Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-16 PC Regular Meeting Minutes ����-� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '�- , . . TUESDAY — MARCH 16, 2010 * * * * * * * * ,� * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * �. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chair Limont requested a moment of silence in memory of former Councilman Walt Snyder. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Limont called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Connor Limont, Chair Mari Schmidt, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Nancy DeLuna Van Tanner Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney � Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Senior Management Analyst Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner DeLuna led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent March 11, 2010, meeting actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 2010 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the February 16, 2010, meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the February 16, 2010 meeting minutes. The motion carried 5-0. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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 Nos. MP/PP 01-16 and TPM 30226 Amendment #2 — PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2089 removing portions of Department of Public Works Condition Nos. 3 and 9 referencing a proposed traffic signal at EI Paseo and Painters Path requiring a $150,000 fee in lieu of construction. Assistant Planner Missy Grisa reviewed the staff report. She stated that one person from the nearby Sandpiper development came in requesting further information. When the request was explained, he agreed that a traffic signal was not needed at that location. No other feedback was received from the public notice. Staff recommended adoption of the findings and the draft resolution approving Amendment #2 to Resolution No. 2089. Commissioner DeLuna noticed that it has not yet been ten years since it was enacted. She asked if there was any reason they were doing it sooner or if there was anything that prevented them from releasing the funds early. Ms. Grisa indicated there was nothing that prevents it; part of the condition said ten years and at the fourth and final building onsite. There are already four buildings onsite. The one remaining pad is so small that it was requested by the Redevelopment Agency for the return of these 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16� 2010 funds, and upon review by the Director of Public Works, he determined that it wasn't necessary to continue holding these funds and they could be returned at this time. Chair Limont o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the request. There was no response and Chair Limont closed the public hearing. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission ReSolution No. 2521, approving MP/PP 01-16 and TPM 30226 Amendment #2 removing portions of Department of Public Works Condition Nos. 3 and 9 as they pertain to a proposed traffic signal and $150,000 in lieu of construction fee, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 08-108 Revocation - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Anna's Health System, a massage therapy establishment within an existing commercial suite located at 72-655 Highway 111, Suite B-7. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report and recommended adoption of the draft resolution revoking CUP 08-108. Chair Limont opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed revocation. MR. TODD HILL, 20 Mission Court in Rancho Mirage, informed Commission that he is a friend of the owner, Anna. He said that Anna and his wife have been friends for about ten years. There are a lot of different ways he has known her. He has known her to be a religious lady, honest and dependable; all that goes with it. His reason for being here number one was, going back to the beginning of her business her credit was not good enough to sign a contract, which he and his wife said they would do. Personally, he has lived in the desert since 1967. He has run a business here in the desert 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2010 going on 20-some years. If he felt in any way that this lady was not an honest, upstanding, legitimate business-running person, no way would he or his wife have ever taken the extra step to help her out. He said he was nervous and he never expected to be here, but he was happy to do it on her behalf because he believed in her. Mr. Hill said he read the material that was mailed to them. He didn't disagree with anything as far as the City of Palm Desert and their standards and what they expect from someone conducting business in Palm Desert. He totally agreed with it. That being said, he thought Anna understood the severity of what was being charged here. She actually worked for one day, or two or three hours, at an establishment on Washington Street about two or three years ago. She quit. She saw what was happening there and didn't like it. She didn't know where to go. She has 750 hours of training. She asked them if they would support her to open her own business so that pretty much brought them up to date. The reason she wanted to do this was because she didn't like what she saw happening and thought she could have control of her business. Basically, since she opened her business she has had four • employees. The first employee lasted about two weeks and she didn't trust her and didn't believe what she was doing was what Anna wanted to be represented as; she was gone. She found a girl that was very good, but she wanted to be closer to her family in Los Angeles and since she didn't really want to leave Anna hanging, she referred another girl. Anna was pretty cautious at this point. She always had them sign disclaimers that they understood the parameters and the legalities. For this particular one, Anna asked him to go in two times and get a massage. The lady didn't know who he was and he had never met her either. Two times she did everything correctly, good massage, and he told Anna and Anna said okay. This girl basically stayed for two years. Mr. Hill said once a month the local Sheriff's Department and Mr. Pedro Rodriguez from the City come in and inspect her premises. They go through a checklist and recommend things that need to be fixed, replaced or done correctly. The only thing she's had a problem with is her sign-in register and after he talked to Mr. Rodriguez he got it straight and printed up a master copy here of what she should do. Her English isn't as good as it should be or could be, but she tries to do the right thing. On these monthly visits, it seemed, and he didn't want it taken the wrong way, but it seemed to him that there was a particular sheriff 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 2010 who was a little aggressive. She seemed to be a little intimidating. He actually got to look at the film of her speaking very loudly and certainly intimidating. The reason he talked about the third girl was because after being there for a year and a half or two, she quit because this sheriff intimidated her. In her eyes she had done nothing wrong and she didn't feel as though she should be treated in that manner. Mr. Hill said he talked to Mr. Rodriguez about it and he knew he was politically correct, although Anna says he is a good man and he thought they built a good relationship. He asked him what he should do and Mr. Rodriguez said he could call Lt. Shouse. His feeling was that the way this lady spoke to these ladies was uncalled for. You don't speak to anybody that way. He has had over 46 employees at one time and you don't talk to people the way he heard this particular officer talking to her. Mr. Hill said that once this lady quit because she felt intimidated, Anna didn't have any where to go. She went and talked to Claudia at the office over here and Claudia indicated that there's a new code that they have to have a California license, as well as a Palm Desert license. Now she had one lady who has had a permit in Palm Desert for two or three years. She called this lady to come in and help her because she needed help, although truthfully she wasn't making enough money to employ two people, so he wasn't too sure about that. This was the lady who committed the issue and he didn't think there was any dispute. He personally didn't know if � she did or didn't, but if the officer said she did, she did it. His point here, and he hoped there was some compassion in the City Council, but she isn't a bad lady and he knew she wouldn't do this sort of thing. And he knew the minute that phone call came to him what it was and who it was and he knew it wasn't this lady. One last thing he wanted to bring up was something he read here, and this wasn't something he was really familiar with, but there is one item and it is item number three, Municipal Code Section 5.87.100B and it says that, "It is unlawful for any person owning, operating, or managing a massage establishment knowingly to cause, allow, or permit in or about such an establishment any agent, employee or any other person under his control or supervision to permit acts in violation of Chapter 5.90, including, specifically, Section 5.90.140..." What he got out of that was knowingly. Had she known this girl was up to something, she wouldn't have existed; she wouldn't have been there. He knew Anna that well and he thought there was a track record there with a previous employee. He asked that they take that into consideration. She is very aware of the severity of this, but he was here to tell 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 2010 them that she is an honest person and she doesn't perform that kind of service for anybody. Chair Limont thanked him. She asked if anyone else would like to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed revocation. There was no one. The public hearing was closed and Chair Limont asked for Commission comments. Commissioner DeLuna noted that there was a two-year summary of activities list from the Police Department. One resulted in an arrest for prostitution. On two other occasions there were solicitations for sex; on two different occasions there were daily logs that were not brought up to speed. So there had been five different violations. She said that it was a hard decision to make, but she would move for revocation of the CUP. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff to revoke CUP 08-108. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2522, revoking CUP 08-108. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. ZOA 10-41 — CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a recommendation to the City Council of an amendment to the Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) zone relating to definitions / development of "rock outcroppings," and amendments to the HPR Zone Approved Ridgeline Map. Sr. Management Analyst Ryan Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the resolution recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Council. Commissioner DeLuna noted that a map was provided with some proposed changes, some of which no longer include certain areas from the ridgeline or outcropping definition. She asked who prepared that map and if there was a study, engineers hired, or if it was done by City staff. Mr. Stendell said that he and the GIS Department made the determination. It was mostly visual. He simply scouted the area and used topography data that they have available to the City. He could run through a few of his 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2010 tools. He showed the topography map and a hill shade file; he explained that the GIS Department prepares this and this was created using topography data and using a monochrome computer generation to actually create contours and shows us in plan view what is going on in the hillsides. So utilizing all of the data that is available to staff, it was prepared by staff. For the record, Commissioner DeLuna requested that Mr. Stendell identify the term GIS. Mr. Stendell clarified that it stands for Geographic Information Systems, the map guys. On these rock outcroppings, with all the developers they have had on the hillsides and also individual land owners, Commissioner Campbell asked how many of them have really touched these outcroppings. Didn't they kind of stay away from them and leave them as they are or restore it to their own original condition? Mr. Stendell said his personal experience with the hillside has been any number of developers approach things in different ways, but his experiences have generally been that they work with the contour o# the land and typically try and avoid them. In his most recent case, not only was it a cost savings to them since taking down an outcropping costs a lot of money, but it also adds beauty to their project. Typically speaking, a developer tries to work with the contours and not disturb as much as possible, but that has been his dealings so far. Commissioner Campbell asked if he would say 75% or 80% are not touched by the developers. Mr. Stendell said he was uncomfortable actually trying to throw out a number. In his most recent case, they had a number of 80% to 90% that were not being touched. Commissioner Tanner had a question. When they were talking about the outcroppings and disturbing an outccopping, before any kind of disturbance occurs, they will come to staff and say they have identified this as an outcropping and can they reestablish it someplace else on the property and if not, they would work around it. Was that the sequence of events? Mr. Stendell said yes, staff is the first line. They encourage pre- application meetings. If a property owner came to them and said they have this five acres and was thinking about putting a house there, the first thing staff does most of the time is they want to get a field study, so they get up on the site and take a look. They get a look of their maps and plans and then staff will approach them and say it is on top of an outcropping or on a ridge, so ultimately staff is the first line. Commissioner Tanner said if it is identified as an outcropping and can't be moved, then they will have to redo. Mr. Stendell said that many times there are applications that come before staff that Planning Commission would never see because if a property owner was proposing something like that, they would get an answer that staff would recommend denial of their project, and at that point they would either redesign or proceed with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tanner asked if this would be consistent with the whole 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2010 ridgeline or five-acre mountainous parcels. They see a small area right now that Mr. Stendell has identified with some areas that should be ridgelines. He asked if that would be consistent with the entire area for potential builders. Mr. Stendell also recalled that they've had a lot of lengthy discussions regarding where it is difficult to define ridgelines versus outcroppings, especially as they get low on the hillsides close to the valley floor. He said that is the area that probably has the biggest challenge to staff, the lowest area right at the base. They do have other areas that are low, but generally speaking, the part that is city-owned property or were very steep coming down. He showed one of the lowest, easiest slope areas that staff had been the most concerned about. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Stendell was just dealing with city- owned hillside property. He didn't have anything to say about the county- owned land. There was nothing he could say about that; he was just talking about the small area that the city owns. Mr. Stendell said that the County sometimes allowed the City to share comments on projects, but the City has no jurisdiction over that area, just the land in the city. Commissioner Schmidt asked what percentage on the map that Mr. Stendell provided in their packets is ridgeline issue in the city. Is it most of it or just a portion? Mr. Stendell said most of it. Commissioner Schmidt asked since it is gray matter, if it is difficult to define them? The others are more obvious? Mr. Stendell explained that they are brought to staff on a case-by-case basis. Looking at the hillside map, this was the area that they've been concerned with the most. To say that they wouldn't ever find any more? Generally speaking, he couldn't find any other problem areas on the hillside map. Commissioner Schmidt was very much in favor of adding language about rock outcroppings, but she had a deep concern about them approving staff guesswork, good guesswork, but this had not been engineered. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Stendell concurred. Commissioner Schmidt thought that perhaps this was a standalone issue and shouldn't be tagged onto the outcropping issue. She didn't know quite how to come to that, but really did wish the City would take this particular problem area, and maybe that would be the recommendation to Council, to approve a survey, a real bona fide survey of those questionable areas so they don't encounter what they did with Stone Eagle. Because the very first problem they encountered was about ridgelines and that was nice, except it didn't address the real transgression on the property, which was one home or six. So she wanted to mention it as a concern. She wanted the outcroppings to appear, but she didn't like setting staff up even though they've taken great pains to draw the lines, and she would love to have some authority who has the background and licensing to do it to bless it 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 2010 and say this is right, this is wrong. We need to do more work and she didn't know how best to get to that. Commissioner Campbell recommended that they actually separate the two. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that would be two separate resolutions. Commissioner Campbell concurred, for the ridge and for the outcroppings. So they could go ahead and see how much time they would need. Chairperson Limont asked if it would be alright to simply add the verbal changes to the hillside ordinance without the map. Mr. Erwin said certainly; so far as the outcroppings were concerned, they are entitled to recommend the changes to the ordinance, and adding the outcroppings and the prohibition on the outcroppings and excluding from that the map and dealing with the map separately if they wished to do so. Commissioner Schmidt asked if amending the resolution would require it coming back to them again. Mr. Erwin said no. Commissioner Schmidt indicated they would be dropping the part in the resolution that deals with the map, which she believed was Exhibit B. Mr. Erwin said they still have the public hearing. Mr. Stendell said they would be deleting number three relating to Exhibit B and the reference in the title to the ridgeline map. Commissioner Schmidt thought they were all heading in the same direction. She just didn't want them to hurry and have it come back to haunt them. That was her main objective. She asked Mr. Erwin to explain how they could do this. Mr. Erwin said that basically they would eliminate that part of the resolution dealing with the map. In other words, not recommending it and deleting the Hillside Planned Residential Zone as it relates to the map. Commissioner Schmidt said she would so move. Chair Limont asked if that was her motion. Mr. Erwin indicated that they needed to open the public hearing. Chair Limont o�ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the public hearing. There was no response and Chair Limont closed the public hearing. Mr. Erwin explained that the resolution would be amended by deleting off of the title and amendments to the approved HPR zone ridgeline map. The case number would stay the same. And deleting number three at the bottom of the page, and deleting the map that is attached. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would then have another resolution for the outcroppings. Was that correct? Mr. Erwin said this would be the resolution for the outcroppings. Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that what they were doing was separating them. Mr. Erwin said that's what 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2010 they would be approving, the resolution which defines outcroppings and indicates that destruction of the outcropping is prohibited. What he stated deletes from that resolution any reference to the ridgeline map. Chair Limont asked if there was a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings. The motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no). Mr. Erwin stated that the other item that they mentioned was the potential survey. He asked if they would want to convey to the Council a suggestion with regard to the ridgeline map. If they wished to do that, it would be a matter of inerely the Chairman of the Commission, if that was the wish of the Commission, conveying that information to the City Council. Chairperson Limont asked if they should do that as a Miscellaneous item or as part of this. Mr. Erwin said this. Basically that has been the discussion so far. He suggested a motion and second and a vote requesting the Chairperson to convey that information to the Council. It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, by minute motion, authorizing Chairperson Limont to convey to the City Council a request for a survey by a licensed professional engineer to identify ridgelines in the HPR zoned area. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she did not want to discount the work that Mr. Stendell and staff have done on this and encouraged them to have that as a starting point. Mr. Erwin said that could be included in the conveyance. Chairperson Limont called for the vote. The motion carried 5- 0. (**See additional discussion on pages 18-19, items 1 and 3**) D. Case No. ZOA 10-69 — CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses, to the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report. He noted a change on Page 4 of the resolution under E, Miscellaneous Uses, where it listed thrift stores. The words "thrift stores" should be replaced with "independent massage establishments." Staff recommended that the 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH �6. 2010 Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 25.130 Location of Miscellaneous Uses to the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Mr. Swartz informed the Commission that staff also advertised this item to all the businesses mentioned in this ordinance. They also handed out copies to individuals at the counter, but only received one response in writing. That response was before the Commission from Bert Bruning of Palm Desert Tobacco. Mr. Bruning was recommending that the Commission add on Page 4 under G under smoke shops the wording to the sentence half way down the page that states, "A retail tobacco establishment is an establishment that generates less than 50% of its gross revenue from the sale of tobacco paraphernalia and generates more than 80% of its gross revenue from the sale of tobacco products." Mr. Bruning wanted to add at the end "excluding cigarettes." Mr. Swartz asked for any questions. Commissioner Schmidt asked why they would exclude cigarettes. Mr. Swartz said that in speaking with him on the phone, he sells higher end tobacco and he was worried about an influx of lower-end tobacco cigarette stores. Commissioner Campbell asked if he meant one like the establishment in the Palms to Pines center. Mr. Swartz said yes, he was worried about an influx of stores such as that. Commissioner DeLuna asked what it would take to add "excluding cigarettes". Did they just add it in to anything they approved? Mr. Erwin said they are permitted to add or delete anything that they wish when they finally make a decision with regard to this resolution. They were absolutely free to add it if they wished. Chairperson Limont opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. MR. BUDDY HAYNES, 73338 Highway 111, Suite 5, asked if the existing tattoo shops on Highway 111 would be considered grandfathered in, but if they were to move a year from now down the road, would they still be permitted to stay on Highway 111 or would they have to locate off of Highway 111. Mr. Erwin said if he moved the location, it would have to be off of Highway 111. Mr. Haynes asked if that was off of Highway 111 permanently. Mr. Erwin said yes. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 2010 Mr. Haynes didn't agree with the change. He couldn't speak to the other Miscellaneous Uses, but if he had a 99-year lease at his present location versus a two-year lease, he didn't see what the difference would be if he was to move two doors down or stay at the same spot. With the economy fluctuating, if business gets slower and he needs to downsize, he would still like to stay on Highway 111. Or if business got better, he would like to move to a bigger building. He recommended that those already on Highway 111 should be able to choose if they would like to leave where they're at and still stay there, but at just a different address. He wanted them to put in a compromise or addition to the ordinance. MR. TROY LAWRENCE, 73-640 Highway 111, said he wasn't there to dispute anything, he was there to commend them for hearing them out initially and letting them speak their piece when this came out. The City was able to listen to what they had to say and make recommendations, listen to their advice. He did agree with it and there was only one thing to add and it didn't have anything to do with his business. There was another business they might want to consider to try to monitor and it was right next to him and it had to do with adult toys and stuff like that. He knew that wasn't in there, but he was willing to bet that was something that might come up, so it something they might want to try to spearhead before they start having some of those start popping up down the street. Once they have this ordinance, and he wasn't sure there was anything to control that, but once they see they are set in stone where they're at, someone might get an idea to start working their way down Highway 111 and then they would be right back here with that issue. He commended them again for letting them take care of business and that's why they live and work in this city. Commissioner Tanner asked what type of business he was referring to next to his establishment. Mr. Lawrence said it is called Skitzo Kitty; it's adult things. Mr. Bagato indicated that there is an existing city ordinance that deals with adult entertainment. When that business was initially approved, it was supposed to be mainly a lingerie store. If they have expanded that beyond the realm of what they would define as lingerie, they could look into it. Adult book stores are currently not allowed on Highway 111. Mr. Lawrence said it seemed to be fairly decent; however, he just wanted to bring it up to make sure it didn't get out of control. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 2010 Commissioner Tanner asked for confirmation that it is addressed in an existing ordinance. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Locations are supposed to be in industrial areas like Cook Street or off of Dinah Shore. Staff would look into it. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Lawrence if he was happy to be grandfathered in. Mr. Lawrence replied extremely happy. Commissioner Campbell asked if he owned the building or if he was renting or leasing. Mr. Lawrence said he was leasing right now. Commissioner Campbell asked if his landlord knew he couldn't move anywhere else because it wouldn't be allowed on Highway 111 and his rent went up, what he would do then. Mr. Lawrence said it was controlled by a management company and he knew there were stipulations and laws that they aren't allowed to do that. He has known the gentleman, Mr. Otto Lupia, for 15 years and he didn't think he would take advantage. Commissioner Campbell said that was just him. What about the other tattoo owners? They may have that possibility where they are caught like that and can't move anywhere else. Mr. Lawrence couldn't speak for the others, but concurred. MR. JAMES LIVINGSTON, 73338 Highway 111, Suite 5, said he is co-owner of Inksanity Tattoo. He wanted to address what Mr. Haynes said earlier as far this being grandfathered in. If his lease is up within two years, he would like the option to move two doors down or a street down on Highway 111. Another issue was they were excluding permanent cosmetics. Permanent cosmetics were no different from what he does. It's the same thing. They break the surface of the skin just as much as he does. They use the same needles; the machines might be different. By excluding them, the tattoo industry, they needed to involve permanent cosmetics also with them. He wanted to bring that to everybody's attention; it had not been mentioned. To move them and not letting him be able to open a business within five years down the road if his lease is up, that should apply to them too. He said about 38% to 40% is tourist 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 2010 business from out of town. They come from Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, and Orange County. There was no one else wishing to speak and Chairperson Limont closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tanner knew they talked about tattoos and permanent makeup; he asked if there was any distinction between them. It clearly was similar. Mr. Bagato stated that according to the State and Riverside County Health and Safety there is no difference. They talked about from a Health Department view there is no difference. But staff was asked to look at the impact in terms of a resort community in the commercial core and a concentration of them in one area. They didn't treat them with beauty salons because they weren't looking at them from a health and safety standpoint, but from land uses that are compatible in a resort community for visual character along the commercial core when the concern was first brought up. That's why they separated the two. But by the Health and Safety Code, they are completely the same. Commissioner Campbell's recommendation was that they leave everything as is. She didn't think by removing the tattoo parlors and the tobacco shops on Highway 111 that it was going to make Highway 111 look any better. It needed a complete revamp and to leave them as it is, and when they have other applications, go ahead and have a conditional use permit that would come in front of the Planning Commission to approve or not approve them. Commissioner Tanner asked if that was a motion. Commissioner Campbell said yes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, to keep the current ordinance and have the applications come before the Planning Commission with a conditional use permit. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there was anything they had talked about that would limit their vicinity to schools, parks, or churches. Commissioner Campbell explained that would come with the conditional use permit when it comes before them. Commissioner DeLuna thought they decided at the last meeting that requiring a CUP for this type of business was not the best solution. They already decided that. Commissioner Campbell explained that it hadn't been voted on yet. Commissioner DeLuna indicated that it was in the staff report. And they asked staff to analyze other land use compatibility requirements. Commissioner Campbell said that was true. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2010 Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification. Commissioner Campbell said her motion was to leave everything as it is and have any application come before the Planning Commission for consideration where they could approve a conditional use permit or deny it. Commissioner DeLuna asked if she was asking them to deny what staff was recommending. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that she was requesting them to do nothing. In relation to how they would vote, Commissioner DeLuna asked if that meant they vote no for staff's recommendation. Mr. Erwin pointed out that they were talking about conditional use permits and there were no existing conditional use permit requirements for these businesses. Commissioner Campbell said they could go ahead and require a conditional use permit for these services. Mr. Erwin said if that was the desire of the Commission, staff would need to bring back to them an additional recommendation to include these as conditional use permit requirements in other zones. Chairperson Limont requested clarification that Commissioner Campbell was recommending that they deny staff's recommendation to change the current ordinance and direct them to come back with a conditional use permit requirement. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner DeLuna asked if that was the motion that has been seconded. Commissioner Tanner said that would be his second. Commissioner DeLuna requested that they clarify one more time what they were voting on. Mr. Erwin understood the motion to be made to deny the staff recommendation; to instruct staff to bring it back to the Planning Commission with the additional requirement of conditional use permits for these businesses in other locations. Commissioner Campbell said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt clarified that a yes vote would be in favor of denial. Mr. Erwin concurred that a yes vote would be in favor of denying the staff recommendation and instructing that they come back with something additional to this ordinance that would impose conditional use permit requirements on these businesses in other locations other than Highway 111 and EI Paseo. Commissioner DeLuna reiterated that a no vote supports the staff recommendation. Mr. Erwin confirmed that a no vote would support the City staff recommendation. Commissioner Schmidt said they would have to take a separate action again on the resolution if Commissioner Campbell's motion fails. Chairperson Limont concurred. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2010 Commissioner Tanner asked if there was still room for discussion. Chairperson Limont said yes. Commissioner Tanner said his concern has been aired twice here and that it is for local establishments on Highway 111 currently. The long-term leases or ownership property secures that presence on Highway 111. His concern was for a short-term lease or an owner just deciding at the conclusion of that lease that they no longer want to have�this particular establishment in their building. They could say no, they are not going to extend the lease. This denied an already established performing business in the city of Palm Desert the opportunity to continue that endeavor on Highway 111; that's where they want to be. At the same time, he wanted it understood when adopting the requirement for a new CUP that they suggest that there is no more room for these particular types of establishments and that they not eliminate the opportunity for established businesses to continue, either in a smaller place or a larger place on Highway 111. Because the way he understood it, once they are out of that one particular spot, they are no longer going to be able to lease, even if they come to the Planning Commission because a conditional use permit will say no more establishments of this type. Mr. Erwin clarified that a conditional use permit wouldn't say that, this ordinance says that regardless of a conditional use permit. If they wished to put in the ordinance that they could move, then they would have to talk in terms of same location, similar location and determine if they then are required to comply with the other distance restrictions from other operations; can they expand their business, etc.; a number of things. Commissioner Tanner said he had a difficult time taking the ability of one to make money away at the whim of a building owner or what have you. Commissioner Campbell stated that her motion still stood to come to the Planning Commission with a conditional use permit and Commissioner Tanner had seconded the motion. Commissioner DeLuna asked if in the worst case scenario what they were talking about occurs, they are not precluded from doing business in another location in the city, they are just precluded from being on Highway 111; Service Industrial zones or such other designated zones could still accommodate the business, just not the location. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. Mr. Erwin asked for clarification that the conditional use permit as he understood it would not apply on Highway 111 or EI Paseo, but would apply in other zones within the city off of EI Paseo. He had the feeling that perhaps they were talking about a relocation of one existing on Highway 111 and EI Paseo requiring a conditional use permit. He asked if that was what he was hearing. Commissioner Campbell said that was correct. Mr. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2010 Erwin said that if an existing business on Highway 111 wants to relocate to Highway 111, they go through a conditional use permit process. Both Commissioners Campbell and Tanner concurred. Mr. Erwin said that anyone who wished to locate on Cook Street or a place like that also required a conditional use permit. Commissioners Campbell and Tanner both concurred. Commissioner Schmidt noted that her fear in requiring a conditional use permit is that it runs with the land. It doesn't terminate when the end of a lease terminates. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. Commissioner Schmidt said that if the ownership changes, iYs still allowed. Mr. Erwin said that was correct, unless they restrict that in their granting of the conditional use permit. They do have the ability to do that, if they specify that it is for a particular operator so that they make it so that it does not run with the land. Without some restriction on it, it would run with the land and be available for that location. Commissioner DeLuna said that in that case, it could conceivably allow someone to stay in that location with the same use and allow someone relocating to start the same business in another location, so in effect they would have two businesses? Mr. Erwin said no, it would not expand into two businesses; it would still be just one business. Chairperson Limont noted it would be comparable to how we treat stand alone massage parlors. The CUP is to the owner, to the person operating the business. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it would then affect the owner of property, not the lessee. Mr. Erwin said it may, he didn't know. Chairperson Limont said they could condition it to the person leasing and it could go with their business license. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. Chairperson Limont noted there was a motion on the floor and called for the vote. The motion failed 2-3 (Chairperson Limont, Commissioner DeLuna and Commissioner Schmidt voted no). Mr. Erwin advised Chairperson Limont to see if there was any other motion the Commission wished to make. It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Tanner voted no). It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2524, recommending to the City Council approval of ZOA 10-69 adding Chapter 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 2010 25.130, Location of Miscellaneous Uses, to the Paim Desert Municipal Code, as amended by changing the words "thrift stores" to "independent massage establishments" in E of Section 25.130.020 Definitions and adding the words "excluding cigarettes" to G of Section 25.130.020. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Tanner voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the next meeting would be March 17. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Chairperson Limont also reported that the next meeting would be March 17. C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner stated that they had a presentation by the City Attorney regarding the Brown Act and reviewed upcoming events and discussion items. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt said they met last Monday and primarily it was updating and the City Attorney spoke about the Brown Act and the need for everyone to adhere to it. The next meeting would be in a month. XI. COMMENTS 1. Commissioner DeLuna said she apparently missed something when they were discussing the definition of rock outcroppings and that part of the motion that got bifurcated. She had something that she wanted to include in the definition and missed the opportunity because she didn't realize what the process that was occurring would exclude any further discussion on the section of the rock outcropping. She didn't know the proper forum to address that. Mr. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16. 2010 Erwin said unfortunately, the public hearing on that issue was closed here and an action had been taken. If there was something that she wished to add, he suggested that she convey it in written form to the City Council, which is where the Planning Commission resolution would go so that she got that input into the process there. Commissioner DeLuna asked if she should do that as a private citizen. Mr. Erwin said yes. Commissioner Tanner asked if Mr. Erwin wanted that put on the agenda as a Miscellaneous item. Mr. Erwin said no, that will go when this particular resolution goes to the City Council. It would be joined with that and the Council will see that at the same time they get the Planning Commission resolution recommendation, so it goes together. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it should be in letter form to the City Council. Mr. Erwin thought that would be better. Mr. Erwin said she should make sure either Ms. Aylaian or Ms. Monroe has it to go with the staff report. 2. Ms. Aylaian had a reminder about the Housing Tour on Thursday. The flyer said 10:00 a.m., but she had been advised to be there at 9:45 a.m. and the bus would leave at 10:00 a.m. She asked them to be here a little early. She also gave a reminder about the Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. Also, at this point they planned to have the next Planning Commission meeting on April 6, but staff didn't have any items scheduled for a second meeting in April. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there would be a packet provided in advance of the Joint City Council and Planning Commission hearing. Ms. Aylaian said yes, the staff report was being completed and staff planned to deliver them on Friday afternoon. 3. Before adjourning, Mr. Erwin indicated that staff advised that the Planning Commission had not yet moved for approval of Resolution 2523, which is the one dealing with outcroppings. He said they did need a motion, second and vote. Mr. Erwin explained that they approved the findings, but they didn't make the second motion. It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2523, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 10-41, amending the Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) zone relating to definitions / development of "rock outcroppings." The motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Campbell and DeLuna voted no). 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16 2010 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. �-�,� G___------ G " �- LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary TT ST: M. ONNOR LIMONT, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission 20