Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0201 ����'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ` TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 1 , 2005 � '� � 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER " � 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � �- �. � � * � � * * �. �. * � � * � � � � � * � � � * � * * � � � * �- * -x. �- � � * � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty � Jim Lopez (arrived at 6:03 p.m.) Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Ryan Stendell, Planning Technician Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for consideration of the January 18, 2005 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving January 18, 2005 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4- 0-1 (Commissioner Lopez was absent). �.r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 � � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION � Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith summarized ertinent Januar 27 2005 Cit � p Y , Y Council Actions. (Commissioner Lopez arrived during this discussion.) VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 04-25 - WILLIAM J. WORZACK, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to consolidate four lots into two to accommodate two approved office building on property located on Sheryl Avenue. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS � Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 04-21 - VICORP RESTAURANTS/BAKERS SQUARE, Applicants Request approval of a conditional use permit to allow the addition of a patio with 30 seats at 73-075 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Stendell explained that Bakers Square was proposing a remodel which would include new paint, some exterior columns, landscaping and most importantly a patio with seats located at the rear facing the existing parking lot. The C-1 zone requires a conditional use permit for patios in excess of 12 seats. _ ':t � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 , 2005 He indicated that the main concern with this CUP approval was adequate � parking. Based on the additional square footage, this would add a need for approximately five parking spaces. From staff parking counts, he observed quadruple or five times in most case. Staff was comfortable with the levels of parking and recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit 04-21 . For the proposed patio and surrounding grass area, Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be a perimeter wall installed or if they would be enclosing it in any way. Mr. Stendell noted that the plans called for some wrought iron barriers. As well, the applicant was working with the Landscape Department. He said that this site currently has a lot of high water-using landscaping. In negotiations with the applicant, they would be removing a lot of it and providing a nice barrier and landscaping along the patio. So a good portion of the high wate�-using landscaping would be replaced with desert landscaping to match the adjacent area. Commissioner Campbell noted that a patio area would only have a view of the parking area, but they would be outside. Mr. Stendell said the intention was to landscape it very nicely. Mr. Drell thought they had the same issue as other restaurants in providing an area for customers to �,,,,,, s m o ke. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any plans to make some modest improvements to the southerly section of the parking lot, the one that was formerly south of the gas station. It is in a state of disrepair. Mr. Stendell said that landscape-wise, yes. He didn't think they would be doing the asphalt. They would be bringing the islands and the fingers up to the landscaping and getting rid of the oleanders, which were pretty much dead. They would be doing that as part of this remodel. Chairperson Jonathan thought that at a minimum, they might need to restripe. He didn't know if there was slurry seal required. The other suggestion he had, and they could make it a condition in addition to that, was the possibility of having directional signs saying "additional parking" with arrows. He goes to Bakers Square sometimes and he sees people waiting for spots in front of the entrance not knowing about the other section. Mr. Stendell thought that was a valid concern. With the shape of the lot, a couple of signs wouldn't be out of the question. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the parking in front of Palomino's. He asked if that was public or private parking. Mr. Stendell said it wasn't part of this parcel, but believed it was part of the Palomino's parcel. Mr. � 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 Drell said it was actually public, so all the other parking is part of what they call President's Plaza III. The only exclusive parking is the parking for the two lots, which were exclusive to Bakers Square. Commissioner Tschopp said it wasn't germane to Bakers Square, but that public parking lot was being used by Palomino's as valet parking and precluding anyone else from being able to use it. Mr. Drell explained that Palomino's has a valet parking plan which designates areas they can exclusively use. Technically, a patron going to Bakers Square could use it as well. He noted that City Wok was going to be reoccupied by a restaurant called Pinnacle and it would be a bar and grill, kind of a barbeque place. He believed the deal with Palomino is that they can operate a valet, but anyone can use it. It was a little more convenient to Palomino, but he assumed they were still in compliance with their plan. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Palomino's had an exception to the present ordinance on valet parking that allows them to have valet parking on the most convenient parking to the restaurant. Mr. Drell said he would have to look at their plan. Staff could check into the nature of their permit. Commissioner Tschopp thought that would be good. The other issue regarding the parking count is that he didn't see a count being done at night, at 6:00 or 7:00 at night. There is a parking problem over there during the season at night and part of it he believed was caused by the lack of convenient parking that the valets use, the old Highway 74 on both sides of the street, precluding anyone else from using it. So he believed there is a parking problem there created f.or adjacent restaurants such as Bakers Square. Mr. Drell said that Bakers Square doesn't have the problem; technically they have the signs saying Bakers Square. He didn't think historically, and it would depend on the success of the restaurant, but obviously there wasn't a problem this last season with City Wok gone and Pak Inn gone, so there was plenty of parking. Our problem there has always been a relatively large parking lot which extends all the way to Larkspur or Lupine. All the restaurants were clustered in one spot. So when all three restaurants are busy, directly adjacent to the restaurants was always a problem. There was plenty of parking, you just had to walk down toward Tony Roma's. It was an inherent situation and he didn't think it involved this application since they have their own exclusive parking. Their biggest problem was keeping Palomino, City Wok and CPK � customers out of their parking lot because technically they are not a participant in the Presidents Plaza III public parking. That's just been an 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 inherent problem with the design where they just had a bunch of � restaurants all clustered together. There's plenty of parking in the lot, it's just that some people have to walk further down toward Tony Roma's. Mr. Drell said that the valet permit comes up every year and they could bring it back to the next meeting and they could examine and kind of question the intent of the valet ordinance and if it's being implemented, or if people are just submitting plans and they are being accepted. Chairperson Jonathan asked who issues those permits. Mr. Drell said it was the Public Works Department. He agreed that the intent was to use, and for a while they were using the lot and one of the aisles behind Carl's Jr. That was the valet area. Commissioner Finerty thought that made more sense. Mr. Drell noticed one evening that it didn't appear they were using that any more. It might be that they weren't supposed to be using those spaces, he didn't know. So staff would check. He believed that each year it's a renewed plan and permit. They could be directed to conceivably change it. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff would report back on the status of Palomino's valet parking permit. He also requested that staff look at the permit for Augusta's because they were closing off their entire parking �,,,,, lot again on various evenings. Mr. Drell noted that restaurants on EI Paseo were struggling to some degree relative to competition to the restaurants in The River. Similar to Commissioner Tschopp's initial comment, Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was an exception and if there is and it is warranted, fine. The only thing was if the permit was issued without thought, or if someone was continuously in violation or doesn't have a permit. Mr. Drell noted sometimes you pay a valet to park the car only a few feet away. Chairperson Jonathan agreed, and sometimes there was no choice because if the whole parking lot is being used, there isn't a choice. For the times that the various parking counts were made, Commissioner Lopez asked if Bakers Square is open for all three meals. Mr. Stendell said yes. Commissioner Lopez thought that dinner would be their busiest time, but no counts were made after 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Campbell indicated there are a lot of customers around 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Lopez said it would be interesting to have a count at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Campbell noted there was parking behind there going west which was empty all the time. �r». 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 Commissioner Tschopp disagreed. Commissioner Campbell said she goes there in the morning. Commissioner Tschopp said that on a night during the season, parking there is very congested and filled. Behind the Carl's Jr. area there is parking available and some don't mind walking to use that. But to get around Bakers Square or Palomino's on the west side was very congested. Part of it was from the layout. Mr. Stendell said it was his understanding that Bakers Square is open for three meals, but believed their biggest meals are breakfast and lunch. Commissioner Lopez asked if the parking below there was part of Bakers Square, too. Mr. Stendell said no. Mr. Drell explained it is general public parking. When City Wok was in full operation, that was all full. There was no question that whole area was full and will be full every evening; the public portion. He said that Bakers Square has often alleged that people were using their parking lot who were in fact going to City Wok or Palomino. And they were given a choice to participate with the assessment district for the public parking, but they didn't want to do that because they wanted to have some ability to throw people out. He suggested that the Bakers Square representative could report on their observations as to what they feel happens there at night, especially when all the restaurants were in full gear. � Commissioner Campbell asked if they could put in a chain so that it would be private, since it was their own private parking lot. Mr. Drell said they probably could. They have circulation out onto Highway 74 and on the frontage road. That would make it somewhat less convenient for someone wandering around the other lot into their lot. Another thing about the parking study, Chairperson Jonathan noted that it didn't look like staff went out on a weekend morning. On Sunday mornings after churches let out and so forth, he thought there was a peak demand for parking, although the neighborhood restaurants were typically not open for breakfast. Mr. Drell concurred that the public lot was empty during that period. Mr. Stendell stated that based on the level of the addition generated by code, approximately five spaces, versus the number of spaces available out there throughout the day Monday through Friday, staff didn't see a problem. But if it was the Commission's desi�e for staff to evaluate the parking on evenings and weekends, he could do that. Chairperson Jonathan said they would find that out when they got to the : discussion stage. He thought what Mr. Stendell was experiencing is that 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 historically the Commission is somewhat skeptical because it isn't exactly � a scientific method and they are aware that there are peak times and non peak times. On the corner of Highway 74 and Highway 1 1 1 , Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any anticipated use for that site that would generate a need for additional parking. Mr. Drell said the assumption was that any use of that site would be parked on its own merits. The good news is they don't anticipate it being a restaurant. There is talk about it being a bank. That would provide additional parking in the evening, on weekends and in the early mornings. But that's the discussion going on right now. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RAY BAKER, National Facilities Manager for Bakers Square/ Vicorp Restaurants, 9415 Greenleaf Avenue in Santa Fe Springs, California, 90670. He said one thing they are planning to do, and he didn't know if he shared this with Mr. Stendell, but they are going to do an overlay on that parking lot and bring in asphalt and bring it up to ADA code. � On the parking, he has been out here off and on for the past two or three months and weekends, and he left the property a little while ago, and he knew it was during the week, but on that old Highway 74 lot tonight there was nothing on it whatsoever. He thought he was the only one parked back there. The other thing, especially on the weekends, they primarily do mornings and noon and by 2:30 p.m. or so they are pretty much done. They do a little night business, but it was a lot of pie and coffee to a certain extent. He thought Palomino did noon and evening. Mr. Drell said it was just evening. Mr. Baker said in talking with Don Newburg, the manager, they did have a problem with the overlap with the valet. But he thought that after they posted the spot, a lot of that had been eliminated. He wasn't saying totally, but it was a lot better than it was. So he didn't think this patio area, which required five or six additional spaces, he didn't think it would impact them a whole lot. � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 . 2005 A couple of different things they were trying to do here is just upgrade this property. It has not been a real magnet on that corner and then with new development going in, like the proposed bank, they want to be in line with that. They agreed to do the desert landscape with the decomposed granite and desert type plants and low moisture content. So he thought the overall program with what they were going to do with the exterior of the building, which wasn't a whole lot, but it would enhance it color-wise. The design review board liked what they were doing there. He thought the patio area would add to the overall ambience of the restaurant. If they could get around this parking issue, he thought they had a good project and this had always been a good market for them. They just wanted to make it better for their patrons and the community as a whole. Commissioner Lopez said he was very concerned about the parking situation. They currently have 50 parking places, and if it is five below what they should have and they would be adding another five, that would make the requirement 60, which would be 10 below what they x should have. He was uncomfortable with the counts in staff's survey, but he asked Mr. Baker to expand a little on what his experience has been so far regarding the counts or the customers. He knew they were open for breakfast, lunch and dinner and asked for confirmation that his busiest times are breakfast and lunch. Mr. Baker said yes, that's their biggest day part of the business. Commissioner Lopez asked if it changed seasonally. Mr. Bakers said he knew it was a different animal, but from his experience, they did a study on this in Anaheim several years ago in the resort area south of Disneyland, and the counts they got were very similar to what the staff here did. The weekend parts for them, the big hit is breakfast about 7:00 a.m. until a little after church and then after 2:00 p.m. it drops off. From there on it is pie and coffee. It is steady, but it isn't a big blast. He wasn't trying to diminish their night part. They do have a night part, but it's spread out. They do have a lot of seniors that come in early and he noticed that at 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. they like to get in because they have a 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 early bird/senior special. So in this situation with the number of € seniors, it moves the night part a little forward and then some that �..� aren't seniors come in maybe after 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. He thought that was pretty true to form for this market here. It seemed to him when he was there tonight meeting with the landscaper, 3:30 p.m. until when he came to this meeting, they had quite a few seniors come in. Mr. Drell thought Palomino was probably the opposite. It was probably just starting at 6:00 p.m., and it was probably at its peak at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Baker didn't think they were going to impact it that much. The patio would take some pressure off their dining room. They hoped it would generate some more business, but if they have people who want to smoke, it gives them an opportunity to do so. Some just like the ambience outside and here in Palm Desert they could probably do that 10 months out of the year. And on the right side of the building, that was a great setting there and location. With what was going on there, they were really trying to upgrade their restaurant to fit in and give it one step up beyond a coffee shop. � Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell thought having the patio would really be an asset to that area. She has been there for breakfast and lunch and had always had enough parking. Even if they enclosed that area with a chain so that people from Palomino couldn't park in there, that would be excellent also. If the bank went in, there was still adequate parking. They have adequate parking during breakfast and lunch and that would give them more room at dinner if they needed it. Every time she had been there it wasn't full to where she had to wait for a table. People in the main dining room toward the back, if they are smokers they would use the patio, so it wasn't that there would be more people taking up more parking spaces. She moved for approval. Commissioner Tschopp said he's a fan of outside patio dining. As M�. Baker stated, we have an area here that can provide 10 months of good outdoor dining and he thought it was a great ambience to provide here in Palm Desert. He thought the parking is a problem there, but they would have additional parking once Palomino's opens the privatized � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 � public lot and perhaps uses valet parking the way it shouid be used. So =� he believed they will have some parking available and he was in favor of � the expansion. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Commissioner Lopez stated that he also is a big fan of outdoor dining and he's a big fan of Bakers. He was just concerned about the parking. If they could take the right steps from staff's stand point, look at this area and make sure Palomino's isn't overstepping their boundaries, he thought they would be okay. He hoped quite frankly that this patio area would add business to their business and they are even more successful. Chairperson Jonathan said similarly he was concerned about the parking, but he thought there were mitigating circumstances here, particularly the ample public parking if it is properly used as public parking. He thought that could handle the overflow. The other mitigation, if they could build in a condition, the applicant has already indicated he was willing to overlay the lot and create proper striping, as well as a requirement for signage, he thought the parking lot to the south there would be better utilized. He said he used to go there, and still frequents it regularly, but :g when the gas station was there, they used to have tow trucks and other � types of vehicles there, so not only taking up parking spaces, but it was really unsightly and you just didn't want to go there. With the enhancement to that part of the parking lot and with some directional signs, plus the ample public parking, there was enough mitigation there so that hopefully this would be successful, but the additional parking would be accommodated. He requested a second to the motion and asked if it would include the requirement to overlay the parking with striping and add directional signs. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion and both Commissioners Campbell and Finerty concurred with adding that as Condition No. 6. Chairperson Jonathan called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2321 , approving � Case No. CUP 04-21 , subject to conditions as amended to add � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 Community Development Condition No. 6 requiring parking lot restriping � and installation of directional signage. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. ZOA 04-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a zoning ordinance amendment as it relates to wall heights and locations in the R-1 and PR zone districts. Mr. Smith distributed photographs of walls he took pictures of around the city. He explained the matter before the Commission was as a result of Council direction in that the Council was concerned that certain single family neighborhoods are becoming "Alamo" like as a result of people enclosing front street side yards with solid walls. The staff report before the Commission listed the current provisions relating to walls, and then there were some proposed amendments. He wanted to add under the request where it referred to this as applying to the R-1 and PR zone districts, the R-2 and R-3 zone districts since it applies to single family lots in those zone categories as well. � He reviewed the salient points of the staff report. He stated that it was a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and recommended approval. He noted that this was reviewed by the l.andscape Beautification Committee in late November and they gave some direction which staff took. More recently, this was before Architectural Review and staff had some additional clauses which ARC convinced staff to remove, so what the Planning Commission had before them came with ARC's recommendation. Commissioner Campbell thought that the pictures were very effective and covered all the areas in the staff recommendation as to the landscaping and insert/deepness of the wall, the steps on the wall, and the gates. She thought it was very good. In one of the photographs, Commissioner Lopez said it looked like a corner lot. Mr. Smith thought it was the nine-lot tract on Portola. Commissioner Lopez asked if it was acceptable. Mr. Smith said yes. The intent in that photo was to show what pilasters add to an otherwise flat wall. Mr. Drell indicated that on tracts, staff has been enforcing a 20-foot setback on perimeter walls for a long time because of undulating sidewalks, etc., so theoretically it should be 20 feet if it's a perimeter � 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 tract wall. Chairperson Jonathan noted that this one wasn't. It's an attractive project, but it put a lot into a small area. That wall is maybe three feet from the sidewalk. Commissioner Lopez agreed, making note that the wall looked huge. He said the only reason he asked the question was, especially in an environment like this where if they don't have some type of wall this high, they could get all the car lights in the windows. He was sure there is flexibility, but he didn't think this would be acceptable. Mr. Drell said if it wasn't 20, he wasn't sure why they didn't make it 20. Maybe because the site was so tight to begin with. Chairperson Jonathan said they may have granted an exception. They were really trying to fit in all those homes into a small area. Mr. Drell said as an example, all the homes on Portola and Hovley and all the other tracts, they've been doing 20 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked where Mr. Smith was addressing the type of material that the walls may be out of. She saw in the current code, Items C and D, where they are spelling out decorative block, stucco, wood split rail, open picket or wrought iron, but she wasn't seeing a reference in the recommendation. Mr. Smith said the recommendation is that it remain as is. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that Mr. Smith was just adding wording to the existing wording with regard to the step or � undulation or pilaster. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell said that if they look at the exhibit, the exhibit contains the materials section. Mr. Smith said it was pages three and four of the draft resolution. Commissioner Lopez thought it was interesting to see that the Architectural Review Board did not like wrought iron. Mr. Drell said they allow wrought iron, they didn't feel it should get any exception relative to distance. They didn't think wrought iron was inherently more attractive than a well-designed decorative block wall. So wrought iron is still an approved material, there was a discussion that perhaps wrought iron could be closer. But to some degree, wrought iron takes on a prison- like look, especially if it's close to the street. Regarding the proposed amendment, Chairperson Jonathan noted that it was proactive and not retroactive. Existing homes are grandfathered in. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked how a decorative wall would be handled that escalates up quite a bit and then comes down. He asked if there was a provision allowing that. Mr. Smith explained that it was through the exceptions process. Mr. Drell said it goes through the Architectural 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 Commission. They've been doing that frequently. The idea is to get � architecture in those walls, especially if they are blocking the view in front of the house. Typically ARC has been fairly positive toward attempts to make walls more interesting. Referring to one of the photograph examples, Commissioner Campbell thought it put the focus on the gate itself and was like a work of art in itself. The wall was simple, but the gate was the main focus. Commissioner Tschopp didn't disagree, but he thought it looked more like a fortress America than anything else. He didn't know if there was some way to draft this do away with that. Commissioner Finerty brought up the issue of landscaping. Mr. Smith said that wall complied with code at 15 feet and the wall around the corner was the problem wall. Mr. Drell said that wall would be further back and would have landscaping in front of it. The initial response, and these general ideas we�e also brought to the Council when they initiated the amendment, what triggered this whole thing were comments about people walling off their whole yard and some discussion to prevent people from doing that and saying people could only wall of 40% or 60%. Some of the Councilmen who had that initial ,�,,,,, idea, when staff brought it back to them the second time, thought people should have the right to create privacy if they want it. What was more important was the setback and the landscaping in front of the wall. He suggested if the Planning Commission felt strongly that people shouldn't be able to wall off their front yard, then they could put that sort of provision back. Only 40% of the lineal frontage could be enclosed. And maybe 60% if wrought iron was used. The Council seemed to back away from that given the prevalence of whole communities that are walled in like fortresses in this town. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the proposed walls took into consideration the requirements for pools in the front yards. Mr. Smith said it would be more difficult to have pools in the front yard since pools must be enclosed by a five-foot high fence. So they will be at 15 feet. Mr. Drell said either that, or they would have to go through the exceptions process. One thing people have done with pools in their front yards is they use the excuse of the pool and then enclose their entire front yard as well. It would be part of the exceptions process and compelling reasons why they can't put a pool in their backyard or they might not be able to have the size of the pool they want. It's a balancing �... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 of values here. He said houses are just setback a minimum of 20 feet from property line, so in most situations there is 32 feet from curb. The message is if you want a pool in the front yard, design your house further back. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it had been the experience of staff that someone living in an older neighborhood where the volume of traffic on the street corner is greater than ever anticipated that an exception is granted for a higher wall, or closer. You could see that in some areas of the city where that has happened. Mr. Smith said they've had several on Portola. Mr. Drell said they have had more enclosed front yards in the more exclusive, less traffic neighborhoods. Commissioner Finerty noted that they were allowed in Palm Desert Country Club because people back up to the golf course and they can't put a pool in their backyard because they don't have one. Mr. Drell concurred. He said the exceptions section was not set up like a variance. You don't have to prove that someone is going to die if it's granted. In the past the Council didn't pay a lot of attention to walls. The ARC has been ruling on exceptions for 15 years. So initially, Council is going to be looking at exceptions very carefully and a certain number of them might � get called up and the parameter for what sort of exceptions they granted will get established through that process. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MR. CHRISTOPHER GUNDERSON, 43-845 Tennessee Avenue in Palm Desert Country Club, stated that he was here more for information to see where this was going. His house is not just a corner lot, it's surrounded on three sides: by Fred Waring, Tennessee and Florida Avenue. The road expansion on the south wall coming in, obviously they were dealing with a high volume of traffic and then with a traffic signal proposed for Tennessee and Fred Waring. His question was how he would be affected on the Tennessee portion of the setback in this circumstance because according to the ordinance, he would only be allowed to have a four-foot wall. With the sound level coming from Fred Waring, this became an issue. He asked if he would fall into the exceptions rule or if he would have something in advance at this point. � � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 Chairperson Jonathan asked why only a four-foot wall. He asked if he �,,,, was limited because of the setback ability. Mr. Gunderson stated that the current wall that is on his property that will disappear with the construction of the sound wall was originally permitted and on the Tennessee side where they didn't finish the wall because of the pending construction. Where it stops is 10 feet from the Tennessee curb. Based on the ordinance he just read, he would have to be setback 15 feet, which puts it right smack dab in the middle of his yard. His concern with the passing of this ordinance is they would have a huge piece of property in front next to the curb and he would have half a yard and the only thing that would be left is the property on the Florida side. Chairperson Jonathan said if he read it correctly, he could be seven feet from curb at three and a half feet. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell noted that he was interested in a sound wall. Under our current code he couldn't be at ten feet either; in the current code it would be 15 feet. So he would be asking for an exception either way. He has an existing wall that isn't finished. �,,,,, Mr. Gunderson said the wall was under construction when they received the notice of the widening project nine years ago. Mr. Drell asked if this was the wall on Tennessee. Mr. Gunderson said that was correct. The wall is on Fred Waring and it has a 45-degree angle on the corner which ends on Tennessee and it was meant to continue to the driveway, but with the construction project and widening and a sound wall that was proposed nine years ago, he stopped construction on the wall because he didn't want to throw the money into something that was going to get torn down. Chairperson Jonathan said that if Mr. Gunderson was looking for an exception to the height limitation or to a setback for a certain height, he would go through the exception process under the proposed revised provision. Mr. Gunderson said what he proposed to the City is the sound wall is supposed to be at eight feet coming around the corner and then � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 having it step down to six feet over to the driveway area and then continuing on around four feet on the Florida side. Chairperson Jonathan said that in his mind, those would be the kind of circumstances that would justify an exception. Hopefully he would be able to resolve that, but he was right, what he has in mind doesn't seem to fit under the ordinance, so it would have to go through the exceptions request process. Mr. Gunderson thanked them. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Lopez thought it was a good ordinance. He lives in a community where for whatever reason someone decided to put up a wall in the front and the next 14 homes decided to do the same thing. They all look different and he was very concerned about some of the landscaping, and some have no landscaping. He thought this was taking the right steps to formalize what should be done with these walls. He moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell concurred and seconded the motion. Commissioner Finerty also concurred. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a good attempt to address an unsightly problem at times. He believed that the exception allowance was also needed and necessary. Chairperson Jonathan concurred and remarked that one of the things he liked about the revised ordinance is that it doesn't make a decision for a homeowner that he thought was a matter of personal preference, which is simply to have a front yard wall or not and instead seeks to create some standards that meet the aesthetic requirements of the city, yet can lend themselves to the requirements of the homeowner. Fundamentally he liked that. There were no other comments and he called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner �, Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2322, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 04-04. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that it was informational. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty informed Commission that the meeting was tomorrow. � C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was informational. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Campbell asked what items were on the agenda for the next meeting because she might be absent. Mr. Smith said there were three or four items. Commissioner Campbell asked if Sacred Heart was one of them. Mr. Smith said yes. They would also be revisiting Sares Regis. They weren't adding units, they were adding property. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any other Commissioners who knew they might be absent on the 15th. There was no one else expecting to be absent. � 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2005 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:09 p.m. c-----._._,,,._ �� . �^� " �"`''�yr � \..._ --_ PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: '; a � � k SABBY JON THAN, Chairperson Palm Desert P nning Commission /tm 18