Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0720 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - JULY 20, 2004 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. 111. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty low Jim Lopez Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Kim Williams, Acting Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for consideration of the June 1 and June 15, 2004 meeting minutes. r.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the June 1 , 2004 meeting minutes and the June 15, 2004 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized the pertinent June 24 and July 8, 2004 Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Battalion Chief David Avila of the Riverside County Fire Department Cove's Fire Department introduced himself as the City's Fire Marshal for the past two years, and commented that he has been assigned as a Field Battalion Chief, and his goal is to attend the Commission meetings. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 04-05 - G.L. LAND HOLDINGS, Applicant woo Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 27 and 28 of Tract 26068 within Bighorn for building purposes. B. Case No. PMW 04-07 - LAWRENCE AND BARBARA SPARKS, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two lots identified as APNs 625-241-035 and 048 located on Fairway Drive. C. Case No. PMW 04-08 - ELAINE M. PIZZA AND BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 2 and 3 of Tract 27301 within Bighorn for building purposes. i i Ud 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Now D. Case No. PP 03-10 - GILL DESERT PROPERTIES, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a 93,842 square foot office complex on 8.72 acres located at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PP/CUP 04-11 - RANCHO MIRAGE BUILDERS, INC., Applicant (Continued from June 15, 2004) Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 2,210 square foot single story office building located at the northwest corner of Alessandro Drive and San Jacinto Avenue, 73-900 Alessandro Avenue. Mr. Drell reported that the applicant is still working on a revised site plan for the project and once again requests that the matter be continued. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing, and noting that no one requested to address the Commission regarding this matter, asked if there was a motion to continue. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion to continue Case No. PP/CUP 04-11 to August 17, 2004. Motion carried 5-0. ww 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 a B. Case No. TT 31490 - PONDEROSA HOMES II, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a tentative tract map to subdivide 81 .45 acres into 237 single family lots and modified setbacks for dwellings on 237 lots. Property is located at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, 74-000 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Drell reported that after submitting the application, the applicant was given an opportunity to purchase some real estate from Southern California Edison which would allow the applicant to expand the project, and therefore, the applicant is requesting a continuance to August 17, 2004 in order to redesign the tract map. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing, and noting that no one requested to address the Commission regarding this matter, asked if there was a motion to continue. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion to continue Case No. TT 31490 to August 17, 2004. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP 04-10 - TIM DiTOMASO, Applicant (Continued from May 4, May 18, June 1 and July 6, 2004) Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 7,475 square foot food court and a 3,300 square foot drive-thru restaurant located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive approximately 250 feet east of Cook Street (APN 653-690- 017 and 018). Mr. Drell reported that the applicant has made last minute improvements to the site plan and requests a continuance to August 3, 2004. ) 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 ru. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing, and noting that no one requested to address the Commission regarding this matter, asked if there was a motion to continue. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion to continue Case No. PP 04-10 to August 3, 2004. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. CUP 04-14 - KAREN ALEXANDER, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to convert an existing four-unit apartment complex into a bed and breakfast hotel with three guest units plus a manager's unit located at 73-435 Shadow Mountain Drive. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. He noted that Shadow Mountain traditionally has been the location of bed and breakfast facilities throughout the history of the City, and the City has promoted it as such in order to provide close proximity of the El Paseo commercial shopping district to visitors. Commissioner Finerty asked if there are other bed and breakfast facilities in other residential areas. Mr. Drell replied that all of the bed and breakfast facilities are located within residential areas, specifically the R-3 zones, which allow hotels as a conditional use. There were no further questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MS. KAREN ALEXANDER, 73-435 Shadow Mountain Drive in Palm Desert, expressed concurrence with the staff report and recommendation. Commissioner Campbell asked about the location of handicap parking. Ms. Alexander replied that Mr. Urbina visited the property and made a recommendation regarding an exact location, and she has already converted the area according to that recommendation. r.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 ..ri She added that she has also converted a restroom for handicap accessibility and installed a sidewalk for handicap accessibility pursuant to City staff recommendations. Fire Marshal David Avila asked if the applicant would be willing to install a smoke detection system in lieu of fire sprinklers, which would normally be required. Ms. Alexander replied that there are already smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors in each unit. Mr. Avila noted that would be acceptable. There were no other questions and Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. CHRISTOPHER NELSON, 73-415 Shadow Mountain Drive in Palm Desert, expressed opposition to the project, indicating he lives next door, and the area is completely residential, and he does not want to live next door to hotel. Ms. Alexander noted that she has not had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Nelson. She commented that the property was quite dilapidated when she purchased it, and she has subsequently upgraded it substantially. Due to those improvements, she believed Mr. Nelson's property value has been also been enhanced. She stated that Mr. Nelson's condominium complex is comprised of eight units, and for part of the year, those units are leased out on a seasonal, long-term, or short-term basis, so she believes the properties are utilized in a similar fasion. Chairperson Jonathan asked how the property will be managed to ensure that it does not result in a negative impact to the neighborhood. Ms. Alexander replied that guests of bed and breakfast facilities are typically peaceful, and she is providing a very home-like and peaceful enviornment. She added that she will be living on the property. i i 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan asked if the neighbors will have someone to contact if they experience problems with the guests of the facility. Ms. Alexander replied that she will be the neighborhood contact person, and added that she intends to maintain a peaceful environment. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Tschopp believed that this type of development is good for El Paseo and provides more visitors to the area, as well as visitor access to what the City has to offer. He noted that the conversion of four apartment units to a bed and breakfast facility with three guest rooms will not lead to an increase in traffic, and the proposed project complies with the development standards. Chairperson Jonathan observed that the nature of the street in this area is such that it is a transitional street with mixed residential and small hotels and bed and breakfast facilities, so this type of facility makes sense in this area. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2276, approving CUP 04-14, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. PP 04-14 - WILLIAM, SHARON, SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECTS FOR D'MUNDO TILE, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan and height exception to allow construction of a 19,565 square foot showroom/ warehouse and associated vehicle storage yard on a 1 .14- acre parcel. Project is generally located approximately 900 %NW 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 1, feet east of Cook Street on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive, APN 653-410-023 and 025. Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff report, and noted that this is the former location of the ice rink. The project meets all applicable standards with the exception of a small tower element over the entry, which exceeds the 33-foot height limit by two feet. The Architectural Review Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the project. Staff believes that the tower element adds interest to the building, and the majority of the building is proposed at 33 feet in height. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the project. There were no questions of staff and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BILL SHARON of Smith Consulting Architects, located at 12- 000 El Camino Real in San Diego, explained that the overall height of 33 feet will allow sufficient ceiling height for the interior, and t ..ri the 35-foot tower element will add interest to the exterior. Mr. Sharon wanted to know who would pay for the street improvements in front, and commented that it was his understanding that the Valley Center Business Park as a whole would be responsible for the street improvements, with his clients participating in their fair share. He was concerned that the wording of some of the conditions of approval seem to indicate that the applicants individually would be financially responsible for funding street improvements that will benefit the entire business park. Mr. Drell replied that his understanding is that the developer of this tract, Mr. Nobel, is installing the street improvements, so the street improvements must be installed prior to the applicant's commencement of construction activities. There were no other questions and Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There being 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 none, Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty noted that D'Mundo certainly has insufficient space in their current location, and expressed support for the project. Commissioner Lopez commented that he would normally have reservations about a height exception, but he believes this particular height exception will be compatible in this area. Commissioners Tschopp and Campbell concurred with their fellow Commissioners, as did Chairperson Jonathan. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner ,�. Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2277, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 04-14, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. PP 04-13 - EN ENGINEERING FOR LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a 135,152 square foot home improvement center with a 31 ,048 square foot garden center at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, 35-850 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. He noted that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation for approval to the City Council approval, since City Council action is required for the height exceptions that are proposed. He noted that the height exceptions are proposed in order to facilitate the use of the main building at a height which ranges from 27 feet to 32 feet, as well as to 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 .ri allow for architectural projections up to 48 feet in height to improve the building appearance. Mr. Smith noted that one outstanding issue is that Sunline Transit has requested a bus pull out and shelter in the area of the vacant property south of the project's north property line, and Sunline has also requested and obtained a bus stop/shelter on Gerald Ford Drive in front of the Sares Regis apartment project that is immediately adjacent tot the east. City staff believes there are more suitable locations, and that the bus stop/shelter in front of the apartment project should be eliminated in order to minimize impediments to traffic flow. City staff has included a condition of approval that will require that a bus stop/shelter be provided in a location to be determined in consultation between the City and Sunline. Mr. Smith noted that as part of the environmental review, the General Plan considered this site as a neighborhood commercial site, but the proposed home improvement center will actually result in approximately 30% less traffic than would a similarly sized neighborhood commercial center. Commissioner Campbell asked if a water feature is proposed, to which Mr. Smith replied that an art feature will be included. Commissioner Lopez asked if a left-turn in will be installed on southbound Monterey, to which Mr. Smith replied affirmatively, and noted the median will allow a left turn in, but no left turn out. Commissioner Lopez was concerned about allowing a left turn in without benefit of a traffic signal on a street that has a 60 mph speed limit. Mr. Drell noted that the traffic signal will be located at 35`h, which will be on the south side of the Wal-Mart center. Commissioner Lopez noted Community Development Department Condition No. 12 requires that the east wall of the truck loading dock area be at least equal to the height of trucks using the facility, and opined that is a questionable height level for a wall. Mr. Smith noted this was discussed with the applicant, and they are agreeable to it, and clarified that the height will approximately 12 to 14 feet. 00 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan asked if all five access points are necessary, to which Mr. Smith replied that modifications were made to the original submittal to reduce the number f allowed turning movements at various points. Mr. Drell commented that if the number of access points is too restricted, then bottlenecks result; whereas if they are spread out, then less stacking is likely to occur in each lane. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out a very blank area on the architectural rendering to the left of the front entrance, and observed that the area to the right has much more detail and landscaping and asked if the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) took that into account. Mr. Smith replied that the ARC did discuss that area, and noted that is the area where texture changes will occur, although those textures do not show up well on the architectural rendering. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there are any architectural features, significant landscaping or art features that will be visible from the intersections, as opposed to merely having a view of a large parking lot. Mr. Smith replied that the site plan does not yet identify a location for a public art piece. Commissioner Tschopp questioned why the applicant is proposing 66% more parking than is required when the home improvement center is expected to generate 30% less traffic than would a similarly sized neighborhood commercial center. Mr. Smith explained that the trip generations statistics are based on the most recent ITE manual. Mr. Drell suggested that Lowe's representatives may be able to address why they are proposing more parking than the average home improvement center requires. Mr. Smith pointed out that the landscape plan is being revised to adequately address the large expanse of asphalt space. There were no further questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JACK MANDELL, 1530 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, California, stated that he is a senior site development manager for Lowe's, and expressed concurrence with the conditions of approval. He noted that the landscape architect is still in the process of working with staff to revise the landscape plan. He 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 3 7 added that Lowe's own internal standard for parking is 4.5 spaces for every 1 ,000 square feet of the main building area. He noted that independent studies of various Lowe's stores have been conducted to ascertain the number of spaces actually utilized, and it turns out that the internal standard is a bit high, so most of the time all of the parking spaces will not be filled. Commissioner Tschopp commented that the width of the drive aisles appear to be a little tight. Mr. Mandell replied that 30 feet is proposed, and is pretty generous compared to the minimum required width of 24 feet for a two-way aisle. He added that it may be possible to widen it further. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff is comfortable with the depth of the access points to ensure adequate stacking area. Mr. Mandell noted that the depth of the access points was widened in response to concerns expressed by staff. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant is agreeable to having more than one art piece. Mr. Mandell indicated that he is not prepared to make a commitment on that, but stated that a single art feature should be adequate, especially considering the traffic speeds on these streets. Mr. Drell pointed out that the applicant is required to provide an art piece valued at least $54,000, but also has the option of simultaneously fulfilling that financial obligation for the second phase of the site construction Commissioner Finerty referenced the west elevation and noted the 36 foot height at the center which gradually rises to 48 feet, and was concerned that 20% of the building will exceed the maximum allowed height. Mr. Drell clarified that the depth of the tower element is only 20 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 feet back, so the tower element will not actually be visible from the west due to the slope of the land. MR. CHUCK BLANDA of Nadel Architects, located at 625 Broadway in San Diego, noted that the blank area to the left of the main entrance was discussed by the ARC, and a later version of the elevation shows additional texture that will be provided in that area. He further remarked that it is possible that this area will be used as a backdrop for an art piece. Mr. Drell pointed out that there is insufficient space for landscaping in front of that area, so differences in textures and color contrasts were proposed. Chairperson Jonathan believed that there is enough room to add column treatments or some other element to add architectural interest, i.e., something similar to those shown on the left of the main entrance. Otherwise, he felt the wall will be too massive. He believed that this could be worked out at the staff level. Chairperson Jonathan stated that the public art is not his main concern, but the overall appearance along that stretch of Monterey is of concern. Mr. Blanda indicated that they can work with staff regarding some type of visual treatment along Monterey. There were no other questions and Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There being none, Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Lopez asked about other developments in the City that have this type of step in the height of the parapets with a similar setback from the street, to which Mr. Drell noted that all of the major shopping centers, i.e., the mall, Desert Crossings, Von's Supermarket, Albertson's Supermarket. He explained that typically buildings like this start 30 feet in height and increase from there to get some architectural relief for the long, rectangular shape. IN. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Wild Commissioner Lopez felt that the landscaping will play a very important role in providing an appealing line of sight from Monterey and Gerald Ford. He expressed concern about traffic speeds on Monterey, but believed that a traffic signal at 35`h should mitigate those problems. He stated that he finds the architecture to be suitable. Commissioner Campbell commented favorably on the architecture and added she would also be supportive of more vibrant colors. She stated that in terms of landscaping, she does not want a result similar to that which exists at Desert Crossings. Commissioner Finerty stated that she likes the architecture and colors, but is concerned about the large parking lot on Monterey, especially since historically speaking, landscaping has not done well in large centers. She believed that providing 66% more parking than that required is excessive, especially along such a highly traveled street. Commissioner Tschopp commented favorably on the architecture, but was concerned about the landscaping, and was primarily concerned that a home improvement center is not as appealing as a neighborhood commercial center, particularly so near a residential area. He believed that the applicant's desire for 66% more parking than is required is indicative of the applicant's anticipation that those spaces will be filled, and therefore generate more traffic than the statistics project. Mr. Drell clarified that the amount of parking is more than is required for a home improvement center, but is similar to what would be required for a neighborhood commercial center. Chairperson Jonathan believed that having more parking than is required is a positive attribute rather than a negative one. He noted that the traffic consequences of a residential development would be greater than this particular use. He stated that he sees Gerald Ford as a natural delineating point to transition from residential uses to commercial uses; thus, he believes this is an appropriate use. Chairperson Jonathan felt that some issues need careful attention, such as the landscaping and the visual impact along Monterey and Gerald Ford. He suggested that further refinements be made to the area left of the 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 ftw main entrance. He agreed that a bus shelter is long overdue, and felt that the placement and payment for bus shelters is a regional issue and should not be made one development at a time. He indicated it is his hope the City Council will implement a regional solution to the bus shelter issues. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would recommend in favor of the project, with the suggestion that the City Council give careful consideration to the list of concerns. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2, with Commissioners Finerty and Tschopp dissenting. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2278, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. PP 04-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2, with Commissioners Finerty and �.r Tschopp dissenting. G. Case No. PP 04-07 - ALLAN ZYLSTRA, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to construct a two- story 5,250 square foot office/commercial retail building at 73-168 Highway 111 . Mr. Urbina outlined the salient points of the staff report, and noted that main issue regarding the proposed project is parking. The 5,250 square foot building requires 21 off-street parking spaces, and only 9 spaces are proposed. The applicant proposes to pay an in-lieu fee into a trust deposit account so that the funds may be used to implement a General Plan program to provide public parking in the area. The applicant requests that the Commission make a finding that there is sufficient on- street parking available on the Highway 1 1 1 frontage road to temporarily accommodate 12 of the project's 21 required parking spaces. He noted that staff conducted a parking survey and found there to be sufficient available on-street parking. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 ..i Mr. Urbina further reported that staff received a fax from an adjacent property owner of an office building to the west expressing objection to the proposed in-lieu parking fee, which noted that he was required to develop according to the required number of parking spaces, and.that the applicant should be required to do the same. Mr. Urbina pointed out that the site does contain older buildings that may be considered blighted, and the applicant intends to enhance the site with the new construction, but needs the square footage proposed in order to make the project financially feasible. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the size of the existing building, to which Mr. Urbina replied that the applicant would have to answer that question. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the alley that is behind the building is part of the alley that is to be improved, to which Mr. Drell replied that this is the area that has been considered since 1984 for development as a parking lot. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the timing for construction and location of a parking lot, to which Mr. Drell replied that the location was recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council as a priority, but the timing was never approved, although a goal of less than five years was established. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the small lot east of the drug store is public parking lot, to which Mr. Drell replied that a portion of the drug store lot is designated for public parking. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the $5,000 in-lieu fee would be directed toward the cost of alley parking, to which Mr. Drell replied that a portion of the costs were to be borne by the property owners, but a formula has yet to be worked out. Commissioner Campbell noted that the new building will be divided into six spaces to be used as either retail or office space, and the employees alone would require at least 12 parking spaces, so the nine spaces proposed would be insufficient for the tenants and their employees. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 w.. There were no further questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RICK DIRKSEN, 9461 Hughes Drive in Glen Ivy, California, introduced himself as the project architect and commented that the existing buildings comprise approximately 800 square feet of the site. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there is existing on-site parking for the existing buildings. Mr. Dirksen replied that there is a mish-mash of spaces tucked away, but it is inadequate to serve the present needs, and added that the present configuration does not allow for safe maneuvering. Mr. Dirksen referred to the letter of opposition and noted that the applicant is merely taking advantage of an opportunity that was r... afforded to him, and other property owners could avail themselves of the same opportunity. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the applicant would be willing to enter into some type of parking mitigation plan that would require the employees to use the lot located approximately a block and a half to the west. Mr. Dirksen replied that he is certain the property owner would be willing to do that because he wants the customers to have convenient parking. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Tschopp remarked that the existing building is an eyesore, and the applicant's proposal is what has been hoped would occur on this stretch of Highway 1 1 1 for some time. The lack of parking is a concern, but a temporary mitigation plan requiring off-site parking for employees until a public lot can be constructed could address concerns of adjacent property owners. r.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 i .er Commissioner Campbell commented that there doesn't appear to be a parking problem whenever she has passed by during the day, and expressed support for approving the project with nine on-site parking spaces. Commissioner Lopez concurred that the existing building needs to be leveled and something better put in its place, and a future public parking lot would alleviate problems; therefore, he would be in favor of the project. Commissioner Finerty agreed that the existing building is an eyesore and the proposed building would be a huge improvement; however, with the lack of public parking and no known date of construction, i.e., five or six years down the road, she believed the applicant is a little ahead of his time on the parking, but certainly timely on the building. She wondered if it would be advantageous to continue this matter until after Mr. Drell meets with the City Manager so that the Commission may have an idea regarding the timing of the public parking lot construction. She indicated she would not be in favor of the project without a known time of construction for the public parking lot because the area is already congested. Commissioner Finerty stated that she is not persuaded by staff's parking survey because it was done in May and June rather than at peak season. She indicated she would support continuance; otherwise, she would be opposed to moving forward with it. Chairperson Jonathan recognized the need for an improvement to the existing building, but was concerned about the existing parking situation and proposed solution. He indicated he concurs with the comments made in the July 20`h letter from Jim Demetrio. While the site is only 7,320 square feet, the proposed structure is 5,250 square feet, which is 70% coverage, and normal coverage is 30-35% coverage. Therefore, he believed this proposal involves too much building on too small of a lot. Chairperson Jonathan believed that it would be short-sighted to add to the existing parking problem because the alley parking lot is not ready for implementation, and hasn't happened in the last 20 years, so looks a bit 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 tow doubtful. In the meantime, he would not even be supportive of a continuance, because he believes the solution is a smaller size building. Commissioner Tschopp stated that in his zest to see this blighted property torn down, he was encouraged by the prospect of a replacement building, but having heard Chairperson Jonathan's comments, he now sees that a smaller building may be more appropriate. He commented that it was his hope that a parking mitigation plan would provide enough spaces for customers, but he now believes a smaller building may be more appropriate given the timing of a future public parking lot. Commissioner Finerty noted that the applicant's architect stated that anything smaller than the proposed building would not be financially feasible. Chairperson Jonathan noted that an alternative regarding the building aesthetics is for the owner to participate in the City's facade enhancement program, which has been implemented successfully. Mr. Drell noted that the purpose of the parking plan was to encourage larger buildings than would normally be allowed, and it would be a mistake to construct a smaller building that ultimately could not take advantage of the parking lot which will ultimately will be built. Mr. Drell believed the suggestion of nailing down the timing of the parking lot is a better suggestion than having the applicant redesign for a smaller building. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to deny the request for approval and request staff to prepare a resolution of denial citing the lack of parking and concern with the size of the building. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioner Lopez dissenting. H. Case Nos. PP 04-12 and TT 32420 - BRAVA DEVELOPMENT, LLC., Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to construct 38 triplex buildings totaling 114 units, a tentative tract map to 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 i subdivide the 12.7-acre site into 13 lots for condominium purposes, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for property located at 73-200 Country Club Drive. Mr. Bagato outlined the salient points of the staff report, noting that staff has proposed an additional condition, Condition No. 11 , "That the developer of the property shall disclose verbally and in writing to buyers of the units in Buildings 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 as shown on Tract Map 32420 that the buildings in question may be susceptible to impact from stray golf balls from Suncrest Country Club. The developer/seller shall verbally disclose to all potential buyers of any units in buildings 16-20 inclusive of the potential impact from stray golf balls. Additionally, the developer/seller shall disclose in writing, in a form reviewed and approved by the City, during escrow process that the lot may be impacted by stray golf balls from the Suncrest Country Club. Buyer will acknowledge in writing that he/she has previously been advised of this verbally." Mr. Bagato added that the developer has been apprised of this condition and is agreeable to it. goo Mr. Bagato reported that the site plan has been modified to add more parking so that the project now provides two spaces more than is required. Commissioner Finerty asked if the proposed recreational amenities will remain the same even though more parking spaces are now proposed, to which Mr. Bagato responded that there is no change to the recreational amenities. There were no further questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. ANTONE BARBADO, 43 Gibraltar Drive in Palm Desert, stated that they've been developing the plans for this project for nearly a year, trying to be sensitive to the look and feel within the community, and being cognizant of developing on an inf ill piece of property. He explained that the overall feel of the community is a Tuscan village with an extensive amount of stone veneer. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There being none, Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty indicated that she really likes the proposed project, which has great architecture, and will make a nice addition to the community. Commissioner Campbell commended the developer on a wonderfully developed proposal, with which Commissioner Tschopp concurred. Commissioner Lopez opined that the architecture is beautiful, and the overall project is great. Chairperson Jonathan believed that the proposed density is appropriate, and commended the architect for a well done job with great attention to detail. He indicated that he particularly is impressed with the walking path and the amenities. r.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2279, approving Case Nos. PP 04-12 and TT 32420, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. RECESS: 8:35 - 8:45 PM The Commission took a brief recess at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Kim Williams, Acting Secretary I. Case No. CUP 02-15 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a one-bedroom, 579 square foot attached second unit at 44- 536 Portola Avenue. Mr. Hargreaves reported that this application and the next two applications on the agenda have been around for some time, and when they originally came forward, they came forward under the City's old second unit ordinance, which had a CUP process and a number of standards. After the City Council reviewed the applications and sent them back down, and while they were pending further action, the City Council adopted a new second unit ordinance in conformance with new direction under State law that the CUP process be abolished for these types of applications. The City now has the discretion to review these applications under either the old or the new ordinance, and the Council has continued to review these under the CUP process, which is an indication from the Council that these applications should be reviewed under the old ordinance. If they were reviewed under the new ordinance, a CUP would not be required and they would be reviewed by staff instead of the Planning Commission. i 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 r.. Chairperson Jonathan asked why the applications are back before the Planning Commission, to which Mr. Drell replied that the City Council wanted the applicant to correct all the code deficiency problems, and there was also some question relative to the procedures of the approvals concerning the Architectural Review issues, so the Architectural Review Commission went through reviews on all the architectural issues over which they had purview. At this point, these applications are still in the appeal process, and given the corrections and some changes that have occurred to the projects in response to the denial, the Council wanted one last comment from the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell noted that there were originally four projects submitted, and the Commission approved three and denied one. The Council did act on one of those appeals and reversed the Commission's approval and denied the project, so that one is gone and finished; so the Commission is now dealing with the remaining three applications. Mr. Urbina reviewed the salient points of the staff report, and noted that this was one of the projects that the Commission approved, and an appeal was filed to the City Council. Commissioner Finerty asked what happened to the gazebo-like structure, to which Mr. Urbina replied that it was subsequently converted to a full carport, and the carport had to be set back 15 feet from the rear property line, as shown on the project site plan. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the carport now complies with all applicable development standards, to which Mr. Urbina responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tschopp asked for an explanation of the lack of building permits for the second kitchen, to which Mr. Urbina replied that in November 2003, the Council directed the applicant to take care of any outstanding Uniform Building Code violations. Building permits were subsequently obtained by the applicant and were given final approval in February and March of this year. The applicant was required to disconnect the stoves in the second units. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 i Mr. Drell noted that technically, until the CUP is approved, building permits for a second kitchen cannot be issued; so pursuant to the Building Code, the applicant was required to restore the whole property to a single unit. Then the reconversion to the second unit per the ordinance would occur after the final approval of the CUP. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there are any concerns that Coachella Valley Water District may withhold its approval, to which Mr. Urbina replied that there are no known concerns on the part of the water district; however, one of the conditions of approval is that the applicant must obtain water and sewer connections from the water district for the second unit. Commissioner Tschopp asked if under the new ordinance, there would be no public hearing with neighbors invited to comment, to which Mr. Drell responded affirmatively, and noted that the applicant would have to comply with applicable code requirements, but second units are no longer subject to discretionary approval. Commissioner Finerty asked if the main difference is that they would not be owner occupied and the new ordinance requires that they be owner occupied, so with the applicant having three different units before the Commission tonight, there is no way all three of them could be approved, to which Mr. Drell responded affirmatively, but noted that under the new ordinance these applications would not be before the Commission. Chairperson Jonathan noted that under the old ordinance, the applicant applied for the appropriate permits and corrected all outstanding Building Code violations as of February 2004, so staff's interpretation is that under the old ordinance, this property qualifies and staff is recommending approval of the CUP, which was confirmed by Mr. Urbina. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the old second unit ordinance contained the owner occupied provision, to which Mr. Drell replied that it did not. There were no further questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION J U LY 20, 2004 MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS, 44-536 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that he has complied with the City's requests and has acquired the necessary permits and is ready to move forward. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the unit is currently occupied. Mr. Beauvais stated that the unit is occupied by himself. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the unit is rented out. Mr. Beauvais stated that the front unit is rented out, and he lives in the back unit. Commissioner Tschopp asked if a carport is required for the unit. Mr. Beauvais replied that he pulled the permit, and it was his intent to move forward. r... Commissioner Tschopp noted that there had been some time delays in the past, and the stated intent is to move forward, and asked if the applicant is willing to make a time commitment to the City to having the carport completed in a timely manner. Mr. Beauvais replied that he believes a timely manner is important and he is currently processing a loan on that property to refinance it to pull out an amount of money that would cover not only that house, but the house adjacent to it on Portola which is a mess right now. He stated he has spent all the money he previously borrowed to do all the things to that house and pull all the permits and file them for the City. Now he is refinancing to do all of this, and it's actually a matter of money. With what's happened to the housing in the neighborhood, he now has equity in the house, and there is money that he can get out of it in order to move forward with this process. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there is any commitment to have the work done within a certain amount of time. tam 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 i 4 Mr. Beauvais replied that as soon as he gets his loan, he will start the work. He added that the plans are complete and he has submitted for permits, but he didn't want to go ahead and build it and later find out that it wasn't required. Mr. Drell noted that there was a general view of the Council that while this process was going on, they didn't want tenants evicted. Commissioner Tschopp clarified that he is not suggesting that the tenants be evicted, even though the applicant is benefitting from having tenants there and at the same time is not in compliance with the previous code. And because of the time delays, he just wants to know how long it will take for completion, i.e., if it will be another 90 days, six months, one year, three years, etc. Mr. Drell stated that imposing a time limit for performance is not an unreasonable expectation in this type of process. Y Commissioned Campbell noted that the City Council minutes indicate that the Director of Building and Safety stated that all of this should be completed by January 30"', to which Mr. Drell replied that the work which was required to bring the buildings up to code as a single-family dwelling has been completed. Obviously, the applicant could not even get permits that are required to legally convert the units until after the CUP is approved. Thus, the timeline for when the improvements can be legally constructed will begin with the Council approval. However, if it is the Commission's or the Council's recommendation that those improvements be completed within a certain amount of time, then that could be a condition of approval. Commissioner Campbell noted that the unit on CUP 02-17, which the Commission had denied, was the one for which the applicant has not submitted the plans, and the Commission is anticipating him to finish on January 301h, so that would be the last one that was not approved, assuming all the others would be finished before January 30, 2005. Mr. Drell asked if the desire is to impose a six-month time limit for completion, to which Commissioner Campbell responded affirmatively. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Mr. Beauvais clarified that the unit which was not approved was not approved because there was not a carport available. He stated he pulled a permit for that carport, and it required no variances of any sort, and that carport was built and currently exists, so that requirement has been met for that property. Thus, the reason for denial has been resolved. Commissioner Campbell asked the applicant if he believes he can have the work completed by January 30, 2005. Mr. Beauvais replied that he can absolutely have the work completed by January 30, 2005, but he didn't want to start building things without approval. He stated that, in fact, he can have the carport built within three months. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Beauvais earlier indicated he could not construct the carport until his home equity loan was approved, and asked for clarification on when he believes the work can actually be completed. Mr. Beauvais stated that if it is an issue for Commissioner Tschopp, then he would find the money and make a statement indicating he would make it happen. The loan he referred to earlier is an amount of money that would also rehabilitate the house which he purchased from the City which is adjacent to the El Cortez house. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the old ordinance requires the second unit to be rented to individuals 60 years of age or order, to which Mr. Urbina responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the applicant currently has long-term leases now in effect that would preclude that from happening in the near future. Mr. Beauvais replied that he does not have any such long-term leases. VOW 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Commissioner Tschopp asked the applicant if he would be serving notices to any tenants that are not of that age. Mr. Beauvais replied that he would not serve them notice, because somewhere in writing there is a condition that when the existing tenants move out, that he must replace them with tenants at least 60 years of age. Commissioner Tschopp asked the applicant how many months or years the lease runs before that would occur and he would be in compliance with the old code. Mr. Beauvais commented that it would depend on when the tenant moves out. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there is a rental agreement. Mr. Beauvais replied that there is a rental agreement, and it is month to month. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Beauvais could serve notice to the tenants in order to comply with the ordinance by renting to individuals at least 60 years of age. Mr. Beauvais replied that he could do that, but he has women and children living in these units. Commissioner Tschopp expressed concern that the applicant is asking the Commission to be allowed to do certain things in compliance with the old code, and is also saying that he doesn't want to comply with the age restriction portion of the old code, and asked how soon Mr. Beauvais intends to be fully in compliance with the old code, which also includes renting to people at least 60 years of age. Mr. Beauvais commented that he would have to consider that, and it was stated at the City Council meeting that through attrition, at the point when the existing tenants move out, that they must be replaced with seniors, and that's the best way he can answer the question. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 MS. KIM HOUSKIN, 73-237 Somera in Palm Desert, stated that she is very curious as to the identity of the resident in the front unit because she believes a couple was living there who recently purchased a house down the street, and she would like to know if someone new has since moved into this unit, even though Mr. Beauvais was aware that he didn't have a CUP yet. She believed the issue of whether or not a new tenant has moved in when Mr. Beauvais is aware he has not gotten approval of the CUP is a relevant issue because it shows continual disregard for City policy. She clarified that the City Council minutes from November refer to 2004, not 2005. Ms. Houskin commented that City Attorney Dave Irwin had been asked at a City Council meeting in April whether these applications would be judged under the old rules or the new rules, and he indicated that would be determined by the time, because if and when the CUP's are approved, they would would be subject to the ordinance in effect at the time. She noted that Mr. Irwin's tow statement is contradictory to what she is hearing this evening, i.e., that it will be judged by the old rules. Ms. Houskin stated that she also attended the Council meeting in May, which was more in regard to the concerns about the numerous code violations. When the Council met again in November, it was more a status update, but the Council was still concerned about hearing the case while there were still unresolved code violations. She indicated she would like a response from the City Attorney regarding the contradiction. Mr. Hargreaves remarked that he discussed the situation with Cit Attorney Irwin today, and the conclusion reached was the conclusion he gave earlier. Ms. Houskin stated she would like to know the time limit for compliance with code violations. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that is either a staff question or a code compliance question and Ms. Houskin to confine her comments to the matter with which the Commission is dealing. r.. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 ' ri Ms. Houskin wondered why the Commission is hearing these cases tonight, especially since the City Council was concerned about the issue of the illegal second units, i.e., whether or not the illegal second kitchens had been removed. She noted that Mr. Urbina reported that the stove top had been disconnected, so it seems to her that an illegal second unit still exists. Ms. Houskin expressed concern that the applicant has claimed many times that all of these properties had second units when he purchased the properties, but in going through a code enforcement report dated July 2, 2002, it states that Mr. Beauvais has admitted to converting the properties into duplexes. She believed that in the multiple occasions these cases have been before the Commission, there was inadequate information upon which to base a decision. She believed that these applications should be judged as a single-family home and whether or not it meets the conditions for a single-family home, and added that she doesn't believe it does meet the conditions and that it's far too vague. Ms. Houskin commented that indicated she differs with staff regarding the increase in 10%, and stated she's been told this is a loophole and anyone can expand their home as large as they like and then come back later and apply for a second unit. She believed the intent of a second unit is a small granny flat rather than a duplex, and she believed most people would agree with her. Back in 1982 when the State initially passed this, the unit could be no more than 640 square feet in size, but the City adopted an ordinance in 1983 regarding the 10% increase. Ms. Houskin questioned the message being sent to other residents and property owners by legitimizing this illegal building. She believed that this has drug on for so long because it appears the applicant was able to be the owner/builder on all three properties simultaneous, and she has a problem with that, because the code refers to a residence in the singular, not plural, and references a requirement for owner occupation of the residence. Ms. Houskin urged the Commission to deny the CUP. w� 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan stated he understands Ms. Houskin's fundamental and philosophical objection to the second unit ordinance and the whole process in terms of the application before the Commission, but at this point the Council has asked the Commission to evaluate the application based on the old ordinance. Given that direction, he asked if she believed there was anything specific that would indicate that the application is not in compliance. Ms. Houskin stated she disagrees with staff's interpretation of the 10%, and based on her interpretation, that would shoot down all three applications. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Drell to explain the 10% ordinance, to which Mr. Drell replied that he actually authored that ordinance, and from a practical point of view, if one has a 2,000 square foot house, and if the second unit is limited to 200 square feet, it would be in violation of the City's minimum size for a dwelling unit. The way the State law read at that time is that the application for the second unit cannot involve an �.. increase of more than 10% of the existing house size. It does not say that the unit itself can only be 10%. In fact, the unit can involve 0% increase in the size of the house. This ordinance evolved with the observation of many large houses throughout the state that were built for large families, and when the children grow up and leave and a large house is no longer needed, one could then carve out from the existing dwelling. The original law presumed that one would take a large, underutilized house and convert a portion of it into another dwelling unit. Commissioner Finerty noted that in the application now being considered by the Commission, the primary unit is 915 square feet, and the secondary unit is 579 square feet. So if the primary unit is 915 square feet, then a 579 square foot unit would be totally out of the question according to the 10% rule. Mr. Drell clarified that nothing prevents any owner of a single-family property to rent a bedroom out to someone. The Council required the applicant to convert the entire structure to a single-family home. Under the Building Code in terms of physical improvements within the structure, he was required to physically modify the existing structure to meet all the requirements of one single-family home, and that is where we are today r.. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 because now there is only one home. Technically, he is not proposing any expansion of the existing single-family home, but is carving out a portion. The new ordinance does specify a relationship between the secondary unit and the primary unit regardless of how much it is expanded, whereas the old ordinance does not. Chairperson Jonathan commented that the applicant has resolved all violations and now has a conforming single-family residence which is 1 ,494 square feet. Now before the Commission is a CUP application to allow a one-bedroom attached second unit that would carve out from that 1 ,494 square feet a 579 square foot second unit. So there is zero increase to the overall structure, which meets the limit of a 10% increase under the old ordinance. MS. TRISH MOORE, 74-041 El Cortez Way in Palm Desert, stated that her property is directly adjacent to the property in question. She indicated one of the questions she has is that the lady who spoke prior doesn't live within the vicinity in which the notices are mailed out which invite input. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that anyone is allowed to provide input on the applications regardless of the location of their residence. Mr. Beauvais addressed Commissioner Finerty's comments regarding the square footage, and noted that a goodly portion of the second unit was carved out of the original house, and the only thing that was added was a 12-foot by 12-foot room, which he believes was under 10%. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that when this application was previously before the Commission, it was approved, and now that all the violations have been corrected and the application was referred back to the Commission from the Council, she will vote the same way she voted last time, which was a vote in favor of the application. a 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Commissioner Tschopp remarked that according to the previous second unit ordinance, the applicant is in compliance with all provisions except one, and although he does not like the time it has taken and the abuse of the system, he has to agree that it does comply and should be approved under the old code, which requires that the tenants be at least 60 years of age. He recommended that compliance with the age restriction and compliance with the carport construction requirement be implemented within six months of the issuance of the CUP. Commissioner Finerty stated that she is hearing the same old dancing around that has been going on for the last several months, there being two issues predominantly. When asked about a time frame for the carport, the first answer was he was processing a loan to pull out equity for the carport and to repair the house next door. Then the Commission got a different second answer and even a third answer. When asked about the age of the tenants and whether a lease was in effect, the Commission really didn't hear if there was a rental agreement or not, and she's not certain if it was explained clearly that if there was a rental r..r agreement, what the length of the term was, and then it was stated it was month to month. When asked when he would be willing to comply with the age restriction if the CUP is approved under the old ordinance, and the answer was that Mr. Beauvais was not prepared to answer at this time. She believed she is seeing a continual disregard for the City's policy and the same old dancing around and the same delay tactics tonight as has been witnessed in every other public hearing regarding these applications. Commissioner Finery stated that aside from that concern, she doesn't buy the 10% interpretation for this property, and there is still an existing kitchen in the second unit that has not been removed, so the house has not been restored back to one single-family unit. She believed this is a dangerous precedent to set. The General Plan outlines the need to provide housing for a wide range of the population, and now that the General Plan has been approved, there are a variety of densities and housing opportunities for everyone. She felt this is basically taking a single-family residential neighborhood and turning it into anything but a single-family residential neighborhood, and she still has trouble comprehending why this matter is even before the Commission.. She 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 i believed that total disregard for the entire process should not be rewarded and therefore, she is opposed. Commissioner Lopez stated that, based on the old code, it appears Mr. Beauvais has successfully overcome the code violations and irregularities, and the only thing out of sorts is the issue with the age requirement for the tenants. He indicated he has difficulty imposing a condition of approval which would require notifying the current tenant of the situation versus grandfathering the program in once the current occupant leaves, and he believed that was the Commission's intent when this matter was initially before it. He believed it is reasonable to impose some deadlines for compliance, and with the addition of conditions regarding a time deadline for compliance with the age restriction and construction of the carport, he would be supportive. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that he shares the frustrations expressed tonight, and noted the applicant did not follow procedures the way the Commission would have like, but that is history. At this point, the Commission has been directed to take a fresh look at the application with the understanding that the property is now in compliance as a single- family residence. He is not very concerned about setting a precedent because this is such a unique situation, and he doesn't believe there will be another application under a grandfathered type situation because everything is now subject to the new ordinance. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the two exceptions to compliance are the age requirement and the carport, and those are addressed under Conditions No. 7 and 9. Condition No. 7 requires that in the future, second units shall only be rented to persons of 60 years of age or older. Condition No. 9 specifies that the applicant shall construct a two-car carport for the second unit. Neither of those conditions have a time limit, but if it is the wish of the Commission to include a time limit, he believed that would be reasonable. Chairperson Jonathan stated that because he cannot find any grounds of noncompliance which would justify denial, he is compelled to vote in favor of approving the application. f 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 Commissioner Finerty asked how the condition regarding age restriction of the tenant will be enforced, to which Mr. Drell replied that the Commission could add a condition to require the applicant to submit to periodic inspections to ensure compliance, although he believes an additional condition may not be necessary because it is inherent that the City would need a method to ensure compliance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 1 , with Commissioner Finery dissenting. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2280, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. CUP 02-15, subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 7 to impose a six-month time limit from the date the carport is completed, and amending Condition No. 9 to impose a six-month time limit from the date of issuance of the CUP. Motion carried 4-1 , with Commissioner Finerty dissenting. J. Case No. CUP 02-16 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a two-bedroom, 856 square foot attached second unit at 74- 041 San Marino Circle. Mr. Urbina outlined the salient points of the staff report. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the common wall meets Fire Code regulations for two units, to which Mr. Drell replied that all construction is required to meet applications sections of the Building Code and Fire Code. There were no further questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. The applicant declined to comment. Commissioner Finerty asked who lives in the units. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 3 MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS, 44-536 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that Mr. Kenneth Ratner lives in the primary unit and Ms. Christina Faust and her eight-year-old daughter live in the secondary unit. There were no other questions and Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. KIM HOUSKIN, 73-237 Somera in Palm Desert, noted that the applicant's original plans from 1998 show an existing garage at that time, which no one ever knew about until after the Commission's meeting. That existing garage had been converted to the bedroom. On the original plans there were just three bedrooms and one and three-quarter baths in the single-family home, and there was no second unit. She is now concerned that the carport which has been constructed was built to replace the illegally converted garage. She was specifically concerned that there is still a building code violation in that all driveways need to be surfaced in concrete or asphalt, and that was listed as one of the building code violations, and it still has not been addressed. VWI She wanted to know how much time it will take to complete these things before the carport can be added on El Cortez. She recommended that if the Commission does grant approval, there should be timely conditions imposed. She also questioned how one person can the an owner/builder on three houses simultaneously. Commissioner Finerty asked Ms. Houskin about the square footage of the original building. Ms. Houskin stated that Metroscan indicated it was originally 1 ,808 square feet. Subsequently there was an addition of 372 square feet; however, it was supposed to be just a little remodeling and not include the kitchen that was actually added. The converted garage was 10' x 20', but she would need staff to confirm that. She noted that the deadline for completion of construction to address code violations was January 2003, and from what she can tell, March 31 , 2004 it appears everything was built, but she actually disagrees that there is full compliance 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 because the driveway has not been paved, and she's unsure why Planning staff believes all the code enforcement violations have been corrected. Commissioner Finerty asked staff to comment about the driveway, to which Mr. Urbina replied that he recently visited the site, and the there is no pavement either in the circular driveway or underneath the carport, which is why one of the conditions of approval requires that prior to issuance of a building permit for the second unit, the applicant must provide a paved driveway or concrete ribbon strips both in the driveway and underneath the carport. Commissioner Finerty asked if a paved surface would still be required if the CUP is not approved, to which Mr. Drell replied that the requirement applies in either case. Commissioner Finerty asked why the staff report indicates that the property is in full compliance with all code violations, to which Mr. Urbina replied that the final inspection was done by the Building Department, and the Building Inspector may not have been aware of the paving requirement. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Beauvais was aware of the paving requirement, to which Mr. Urbina replied that he was provided a copy of the staff report. Commissioner Finerty asked how long Mr. Beauvais has known of the paving requirement, to which Mr. Urbina replied that he believes Mr. Beauvais knew it was a requirement of the zoning ordinance from the beginning. Commissioner Finery asked why the Commission is learning that the paving requirement has not been met through public testimony rather than from staff, and stated that she finds it very disturbing that for the second time with regard to this particular applicant the Commission is learning the facts through public testimony and not via staff. Mr. Urbina noted that staff does acknowledge that the new carport is not in full compliance with the off-street parking standards of the zoning ordinance 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 which is why a Condition No 8 is recommended, and apologized that he didn't make it clear in the body of the staff report. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the only thing not in compliance is the driveway, to which Mr. Urbina responded affirmatively. Chairperson Jonathan invited the applicant to provide rebuttal comments, but the applicant declined. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Tschopp stated his comments would be the same as the comments he made on the previous case. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- . 1 , with Commissioner Finery dissenting. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2281 , recommending to City Council approval of Case No. CUP 02-16, subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 7 to impose a six-month time limit from the date the carport is completed, and amending Condition No. 9 to impose a six-month time limit from the date of issuance of the CUP. Motion carried 4-1 , with Commissioner Finerty dissenting. K. Case No. CUP 02-17 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a one-bedroom, 997 square foot attached second unit at 74- 060 San Marino Circle. Mr. Urbina outlined the salient points of the staff report, and noted that paving is required for the driveway and beneath the carport. 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 r.. Chairperson Jonathan commented that he did not see specific language in the conditions of approval regarding a two-car door for the garage, to which Mr. Urbina replied that the plans show that the one-car wide garage door will be replaced with a 16-foot wide garage door, which is wide enough to accommodate two vehicles. Mr. Drell remarked that it would be appropriate to specify in the conditions of approval how the two-car garage will be accomplished. Mr. Urbina noted that Condition No. 1 requires that development of the property shall conform substantially with the plans on file with the Community Development Department, and the exhibit shows the proposed 16-foot wide double garage door is required to be fulfilled if the CUP is approved. Mr. Drell agreed that it is inherent in that condition, but it could be specified in the conditions of approval that the garage shall be kept free and clear enough to allow for parking of two cars. Mr. Urbina suggested that an additional condition, Condition No. 9, indicate that a 16-foot wide new garage door is required to replace the existing single-wide garage door and that the interior of the garage be kept free w.. and clear enough to allow for parking of two vehicles. There were no further questions and Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. The applicant declined to comment. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. KIM HOUSKIN, 73-237 Somera in Palm Desert, stated she is confused that a variance was required for the original two-car garage and she's unsure as to why, even though it's been used as other things in the past, why it isn't being converted back to the two-car garage that was intended for the main unit. She added that she thought there would still be a requirement for two more covered parking spaces to accommodate the second unit, and asked for staff to clarify that for her. She asked if the conditions need to be met by December 31 , 2004 before the permit is officially granted or if they need to be done before the work can move forward for the second units. %NW 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 i Mr. Drell noted that the driveway is required prior to issuance of permits on the work to convert the second unit. He noted that the existing garage was a one-car garage. Ms. Houskin asked what the consequences would be if the conditions are not met. Mr. Drell replied that the CUP would be revoked and therefore a second occupant would not be allowed. Ms. Houskin noted that she was previously assured that the school fees and fines would be doubled due to the fact that the work was done without approval. Mr. Drell replied that school fees are required for new spaces over 500 square feet, and stated he does not know if the Building Department doubled the fees on the building permits. MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS, 44-536 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, indicated that he has all documentation stating that he has always taken care of any required school fees, and he would be happy to provide that documentation to anyone interested in seeing it. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 1 , with Commissioner Finery dissenting. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2282, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. CUP 02-17, subject to conditions, amending Condition No. 7 to impose a six-month time limit from the date the carport is completed, and amending Condition No. 8 to impose a six-month time limit from the date of issuance of the CUP. Motion carried 4-1 , with Commissioner Finerty dissenting. WJ 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 w.. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request for Determination of Conformity with the City's General Plan the Street Right-of-Way Vacation for a two-foot wide by 114- foot strip on the east side of Ocotillo Drive north of Grapevine Street. Mr. Diercks outlined the salient points of the staff report. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, determining by minute motion that the subject street right-of-way vacation is in conformity with the City's General Plan. Motion carried 5- 0. B. Request for Determination of Conformity with the City's General Plan the Street Right-of-Way Vacation of a five-foot strip located at the northeast corner of Fairhaven Drive and Arboleda Avenue. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, determining by minute motion that the subject street right-of- way vacation is in conformity with the City's General Plan. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - No report. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - No report. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - No report. X1. COMMENTS None. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 2004 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5- 0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. 0 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: 1 SABBY HAN, irperson Palm Desert PI nning Commission /kc 42