Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-03 PC Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - AUGUST 3, 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Limont called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 11. 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 Page Garner, Senior Engineer/ City Surveyor Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner DeLuna led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Chair Limont requested that everyone please keep Councilman Kelly in their good thoughts and prayers. Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent past City Council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3, 2010 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the May 4, 2010, meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, approving the May 4, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 07-14— WILLIAM R. LANG, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension for PP 07- 14, the Jensen's Shopping Center remodel which included a precise plan amendment for an extensive remodel and a minor addition to an existing 76,195 square foot retail center on a 5.15-acre site bounded by Highway 111, Larkspur Lane and El Paseo. Project location: 73-547 - 73-613 Highway 111, 45-051 Larkspur Lane, and 73-540 - 73-580 El Paseo. B. Case No. PMW 10-87 — GARY AND DARLENE LYONS, Applicants ago Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 10, 11 and 12 of Tract 25161. The project address is 160 Menil Place. C. Case No. PMW 10-144 — BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment to Lot 10 to include a portion of the existing golf course Lot D and facilitate the transfer of the adjusted lot to the Bighorn HOA. (APNs 652-160-056, 062 and 074 on Andreas Canyon Drive.) D. Case No. PMW 10-160 — SEAN AND LISA McGRATH AND BIGHORN GOLF CLUB, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment at 178 Kiva Drive for rear yard improvements. %go 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3. 2010 E. Case No. PMW 10-165 — ARTHUR AND DORA COHN and CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge a City-owned lot with the lot at 44-845 Las Palmas Avenue. (APNs 627-092-035 and 627-092-045.) F. Case No. PMW 10-167 — PALM DESERT FUNDING CO., LP, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments for sale and financing purposes for property described as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of PM 31730 located south of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, 37-500 Cook Street. (APNs 694-190-012, 033 and 057.) G. Case No. PMW 10-185 — JOHN AND REIDUN LaFLEUR AND SANBORN A/E, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge three lots into one for property at 45-359, 45-369 and 45-379 Sunset Lane. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to approve the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Chairperson Limont requested that Item B, Case No. PMW 10-87 be removed for further discussion. Commission concurred. Chairperson Limont called for the vote for Consent Calendar Items A, C, D, E. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PMW 10-87 — GARY AND DARLENE LYONS, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 10, 11 and 12 of Tract 25161. The project address is 160 Menil Place. Chairperson Limont indicated that she had called Mr. Bo Chen and Mr. Page Garner in the Engineering Department because this is a lot line adjustment for three parcels in Bighorn. She wanted to ask for an explanation because it doesn't follow exactly how we operate today and wanted the history in the record. She asked if staff would explain. am 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 2010 Mr. Garner explained that the original permit was pulled in 1991. It was one of the first homes built in Bighorn and it was the middle parcel. Lot 11 was the original home. Subsequently in 1996, the owner submitted a grading plan for improvements on Lots 10 and 12 which included an addition on Lot 12 and some sort of a walkway and perhaps a gazebo on Lot 10, as well as a small garage. So this was done quite some time ago and currently it was not the City's practice to allow building across property lines. This was permitted back in 1996. The people who permitted this were no longer working with the City. That was about all he could tell them about the history. Chairperson Limont noted that her reason for calling in was to simply ask why they were approving a lot line adjustment after the home had been built. It had been approved, there weren't issues, and at this point the owner was paying three memberships for the golf course right now and if he combines the lots, he would only pay one. She moved approval of Consent Calendar Item B. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Limont, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving Item B, Case No. PMW 10-87, by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 08-433 — CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for revocation of an existing conditional use permit for a massage therapy establishment within an existing office suite located at 72-855 Fred Waring Drive, Suite C-16. Business Owner: Lawrence M. Andrews; Property Owner: Haven Management. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz stated that on December 16, 2008, Planning Commission approved Resolution 2423 which allowed A/C Massage to operate within an existing office suite. As part of the City's on- going monitoring of massage establishments, the Police and Code Enforcement Departments routinely performed inspections at this location, r 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3. 2010 along with undercover operations. Attached was a summary of the activity �.. that was provided by the Palm Desert Police Department. Mr. Swartz stated that on February 16, 2010, the Planning Commission considered revocation of the CUP. The City Attorney requested that the Planning Commission refer the matter to a Hearing Officer. On April 28, 2010, a hearing was held at City Hall for A/C Massage. The Hearing Officer gave written notice to individuals located within 100 yards of the premises, including the applicant, Mr. Andrews, and his attorney, Mr. Vodnoy. Prior to the hearing, the Hearing Officer was provided documents and three CD disks to view. On May 5, 2010, the Hearing Officer found that the conduct performed was of sufficient importance to warrant the revocation of the CUP. The findings to justify the revocation of the CUP could be found in the resolution. A new resolution was provided to the Commission today. Mr. Swartz asked if any of the Commissioners needed time to review it. Chairperson Limont said no. Mr. Swartz stated that staff received one response to the noticing. He received a response from the applicant's attorney, which was also provided to the Commission earlier. He explained that approval of the Hearing Officer's recommendation would uphold the revocation of CUP 08-433. Attached was a copy of the report with the findings prepared by the Hearing Officer. He asked for any questions. There were no questions of staff. Chairperson Limont opened the public hearing and asked for any testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the matter; she noted that she had a blue Request to Speak card from Mr. Joseph T. Vodnoy and asked if he would like to address the Commission. MR. JOSEPH VODNOY, 316 West Second Street, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, California, 90012, stated that he was speaking in opposition to the resolution. This is a situation where his client, who was in the audience, received a notice to close the location because of prostitution activities. That was the notice that was given by the City and that's what they were defending when they went to the Hearing Officer's office to have a hearing on the case. At that time Mr. Vodnoy said he had supplied him (the Hearing Officer) with tapes, undercover tapes, of what occurred at the location, undercover tapes of what had happened outside the location with respect to the police who were monitoring the situation, and also a statement from the massage technician. Ms. Vodnoy said at the time the notice that they had was that this place was closed for prostitution. The Hearing Officer heard the tapes and ruled that there was no prostitution, and yet the place has 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 2010 remained closed on that basis. But he did find another ground, which was never noticed, which was that there was improper touching by the massage technician. Mr. Vodnoy said that was not something he defended, as such, other than to point out that there was a tape made by the woman in question that said that she did not do any touching. He said they were unable to call her as a witness in the case because a case is still pending by the District Attorney's Office against her, and her lawyer, who was also present tonight, denied him access, which was somewhat normal in these circumstances. So given the fact that they were defending a charge successfully, and yet the place remained closed and the City Council, in the resolution that is inconsistent with the new resolution the Planning Commission had, revoked the permit. Mr. Vodnoy said he raised constitutional issues, due process issues, and the idea that the basis for the hearing, number one, was a two-page declaration of the officer who the City did not make available for cross examination. He objected on the government code section which provides that they are entitled to have the person there. That is not testimony and they have a right either to cross examine them or to strike the testimony. Mr. Vodnoy stated that there was no evidence presented at the hearing that Mr. Andrews had anything to do with the alleged activities inside the location; had in any way done anything to promote it, to accept it, to do anything with it. In addition to that, they presented evidence that apparently the officer who was working undercover was drinking on the job. All of that was presented to the Hearing Officer. There were also these minor violations such as, not posting names and things like that, that was not grounds. So what they have here today, the grounds of the revocation CUP, is that inadmissible hearsay was presented on an item that was never noticed properly to the Hearing Officer, and is not properly in front of the Planning Commission because it was unconstitutional and a violation of due process. So they were asking the Planning Commission to do the right thing and not revoke the CUP. Mr. Vodnoy said he understood at the same time that the City Council has revoked the business license. So it put them in a rather awkward situation, but their position is that they are two different things. He didn't know why they weren't both handled at once. They were certainly both handled by the Hearing Officer. But he thought it was essential for the Commission to understand that improper, illegal evidence was presented without notice, without due process, and formed the basis of the Hearing Officer's conclusion that there no 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3. 2010 was illegal touching, when that is not the basis that Mr. Andrews ohm received as the basis for his losing his CUP and having the business closed. He didn't understand how they've given notice saying this is the grounds, not once but several times, it's prostitution. Then they have a hearing; the Hearing Officer says there is no prostitution, but we have something else here that was never noticed. So based on all of those grounds, and Mr. Vodnoy said he also wrote a four-page letter and he hoped he was not reiterating everything he said there. Chairperson Limont confirmed that the Commission received his letter. Mr. Vodnoy said the point being, he wanted to bring to their attention the deficiencies, the constitutional and legal deficiencies of the Hearing Officer's report. And apparently the newly modified Planning Commission Resolution, which he was given this afternoon, is in conflict with the previous one that was adopted by the City Council. And secondly, it relies exclusively on the Hearing Officer's conclusion. Mr. Vodnoy reiterated that he had a hearing about one thing, found another, and that was the basis for his conclusion that the CUP should be revoked. He thanked the Commission. Chairperson Limont asked if anyone else would like to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this issue. There was no one and the public hearing ••• was closed. Chairperson Limont asked for Commission comments. Commissioner DeLuna asked Mr. Erwin when the evidence was presented to the Hearing Officer and originally to the Planning Commission and City Council, if the officer's allegations that there was unlawful touching were included in the original report. Mr. Erwin stated that this information was included in the report to the Hearing Officer. Commissioner DeLuna asked if this was an informal hearing, not an evidentiary hearing. Mr. Erwin said it was somewhat less formal than a court hearing. It is an administrative hearing, which they typically do a little bit more informally than typical court hearings. Many times it is done by declaration. Commissioner DeLuna asked if she could ask a question of Mr. Vodnoy. Chairperson Limont asked Mr. Erwin if they needed to reopen the public hearing. Mr. Erwin said no. Commissioner DeLuna said hearing from the City Attorney that the original allegation from the officer about the illegal touching was included in the report. She asked Mr. Vodnoy if he requested that that officer be present at that hearing. am 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 2010 Mr. Vodnoy said yes; not only that, he objected to him not being present at the hearing and he made it specifically...filed an objection to that fact not only orally at the hearing, but... Commissioner DeLuna asked for clarification that Mr. Vodnoy did make a request in advance that that officer be present. Mr. Vodnoy said no, he did not make a request in advance. He did not do that. He just assumed that if they were going to rely on an officer's testimony about what happened that he would be there to testify. And what he was presented with at the hearing was simply a page and a half statement from him saying there was prostitution and also there was illegal touching. And what Mr. Vodnoy had in response to that was the actual tape undercover encounter inside the location that was taped, together with some other tapes that were ultimately provided, not by the City, but by the attorney for the massage therapist. Commissioner DeLuna thanked him. Commissioner Schmidt said she was confused about Mr. Vodnoy's earlier statement about the tapes. What she heard him say was that not all of the tapes were provided by the Palm Desert Police Department; that there were other private tapes from the establishment. Mr. Vodnoy said no, CD's that were presented to the District Attorney who was prosecuting the female massage technician. The lawyer for the massage technician got them. He never got them from the City, he never got it from the Police Department, he never got them from the District Attorney; where he got them from was the attorney for the female who is being prosecuted still; no resolution of that case has been finalized. That attorney got them to him. Mr. Vodnoy immediately made copies and sent it to the Hearing Officer and sent them on to the City so that they had a copy, he had a copy, and the Hearing Officer had a copy. The Hearing Officer listened to that and that's why he concluded that there was no prostitution. Commissioner Schmidt asked when those tapes were recorded. Mr. Vodnoy said they were recorded the day in question; he thought December 19, but whatever the date was that they closed the business, that's the date that they were recorded. He went undercover, but he had a transmitting device with him so that the police officers outside were taping what was happening inside the room. So they had three tapes; one tape is what happened inside no 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3. 2010 the room, the actual words that were spoken. And after listening to those words that were spoken, the Hearing Officer concluded that it was not prostitution. That was number one. There was another tape of the officers outside the location listening and talking while they were listening to what was going on inside and that was the second tape. The third tape was an interview, a contemporaneous interview, with the female massage technician. On the same date; everything happened on the same date. Mr. Vodnoy said he wrote letter after letter asking for them and he never did get them from the City. And when he heard them, he realized no wonder they wouldn't want him to have them because it in effect he came to the same conclusion that the Hearing Officer did that there was no prostitution. In addition, they had a situation where an officer goes in undercover, knows that he is being recorded, and nowhere in that tape does he say anything relating to improper touching. One would think, since he knows and he controls what is going on orally inside the location saying that feels good or you shouldn't touch that or whatever, he didn't know what kind of words they wanted to use, but whatever words they would use as an undercover officer trying to corroborate your statement, because otherwise they have a he said she said. Commissioner Schmidt explained that was not the intent of her question. She understood Mr. Vodnoy to say that there were three City tapes, but ••• that there were other tapes. She asked if that was true. Mr. Vodnoy said no, not true. Commissioner Schmidt asked for confirmation that they were discussing three tapes that were all recorded by the Police Department period. No more. Mr. Vodnoy concurred; he did not know of any others. He apologized for the confusion. Commissioner Schmidt thanked him. Chairperson Limont asked the City Attorney on voting on this issue this evening, obviously they weren't a court or paralegal, that type of thing, so at this point if there are issues with regard to legal issues, that was something that the applicant or the owner would take up through their attorneys. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Erwin said that was correct. Chairperson Limont asked if there was anything further. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3, 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff and the hearing officer. The motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2532, revoking Case No. CUP 08-433. The motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it would be inappropriate at this time to read Planning Commission Resolution No. 2532 into the record. Mr. Erwin didn't think it was necessary; the resolution is part of the record. B. Case No. CUP 10-169—VERIZON WIRELESS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to remove an existing 65-foot Verizon Wireless mono-palm located at St. Margaret's Church and replace it with a 75-foot mono-palm and a new block wall enclosure for a proposed back-up generator located at 47-535 Highway 74. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report. He recommended approval of CUP 10-169 and adoption of the findings and resolution. He asked for any questions. Commissioner DeLuna asked at the current rate of growth how long it would be before the existing live palm trees would reach that 75-foot height, and how tall they are now. Mr. Swartz said when they were originally planted they were 25-50 feet tall. On the displayed plan he showed 65 feet and said from 2001 to now, they've grown 10-15 feet. Commissioner DeLuna asked if this would significantly increase the area of service. Mr. Swartz believed so, also noting that the applicant was present and could answer that question. Commissioner Schmidt indicated that she travels Highway 74 every day and thought the perspective was a little off when traveling northbound down the hill into the city. She thought the existing mono-palm really stood out from the rest of the real trees. She said she didn't have any objection to 75 feet, but wondered if the applicant would add some more very tall palm trees around it, as close as possible to it, or if perhaps their approval would be conditioned on inspecting the installation after construction and adding palms if necessary. She assumed Verizon was paying for the landscaping, not the church. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. w 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3. 2010 Commissioner Schmidt mentioned that she sat in on the Architectural .. Review Commission meeting and she felt it was necessary to improve service for those living in the area. She commented that Verizon has much better service than AT&T and this would enhance it. She didn't object to the 75 feet. What she hoped for was that the palm could be masked more from the south to the north. Mr. Swartz commented that the site is pretty tight and if there were a condition placed by the Planning Commission, the Landscape could look to see if a live palm could be planted. Commissioner Tanner asked how many palm trees were added to the site in 2001 when the original tower was constructed. Mr. Swartz answered per the staff report, four to five. But there are nine currently around it. Mr. Swartz showed a current photo and the Verizon mono-palm. He also pointed out the Nextel mono-palm which was approved at 65-feet. He said it definitely didn't have any trees around it. He also pointed out the Sprint mono-palm that was approved at 75-feet. He said this Verizon mono-palm had the largest number of trees around it. Commissioner Tanner noted they were different types of palms. Chairperson Limont opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. PETER BLIED, with Plan Com Incorporated, a contractor for ... Verizon Wireless at 250 El Camino Real, Suite 117 in Tustin, California, stated that the request was in response to reports their engineers received that say their coverage is not doing what it is supposed to do. When these sites were originally designed, they used computer modeling software and they took into account topography and all types of obstructions and different things that are factors, but at the end of the day it was all modeling. So nine years later, they are getting enough feedback saying that calls are dropping because of the hill, the road is going up and then dropping down, and in terms of that type of feedback, their engineers say they either need a second site to fill in the gaps or they need to increase the height. His team looks at the neighborhood to see what's most appropriate and what works the best for the City as well as the landlord. They take all those factors into consideration and try to put together the most cost effective, and also the most functional proposal. It actually took them over a year working with St. Margaret's to come up with what was ultimately before them. Then they negotiated a slight increase on the ground so that they could add a backup generator. If there is some sort of major power outage, their system would stay up and running. One option was another site, which requires a whole lot of other things, 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 2010 or to modify an existing site and increase it the ten feet they need and work with staff to make it aesthetically appealing and minimally intrusive. He said they already worked with Landscape staff in terms of the design, the plant species that they're using for screening, and the use of the decorative slump stone block wall so that it basically blends in to the existingim prove ments. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Tanner asked if the site itself, the reason they are increasing the height, if it was a result of the palm trees encroaching on the service area, the growth of the palms next to it, or if it was the roads and hills more than the encroachment of the palms. Mr. Blied replied that it had more to do with the topography. The palms themselves, the ones planted immediately around it, aren't large enough to cause any signal degradation. Adding ten feet helps them in that regard when they continue to grow, but this was not a particular species that is real dense, so they didn't have any significant signal concerns as far as those palms. Commissioner Tanner reiterated that by increasing it ten feet today, they weren't going to come back in nine years and ask for another ten feet. Mr. Blied said he couldn't make any guarantees about nine years from now, however, with that in mind he thought this made the site that much better than it is now. He always appreciated the plug that Verizon is doing better than AT&T, although he does work for whoever needs the work. This was just a simple service improvement for an existing site. Commissioner Schmidt asked for confirmation that the other two mono- palms in the area are not Verizon. Mr. Blied said that was correct. He thought the one they probably see the most is the Sprint one, which is all by itself. Verizon's actually has a little bit of a grove effect from the palms. Commissioner Schmidt clarified that she was focusing on his request and said it shows badly coming down the hill. She asked how he felt about adding a few more trees around it. Mr. Blied explained that it would really come down to him getting Verizon to open their landscape budget, but more critically was working with the landlord, St. Margaret's. They have a fairly compact .r 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3. 2010 site. Their preschool daycare operation is immediately behind their site, so there is really a limited amount of ground area for them to N"` work with. Anything that goes on outside of their lease area, which is fairly specific to where their equipment and block walls are, requires additional amendments to the lease. So it got into a little bit of a gray area and, if possible, he would like to avoid doing that. With that said, he imagined something could be crafted where they could revisit it with staff upon the new pole going in. Commissioner Schmidt thought it would be a good idea. She wasn't necessarily proposing that they go close to it, but if they drive up above it and drive down the road, if he could do it with that in mind, he would see that all three of them stick out like a sore thumb. Mr. Blied said he has driven it and thought theirs looked quite good compared to the other two. Commissioner Schmidt agreed that it looked better, but there are also homes in the hillsides to the west. They've been there for a long while, but there are a number of them and they look straight at them looking to the east/northeast. Mr. Blied agreed and noted that their service would improve too. Commissioner DeLuna indicated that Mr. Blied talked about increasing the service area and asked if it was insufficient now or if they were simply trying to augment what is already an adequate service, but anticipating the growth in the future. Mr. Blied said it was to augment essentially their existing. This didn't provide them a significant increase in range. In the package staff included propagation maps and the engineers basically showed the existing coverage as it is now and what it would be after. They were using modeling, so it was a little sketchy, but it is their best possible tool at this juncture to show where it would improve, however slightly, by gaining that additional ten feet. And as staff mentioned, their previous centerline for the antenna was only about 50 feet. Their antennas were actually going to gain almost 15 feet in height while they increase total height of the tower only ten feet, so it actually creates a very good improvement in terms of coverage for these antennas and allowance for coverage within the dips and undulations in the surrounding topography. It wasn't an exact science as much as he would like it to be, but it was their best case study right now. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 2010 Commissioner Campbell didn't think they should require Verizon to plant any more trees there. First of all, he said they don't have the space; and second of all, they are very well camouflaged compared to the other ones. She thought they were more susceptible right now because they are in the public hearing and were looking for them. Naturally when you're driving, you are looking at the road. Sometimes when you do notice them and didn't realize that they were there until you're looking around. As far as the homes on the hill, some of those are an eyesore to the city anyway, so if they are looking at some of these palm trees, she wouldn't worry about it. Chairperson Limont asked which carrier they had such difficultly getting new fronds. It took about a year to get the fronds replaced when they were blown off; the one closest to the wash. Mr. Bagato believed it was Nextel. He said Verizon has been the most responsive when there was a related issue with fronds. Chairperson Limont said that was her big issue. They all come in and make promises and everyone is happy and at the end of the day, whether or not the houses are an eyesore, they have an obligation to make sure the applicants keep up the palm trees, that they do look nice, and she actually walks that park every single day with her dog, so she does notice the mono-palms, and so far so good. She knew that they couldn't put trees everywhere, but she wanted them to be making a decent effort so that they don't look like the one on the 91 or 60. She asked if there was anything else. ..rr Commissioner Schmidt recalled from the Architectural Review Commission meeting that there are no add-ons allowed or pods coming out of them; it was a single user. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Blied said yes. Commissioner Schmidt asked for confirmation that they wouldn't have appurtenances like step ladders coming out the sides. Mr. Blied said that was correct. Chairperson Limont asked if 75-feet is our tallest; Mr. Swartz said yes. Chairperson Limont asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. no 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3, 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner ..r Tanner, approving CUP 10-169 with no conditions added. The motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the findings and adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2533, approving Case No. CUP 10-169, subject to conditions. The motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR VACATING PORTIONS OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND ALASKA AVENUE RIGHTS-OF-WAY. Principal Planner Tony Bagato noted that the Planning Commission had a report from the Department of Public Works. He said it was mostly a formality for the Planning Commission to determine if the proposed street vacations are consistent with the General Plan. Referring to Exhibit B-1, Mr. Bagato explained when Palm Desert Country Club was built under the County it had a straight property line along the rear properties of the homes backing on Fred Waring. However, before the City incorporated, some of .. these properties had walls and pools built over the property lines--the County didn't do a good job of verifying the location of the property lines. So when the City did the widening of Fred Waring to three lanes and that was consistent with the General Plan. They had to move the wall in and out around these areas to accommodate the homes and not have them remove their pools and other structures that may have been in the property line area. So this was to basically take that straight line that runs across these sections of Fred Waring and now jog it to where the wall is today. This would make sense for the City right-of-way, and staff recommended approval. Commissioner Tanner asked for confirmation that the wall has already been constructed. Mr. Bagato said yes, and the new line would match the existing wall. He also confirmed that this was just a formality. Commissioner Schmidt asked to whom the property in question would go. Mr. Bagato stated that it would go to the individual property owners. He confirmed it was an add-on to their property. Commissioner Schmidt also asked about the corners and the rounded radius. Mr. Bagato said it would go to those properties on that corner section of Alaska. Commissioner Schmidt asked if that was a deed transaction. Mr. Bagato said yes. a. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3 2010 Commissioner DeLuna asked if there were any tax consequences of transferring this property. Ms. Aylaian indicated the Assessor's base has go one value for land and one for structures. Whether or not there were tax implications she couldn't tell her, but it would change the amount of area allocated to each of those parcels. These properties have effectively operated as if that is their own property for 30 years. Commissioner DeLuna noted that in effect, they have an operating with a prescriptive easement. Commissioner Tanner asked if there was an exchange of money for these. Mr. Erwin said no, they don't get an easement against a public agency. Basically what this does is it goes back to the County of Riverside before the incorporation of the City and before the annexation to that area, which they discovered when they were widening Fred Waring Drive, is that many of the properties, particularly the walls, swimming pools and everything else, were actually built in parts of the right-of-way, so in going through there, they had to acquire pieces of property just trying to straighten it all out. Commissioner Schmidt asked about the width of the strip of property. Mr. Bagato replied that it varies anywhere between 3.5 to 8.5 feet. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, finding, by minute motion, that the proposed right-of-way vacations for portions of Fred Waring Drive and Alaska Avenue are consistent with the General Plan. The motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell indicated that they haven't had any meetings for quite a few months. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Chairperson Limont reviewed the Committee's discussion items. C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reported that there was no meeting. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt summarized the discussion items. No 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 3. 2010 XI. COMMENTS Ms. Aylaian reported that the August 17, 2010 meeting was canceled; at this point it looked like they would be scheduling a meeting for September 7, 2010. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. LAURI AYLAIAN, Secr ry AT M. C0NNQvR LIMONT, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission Am low 17