Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0707 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY — JULY 7, 2009 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Tanner led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair Connor Limont, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Nancy DeLuna Members Absent: Mari Schmidt Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Bo Chen, City Engineer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent June 25, 2009 City Council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. FRANK TAYLOR informed the Commission that several weeks ago he was at the Project Area 4 meeting for the discussion on the issues going on with Palm Desert Country Club. There were a lot of people at that meeting here in the Council Chamber. There were some statements made regarding good points and bad points as to what was going on at Palm Desert Country Club, but he was not talking about that today. One of the comments he heard was that the Palm Desert Country Club area was turning into a ghetto. He has lived in the city of Palm Desert for almost 25 years now, he pays his MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2009 taxes, is part of the solar program, and all the other things the City has to do. He was not here today to talk about foreclosure houses, dead lawns, and all the rest of the things going on. What he wanted to bring up was regarding RV's in the Palm Desert Country Club area. Mr. Taylor said a couple of weeks ago he went to the Architectural Review Committee meeting because there were some requests for RV's permits within the city for different areas for fencing, or screening, or different things like that. He took a tour throughout the Country Club and provided some pictures for the Architectural Review Committee, and also provided some pictures for the Planning Commission to look at regarding the issues going on out there regarding the RV's. There have been things over the years regarding RV's coming onto properties, parking on properties, and different things like that. There are carports that are out there in Palm Desert Country Club and apparently there is a grandfather clause regarding the ordinance that says they can park there as long as a boat or something else is underneath a carport. The problem that goes on is that people are not following the rules. He believed the ordinance regarding the issuing of permits for RV's in the city of Palm Desert is outdated and needs to be looked at. There were other parts of it that needed to be put more into perspective to make sure that RV's don't turn into blight in the city. He was really concerned about blight in Palm Desert Country Club and any blight that has to do with the city of Palm Desert as a whole. He said the pictures he gave them showed some RV's that were properly screened and he didn't have a problem with those. The ones he had a problem with are when people park them in their front yards and have a wrought iron fence around it and say that's screening. There's also a picture of an RV parked underneath a carport and he was told that was permitted back in 1999. When they drive in the community and see things like this, they add to the idea that there's blight out there and he was really concerned about it. He knew years and years ago there were areas in the city of Palm Desert, like the apartments at the corner of Fred Waring and Monterey, that were blighted and problems occurred there all the time. They were a mess and the City stepped in and took care of some of the issues there and now it's a fine complex. The City went in and took care of the apartments on Elkhorn in the Palm Desert Country Club area. And he thought in the near future, the issues that are coming up with the Palm Desert Country Club golf course and the rest of the area would come to the forefront regarding blight in the community, and he just didn't want to see it going on. Mr. Taylor said he was asking for a review and to put a moratorium on the issuing of any permits in the future for RV's or licensing for RV's to be able to park in the city until someone can go through the ordinance and make sure it 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7. 2009 is fair throughout the whole city. He believed that an RV parked in the south end of Palm Desert should follow the same rules as an RV parked in the Palm Desert Country Club area or toward the east end of the city. He has driven up in the south end of Palm Desert and didn't see RV's parked in driveways for an extended period of time. He just wanted to put that across to the Planning Commission as hopefully they could help get this accomplished. The last thing he wanted to bring up was when he was at the last Architectural Committee meeting, the day before that happened there was an RV parked on a piece of property on Chicory or somewhere up in the south end, and it caught on fire and almost burned up some houses there. There was a big article in the paper and it was on the news and he never asked the question there, but a question he was going to bring across was if the RV was plugged into the house, if there was even a permit pulled for them to be able to do that in the city. He thought people tend not to cooperate and don't follow the rules. He follows the rules; he has a boat and pays for storage and he thought people could do that. If they don't have the proper areas to store them in their backyards out of public view, he believed they could pay the fees to store them somewhere else. He wanted to make sure he brought that to their attention and appreciated anything they could do. Commissioner DeLuna noted that Mr. Taylor mentioned he had been a Palm Desert resident for 25 years and asked if he resides in Palm Desert Country Club as well. Mr. Taylor replied yes. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 08-310 — RCE CONSULTANTS, INC. for WOODY STUART; and BIGHORN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INCJBIGHORN GOLF CLUB, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for Lots 8, F and K of Tract 27520-5, also known as 201 Wiketmal, within Mountains at Bighorn. (APNs 771-490- 008 and -023, -024 and -022.) Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell to approve the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Commissioner Limont noted that the report from Bo Chen said work has already been done on Parcel A without benefit of a grading permit or a wall permit. Mr. Chen said that was correct. He recommended approval of the parcel map waiver with a condition to have the applicant submit grading plans and pay the fee. Commissioner Limont said she would like to place a 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DULY 7, 2009 condition of approval that they do come in and get permits and pay whatever fees. Back it up and get it started appropriately. Mr. Chen concurred. Chairperson Tanner asked if they could include that as a condition. Mr. Chen said that normally they could not condition a parcel map waiver. They did it without a permit. This was kind of separate from the approval of the parcel map waiver because normally, they couldn't condition them. Mr. Bagato also noted that they told the developer that they need to submit all the necessary documents and what would happen is they would have to record it and before they could record it, staff can require the plans then. But there was no legal way to put a condition on a parcel map waiver. Mr. Bob Hargreaves confirmed that they couldn't put conditions on the map, but in this case they would be putting conditions on the approval of it. If they don't get these things done, the approval would become null and void, but they could do it under these circumstances. They couldn't record the map until the situation out there is fixed up. Chairperson Tanner noted that there was a motion and asked for a second. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the June 16, 2009 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the June 16, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Tanner abstained). Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 09-276 — BOB ROSE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the use of "Elite Salon" in an existing office/medical building complex located in the Office Professional zone. The project is located at 72-650 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 105 (APN 640-040- 021). 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2009 Mr. Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of Case No. CUP 09-276, subject to conditions. Chairperson Tanner requested clarification on the staff report conclusion. It said that the applicant would be limited to 13 employees per salon suite. Mr. Swartz explained there would be 13 employees total. Because 13 are allowed under the ordinance, Commissioner Limont asked if that included someone at the front desk or if they would just be individual owners/operators. Mr. Swartz believed they would be individual owners/operators and indicated that Suite 1 had two employees, and every other suite had one. Commissioner Limont commented that the parking looks great right now. Hopefully, the real estate business would pick up, and she wanted to make sure there would be adequate parking in the future. Commissioner Campbell noted that the building has two other tenants and asked how many suites were still available for lease or rent in the two-stories, or if Mr. Swartz couldn't really say because it depended on how many people take up the square footage. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell asked about the other two tenants. Mr. Swartz responded that one is TLC Laser Eye Center. Commissioner Campbell asked if they had quite a few patients. Mr. Bagato said they tend to be by appointment only. There were no other questions of staff and Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. The applicant spoke from the audience and said they were present if there were any questions. There were no questions. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell said she was glad they were going into the building and that someone was going to lease it. She hoped they did very well and moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2508, approving Case No. CUP 09-276, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7. 2009 IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell provided the update. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont reported that there was no meeting. C. PARKS & RECREATION Chairperson Tanner stated that the meeting was postponed. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE None. XI. COMMENTS 1. Ms. Aylaian noted that at the last City Council meeting when the City Council held the public hearing for the appeal of Lisa Theodoratus, who had appealed the decision of the Planning Commission on her conditional use permit, Commissioner Schmidt was in the audience and she took advantage of the public hearing to voice some concerns to the Council. Ms. Aylaian wished Commissioner Schmidt was here tonight. Ms. Aylaian apologized for holding the meeting when they had not planned to hold one and Commissioner Schmidt planned her vacation after she announced they would not be meeting today, so she would catch up with Commissioner Schmidt later. Ms. Aylaian wanted to take the opportunity to talk a little to the Commission and let them know how staff decisions are made and under what circumstances they may or may not change. Commissioner Schmidt expressed surprise and disappointment with the fact that the staff recommendation was not reflective of the Planning Commission decision on that particular issue. When a case comes in to the Planning Department, staff reviews it and makes a recommendation based on their analysis of the Zoning Ordinance, the General Plan, and whatever other Municipal Code sections may apply to the particular case, state law, planning theory and practice, and their own professional judgment. They don't enter into or make their 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2009 recommendations lightly, but they do make them based on their own analysis. She noted that the Planning Commission is at liberty to disagree with or to reject staff's recommendation. More frequently, they see that some Planning Commissioners may support and some may disagree with staff's recommendation, all of which was appropriate. When it gets to the City Council level, whether for a final decision on the case, or because there is an appeal, the staff recommendation does not change. They believed it would be inappropriate for staff to change their recommendation based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission. They prepare a staff report for the City Council which contains the staff recommendation, it also contains the Planning Commission recommendation and they excerpt quotes from Planning Commissioners from the meeting minutes. They try to highlight both Commissioners comments that were in support of the majority and those in support of the minority findings so that the Council has a representation of the ideas and the thought that the Planning Commission members put into their final vote. They also append full minutes, which are not verbatim but fully flush out the thoughts and comments of the Planning Commission members from the meeting. That went to the Council so they have a full picture of the discussion. For staff to change their recommendation would diminish the value of their professional recommendation. It would also be equivalent to jumping on the bandwagon and changing their opinion based upon somebody else's or a different body's feelings, beliefs or their opinion. They didn't feel it would be any more appropriate to change their recommendation then it would be for Planning Commission members to change their vote based on what they thought City Council might want or based upon what the other Planning Commission members were voting. They believed it was appropriate for staff to make its own recommendation independently as it is for Planning Commission members to arrive at their own vote independently based upon exercising their own judgment. Ms. Aylaian also pointed out that the fact that there is a difference in recommendations between staff and the Planning Commission is not indicative of some sort of breakdown or malfunction in the system. In fact, it is reflective of the fact that rational people can come up with different opinions when looking at the same set of facts and circumstances. Also, by its very nature, the recommendations that staff makes are based upon two very static documents: the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan weigh very heavily into the recommendations staff makes. The Planning Commission and the City Council on the contrary actually help create and establish policy for the 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2009 city. The Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan, because they are slow and cumbersome to change, follow behind the policy shift or policy changes, which really can happen more dynamically, so staff's recommendation was going to be based upon long standing, established guidelines and criteria. The way the system works is to feed back from current decisions that the Planning Commission and City Council make before them to kind of reshape policy. That policy change then gets fed back in, in the form of requests by the Planning Commission or the City Council to staff to revise the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. As an example, in the case of the short-term rental, the guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance that permit as a conditional use short-term rentals in R-1 zones are long standing. Those guidelines were established a number of years ago after deliberative thought by the City Council and they had reason behind why they wanted to establish short-term rentals as a conditional use. Staff makes their recommendation based on that because that's the way the Zoning Ordinance now reads. But as they saw in this case, the Planning Commission felt strongly, and the City Council did as well, that perhaps this isn't how we want our city to be functioning today. So they helped to shape the policy. If they make decisions on cases brought before them that are at odds with the existing Zoning Ordinance or General Plan, they then help shape the future policy and perhaps give direction to staff to revisit the ordinance and to change it so that it is reflective of current policy. So that feeds back into the loop and then if the Zoning Ordinance is changed in the future, then future staff recommendations would be in concert with the change in the policy direction. She wanted to touch upon that and didn't want anyone to interpret a staff recommendation at odds with the Planning Commission as disrespectful or as being anything other than what it is, which is their own independent judgment before they have input and guidance from the Planning Commission. So in the future if they do see that staff's recommendation does not change based upon the input from the Planning Commission that is the reason behind it. It would diminish the value of it to kind of change it in reaction to the direction or vote from the Planning Commission. They would then start on a slippery slope of then do they change it only if it's a 5-0 vote, what if it's a 4-1 or 3-2 vote? So they stand behind their recommendation at the outset. The only time there would be an exception to that would be if they discovered some new evidence in between the time it was presented by the Planning Commission and City Council. Then at that point if the new evidence was compelling enough, staff might change their recommendation and explain why they had done that. So she wanted 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7. 2009 to give that information to the Commission members in case they weren't aware of kind of what goes on behind the scenes or what they take a look at and think about. If they have any questions or concerns about staff's recommendations, by all means feel free to discuss it with staff. That being said, she thought Commissioner Schmidt's input was valuable because it highlighted one thing that she thought staff could do better. They talked about it internally and the City Manager suggested that they highlight the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission recommendations in the formatting of the written staff report that goes to the City Council. It always leads off with the staff recommendation and then they have to look down further into the text to find the recommendation of the various commissions. They wanted to bring that forward and give it greater weight so it is immediately evident in front of the Council so they can see the vote and what the reason was from each of the other bodies. Commissioner Limont asked in that situation if the City Council in any way directed staff to look at the ordinance because they want to maintain neighborhoods or something along those lines. Ms. Aylaian replied that they did not direct staff at that point to revisit the Zoning Ordinance. From the comments they made, they did not presently seem to support the idea of having short-term rentals in R-1 zones, so she wouldn't be surprised if at a future date they ask staff to take a look into it. Commissioner DeLuna said she had a point of clarification, and Ms. Aylaian had already answered her one question that after discovered facts, once they've made a cursory examination or preliminary examination, she asked if staff's recommendations are based solely on zoning and the General Plan. She asked if there was anything subjective that goes into the decision. Ms. Aylaian said not solely. They take a look at the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. They also take a look at other places in the Municipal Code. She would love to say that it is a completely consistent document throughout, but at times it is not, so they look at other elements in the Municipal Code that feed into it. They look into the specific facts and details of the case, where it's located, what the surrounding uses are, they take into consideration current planning theory and practices, and their own professional judgment. But they do rely heavily upon the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it was fair to say that it's done on a case by case basis or if it was a pretty cut and dried formula. Ms. Aylaian said it was absolutely case by case. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7. 2009 2. Based on Frank Taylor's comments this evening, Commissioner Limont asked staff if they would review the RV Ordinance and bring it to them so they could take a look at it. Commissioner Campbell noted that they had done it before and didn't know why it wasn't being enforced, because it was everywhere else. Ms. Aylaian added that Mr. Taylor expressed his concerns to the Architectural Review Commission and they actually asked staff to put consideration of a moratorium on their next agenda. Staff went to the City Council in late May and indicated that the Architectural Review Commission would like them to revisit the ordinance and the wording in it because it is ambiguous. They look at everything on a case by case basis because the facts surrounding each case and each piece of property are different. This was one that calls for judgment calls on behalf of the Architectural Review Commission and the language of the ordinance now is vague enough that they are looking for better guidance, both for their decision making and to spell out clearly to residents of the city what will be permitted and what will not. Ms. Aylaian said they are going to look at models from other cities and jurisdictions and see how they handle it. Mr. Bagato noted that the current wording said "adequately screened." The ordinance was revised in the late 1990's and he thought the real difference between south Palm Desert and Palm Desert Country Club is that in Palm Desert Country Club, they are dealing with approximately 2,000 lots around 6,000 square feet. In south Palm Desert, they are dealing with lots that are anywhere from 10,000 to 25,000 where they might have the room to put one on the side or even in the rear. The ordinance does say they could be placed in the front if they are adequately screened, so they see more requests in Palm Desert Country Club to have them in the front yard because they don't have the physical room. He thought the Architectural Review Commission was now feeling unsatisfied; that it is very difficult to adequately screen anything in a front yard and that they need to look at revising the standards. So staff did go to Council already and they are looking at other cities. They didn't have a solution yet, but his opinion was if perhaps lots are too small, they can't have them period. But there would be a Planning Commission recommendation and ultimately a decision by the City Council. He thought that was kind of why there was a difference in what they are seeing in two different areas. It was a matter of lot size. 10 MINUTES pAL M 12ESEHT PI ONNING COMMISSION DULY 7. 2009 3. Ms. Aylaian noted that there was one public hearing item scheduled for the July 21 meeting, so they were planning to have that meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m. 7LA2URI AYLAIAN, Secret ATTEST: VAN G. fANNER, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 11