard as he was working on his neighborhood to restore it, and he was out there every day of the week doing whatever it took, Code Enforcement was always there on him and he thought that more than anything he brought this on himself and he took responsibility for bringing it on himself. And he was not going to blame anybody other than himself for being confrontational with the Code Enforcement officer. That had changed completely. Commissioner Tschopp said if he was reading paragraph five correctly, a carport could be considered just a gazebo-type structure and would not then be under the same requirements that a carport would normally have to be under. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that it is a detached accessory structure. It is an open detached accessory structure and as it relates to a carport, it is subject to the additional setback requirement off the street which is a minimum of 20 feet from the curb. The way the detached accessory structure ordinance was written, it didn't describe it. As long as it isn't part of the house. It is an open, non- ""' inhabitable structure. The fact that a car parks under it didn't change that. What it did trigger was the requirement for the driveway in front of it, which was a greater setback than it would be if it was a gazebo. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the carport met the setbacks. Mr. Drell said yes. Since this was an attached unit to the main house, Commissioner Campbell asked how long the seniors have been living in that secondary unit. Mr. Urbina didn't know and deferred the question to the applicant. Mr. Drell said that seniors weren't living there now. Commissioner Campbell asked how long the younger people have been living there. Mr. Beauvais said they have been living there six years. There is a lady who is a counselor at the College of the Desert, Gina Galinda, who is in the adult education program. She has been in that back unit for six years. He said she wasn't a youngster, but she wasn't a senior either. She fell short of being a senior, but had been there for six years. He said it would be heartbreaking to have to throw her out, but he had told Mr. Drell that through attrition as the tenants left that they would be replaced in those secondary � units with seniors. Mr. Drell said that the other comforting 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � � t � thought, or not comforting, was that if the tenant stays there long enough she will also come into compliance. Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. TODD ESTENSON, 74-043 EI Cortez, addressed the commission. He stated that he couldn't believe the carport is 20 feet from the curb. Mr. Beauvais already had this going on in the back already as mentioned. He had mail boxes moved out already. He was glad the City finally got the rope a little tighter. If Mr. Beauvais did what he usually does, he would wait time out and then get his way. So if those people stay long enough, they would be old enough. He didn't think that was the issue. He hoped they would all agree on the fact that someone who owns that property would have to � live in that house and then rent it out to someone and he didn't � care how old that person was just as long as the property owner lived there, maintained it and they are there. He said that as was mentioned before, the trash cans don't get pulled in. He wasn't saying that his got pulled in all the time, but before it got too dark he had his in before the next day. When he got home from work he took in his stuff. He thought it was incredible because he could see how this was working. They couldn't approach it on Portola, yet they could approach it on EI Cortez. They kept calling it Mr. Beauvais' back yard, which was interesting. He said that if the commission wouldn't okay the upper unit on Portola, CUP 02-14, and turn that into a backyard like everyone else has on that street, then it wouldn't be an eyesore and every time someone drove down there they'd probably see a beautiful backyard back there. Not someone's building right on the street just because the City did a great job on improving the roads and improving the city and tearing out a whole bunch of homes. Every other home was torn out. This one here far some reason Mr. Beauvais got. He was able to just cut as much as � he could or wanted, with somebody's direction, and then all of a � sudden everything seemed to be okay with that unit and the � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 �r.. Planning Commission passed that, which he found weird. He said Mr. Beauvais was going to shove something else in that backyard. He had something else going on in his backyard. He asked how many things they were going to allow people to put on a single family unit yard. It was amazing. Now there was an alley? The City should have just woken up and torn this thing down. Give it to him at a bonus and tell him not to build anything back there. Make a yard, put in a pool and make it really nice for the elderly lady that might be in the unit that Mr. Beauvais illegally built and then whoever was living in the proper unit that was originally built. Then he thought they would enjoy it and the peace of mind would be great. When they drove down that street they would enjoy the fact that there were trees growing back there, not soot and stuff coming from homes. More dogs barking. More children running up and down and Amber on her bike coming from the other lane. He couldn't really deal with all these people here on a single family dwelling. And it was happening to the neighbor. And they were in cahoots. It seemed to him that all three were in cahoots. For some ,,,,�, reason the neighbor, Jerry and Mr. Drell seemed to have this idea of creating some type of utopia for someone over there which made no sense at all. They were ripping down homes on Fred Waring, they were taking out homes on Portola and he was shocked thinking the City was going to allow all of this to go on. He stated that he has a little decent home. He said it was funny. It was like he lived by this major complex and this soon to be major complex. That garage up there on the plan was four feet from his fence. He could reach over there and touch it. Others were going to ask to do the same thing after Jerry got his okay. He didn't think this was okay. This was incredible. He said he wasn't trying to be a nanny here because Jerry was creating a complex here for the elderly or beautiful people or people that were in need. That was great. But he didn't think Jerry needed to take on the city's woes and create such a compound and put up eight to ten foot walls around it and then call these people neighbors. If that woman was living there for six years, and he couldn't count how many years he himself has been living there, his mother owned the property before he went there. He said he has seen this lady a few times. They weren't sociable. Maybe in �'"' their compounds they were sociable. He knew the lady across the 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 � � street. He knew his neighbors around him. The neighbors around him don't know the people on the corner. It wasn't as enchanting as it appeared on paper. It was really stuffy. Four feet. They couldn't walk around that property. It was amazing. He stated that all he was trying to say was that it seemed there were an awful lot of packages on yes, two different lots because the City was calling it two lots. He saw one lot. The entrance on EI Cortez and the back was now two units. The main unit was now two units and it always had been two units. He didn't know how many people Mr. Beauvais was putting in there. There was quite a bit and the parking thing, which he could see from his backyard when he tried to view the beautiful view of the mountains, he just saw all these buildings. He thought it was incredible. He could foresee what was going to happen and it wasn't good all these cars parked. , � If someone could get away with a gazebo or a carport in front of � a home, he himself was told to take down a shade enc(osure, which he did. He realized that if they couldn't have something, they wouldn't put it up or ask permission. He said he didn't build structures, put people in them and then ask favors from the City. He didn't think that was how it worked. He would come up here and ask the City for permission just like he did when he built his pool. He did his setbacks, he didn't ask for favors, he stayed in his area. He appreciated the comfort of his neighbors. He tried to keep himself a distance from them. He wasn't asking to encroach on their property. That was how it came to his attention. The neighbors asked hirn to sign off rights saying that it was okay to continue the garage being built four feet away from his property line and asking him to sign off things so that he wouldn't come to the City and complain. So he'd understand what they were doing and go along with it. But he couldn't do that. The neighbors had people in that unit back there before they gutted it ready to make it larger and they didn't go through the City. They were bootlegging it and the City was finding out about it and now they were trying to get it done correctly. Or for some reason Jerry � messed up by getting this corner lot and spilling the beans. That's � what it looked like to him. Now Jerry was going backwards trying � to fix everything and he was sitting there tripping out coming here 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 �.,. every night just trying to protect his little corner of the world and thinking it was alright if maybe they could make a duplex here out of this one (he didn't understand the stuff in the back area though) and stick an elderly person or sick aunt or any person that was immediate family. He could totally understand that and wished him well for that. But to put strangers in there or people for six years that he didn't know their names and never met them. Putting up dual mail boxes out front next to his fire hydrant. He couldn't figure out where the madness was going to end. If they did end up with this, he hoped they didn't go for double stories and didn't know how crazy it could get. He stated that he was totally against all of this. The carport, the roads (alley), the mail boxes, the bootleg buildings turning into chateaus and then four feet behind it another chateau. He was totally against it and he hoped the commission saw his reasoning. He lives there. This was his neighbor and his fence line. He drove that corner every day and he was looking at this mess since they �.,, started this. Months. He said Jerry just dragged all his junk out front knowing the City or someone would have to clean it up because they were going to cut that road soon. He didn't understand that. For someone who had his pulse on the neighborhood or it's his neighborhood and he's making it better. He didn't think that. If everybody just took care of their yards and stopped bringing in so many people, stopped parking cars where they didn't belong, getting in people who didn't care if their trash cans were in or not. Nobody was going to upkeep that driveway. All three of those people were going to argue or they would have to get some type of coop ideas of how to get money pulled together out of all these units to pay for this. He saw a whole can of worms. The maintenance problem and the amount of different people. He said he appreciated the commission letting him speak. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak in OPPOSITION. There was no one and Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for comments. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 � � Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was an agreement that would work on the alley way between the owners for maintenance or if it was just left up to the owners because it was on private property. Mr. Urbina stated that the easement for the alley was recorded. The applicant submitted copies of grant deeds for all three properties. Because it was on private property, if he didn't maintain it he'd be subject to Code Enforcement action as would anyone not maintaining their private property. Mr. Drell stated ihat they could require as a condition that he submit an executed agreement specifying the rights and obligations of the various property owners to use it and maintair� it. Commissioner Tschopp thought that was a good idea. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that they were talking about a second unit that existed. Mr. Drell said yes. Other than the carport, there was no proposed construction he befieved with the second unit. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. No additional square footage was planned for the second unit. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the work that took place prior was to enhance its looks and not expand its size. � Mr. Urbina said he believed so. Mr. Drell said that technically, based on the parameters for a single family home, setbacks, coverage, etc., people could expand dwellings. Commissioner Tschopp thought that given the current ordinance and that this unit did exist and that what they were doing right now with the expansion of Portola Avenue and so forth, he thought what was happening here would benefit that unit as well as the city, so he would be in favor. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Commissioner Tschopp was suggesting the addition of a condition of approval regarding the joint responsibility for maintaining the alley. Commissioner Tschopp said yes. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He said it wasn't the best of situations on that particular location and this was an opportunity for the City and the owner to step in and improve on the existing situation. So hopefully that would be the result and he thought that was the objective of the various conditions of approval. So he was in favor as well. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on the carport construction. Mr. Drell confirmed that the carport is what needed to be constructed to bring the property into compliance with the parking 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 �.. requirement. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that everything else that was in that corner lot had been there for many years. She said she didn't like the appearance of that corner lot, not even knowing visually that there was an extra unit there. She hoped that Mr. Beauvais would do something about the landscaping around there because it was an eyesore. She didn't know that people lived there. She thought it was an abandoned home. But it has been there and she didn't have any objection to the carport, but the landscaping needed to be updated or cleaned up, etc., to make it more compatible with the rest of Portola. Commissioner Lopez said he wasn't in favor of enforcing the age limit of 60 or asking the current tenants to move out. He agreed with ihe recommendation by staff to allow these folks to continue to live there. He thought it was appropriate to allow them to continue to live there in the home. If for some reason they moved out, then yes, the next tenant should be 60 or older. Seeing that as the only real issue in noncompliance, he was in favor of the project. �.. Chairperson Finerty stated that she could not fathom a gazebo-like structure now being called a carport. Mr. Beauvais admittedly and knowingly did what was wrong. She appreciated the fact that he wanted to help people out. That was admirable. Taking his time to make life better for other people. However, there was a right way and a wrong way. Unfortunately, Mr. Beauvais chose the wrong way. As a result, Mr. Beauvais put tenants in this position. They were having to step around to allow them to stay. It was unfair and it was wrong to put other people in this position. She couldn't reward wrong behavior and was opposed. She asked for a motion. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would move for approval with the addition of a condition relative to the alley maintenance agreement and landscaping. Mr. Drell said that all these properties had a landscape plan as part of the Architectural Review process and they would be relandscaped. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Finerty voted no). i�.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 $ `s � � It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2185, approving CUP 02-15, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Chairperson Finerty voted no). D. Case No. CUP 02-16 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant (Continued from November 21 , 2002 and January 21 , 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 945 square foot attached two-bedroom second unit at 74- 041 San Marino Circle. Mr. Urbina showed the commission a site plan of the property. He said it is a corner lot on San Marino Circle. He pointed out the location of the second unit on the westerly side of the property. Off-street parking was currently uncovered through a driveway. The main unit had its own { circular driveway to provide off-street parking. � � He said the two areas the site was currently not fully in compliance with the second unit ordinance were one, the tenants were under 60 years of age. The applicant was requesting permission that they be allowed to stay to avoid eviction. The applicant agreed to a staff recommended condition that all future tenants of the second unit would be 60 years of age or older. The other area that the applicant was proposing to bring the second unit into compliance with the existing ordinance dealt with covered off-street parking. The existing second unit ordinance required two covered parking spaces in a garage or in a carport. To accomplish that the applicant was proposing a two-car space tandem carport attached to the second unit. As an alternative the applicant had submitted a carport on the other side if the commission wasn't inclined to approve the tandem parking. However, if the intent of the ordinance was that the two-covered spaces would serve the second unit, staff was recommending that Planning Commission approve the proposed two-space tandem carport. He showed the commission an elevation of what the proposed carport would look like looking south from San Marino Circle. It would have four columns with decorative stone work and rafters resembling a trellis. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � However, there would be a fiber glass cover on top of the rafters and the beams. The existing second unit ordinance didn't specifically prohibit tandem parking, so staff believed that the Planning Commission had the purview to approve tandem parking. Since the two spaces in the tandem carport would be for the second unit, there would be no conflict with the parking for the main unit. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve CUP 02-16 subject to the findings in the staff report and subject to the recommended conditions of approval in the draft resolution. Mr. Drell added that there was precedence in that the R-1-M zone (manufactured housing) alfows tandem spaces specifically. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that where the proposed carport would be located, there was already an existing driveway so it would just be a matter of covering up that existing space. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. � Chairperson Finerty indicated that the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the application. MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS, 74-041 San Marino Circle, addressed the commission. He stated that regarding the carports on this particular property, the truth of the matter was that the first carport for the secondary unit, he pointed out that those units historically were low density. There is one adult and one car. He understood that didn't effect city code, but the point was that the gal who has lived there and raised her daughter there for the last five years has only one car and she only needs a carport. His other tenant, Ken, who is 60 years old, lives in the primary unit. He parks his Lexus in his driveway, but the summer sun, the eastern sun, baked the car all summer long and he had been begging for a carport for his car. So it was his request, with all due respect to Planning, that instead of building a tandem carport which was not necessary because there was only one car, that he be allowed to build a similar carport with the same type of craftsman style look from South Pasadena with craftsman style lanterns. He said it �� would be historically very old looking. It would look like it had been there since the 1940's. It would look correct. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMiSSiON FEBRUARY 18, 2003 } � � He stated that he would personally like to build one for each unit. He thought it made sense to build one for each unit, but it would be a waste to build two carports for a woman who only has one car. He thanked the commission. Commissioner Tschopp indicated he wanted to clarify something that was in the prior minutes from January 21 and in November. The second unit they were talking about here was existing when Mr. Beauvais bought the property back in 1999. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Beauvais said yes, it was a small unit and it was in the back of the house. It was very second rate. When he purchased this house, the major worry in the neighborhood was that the house was so disheveled and such a bad sight in the neighborhood and it was going so cheaply that someone would buy it who could barely afford a house and would leave it that way for the next 20 years. So at any rate, the plan that was done to the house was permitted. As he explained to Ms. Finerty at the last meeting when '3 she asked him about this situation, he didn't bring it to the .r� attention of the City because it was his fear that the City would look at it and say that it wasn't on the tax roils and say it wasn't allowed. So what he did was, all the square footage that was added, was on permit here at City Hall. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that the existing secondary unit was in the place where it was when Mr. Beauvais bought it. Mr. Beauvais said that was correct, only larger. Commissioner Tschopp asked how much bigger it was. How much Mr. Beauvais expanded it. Mr. Beauvais guessed it was 300 square feet. He thought that was a good guess. Commissioner Tschopp asked when Mr. Beauvais bought the property if the property was listed by the real estate company as a rental type situation. � � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 �... Mr. Beauvais said no, he bought it from the gal who had been living there raising her children there for many many years. She had a heart attack and she had to sell her property. He bought it from her. Commissioner Campbell said the secondary attachment was there. It was so many square feet. And then Mr. Beauvais expanded it, but he got approval for the expansion. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Beauvais said that was correct. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR. MR. KEN RADNOR, 74-041 San Marino Circle, stated he occupies the unit with the curved driveway. He said he would like that carport there and he was 60. He thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to �r.► the project. MR. DOUGLAS KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo, addressed the commission. He commented that he didn't believe that was correct, that the unit was ever a two-unit pface. His wife had been in the house, which belonged to the McGees, and she had their kids in school. The house was very small and he didn't believe that was correct that it was a two-unit place when Mr. Beauvais bought it. He thanked the commission. MRS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73-237 Somera, addressed the commission. She stated that she pulled the microfiche for this lot and what she saw being added on was labeled as a very large laundry room, a living room and a bedroom. In the application for remodeling, it was listed as 372 square feet. She was curious how it turned into a 945 square foot two-bedroom second unit. She asked how that happened. She stated that she spoke with Ms. Scott, the neighbor from next door, who was out of the country so she was unable to attend the meeting. Ms. Scott believed that the "laundry room" was actually ` what turned into the kitchen, which would make sense. So she 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 i , a +� thought this was all done very underhandedly and she was curious how the City could, after receiving nothing for this, turn around and grant Mr. Beauvais these conditional use permits. At the last meeting they talked about the school district fee requirements and asked if any of those would ever be paid by Mr. Beauvais should these units be approved. She thanked the commission. MR. TODD ESTENSON, 74-043 EI Cortez, addressed the commission. He said he could see how it was done now. Just add on and then get caught, similar to the home on EI Cortez. That second unit wasn't there originally, just like this one wasn't there. Just blow out a wall, take a bedroom, make a living room, add on for a little sitting/living room. Mr. Estenson said he helped Mr. Beauvais do the tile there a few years ago. He didn't know how many years ago it was. He watched him put a blue tarp over that roof because it wasn't done by a contractor. He didn't know about � the electricity, but had doubts about it. Mr. Beauvais was very handy, but he didn't know about his credentials. Yet the City was going to leave these people in those homes and he hoped they were being inspected. As far as he was concerned, people should be told to leave, have it inspected and done right. It just seemed like it was going all over the city now. He said if they looked at aerial photos, he didn't know how hard it could be to look at one year and then another year and see the addition added to the house on EI Cortez, which was the corner of EI Cortez and Portola. He was sure if they looked at the aerial photos of this one, they would see it. He thought this was crazy and hoped the commission didn't approve it. There was bootlegging and then he just came up saying he added a few extra hundred feet on something that was already a mess. Now they just had a bigger mess. He noted that Jerry lives there, this young man lives there and he also said some young woman lives there and it was a two- unit home and they were talking about just parking iwo cars. He thought that was strange. He was against all of this. He thought it was funny how the commission wasn't stopping this and there r was only one person on the commission who seemed to have a � good idea of what was going on here. Everyone else seemed to be � just going along with it because they wanted to go home or 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 2003 r.. something. But he thought this was crazy and passing the other one didn't make sense because it was an illegal addition that he has two units in there already. The first unit. And just like this there were people living in there on top of peop(e. Neighbors were supposed to accept it or be understanding of it. He was highly against all of these bootleg additions and the commission okaying them. They were going to start finding these all over the city. There were houses on EI Cortez that have these so-called laundry rooms put on that were turned into bedrooms. There was a house down from his house and when they go to sell it, it was called a bonus room, but the problem was people as clever as Jerry would get in there and turn it into another unifi and then they would ask for approval from the commission. It seemed to him that they were giving it to him and he didn't understand that at all. If they saw that it was good for the city, he was missing out on that picture. He couldn't see how they could reward someone who for six, seven, eight years didn't bother to talk to people, except one man. As far as he was concerned, when he called Mr. Drell's r..� office, Mr. Drell explained to him on the phone that there was no reason for him to come to talk with the Planning Commission at all and no reason to fight the fact that there was a neighbor next to him wanting him to sign off his rights. Just do it because California has to accept the fact that "Fonzi's apartment was above the Cunningham's place" but the Cunninghams lived there and Fonzi lived there. He could accept that. Basically Mr. Drell put in his heart that it was basically a lost cause to be there or even express the frustration he has about the situation that is going on. He stated that he was glad that he has been there for the past five or six meetings to just see how this was working. Every time Jerry seemed to stumble, Mr. Drell was there picking him up and holding him. He stated that was his opinion and he had no proof about anything here except how it was strange how Jerry was going to be able weasel these things in when the City is on his back and the inspector was there and he was finally cleaning up the neighborhood. Mr. Estenson said he received a citation and his neighbor received one for shade enclosures. They've all complied. They dismantled them. He didn't fight or argue because he realized it was stated "` clearly in the guidelines that he couldn't have it. He guessed that 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � i � if people built and added to it, it was okay. He wished the commission would see it and say it wasn't okay, that he couldn't do this or build all this stuff. Just because he had more than one person living in that home, three that he knew of right now, and surely they all needed carports. There was just no part on his land, without it looking really tacky, to put a carport. But if this stuff got through, he was going to try to find a loop ho(e just so he could reward himself to keep the sun off his car and maybe keep his garage available to turn into a party room or something and just let people live in there. How wonderful this city would be really soon. He said it was only a couple of blocks away and stuff kind of spilled all over the city when they let a little of this happen. He hated to come before the commission more times and they just see these people buying these homes and saying there was a laundry room or a tool shed and then all of a sudden it was turned into another unit. It was amazing and he wished the commission would give this a little more thought and instead of passing it on Jerry's word, which they saw was incredible here, and he thought � that what was going on and whai was being reported were two � different things. The only reason Jerry was coming forward with this information was because it was right there in black and white. He didn't understand why when they looked at a photo view and looked down at these homes why they couldn't overlap them and see from the dates what had been changed. What was the date Mr. Beauvais took possession? Was it before he took possession or after? And why was he teliing the commission the truth today about ihe EI Cortez house on the corner of EI Cortez and Portola. The house that he helped Jerry work on and he was young and naive and knew nothing about what Jerry was getting over the City. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any additional comments Mr. Estenson wanted to make about this piece of property. Mr. Estenson said that this is similar to other properties mentioned tonight and if this passes, he could see how the path of how the neighborhood would go. He was against it and thanked the commission for their time. E � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 .... Mrs. Kim Housken, 73-237 Somera, readdressed the commission. She asked what was to insure that these units were built properly. She knew they were signed off, but apparently after things were signed off he continued building on and things were changed. She asked who was to insure that these units are safe to be occupied. As well, the community of Mecca was currently addressing similar problems. They have had property owners come in, buy old abandoned homes, refurbish them and illegally add second units under the guise of "remodeling" and some of these places were now being vacated. The County of Riverside was asking these illegal second units to be vacated. They were not merely passing another conditional use permit and allowing them to happen. She said she would expect the City of Palm Desert to follow somewhat similar standards. She thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. r.. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff for some clarification. He noted that the applicant from the beginning indicated, and expressed regret and took responsibility and indicated that the improvements that he undertook were done without the proper permitting process. As he understood it, the applicant would be made to come into compliance in that all improvements would be subject to the same standards under the code as any new construction would be. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said that was correct. The properties would be inspected and any work that appears to be done that was not covered by the permits, they would have to open up the walls, he would have to expose anything that an inspector needs to see to certify that the work was done pursuant to the applicable building codes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were talking about plumbing, electrical, engineering, civil and so forth. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan noted there was a comment made by Mrs. Housken regarding fees. Normally when someone wants to add on there are various construction fees, including school fees. He asked if those were made up as part of this process. Mr. Drell explained that for anything he didn't receive permits for he would have to get and typically there was a double permit fee for any work done without permits. The � school fee was triggered for additions over 500 square feet. And he 25 MINUTES . PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � � believed it was kind of a cumulative process. So any combination of additions that exceed 500 feet would be subject to school fees. That would have to be determined as part of the inspections. Mr. Urbina stated that condition of approval number eight on page four stated that he would be subject to any applicable school mitigation fees. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that what he was getting at was that any and all fees that would have been payabfe had this been done properly would now become due and payable. The ones that had not been previously paid. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Commissioner Lopez stated that he would not be in favor of the carport up front. He asked if it was moved as an alternative, if it was something that would meet the setback requirements. Mr. Drell said no. Commissioner Lopez said that although it would be a convenience, he would not be in favor of the carport. Other than that, based on the current ordinance the project fell within those guidelines and moved for approval. � � Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was just as disappointed that any � improvements took place without the benefit of the proper permitting process and payment of fees and so forth. But he was impressed that the applicant was taking responsibility for that and was making an attempt to take corrective action. He felt that some of the comments he heard tonight were specific and in his mind on point, but some of them just weren't, so he tried to distill the real issues. He also visited the site, the neighborhood and the project itself and he thought this was a unique situation that required a creative and cooperative approach that results in the end in something that was better there than they have already. That was the bottom line in his mind. It was a tough situation and the four applications before them kind of shared that. They were all unique in their own rigF�t and this one, again, the bottom line to him was if they were going to end up with something that overall was better in and of itselt and better for the neighborhood and better for the city. He concluded that yes, it would. He was deeply regretful and disappointed that the proper process was not followed to begin with, but in some ways it was better late than never. So he was in favor of the application. He also agreed that the carport belonged in the original place and since the other resident only needed one, perhaps they could work something � out where the other was made available. He hoped they could work � something out. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 �.. Commissioner Tschopp thought the necessary expansion of Portola created a unique situation for those properties there and in order to keep some single family housing and make it attractive for the street and how busy that street would become, so he thought the units over there were justified to some extent. Here he felt differently. He was still confused on the square footage they were talking about. It looked like 370 square feet ended up being 945 square feet from a laundry addition to a rental unit. In previous testimony Mr. Beauvais said that the addition of the second house was economics driven. He was making a businessman's decision. And putting in a lot of sweat equity so that he could obtain rents. He now had four units they were talking about, which to most people would put him in the category of a major land owner in some ways. He has been in the construction business, he knows the rules, he knows the codes, he knows the regulations and converting a laundry room to suddenly an attached unit, no matter how good it looked and it was very, very well done, he didn't think they come back in and approve it at that point. It exceeded 10% of the existing living area. Another important issue was the letters from the neighbors. There were four or five homes r•�• in the immediate vicinity of this home that were not in favor of it. So in this case he was not in favor of granting the exception. He also thought that Mr. Beauvais should realize that he had made victims of the tenants. One shouldn't create a problem and then go to everyone else and ask them to fix it by marching up in front of them people Mr. Beauvais put in a bad predicament of being in an illegal rental unit. He thought that Mr. Beauvais owed his tenants an apology and maybe more than that, but to rent something that was illegal and then march them up here asking for an exception wasn't the City's problem. Mr. Beauvais created the problem. Commissioner Campbell thought that aesthetically this piece of property looked better than the rest of them and even though he added the 372 square feet, he did have a permit to do that and if the City gave him the permit, they should have seen what was there to begin with, so she didn't find fault wholly with Mr. Beauvais in regards to that. He had a legal person living there who is 60 years of age now. She said that was in the primary home so it didn't make any difference. She agreed with Commissioner Lopez ►egarding the carport in front of the home. She wasn't in favor of it. Otherwise, she was in favor of the project. i.. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNtNG COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 ; � � Chairperson Finerty stated that she whole heartedly concurred with Commissioner Tschopp and was therefore against the project. She noted that there was a motion and asked for a second. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Finerty and Commissioner Tschopp voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2186, approving CUP 02-16, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Finerty and Commissioner Tschopp voted no►. E. Case No. CUP 02-17 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant (Continued from November 21 , 2002 and January 21 , 2003) i Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a � 920 square foot attached second unit at 74-060 San Marino Circle. Mr. Urbina stated that this project was directly across the street from the previous conditional use permit. He indicated that the area that the existing attached second unit was not in compliance with the existing ordinance included the tenants being under the age of 60 years of age. The applicant agreed to a recommended condition of approval that all future tenants would be 60 years of age or older, but the applicant was requesting permission to keep the existing tenants to avoid having to evict them. The second area the existing second unit was not in compliance with was that there weren't two covered parking spaces either in a garage or a carport. The applicant was requesting as part of the conditional use permit in accordance with zoning regulations, a variance to allow existing shade trees to fulfill the covered parking requirements for two spaces. If the commission was not inclined to grant a variance to allow the use of ; existing shade trees to fulfill a requirement for two covered parking � spaces, the applicant as an atternative was proposing a two-car carport � that would require a variance from setbacks. The side yard would need 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 •... to be reduced from five feet to three feet and also the front yard setback would be reduced from 20 feet to face of curb to 10 feet to face of curb because of the limited size of the available area. Staff recommended approval of CUP 02-17 based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the recommended conditions in the draft resolution. He said they would leave it up to the Planning Commission to decide whether or not to grant a variance using existing shade trees to fulfill the covered parking spaces, or the carport alternative and the granting of the side yard and front yard setbacks for the carport. With regard to the carport, Commissioner Jonathan asked if the site lent itself to other alternatives that would avoid the variance to the setbacks. Mr. Urbina didn't recall if there was any existing driveway off of San Marino Way and asked the applicant. Mr. Beauvais spoke from the audience and said yes, there was. r•• Mr. Urbina asked if there was a possibility of accommodating one or two covered parking spaces there for a carport. Mr. Beauvais said that was a possibility. There was a driveway in existence on San Marino Way. There would be a requirement of a variance because instead of a 20-foot setback, there would be a 15-foot setback on the side. The reason he requested that the carport be put in the front was because the entry way to the secondary unit was on the left hand side and in the front for the first unit and he felt the tenants would park in this driveway and not use the carport on ihe side. That was a good guess on his behalf. They wouldn't want to walk around the corner to park their cars. But if the City thought it was a good idea to put a carport on the side with a 15-foot setback, then that would be a decision he would abide with. On the main unit on the alternative site, Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a door to the kitchen there to the main unit. Mr. Beauvais said there was a door which went to a screened porch which then entered into the living room and then through � the dining room and to the kitchen. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSlON FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � , � Commissioner Jonathan said that was a possibility there. He asked if the second unit had a rear door so that the tenant wouldn't have to walk around all the way to the front. Mr. Beauvais said no, there was a bedroom door which was provided as per fire code for exit at the back of the house, but it did travel through a bedroom. The front exit was on the far left side of the house and to think that person would be about 20 feet or 15 feet away from his door in the driveway and have to go around the back of the house to get to it wouldn't do it. But if the City felt that was the way it should be, that's what would be done. Commissioner Jonathan asked how staff felt about putting one carport in the front away from the side. That would be for the secondary unit. And one carport for the primary unit. He asked if that was feasible. Mr. Urbina said that would be acceptable to staff. Mr. Drell indicated that assuming the plan was drawn to scale, he thought the reason why there � would only be a 15-foot driveway was because that area behind the main unit was a patio area he didn't want to destroy. He asked if that was the reason. Mr. Beauvais said no, there is actually a garage that sits there that has his shop in it. But there is a driveway there. Actually putting a carport, one in the front and one on the side, was a pretty good idea. The tenant who lives in the primary unit has reasonably easy access from the side carport and the tenant in the secondary unit has good access from the front. Putting in only one carport in the front would be less of an impact on the street. Mr. Urbina asked how many cars the second unit tenant owned. Mr. Beauvais said one. And the individual in the primary unit owned one. Commissioner Campbelt asked staff what the ordinance was with regard to carports and driveways to curb. Mr. Urbina said that for carports, the setback was 20 feet from front of carport to curb face. � � 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 2003 �. Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Beauvais for clarification. He mentioned that there were two tenants in the units and both were rented. Mr. Beauvais concurred. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that Mr. Beauvais stated his primary residence as this unit. Mr. Beauvais said no, it was 74-041 right now. He was planning on the possibility of moving into the second unit on the house he was about to rehab on Portola. TF�at was the one that was a mess right now. Until that time, Mr. Ken Radnor was allowing him to use his guest bedroom at 74-041 and that was where he was staying right now. Commissioner Tschopp said he was just trying to get it straight since Mr. Beauvais mentioned two different tenants, but then this was his primary �•• residence. Mr. Beauvais said no, it was 74-041, which is across the street. Commissioner Tschopp noted that this was an existing unit and asked if it ever got expanded in size. Mr. Beauvais said yes, and those permits were pulled. He recalled clearly going down and paying the school taxes. He paid them, not on the McGee house because the square footage was less than 500 square feet as stated by Mr. Drell, so there wasn't a school fee. But he did pay school fees for the 74-041 house. He said he didn't know if it made a difference, but the iaundry room was still a laundry room. It hadn't been turned into something else. It facilitated both Mr. Radnor and Ms. Faust. Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that there were two existing units on the property when he bought it and the permit he pulled was to make a laundry room. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Beauvais said that part of the addition was a generous laundry � room. Laundry rooms were always a problem and he made it 31 MINUTES z PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � � generous sized. He thought it was eight-feet wide by 15 feet long. He said there was storage for the tenants there as well. To solve the mystery of how 350 square feet turned into 900 square feet for the secondary unit, he admitted to stealing one of the bedrooms f�om the primary unit so that the secondary unit had two bedrooms instead of one. That was how 350 square feet turned into 900. Mr. Drell pointed out that they were now talking about the previous case and thought they needed to concentrate the discussion on this case to avoid confusion. Mr. Beauvais concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked if on this case there was no expansion of the secondary unit when Mr. Beauvais bought the property. , Mr. Beauvais said yes, there were permits pulled to do additional � work and the school fees were paid. It was permitted. The � electrical, the plumbing, etc., were inspected by City inspectors. Those permits and the school fees were here at City Hall. He said this house was done in 1983 or 84. It was done quite some time ago and he thought he could find the permit and the blueprints that went into the remodeling and restoration of this house. It was the first one he did. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Beauvais could elaborate a little more on the garage that was currently his workshop and where it was located. Mr. Beauvais said the garage is detached and pointed out the location. He explained that it is a car and a half garage. A permit was pulled for that garage when it was built and signed off on. If there were any fees, they were paid at that time. What he did was, in order to facilitate the restoration of these houses and frequently his neighbors would ask him to help them build something, and he did these projects in his garage. He used to have a cabinet shop which he closed and he had a small shop in his garage. He didn't do commercial work in there. He didn't build � kitchens for other people, but he used it as a facility to restore his � houses. He would probably be closing it down when the final 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 ... house on Portola was restored. But there was room for a carport in the area. But there was a permit pulled on that garage. Commissioner Lopez asked staff if the garage or detached garage was in compliance with setbacks, etc., for that structure. Mr. Drell said it looked like it was. It sounded like the long-term solution to the garage problem was to convert it back to a garage. Mr. Beauvais informed commission that a variance was pulled for that garage because the setback for the property line was a requirement of 20 feet or something like that and he was five feet short. He appealed to the Planning Commission at the time he built the garage for that variance. The variance was granted and the garage was built with that variance approval and built as stated. Commissioner Campbell asked if the garage was supposed to be done for the sole purpose of the main home. r•�• Mr. Beauvais said yes. He turned it into his shop. He didn't know that he broke any rules regarding garages. He knew that a lot of people used their garages for a lot of different things. Commissioner Campbell asked if the main unit didn't have a garage to begin with when it was purchased by Mr. Beauvais or a carport. Mr. Beauvais said no, it didn't. Commissioner Lopez asked if the variance request was for a garage. Mr. Beauvais said yes. Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Beauvais was opposed to removing the contents from the garage and letting the garage solve the solution for the parking. Mr. Beauvais said if that was the determination, he would go along with it. He was planning on using it to restore the Poriola house. He didn't know if the commission was aware, but he did his own cabinetry. These were all handcrafted houses and the beauty of � the houses was that he built them by hand. It was difficult to do 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 2003 = � that onsite and impossible to pay for someone else to do it. If at all possible, he said it was a good idea. It was his intention to empty the garage out and turn it back into that. He asked if they would let him build the cabinetry and so forth for his final restoration for this house, the cabinetry would be such that it would require this type of facility, but yes, he would be in agreement that the garage be turned back over to the house. Chairperson Finerty asked at what point in time it would be turned back over. Mr. Beauvais said upon the completion of the restoration of the Portola property, with the commission's agreement on that. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that would be within a year. Mr. Beauvais said he was holding off on the restoration of this house. There was a lot of work to be done and quite honestly, the , nature o# the restoration would take him at least a year and a half. �wii He did all of the work himself and it would take at least that long to restore that house. But he would be in agreement with that totally. Commissioner Tschopp asked when the garage was built. Mr. Beauvais wasn't sure. (Ms. Housken spoke from the audience and said 1996.1 Mr. Beauvais thanked her for the information. Chairperson Finerty asked how long it had been Mr. Beauvais' personal garage. Mr. Beauvais said he's always had his shop in there. He's used it for all the various work he did for himself and the neighbors. Chairperson Finerty asked where the people in the main unit have parked for the last seven years. Mr. Beauvais said there had only been two cars at that house. It was low density and his tenants were usually one person per unit � with one car. There are two parking spaces and that was where 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � these tenants park, in those two spaces. He said they have always been comfortable parking there. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Beauvais notified the Planning Commission at that time when the garage was to be built that there were two rental units there. Mr. Beauvais said no. Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing was o�en and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no one. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. DOUGLAS KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo, addressed the commission. He stated that before the commission made a decision on this they needed some good information. The plan presented to the commission was not to scale. And where he put the garage was not where the garage was. He said there was a land cruiser and a �,,., Volvo, and both were the applicant's and had been there for years and years. So the people parked in the street. But ever since the City got on his case, he made a good effort and hauled the jeep down to the Portola Street property, he believed, because that was where it was a few weeks ago. He said he didn't believe where the garage was shown on the map was where it was built. Also, he thought it was closer because Mr. Beauvais had his travel trailer there and that was what Mr. Beauvais lived in for years until the City had him remove it. And it was a tight fit in there between the front of the garage door and the fence line. So he thought they needed some good drawings to know what they were voting on. The two proposed carport locations were short and wouldn't handle a big four-wheel drive truck. He stated that they were opposed to the request. They were opposed to the R-1 zones being compromised and they live just down the street. He wondered if Mr. Beauvais would come along and get the next unit and the next one and he asked where it would stop. On this one, he didn't think the commission had good �"" information. He thanked the commission. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSiON FEBRUARY 18, 2003 r1f MRS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73-237 Somera, addressed the commission. She also recommended that the Planning Commission delay a decision on this request until there was a more accurate picture of the property and perhaps do a little research. She said it was quite easy to go over to the microfiche and find out some of the things Mr. Beauvais had planned for the property. Mr. Drell had actually signed him off for a room addition back in 1989, but she didn't think that ever came to be. She thought it changed instead in 1991 to a "dark room, courtyard and nursery." She didn't know if M�. Beauvais still had his dark room, courtyard and nursery, but she definitely thought that was misrepresented to the City. She stated that she had a copy of the Desert Sands School District fee requirement which said that zero was paid. That was going back to 1991 , which was when the biggest remodel occurred. She said she felt like she was in court and didn't know if she should present her evidence or not, but he claimed to have paid this and from what she could see, it said zero dollars because the "residential addition" was under 500 square feet and he was now � asking for 920 square feet. So she would question Mr. Beauvais on that. As for the other properties, she never found that the school fees had been paid, but she would definitely have someone research that. She thought the Planning Commission was in a difficult position of trying to balance the needs of the residents of the whole city and trying to work out a compromise here. She didn't know if it was permitted that they allowed it to happen now, but perhaps grandfather in that when the property was sold, these illegal units be torn down. She didn't know what the answer was, but realized that the commission was in a difficult position. She was baffled how Mr. Beauvais could misrepresent himself not once, not twice, but three times to the City. She was especially concerned to know what procedures had been put into place so this didn't happen again. She asked why this happened? Why was what was supposed to be a laundry room, a living room and bedroom suddenly blown into a second unit? Rumor had it around the neighborhood that once things were signed off, Mr. Beauvais did whatever he pleased and made the changes once he was signed � off. She questioned the Planning Department on how they could 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 `.. prevent this from happening again and again since this happened three times. She asked if procedures had changed. If there was more code enforcement going on. If the planners were out there looking at these things? She wanted some assurances to know that this wouldn't just continue rampant in our city. She really encouraged someone to investigate the school fees because from what she had seen, it showed they weren't paid. She thanked the commission. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the commission was asked for comments. Commissioner Jonathan said that during the last point it struck him that what they were seeing was the process actually at work. The process involved someone who didn't do things the right way. They established that. And the person was now coming into compliance and that was what the system was supposed to do; deal with situations that occur in � a way they weren't supposed to and take corrective action. That was what was happening. So that was a good thing. Commissioner Campbell stated that on this case she wasn't in favor of granting a variance for the carports. The garage was supposedly built for the main house and was used for something else. She was not in favor of this project. Commissioner Jonathan said he felt the same way about this one that he did on the others. Again, it was a unique situation that he thought was being brought into compliance. In terms of the two issues that required a variance; one, that there wasn't a tenant over 60 he thought they could live with that situation but with the assurance and condition that the next tenant be over 60 and the applicant agreed to that. The second issue was the lack of offsite parking. He would be in favor of converting the existing garage to a garage use within 18 months at the most. That seemed reasonable. With regards to the carports, he didn't like the one on the left in front of the house because he thought that required an exception and was a potential intrusion on the neighborhood. So with converting the garage, there was only a requirement for one and the one ` on the right would meet that requirement and suffice. He thought with that the property was brought into compliance and, therefore, in spite of 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � j � the undesirable process that brought them to this point, again the end result would be that the property would be in compfiance and he thought that was a better situation than it was before Mr. Beauvais got involved with it. He said he would be in favor of approval with those conditions. Commissioner Tschopp said it was difficult because he thought Mr. Beauvais did a very good job remodeling the units and he thought they looked very well. But he was somewhat disappointed by all this because it seemed that there had been continuous misrepresentation and intentionally misleading the City to get his way. Build a garage and tell them it will be used for parking for a single family residence, but turning it into a workshop when he knowingly had two rental units there. He was very disappointed in that and wasn't trying to belittle the point, he knew that Mr. Beauvais said he made some mistakes, but it seemed they continued when they were perhaps in Mr Beauvais' favor. So he wasn't in favor for the same comments he made on the prior unit, and with the neighbors' comments in opposition and he thought those were paramount in these situations. The will of the neighbors should be heard and they ; had four or five different units right in the same vicinity saying they �.�i didn't like it. He wasn't in favor of it. Commissioner Lopez stated that this one was a little more difficult, especially in light of the fact that they had to hand draw in a garage that wasn't on the plans. in fact, the garage had been used as a work area and in light of some of the comments made tonight, this particular location has had its series of problems in relation to the maintenance of the property and out front or around the facility. Even with that, he was in favor of the project from the standpoint that the garage would need to be reverted back to the original state. He concurred with Commissioner Jonathan about the location of the carport, but he wanted to see the garage converted a lot sooner than 18 months. Enough was enough and perhaps Mr. Beauvais needed to figure out where he needed to get his work done, whether that was done onsite in the building itself or figure out where it needed to be done. But he wasn't in favor of letting another 18 months go to another 24 months or another 36 months. He thought they needed to get this brought into compliance and approved, and Mr. Beauvais needed to make some adjustments as to how he was utilizing the facility and the property. The garage should be used as a garage, as ; it was meant to be. He would approve that, but would want the action � taken regarding the garage conversion made sooner. He wanted to see 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 �.. it converted immediately with the approval, should it pass. If that was the case, he would approve the project. Chairperson Finerty said she was blown away to learn that a variance was pulled for a garage in 1996 and it had never been used as a garage. She was also disappointed in staff's report for not pointing that out and for them having to find out only through public testimony. The applicant said that yes, he made mistakes and he was looking to try to correct them and do everything right, but in this case it looked to her that he was continuing to make mistakes, or choosing to make mistakes, because he was requesting a variance to use shade trees in lieu of a carport. Again, no mention of a garage. She believed this was disingenuous and she had a problem with it and was adamantly opposed. Chairperson Finerty moved to deny the project. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would second that motion. Action: �► It was moved by Chairperson Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, denying Case No. CUP 02-17. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Lopez voted noi. Chairperson Finerty noted that there wasn't a resolution for adoption. Mr. Drell said they could probably vote on a resolution in that the finding woufd simply be that the project doesn't meet the requirements for off- street parking as required by ihe code. If that was the basis for their decision. It was moved by Chairperson Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial with the so stated reason. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Lopez voted no►. F. Case No. CUP 02-20 - DOUG KEARNEY for CINGULAR WIRELESS, Applicant f Continued from January 7, 2003) `..� Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 48-foot high wireless telecommuni- 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 � � cation tower located at 100 Kiva Drive, the corner of Highway 74 and Cahuilla Way. Chairperson Finerty noted that the applicant withdrew his request. It was received and filed. Action: None. G. Case No. CUP 02-36 - WHITNEY J.S. COFFER AND GINA L. ELLIS, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a three room massage establishment within a proposed 1 ,575 square foot health facility at 74-333 Highway 1 1 1 , Units 106 and 107. s Chair erson Finert noted that the comrnission received notification from � P Y the applicant that they were withdrawing their application. Action: None. H. Case No. CUP 02-34 - MANUEL ESPARZA, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 2,056 square foot meat market with sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in an existing multi- tenant building at 73-850 Highway 1 1 1 , Suite E. Mr. Urbina explained that the applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to allow a meat market to be located in an existing vacant tenant space at a multi-tenant strip mall on Highway 1 1 1 , a short distance east of San Luis Rey Avenue. He said there were 34 existing off-street parking spaces on the property. In addition, there were 17 additional off-street parking spaces on the Highway 1 1 1 frontage road in front of the project � site. � 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 2003 r... As discussed in the staff report, Mr. Urbina said that staff visited the site on different occasions at different times of day to count the number of vacant parking spaces in the 34-space parking lot and 17-space frontage road parking. The busiest time of day for parking was during the noon lunch hour. There were eight spaces available and additional spaces on the frontage road. Staff wanted to find out if there were at least ten vacant parking spaces availabie to service the market to meet the off- street parking requirement of one parking space per 200 square feet of floor area. The answer was yes, there were a minimum of ten parking spaces at the busiest time of day. The conditional use permit was filed because the General Commercial C-1 zone required grocery stores to have a conditional use permit. In addition, another section of the code required convenience markets that sell beer and wine for off premises consumption to file a conditional use permit. The applicant was requesting permission to sell beer and wine for off premises consumption as part of his conditional use permit. � Staff recommended that Planning Commission approve CUP 02-34, subject to the findings stated in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval as outlined in the draft resolution. With regards to the parking, Commissioner Jonathan noted that the commission was usually provided with a table that showed the spaces required versus the spaces provided. He didn't see that in the �eport. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. At the time the multi-use building was approved, it was based on a parking standard of one space per 250 square feet of floor area and allowed a deduction of 8% of the building for utility rooms and hallways that weren't counied. Staff didn't provide that calculation. If that had been done based upon page one where the other uses were listed, there was a possibility it might not meet the strict requirements for restaurant uses. There were three food establishments in the center. However, staff felt confident based on the survey that there was a sufficient number of vacant parking spaces to accommodate the p�oposed use. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he wouldn't get into what he thought of parking surveys, but what he was trying to get at were reality and facis, given the current uses. He asked if this strip mall had 9,240 `� square feet in total, or plus the 2,056. He thought the 2,056 was in that 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 total. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan stated that given the current and proposed uses of the 9,240 square foot strip mall, he asked what the parking requirement was per code. Mr. Drell said that the center has had two restaurants approved who got conditional use permits for restaurants. The use itself required ten spaces. The space was allocated eight spaces. Retail uses were permitted as a matter of right. Commissioner Jonathan asked for the number. Mr. Drell stated that ten were required, he was allocated eight. Commissioner Jonathan restated his question and asked for the 9,240 square feet, given the current and proposed uses, what the parking requirement was. Mr. Urbina stated that he didn't have that information readily available. Commissioner Jonathan said he was disappointed. That was a central issue in this application and for him to evaluate it, he needed to know what parking was provided versus what is required under the code. To him that seemed fundamental. So he couldn't make a decision on this application without that. During the rest of the proceedings if he was able to do that, fine. If not, he was going to need to know that answer. He thought there might be three restaurant uses if the fruit juice and � snow cone was a restaurant. He wasn't sure what that use was. Mr. Drell said�that the approval of conditional use permits for restaurants in a center didn't eliminate the ability for retail uses to go in vacant space. How they evaluate that in this particular case was see what the actual usage was and there was no better test of whether there was a parking shortage or not than reality. If he thought that somehow when they counted the spaces there and they were incorrect, that they needed to count more, but reality hopefully should have some weight in this proceeding and whether they question their procedure for doing parking surveys. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't. He paraphrased a quote he read in the newspaper by Buford Crites about t�affic surveys. He said that traffic surveys and reality rarely meet when they do, it was by accident. The same thing in his opinion could and should be said with regard to parking surveys. He said that on Saturday he took his kid to Pepe's the Tailor midmorning and that parking lot did not have a single space available. He remembered the staff doing a parking survey justifying that whole situation. He literally had to wait for someone to pull out in that whole parking lot between Portola and San Luis Rey. There wasn't a single spot in the middle of the morning on a Saturday. So he thought it was reasonable that the starting point for evaluating a parking � situation, maybe not the only consideration, but the starting point should � be the code. What did the code require and what was provided? Mr. Drell 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 ` said that the code for this particular use is ten spaces. Commissioner Jonathan said that if Mr. Drell was going to tell him that it requires ten, he wanted to know what it had available. Mr. Drell said that technically, if this use was a standard retail use like Pepe the Tailor, it could go in as a matter of right because it was a use that only required four spaces per 1 ,000. The parking issue that triggered this use was the fact that this particular use required two more spaces. One per 200 instead of one per 250. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the problem was, when they look at a strip center that has a shared parking lot, they couldn't look at an individual user and say they need ten and only have eight because it is a shared parking lot and there were other uses already exceeding their demand. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan noted there was already a shortage for that shared parking lot and that's what they have run into in these other p�ojects. Mr. Drell said that they have run into it very rarely. The fact that a councilman made a statement about parking surveys didn't make that statement correct. What they iry to do is take the best available information they have and make decisions. If the commission felt they needed more information, staff �••• could get it for them or try to get it for them. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't trying to cast dispersions on staff on their technique or procedure for doing either parking or traffic surveys. He didn't think there was a lack of objectivity, he just thought that things change and when they do a survey, it was accurate for that moment in time. But somehow reality seemed to change, whether it was the next week or the next month, the next year or five years later. Then they have a situation. They often say that it's a conditional use permit, if there's a problem they would revoke it. They weren't going to go into that parking lot between Portola and San Luis Rey and tell those people that they couldn't do business there and had to leave. They were stuck with that situation and that was where he was coming from in terms of asking staff for a count of the whole strip center, not just this one use. Because it was a shared lot and therefore they needed to look at all the users and the requirement versus what was provided. Chairperson Finerty o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MANUEL ESPARZA, 31241 Avenida Montevilla in Cathedral �... City, addressed the commission. He said they were trying to open 43 MINUTES PAIM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � a store in Palm Desert. That was the only location available for his store, so they were trying to get a permit to do their business. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the staff report said that most of the business was expected to occur late in the afternoon or early evening. Mr. Esparza said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked how much would occur between 1 1 :00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Mr. Esparza said this would be their second store. They have one in Sacramento and there weren't many customers in the daytime. Their customers were workers and before they go home, they stop at the store to shop. During the daytime there wasn't very good business. Commissioner Tschopp noted that he was an experienced businessman ' with this type of store and must recognize the need for adequate parking, r,�i otherwise the customers would go some place else. He asked if Mr. Esparza personally had any concerns about this particular situation there. Mr. Esparza said no, he saw a lot of parking in there. He saw other stores that barely have spaces and someone couldn't stop because there wasn't parking. But here he saw a lot of parking all the time. Right now they hadn't done any business yet, but there were always spaces available. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were shopping carts. Mr. Esparza said no, they would use little shopping baskets. They would provide them, but they weren't on wheels. It wasn't going to be a huge store where people could buy groceries for the whole week. It was something for the day. So they didn't need those carts. Commissioner Lopez asked if he had a butcher that worked with meats. � � � 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18 2003 �.. Mr. Esparza said yes. He said they sold a lot of carne asada for the barbecue. Commissioner Campbell asked if he needed to be open Monday through Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Esparza said yes. In the morning they mostly did preparation for the afternoon time. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the disposai of the meat scraps. He said they were placed in plastic bags and then they were put in the trash can. He said he was getting visions of 1 10 degree temperatures and meat in the trash cans because there was only pick up twice a week, so there would be three days of heat. Mr. Esparza said they could work on that. In the summertime they probably needed to pick up four times a week. When it got hot they could do that. Wn. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Waste Management could make arrangements to go more frequently. Mr. Esparza said yes, they could go six days a week if they had to. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that would be acceptable to him at least during the summer months. Mr. Esparza said yes. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she frequents that center by going to SubKing, so she knew how busy it was during lunch. But she a(ways found a parking place to pull in and pull out. Where this food market would be located, there was less congestion right there compared to where Kinko's used to be and the SubKing. In the evening there wasn't `.. many there, so she didn't think there would be any problems with 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 parking. She was in favor of the project and stated that it would be nice to have a meat market close by. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He was concerned about parking and it was a legitimate concern to have, but he has been in this area many times and and in that particular end of this series of shops there seemed to be adequate parking. He noted that there was a vacant space with 1 ,344 square feet. He wasn't sure what they were going to do when they got inside, but he thought they were okay with the parking and was in favor. Commissioner Tschopp thought that relative to trash, staff had adequately addressed that in condition number nine where the Director of Community Development would have the ability to increase the number of pick ups if it was deerned necessary. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan's comments regarding parking. It would be helpful in the future to have what's provided and required. When they = have a center like this that sits side by side, it woufd probably be good � to show the other half because he has been in the center many times and it could get very busy. However, he thought this was one of those situations where the landlord at some point in time might have to address the issue because he would be the greatest one impacted when his tenants were no longer happy. So he was in favor of the approval. Commissioner Jonathan said he was persuaded by the other commissioners and by staff's conclusions. He understood where staff was going with their parking analysis. As he has requested in the past, he would be much more comfortable evaluating parking issues when he could see what code requires versus what is provided. It was a simple calculation and he would like to see that in the future. Having said that, he was persuaded by the other commissioners and by staff's report and was also in favor of the project. Chairperson Finerty agreed with the commission and thought it would be nice to have a meat market in the neighborhood. She asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 i..► It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2187, approving CUP 02-34, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. 1. Case No. CUP 03-01 - CARL VOCE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 9,500 square foot cancer/chemotherapy/internal medicine medical office in the office complex located at 73-712 and 73-726 Alessandro Drive. Mr. Smith explained that in July of 2001 the Planning Commission approved the three-building office complex with a total of 33,196 square feet. It was basically concluded in July of 2002. Later in July of 2002, based on an eight-space parking surplus a plastic surgeon's office, Dr. Ball, was approved by staff in the subject buildings. That occupied some 4,400 square feet. So at this time they were looking at a 128 space �•• parking lot with 128 spaces accounted for. At this time the applicant proposed a 9,500 square foot cancer/chemo/internal medicine medical office which would bring the total medical use in the center to some 13,900 square feet or approximately 42% of the complex. The typical issue with medical offices was parking. The parking code for medical offices was six spaces per 1,000 square feet versus four per 1 ,000 for general office. Staff did not do a parking survey for this location because the complex was basically still empty. He counted spaces there one day and there were approximately nine cars occupying 128. He stated that basically what they were looking at was a center that would have two medical office uses in it which were both very iow traffic generating medical office uses in that they were not a clinic and didn't take patients without appointments. They only took people with appointments and as seen with the plastic surgeon's office, they had been advised that they see six to eight patients a day. The proposed cancer/chemo/interna! medicine office, while it would have 20 employees, the applicant indicated they would be looking at a maximum � of seven patients at any one time for a parking total of 27 spaces. In the 47 MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 parking lot it was allocated 34 spaces and at this time they were saying a total parking demand of 27. The CUP process for medical offices was c�eated to address the problem generated by high traffic general medical uses like dental clinics, urgent care facilities and pediatricians offices. As noted, both of these uses fall at the opposite end of the parking generation spectrum. They were at the !ow end. They only see patients by appointment. So if they could be assured that the tenants in these medical office spaces would stay at the low end of the parking generation spectrum, then staff felt that they could comfortably address the parking. Staff felt there were adequate conditions to limit it to those uses and was recommending approval of the request. He noted that a letter of support was received today from the Baltzars of 44-750 San Pascual. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Smith said there were 34 parking spaces allocated to the 9,500 square feet. So under the normal ordinance at six per 1 ,000, the requirement would be 57. Mr. Smith said ihere would be a 17-space difference. Commissioner Jonathan said he was calculating six times 95. Mr. Smith said it was two spaces per 1 ,000 more. Commissioner Jonathan noted that 34 was actually less than the four per 1 ,000. He was coming up with a 23-space shortage and 57 would be required. Mr. Smith said that in the draft report before commission got it had the explanation on the reduction in building size. They took a look at the non useable space in the building and hence the parking was based on that net amount, which was where he got the 8,579 as the net size of building area for parking purposes. So it was 8,579 times the six per 1 ,000 and 17 spaces short. Commissioner Jonathan noted that would be a 35% variance. Mr. Smith said it was 33%. Commissioner Jonathan said if they were 17 short and there were 34 allocated, the normal requirement would be 51 . He asked if that was correct. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith was familiar with the Sunlife building. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked what he knew the size of that building. Mr. Smith said no. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the experience over there was very negative. He wanted to get an idea of what there parking space deficit was compared to this one and assuming that this entire building was accessible down the line, if they would be creating the same situation with this application 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 o.. as they already had there and at several other medical locations. Mr. Smith said that building went in prior to the requirement for six per 1 ,000 and it probably pushed the requirement in that direction. At that point the standard was five per 1,000 after the first 2,200 square feet for medical. They also had a situation in that building where they have an urgent or stat care, a pediatrician's office and a series of high traffic generating medical uses. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff thought that building was parked at five per 1 ,000. Mr. Smith said he would guess 4.5. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that building was parked at 4.5 per 1 ,000 and was experiencing severe problems. The application before the commission tonight was being proposed at four per 1 ,000. Mr. Smith said that with this building, they were talking about a maximum of 42% medical use. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that he was talking about the 9,500 square feet. It had 34 spaces allocated to it which was four per 1 ,000 based on the reduction. So this use, the application before them, was being allocated less than the Sunlife building currently provides. Mr. Smith said that was right, but they were dealing with a complex where the remaining 58% was at a general office `r standard versus the Sunlife medical building which was 90% medical. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith was relying on the rest of the parking lot in the event there was an overflow to meet that excess demand. Mr. Smith said yes. They had provided staff with a break down of their anticipated tenant mix with the number of employees. It supported staff's belief. Chairperson Finerty noted that the staff report said that these uses only accept patients with an appointment. She asked if this was staff's interpretation or if it was what the applicant was telling him. Mr. Smitf� said it was staff's interpretation of people going for plastic surgery and chemotherapy. Chairperson Finerty stated that while she would concur that would be accurate for plastic surgery, having just gone through chemotherapy with her husband in early 2002 and following up at the end of last year, at the Cancer and Blood Institute they didn't go there with an appointment. There was a lot of follow-up where they monitor blood on a daily basis and they were there seven days a week and they just pop in and get in line with everyone else in the waiting room to have a CBC and then determine what treatment is needed. She understood that while they were setting up the type of treatment they might come in with an appointment, but when the chemotherapy actually got under � way, that was not what she has experienced. 49 MINUTES 5 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 She was also perplexed with 20 employees only seeing seven patients at any one time. She didn't know what the building looked like so she didn't know if that was because they were going to have only seven rooms for patients or how many people could be in the waiting room. She wasn't sure of the setup, so it would be helpful if they had an idea of how they were going to run the facility and perhaps the applicant could answer that. But she would be very concerned about the parking. Mr. Drell suggested opening the public hearing and directing some of the questions to the applicant. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else had any questions for Mr. Smith. Commissioner Tschopp noted that there was a comment that staff was recommending a condition that ail employees park onsite. He asked why they didn't do that with all commercial buildings of this size or like size. Mr. Smith said in this instance he included that condition because it was � a problem at the Sunlife building. He didn't care to repeat it. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a great idea and maybe something that they should look at in the future when they were reviewing commercial buildings. Chairperson Finerty o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB YOUNG, with Lyle Commercial, stated that he was representing the owner of the building. As well, Margie Taft was representing the tenant. He said they have had a space plan of the use for the tenant to show the different functions. He said that Ms. Taft could go through and talk about the actual uses within it. MS. MARGIE TAFT, 72-787 Fleetwood Circle in Palm Desert, stated that it was her understanding that the cancer and chemotherapy, some people come to the clinic and only stay one hour or up to four hours. The tenant told her that a maximum of seven patients per hour was their expectation. It was the tenant s who filled out the form for them to bring to the City. That was the � only knowledge she had of it. � 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNtNG COMMISSiON FEBRUARY 18 2003 r.. Chairperson Finerty asked Ms. Taft to walk the commission through the plan. Ms. Taft said she wasn't sure she could walk them through the whole thing because it had changed with the contractor. There were two clinics. One was the cancer infusion clinic and the other was sigmoidoscopy. She pointed out the treatment area. Chairperson Finerty asked how many chairs would be in there. Ms. Taft said she didn't. Chairperson Finerty asked what all the cubicles they were seeing. Ms. Taft said they were the procedure rooms for the sigmoidoscopy. There was one area where the patients would check in. There was one receptionist that would check people into both clinics. She pointed out the waiting room. r.. Chairperson Finerty asked what all the other cubicles were other than the infusion center and the rooms for the sigmoidoscopy. Ms. Taft wasn't sure. She didn't know a lot about this type of procedure of if they changed clothes there, but pointed out the area where they would do the actual procedure. Chairperson Finerty noted that they could probably have ten or so chairs in the infusion center and if they had three patients having sigmoidoscopies and others in the waiting room, she didn't know what all the other rooms were for. She didn't know what any one time was for seven patients. She didn't know if that was at 15-minute intervals. Ms. Taft said they asked the applicant how many patients per hour and she said seven. The clinic is open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and there would be a total of 20 employees. It was closed Saturdays and Sundays. She said there was one doctor that would be onsite and he would see patients before they went in for the sigmoidostopy. But there was only one doctor on staff. r.. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18. 2003 � � ��li Chairperson Finerty asked if that doctor was the one who would be doing the chemotherapy as well or if there couid be two doctors. Ms. Taft didn't know. She was told there would just be one doctor and she met that doctor and took him to this site and showed it to him. He was moving in from out of the area. He was new to the area. Chairperson Finerty asked if Ms. Taft would bring up the proposed plan for the commission to look at closer. She noted that the commission didn't receive copies of it. (Ms. Taft brought it forward) Commissioner Jonathan noted that the application said this would be for cancer/chemotherapy/internal medicine medical office and asked what the internal medicine referred to. Ms. Taft explained that was the doctor that performed the procedures, the sigmoidoscopy. He was the only doctor that she � was aware of that was associated with the clinic. For the infusion clinic, she thought they saw doctors somewhere else and just went there for the treatment of chemotherapy. But the sigmoidostomy she understood required a doctor to be present to do that procedure. Commissioner Jonathan indicated he wasn't an expert in these matters, but to him internal medicine was a broader category. His doctor was an internist. He was a general one, so if his interpretation was accurate, then the application was much more broad or general than the specific uses that were being described. Ms. Taft said she was told they would only be doing those two clinics and they looked at several sites. When they started out they were going to do them in opposite locations. They were going to do the infusion clinic, which was the chemotherapy, in 4,00 feet in one ciinic and the sigmoidostomy in another area and they were looking in different cities for those. Then this medical group decided to combine them to save people power and to do one �� check in area and combined them. But they were originally looking � at totally separate locations for those two clinics. � 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � Chairperson Finerty asked why there were two waiting rooms, one at each end. Ms. Taft didn't think those patients went together. There were to be two separate clinics. Chairperson Finerty asked if there was one doctor for two clinics. Ms. Taft said she didn't know about the chemotherapy and if it took a doctor to administer that. She was assuming that a patient went somewhere, was told they had cancer, and they went for chemotherapy. She thought that practioner types administered what that infusion was. She didn't know that a doctor had to be present. The only doctor she was aware of that she had ever shown the space to was this Dr. Chun who was going to do the sigmoidoscopy. So if another doctor comes and checks in, she wasn't aware of it. She had only met Dr. Chun. � Mr. Drell asked if Dr. Chun was an internist. Ms. Taft didn't know. She said he specializes in sigmoidoscopies. Mr. Drell said that for some reason on the application there was a description of internal medicine and the question was if a sigmoidoscopy was something an internist did. Chairperson Finerty said yes. Mr. Drell said that answered that question. He believed that the application was for a very specialized internal medicine procedure. As opposed to chemotherapy, which was something else that was more a part of oncology. But there was no intent for this to be a general practice internal medicine clinic. Ms. Taft said no. These people had those types of clinics at all different cities. She didn't think they had one in Palm Desert, but they had one in Indio and La Quinta. They do urgent care and they do those types of clinics. This was specialized just for the infusion clinic, chemotherapy and sigmoidoscopy. This was not a general doctor's office. Chairperson Finerty commented that it might not seem like a general � doctor's office, but with all the people having chemo, it might as well be. 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � � Commissioner Jonathan said he was coming up with seven doctor's offices, three exam rooms, processing rooms, pretreatment rooms, a bunch of office rooms, medical records rooms, a couple of waiting rooms, a reception area and then the treatment area. He said he was looking at a hospital there. This was going from one doctor with very light activity to something very different. Mr. Drell suggested a continuance to have the actual tenant present to explain the use. Chairperson Finerty asked if staff ever had a copy of the floor plan presented to night. Mr. Smith said no. He was assured that was unavailable. Mr. Young said it just became available. Chairperson Finerty explained that generally the way the procedure worked best was that staff had the time to go over all this before they got to a public hearing. ; ! Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or � OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one. She left the public hearing o en. Commissioner Jonathan said that it might seem harsh, but it seemed they were trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. He would like to hope that this development would be successful and to put in 9,500 square feet of inedical would end up being an inappropriate use. He said if it was the commission's pleasure to continue, he would go along with that, but he didn't want to drag this on. Commissioner Tschopp noted that Ms. Taft, the representative, was like a lot of them and if they didn't have the medical background, it was pretty difficult to answer the questions. In his mind, he didn't have enough information right now to make an educated guess, but just looking at the plan, it certainly looked like it was a lot more than what had been stated in the staff report as far as doctors, patients and so forth. So he would be in favor of a continuance if the applicant wanted one. But he also said that if the use came out to be what the p(ans x looked like, he didn't think this was the right spot either. � � 54 MINUTES PAlM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 �.. Commissioner Campbell said that if they had more information, they could look at it a lot more closely. She also noted that Ms. Taft made the comment that those plans might have changed. She thought that the other plan might have fewer examining rooms and fewer treatment rooms. She would leave it up to the commission on whether or not to continue it. But right now, it was too big for that area. Mr. Drell said that if they were going to do a denial, they should have all the information. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He said that as difficult as it was for Ms. Taft to answer their questions, it was as difficult for the commission to understand the perspective of the project without having enough information or information received prior to the meeting, i.e., plans and the layout, etc., and not having the medical individual present to give them expertise at the meeting. Mr. Young stated that because they couldn't explain it, they would �.. like a chance to bring him in at a later date to answer the questions. He agreed with a continuance of two weeks. Commissioner Jonathan said that in an abundance of fairness to the applicant, he would move for a continuance. He asked if two weeks to March 4 was enough time. Mr. Young said yes. Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing would remain open. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing Case No. CUP 03-01 to March 4, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. XI. MISCELLANEOUS None. �.. 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � , � XII. 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 - (No meeting) F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XIII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE LIAISONS A. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson B. Appointment of an Art in Public Places Representative, a Civic Center Steering Committee Representative, Appointment of a Desert Willow Committee Representative, Appointment of a Project Area 4 Committee Representative, and Appointment of a �� � Zoning Ordinance Review Committee Representative. .ri Action: It was moved by Chairperson Finerty electing Commissioner Campbell as Chairperson and electing Commissioner Jonathan as Vice Chairperson, Commissioner Campbell continue with Art in Public Places, Commissioner Jonathan continue with the Civic Center Steering Committee, delete Desert Willow, Commissioner Finerty continue with Project Area 4 and the Landscape Committee, and Commissioner Campbell continue with ZORC. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would like to continue with Art in Public Places, but if Commissioner Tschopp was interested in ZORC, he could have it. Commissioner Tschopp noted that according to the newspaper, the City was looking at their committees and revamping and as far as the committee appointments, wait and see how the committees would be restructured. Commissioner Campbell said this list was short compared to the list. In all of the ones listed, AIPP was meeting tomorrow and ZORC would be meeting soon. So there were some major committees that needed the liaisons appointed to now. Chairperson Finerty noted any adjustments could be made after the council decision. 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 2003 � Chairperson Finerty stated that she would amend her motion to have Commissioner Tschopp participate on ZORC. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez. The motion carried 5-0. XIV. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan noted that this was a challenging meeting and he wanted to say that he thought they had the best staff in the Coachella Valley and one of the best Planning Commissions ever. He didn't know how he would make it through nights like this if it wasn't for everyone here. XV. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. �... • PHILIP DREL1� Secretary 1 ATTEST: � � . . , , �- �� <--�-�E--k ONfA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission �.. 57