Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-15 PC Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY — November 15, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chair Nancy De Luna, Vice Chair Van Tanner Roger Dash Connor Limont Members Absent: None Staff Present: David Erwin, City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Wightman, Assistant Planner Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Donna Evans, Administrative Secretary Ill. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Dash led the pledge of allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian stated that the City Council met on Thursday, November 10, 2011 and awarded a contract to PMC World from Rancho Cordova, California to perform an update of the zoning ordinance. This is long anticipated and it will create a document that won't include policy changes, but will be more user friendly, internally consistent and compliant with state law. The Department of Community Development is very happy about this project tr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 2011 because it's a tool that will be used when working with the public, developers and architects. It will put all of the city regulations into a format that others will be able to easily interpret. It will also help staff because the current zoning ordinance has many internal inconsistencies that it is difficult to interpret. The draft form of the document should be available in eight or nine months, at which time it will be presented to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE V1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for approval of the October 18, 2011, meeting minutes. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Dash seconded the approval of the October 18, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR ow A. Case No. PMW 11-351, B-16 Development, Inc. and Bighorn Golf Club, Applicants. A request to adjust the southeast corner of Lot 17 of Tract 25296-2 with the adjacent golf course lot, Lot D of Tract 25296-7. The addition would add approximately 2,100 square feet to Lot 17. Commissioner Limont asked staff if the change in square footage would enhance what a person could build, or if it is a simple lot line adjustment. Ms. Aylaian stated that typically this is done at Bighorn and other communities when the improvements that are existing don't correlate directly with the property lines for the common area. They could possibly have a wall that's protruding into the common area and this is done to clean it up. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Tanner seconded approval of consent calendar item PMW 11-351. Motion carried 5-0. it 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 2011 Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS IYr Chair Campbell announced that 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 11-287, Short-term Rental, Manfred Schmidt, Applicant. Approval of a conditional use permit to operate a short-term rental located at 74-111 Windflower Court, APN 694-211-031 Ms. Wightman orally presented her staff report and PowerPoint presentation. She described the property and its surrounding area to the commission. On-screen photos were shown of the property in question. The home consists of four bedrooms which allows for eight overnight guests. There are five-plus onsite parking spaces available and there is a three-car garage and an extra large driveway. The commissioners received a copy of the lease contract to review. There were no public comments in response to the legal notice and there have been no police or code compliance violations reported within the past two years on this property. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and CUP 11-287, •.. subject to conditions. Vice Chair De Luna commented that she noticed that the management company has an Edmonton, Alberta address and wondered if the applicant is working with a local management company. Ms. Wightman stated that they have a local representative who lives here in the desert. Vice Chair De Luna noted that the CUP would allow for eight overnight guests and four daytime guests for a total of twelve people who could be at the home during the day. Ms. Wightman stated that the applicant uses this property as their own vacation home and they're very selective about whom they rent it to. It's not currently operated as a business, but they would like the opportunity to rent it to family or friends. It's not going to be constantly rented out, but conditions need to be in place should that arise. Commissioner Tanner stated that the lease reads that the tenant will pay rent on or before the first of each month. This is a generic lease, but he wondered if the lease should be more specific to a short-term lease which would be a minimum of three days and a maximum of thirty days. Mr. Bagato stated that this is a general-type of lease but there are conditions of approval which are specific to the application. A more specific lease can be requested of the applicant as part of the approval so that it meets the criteria of the conditions. Commissioner Tanner commented that he Yr 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15. 2011 would like to see a more specific lease because this is short-term lease situation and a long-term lease form was presented. Ms. Wightman stated that occasionally there are attachments to the lease, which is what they have in this case, stating all the conditions. Commissioner Tanner commented that it still isn't specific enough. Ms. Wightman stated that the lease would be revised to show a three-day minimum, however, they are also allowed to lease the property for longer than thirty days. Commissioner Tanner stated that in prior short-term rental agreements, outdoor music is addressed. On a couple of past cases that have come before the commission, outdoor music was not allowed. Ms. Wightman commented that there have been conditions added to specific cases but occupants always have to comply with the noise control ordinance, which is part of the lease contract. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to address the commission. Manfred Schmidt of 11310 101h Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta addressed the commission. He stated that he is the applicant and wants to be in compliance with the by-laws and this was never intended to become a short-term vacation rental property. The home was purchased by five managers of their business in Alberta to be used for personal use. They occasionally have family members who stay in the home as well as 1r. partners from their firm. It's very seldom that the property is actually rented for a fee. However, since they heard about the ordinance, they wanted to make sure that they would be in compliance. For the year 2011 through September, the home was only rented out for one week for $750. Commissioner Limont asked if Mr. David Nay, who is listed as a contact, is an employee. Mr. Schmidt stated that Mr. Nay is an agent who lives in Sun City and he manages and watches over the day-to-day needs of the property and addresses any concerns of the people who are staying in the home. Commissioner Dash asked about the number of times that the home has been rented over the past three years. Mr. Schmidt stated that they've only owned the home for two and a half years and have had five renters. Vice Chair De Luna asked whether or not the applicant was using a local management company. Mr. Schmidt stated that they manage the property through their office and each of the owners stay at the home very frequently so there's almost always someone there. Vice Chair De Luna stated that she was concerned about not having a professional local management company in case, for example, someone became unruly and needed to be evicted and that an individual would be hard pressed to be w 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 ---- able to accomplish that. A management company would be able to be more responsible about handling noise complaints, trash being left out, etc...Rather than having an individual oversee the property, she would rather have a local management company involved. Mr. Schmidt commented that he would prefer not to hire a local management company. The cost of the management company would be prohibitive. The clientele that they rent to are people that they know and are responsible. Vice Chair De Luna noted that they would be allowed to have up to twelve people in the home during the day. Mr. Schmidt stated that they've never had twelve people in the home at one time. Vice Chair De Luna asked if he would be willing to accept a condition that would allow fewer than twelve people on the property at a given time. Mr. Schmidt commented that he would be open to that idea, if it's required. Vice Chair De Luna stated that it's not a requirement. It's based on the current ordinance that allows eight overnight guests and then you add four daytime guests, which is a lot of people in a private neighborhood. She stated that the commissioners also have to consider the needs and requests of the people who live here full time who want to live a normal lifestyle. Mr. Schmidt stated that the likelihood that they would have that many people in the home is minimal. Vice Chair De Luna asked the applicant if he would agree to a limit of eight people at the residence at one time and Mr. Schmidt agreed. rr Commissioner Tanner stated that based on the way the short-term rental ordinance is written, the applicant is showing that he is currently complying so there's no reason not to grant approval of this request. Commissioner Limont commented that this applicant has a professional property manager and will have the ability to respond, should there be an issue. The difficulty is if the property owner is out of the country, the neighborhood could still suffer for a weekend should a problem arise. That's where the commission is trying to find balance for the community. Because a CUP stays with the property, a condition should be added to ensure that if the property sells, the next owner would be required to hire a professional local management company. Commissioner Tanner stated that the commission reviews short-term rental requests on a case-by-case basis. The applicant does have a local contact overseeing this property and also has a good lease agreement. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked for any testimony either in favor of or in opposition to this request. Seeing none, she declared the public hearing closed and asked for commissioner comments. i.r 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 2011 Vice Chair De Luna asked the commission if anyone had a concern about limiting the number of guests to eight people, as opposed to twelve people. Commissioner Tanner commented that he felt that there was enough parking to accommodate twelve people at this point. Commissioner Limont stated that if the renters have a dinner party, they could easily have over eight people in the home. She felt that it would be reasonable to allow up to twelve people, per the current ordinance. Commissioner Dash commented that he was convinced that the home was going to be utilized primarily for the family so he would be in favor of approving the CUP. Action: Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner Limont seconded approval of CUP 11-287, subject to the attached conditions as well as adding a condition that states that if the property is sold a local professional management company be retained to manage the short-term rentals. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner Limont seconded adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2572, approving CUP 11-287, subject to the attached conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 11-337, Nexcycle, Applicant. rr Consideration to operate a 192 square-foot recycling bin located behind Vons grocery store within the loading dock area at 72-675 Highway 111. Mr. Swartz orally presented the staff report to the Commission describing the location and showing on-screen photos of the site and also photos of the actual recycling bin now being utilized. He described the zoning and also the dimensions of the recycling bin. The conditions were outlined for the Commission. After writing the staff report, four letters of opposition were received and were distributed to each of the commissioners at the meeting. Time was allowed for the letters to be reviewed. One of the letters stated that there were people rummaging through the recycling bins. Mr. Swartz explained that if there is a complaint, code compliance will cite the person. The first offense is a written citation and the second offense is a ticket with a court appearance. Within the past several months, code compliance hasn't had any calls for responses in this area. Staff is recommending approval of a conditional use permit, subject to conditions. Chair Campbell asked if there were any questions of staff. r 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 2011 °i Commissioner Limont asked the volume of business at this recycling location. Mr. Swartz stated that he would have to defer that question to the applicant. Commissioner Limont asked if the recycling facility is currently in operation. Mr. Swartz stated that it's been open for approximately one year. Commissioner Limont also asked how one ends up with a recycling bin in their parking lot and the question was also deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Tanner asked if the container was locked when it was unmanned. Mr. Swartz stated that it was. Commissioner Tanner stated that there would always be a person on site when the bin would be open, which would eliminate the potential of someone rummaging through the recycling bin. He asked how often the container is emptied and this question was deferred to the applicant. The ingress and egress were discussed and found that there was enough room to turn a car around in this area. Commissioner Dash asked for clarification on whether or not there was a fence or landscape screening directly across from the driveway that leads to the recycling bin. Mr. Swartz displayed an on-screen photo that showed a block wall with an entrance to Sandpiper off of El Paseo. 0w Commissioner Dash expressed concern over whether or not the recycling facility would be visible from any homes and he was assured that it was not. There's an 18' high block wall next to the recycling bin and there's also a block wall across the street. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. The applicant, Kevin Tippets of 26021 Business Center Drive, Redlands, CA addressed the Commission. He stated that he represents Nexcycle and has contracts with many grocery stores as well as Costco, Vons, Safeway and other independent stores. He was contacted by Vons because if they do over two million dollars in gross sales they're required by law to provide recycling services. They had been accepting recycling items inside the store, but it became too much of a burden for them. Nexcycle is a California-based company with 150 recycling centers throughout the state. The bin in question, located in the Vons' parking lot, does a modest business with approximately 15-20 customers per day. Homeless people will not be allowed to congregate in the area. Currently the bin is removed about one time per month and replaced with an empty bin. The unit is completely portable with no electrical hook-up. .r 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 2011 Commissioner Tanner asked if the bin would attract rodents since it's only being emptied one time per month. Mr. Tippets stated that they've never had a problem with rodents since there's no food or anything that might be appealing to them in the bin. Commissioner Tanner asked if Vons uses Nexcycle as a recycling outlet. Mr. Tippets stated that the only products that they accept for recycling are California redemption value material, which are beverage containers with the CRV tax. Commissioner Campbell asked if they recycle newspapers and was informed that they do not. Mr. Tippets commented that they're typically only open thirty hours per week at this location and doesn't forsee it ever needing to be open seven days per week. Commissioner Limont asked if the person who mans the bin is an employee of Vons or Nexcycle. Mr. Tippets stated that this person would be an employee of Nexcycle. Commissioner Limont asked if the recycling bin will move with Vons when it goes to its new location. Mr. Tippets commented that they will, but not right away because it takes approximately one year for the store to meet all the criteria to generate a convenience zone. When Vons leaves, the operation will cease until Vons meets all the criteria and Nexcycle is asked to provide recycling y, services to them at their new location. Commissioner Limont asked if he had a CUP at the Costco location and Mr. Tippets stated that he did not know. Ms. Aylaian commented that Costco is within the city limits but was constructed while it was part of the county and there's an approval for the entire center that allows for recycling. Chair Campbell asked if anyone in the audience, either in favor or opposition to this application, to step forward. Seeing none, the public hearing was declared closed and the Chair asked the Commission for their comments. There were no further comments from the Commission. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded approving CUP 11-337,subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2573 approving CUP 11-337, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. it 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 2011 C. Case No. CUP 11-357, The Pet Hotel at Barkingham Palace, applicant. Approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit to add an outdoor dog park to an existing boarding and grooming facility for dogs and cats in a service industrial zone, located at 73-725 Dinah Shore Drive, APN: 694-240-007, Commissioner Tanner recused himself due to a conflict of interest and left the chambers for this agenda item. Ms. Wightman orally presented her staff report and PowerPoint presentation. She talked about the location, its zone and the area around it. She showed on-screen photos and renderings of the property in question. On October 5, 2010 the Planning Commission approved a boarding and grooming facility for up to 25 dogs and 10 cats. Shortly afterwards, the applicant requested an amendment to that approval. On November 16, 2010 the Planning Commission approved an amended CUP for 75 dogs and 25 cats. The applicant is now requesting approval of an outdoor dog park. Staff and Code Compliance have worked with the applicant to gain and it maintain compliance over the past year. One of the specific conditions of the original conditional use permit stated that there would be no outdoor dog park without coming back for approval. In December 2010, staff was notified that there was a dog park set up in the parking lot. On-screen photos were shown. Staff immediately notified the applicant and reminded her that this was in violation of the conditional use permit, and the dog park was removed. By April 2011, the indoor dog park that had been approved in the CUP had not yet been constructed. In the original proposal, an indoor dog park with artificial turf and trees was planned, however, an indoor pool with decking was installed in its place. No indoor pool had been permitted by the Building and Safety Department . Staff notified the applicant and informed her that she would need permits for the pool. The applicant stated that the pool was not in use. Staff was then notified that there were advertisements on television and also print ads that an indoor pool was available to the clients who were boarding their dogs at this facility. Staff notified the applicant and let her know that the pool would have to be drained, and the pool was eventually removed. Before all the conditions were in place, the applicant occupied the building. Typically the applicant would have to complete all of their conditions and obtain all required permits prior to occupying and utilizing a space. r 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 2011 Ms. Wightman then showed a rendering of the proposed dog park that had been provided by the applicant. She also stated that, in response to the legal notice, staff received one letter in opposition to the project with concerns about potential difficulty marketing their adjacent property in the future, as well as noise produced by the facility. Typically, a dog park wouldn't be located in a residential area because of noise issues caused by barking dogs. Commercial areas are generally highly urbanized with a lot of asphalt with no grassy areas, making it difficult to install a dog park there. Ms. Wightman added that a service industrial area best meets the criteria for an outdoor dog park. In a service industrial area, a wall is required around properties. Staff has discussed this with the applicant and she is willing to build a 5'-7' high wall along the property line adjacent to the property to the west. Ms. Wightmans stated that although a landscape screen would also be allowable along with a wrought iron fence, the applicant has agreed to install a 5-7' high wall. Ms. Wightman concluded her report by recommending approval, but noting that should the applicant move forward without the proper permits, use the facility before all construction is approved by the City of Palm Desert, change the approved plans without consent, not complete all the o,. conditions of approval prior to utilizing the space, or operate the business in accordance with the conditions of approval, staff will return to the Planning Commission to recommend revocation of the conditional use permit. Chair Campbell asked if there are any questions of staff. Vice Chair De Luna asked for clarification of the location of the opposing adjacent property and the location of the proposed 5-7' wall. Ms. Wightman showed the locations on a site plan, and Vice Chair De Luna asked if another location for the dog park might be possible. Ms. Wightman commented that the applicant is renting the property adjacent to her property, which is where she is proposing the dog park. Commissioner Dash inquired about the time line for development of the opposing property. Ms. Wightman commented that she doesn't anticipate any development in this area in the near future. Commissioner Dash asked if there are any other private facilities in Palm Desert that are similar to the applicant's business. Ms. Wightman stated that there are no other private entities in Palm Desert. Commissioner Dash stated that the concern regarding the proposed dog park seems to be noise from the dogs barking. Ms. Wightman stated that typically there is some noise 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 2011 associated with some of the manufacturing uses that are allowed in the service industrial zone. Staff doesn't feel that a barking dog would be any louder than another use allowed in that zone. One of the conditions states that the applicant would have to be in compliance with the noise ordinance. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to address the commission. Lori Weiner, applicant, of 17 Straus Terrace, Rancho Mirage, stated that her customers would like an area for their dogs to play outside. There seems to be some opposition to having any indoor dog park due to air quality. An outdoor dog park would benefit both the doggie day-care pets, as well as those in general boarding. The business is growing and would like to accommodate its customers. Vice Chair De Luna commented that there was an article in the newspaper regarding the applicant's business stating that several more kennels were going to be added, and she asked where they would be located. Ms. Weiner stated that she's permitted 75 kennels currently and she has eight kennels in the first bay, which is where the additional kennels would be located. The whole inside building has been full and they would eventually need the additional kennels for overflow. Vice Chair De Luna asked if the dog park would include a pool, water feature, misters and shade. Ms. Weiner stated that she would like all of these elements in the dog park. Vice Chair De Luna commented that there have been repeated instances where the applicant has been out of compliance and taking up staff time and then coming back to the Commission and trying to add more and more business opportunities. Ms. Weiner responded that the problem with the indoor pool was that the decking wasn't permitted and the pool was removed. Commissioner Limont asked if a plastic pool requires a permit. Ms. Aylaian stated that a permit would be required as they needed structural calculations for the decking around the pool, which was used to enter the pool. Commissioner Dash asked if the facility was used for daily boarding or weekly boarding. Ms. Weiner stated that she offers daily care and weekly boarding. They also participate in pet adoption events to give back to the community. Commissioner Limont commented that she was a member of the Commission when the applicant came in for her original CUP. Staff and the Commission worked very hard and were concerned with the size and the number of cats and dogs. She asked the applicant why she chose not to operate under the approved CUP that was granted. Ms. Weiner stated i 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 2011 that she became compliant as soon as she was notified. Commissioner �. Limont stated her concern that the applicant has been out of compliance several times and is now asking for another approval. She stated that when a vote to approve a CUP is made, the conditions aren't suggestions. These are the conditions under which the business is to operate. If an applicant doesn't abide by those conditions, then it would be difficult to vote in favor of the request. Ms. Weiner stated that she understood. Chair Campbell asked the applicant if she would be following all of the conditions that would be imposed on this amendment to the conditional use permit before anything else is done. Ms. Weiner stated that she would abide by all the conditions in the amended CUP. Chair Campbell asked if there was anyone in the audience who might be in favor or opposition of this application to step forward. There being none, the public hearing was closed and she asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Limont commented that she would like to move for approval in order to open the discussion, however, she is not in favor of the CUP because staff and the Commission worked really hard to make certain that everyone was comfortable with how the building was going to be built out and operated. She commented that she has a problem with the fact that the conditions of the CUP weren't followed. Commissioner Dash also stated concern about the non-compliance issues, but was satisfied knowing that staff indicated in the report that if the applicant was not in compliance, they would take immediate steps to initiate revocation of the CUP. Chair Campbell agreed with Commissioner Dash and commented that this is a thriving business. The applicant has made mistakes and now they're asking to have another amendment and are agreeing to do everything that staff is recommending. If they are not in compliance, the CUP will be revoked. She recommended that the applicant proceed with the proposed plans and if they're not in compliance within six months, staff can look at it and revoke their CUP. Commissioner Limont asked if Chair Campbell was suggesting that if they're not in compliance within a six month period, then the CUP would be revoked. Ms. Aylaian stated that another public hearing would be required in order to revoke a CUP. She stated that in the event that there were reports of non-compliance, staff recommendation would be to bring it back before the Planning Commission with the recommendation that the CUP be revoked. Ms. Wightman stated that if there are any issues of 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMSER 15 2011 non-compliance, then this item will be brought back before the Commission, even if it's within six months. She stated that there are a number of approvals that may take some time to achieve. The CVWD water calculations have to be met and the process can take quite some time. The outdoor dog park may or may not be up and running in six months. Ms. Aylaian asked for clarification of the motion and if the Commission is adding a condition that staff report back in six months regarding the status of the project and compliance with code issues. She stated that technically, if an applicant is not complying with a CUP, it can return for consideration of revocation at any time. Commissioner Limont stated that if the applicant is out of compliance at any time, this matter will be brought before the Planning Commission. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Campbell seconded approving CUP 11-357, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1-1 with Commissioner De Luna opposed and Commissioner Tanner absent. Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Campbell seconded approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2574 approving CUP 11-357, subject to r conditions. Motion carried 3-1-1 with Commissioner De Luna opposed and Commissioner Tanner absent. D. Case No. VAR 11.313, D.R. Horton, applicant. Consideration of a variance to permit four advertising flags which resemble the United States of America flag in front of the main entrance of Spanish Walk along Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Swartz addressed the Commission and orally presented his staff report describing the location and showing on-screen photos of the proposed advertising flags. Staff believes that the applicant could achieve their advertising goals to sell their homes by following what the zoning code allows. The Code Compliance Division has cited other residential developers to remove similar advertising devices. Approving the proposed variance would grant special privileges to DR Horton and would set a precedent. Staff recommends that the Commission deny VAR 11-313. Chair Campbell asked if the commission had any questions of staff. it 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Vice Chair De Luna commented that these are not authentic American flags. Chair Campbell asked why the applicant didn't choose to use a real American flag. Mr. Swartz deferred the question to the applicant. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Paul Parkinson of 2795 N. Biskra, Palm Springs, stated that he is the area sales manager for DR Horton, which is known as "America's Builder," which has been in Palm Desert for seven years, in good times and bad. He stated that a difficulty of the project is poor visibility, and that they would like a variance due to the difficult economic times. If the Commission wouldn't grant a variance, he asked that they allow the flags for 60-90 days so they could work with staff and other builders to propose a better way to market their communities. Chair Campbell asked the Commission if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tanner commented that a simple fix would be to put up the American flag. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant is allowed by code to fly authentic American flags. Mr. Parkinson stated that one of r their concerns about flying authentic American flags is the great responsibility that comes with it. The flags become tattered quickly, they would have to up light them and also raise and lower them at the appropriate time of day. Their current marketing flags are built to withstand the elements here in the desert. Vice Chair De Luna stated that the applicant is looking for a variance because of the bad economy and the project isn't easily visible. She asked if they would continue to use the advertising flags when the economy improves. Mr. Parkinson commented that he would love to keep them up forever, but this could be re-addressed once the economy improves. In the past, nothing was needed to advertise their properties but it is more challenging today due to the economy. Chair De Luna was concerned about setting precedent. Commissioner Dash asked if using the authentic American flag is permissible. Mr. Bagato stated that the ordinance doesn't regulate state and country flags. Technically, they could fly the State of California flags or authentic American flags without permission from the City. r 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15. 2011 Vice Chair De Luna commented that she didn't think that the authentic American flag would have to be raised and lowered if it's uplit. Mr. Parkinson stated that he comes from a military background and he would feel responsible to raise and lower the flag, even if it's lighted. Commissioner Tanner stated that there are flag manufacturers who produce flags to be rain, wind and sun-damage resistant and wondered why the applicant couldn't get an American flag that would withstand the elements. Mr. Parkinson stated that he had his marketing manager check into that two months ago and she couldn't find anything made out of that type of material. He corrected himself and stated that there are weather-resistant flags available, however, they're cost prohibitive. Chair Campbell stated that she flies and American flag in front of her retail store on El Paseo and that she puts it up in the morning and brings it in at dusk. Every few months she replaces it when it gets tattered. Chair Campbell suggested that the applicant use a real American flag. She stated that conducting business costs money. Vice Chair De Luna asked staff if the project across the street from the new sheriff's station on Gerald Ford has advertising flags. Mr. Bagato stated that they do have advertising flags and that it's also a DR Horton project. The current request has been a longer Code Compliance issue and they wanted to see what happens with this request before discussing their other project. Chair Campbell asked if anyone in the audience, either in favor or opposition to this application, to come forward. Carmelita Covington of 182 Paseo Bravo, Palm Desert came forward to address the Commission. She stated that she had been a scout leader for many years and was concerned about the American flag. As she taught her scouts, the flag is supposed to be raised in the daytime and taken down at night. She was also concerned about leaving an American flag up in wind, rain and inclement weather. She is a resident of Spanish Walk and she tells people that she lives at "the place with the American flags". Ms. Covington corrected herself and stated that they are replicas of the American flag. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked for any testimony either in favor of or in opposition to this request. Seeing none, she declared the public hearing closed and asked for Commissioner comments. +r 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Commissioner Limont stated that over the past couple of years, our staff and Commissioners have worked really hard with the Board of Realtors to try to continue to keep Palm Desert looking good. There was a point in time when there were real estate signs everywhere. She stated that she was extremely proud of the work that staff did and the realtors, for the most part, have done a good job in complying with it. She stated that she was concerned about setting precedent. Commissioner Tanner commented that the more attention that's brought to a product, the more successful it will be. At the same time, he couldn't imagine flags up and down our major streets. He wished the applicant the best of luck and complimented him on advertising their product. Commissioner Dash stated that he supported the recommendation from staff and commented that he didn't see that there was sufficient reason to provide a variance. Chair Campbell commented that she also agreed with the staff recommendation for denial. She noted that the applicant has the right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Tanner seconded for denial of VAR 11-313. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Tanner seconded approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2575 denying VAR 11-313. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. CUP 11-386, One El Paseo West, LLC, applicant. Approval of CUP 11-386 (Amendment No. 3 to Conditional Use Permit 89-3) eliminating the restriction of restaurant space business hours, located at 74-225 Highway 111, APN: 625-112-019. Ms. Wightman orally presented her staff report. She described the property and its surrounding area to the Commission. On-screen photos were shown of the property in question. She described to the Commission the many amendments to made over time to this conditional use permit. Staff notified property owners who own property within 300 feet and published a newspaper legal notice and no response was received. Ms. Wightman stated that one person called today and asked iir 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 2011 for a copy of the staff report, but no comment was made. Ms. Wightman explained that for a new restaurant, the primary concern is parking space. Parking counts over a five-day period were performed for lunch time. On average, there were 182 unoccupied spaces, nine unoccupied handicapped spaces and one unoccupied accessible space. Ms. Wightman reported that there is additional parking available at El Paseo Bank and Jillian's restaurant, as Jillian's is only open for dinner, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve this request. Chair Campbell asked the Commission if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tanner asked if plans have been submitted for the restaurant; Ms. Wightman stated that plans have not been submitted. She reported that the applicant is seeking to remove the restriction so that they can market the property to a restaurant group who they've been having discussions with. This particular restaurant would like to be open during lunch. Commissioner Tanner asked if a condition could be added that would require the restaurant to have valet parking at lunch. He was concerned about the office space directly to the east and west since the parking lot is utilized by the offices. Ms. Wightman commented that a condition to require valet parking during lunch can be added, if the Commission wishes. Typically, valet parking is assigned to the back of 6W the parking lot so the spaces in the front would be available for guests. Ms. Aylaian commented that she felt that this would be appropriate. Over the years, the City Council has maintained that they want preferential parking for people who choose to self park, and that these spaces be close to the door with valet parking moved back further in the lot . Chair Campbell asked if there were any other questions of staff. There being none, she declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Sam Rasmussen of 1919 Grand Avenue, San Diego, addressed the Commission and stated that he is the owner/developer of One El Paseo Plaza. He explained that LG's Steakhouse moved out of the space and all the potential tenants that are interested in leasing the space would like to serve lunch. When the current CUP restricted LG's Steakhouse from being open during lunch hours, both of the office buildings on either side were not constructed. At this time, there is plenty of parking available for this use. He stated that this project is a unified project of approximately 60,000 square feet of office space and two restaurants. Part of the conditions of the original approval is to come up with a parking plan that unifies the entire project. All of the parking fronting Highway 111 and surrounding the restaurant space is designate as one-hour parking. That wr 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15 2011 accommodates both the office users as well as potential restaurant users. When Big Fish restaurant was in business, they were open for lunch and there was plenty of parking. Mr. Rasmussen commented that his potential restaurant tenants don't feel that valet parking at lunchtime would be necessary. He asked that a condition to require valet parking at lunchtime NOT be added by the Commission. Chair Campbell asked the Commission if they had any questions of the applicant. Vice Chair De Luna asked the applicant if the potential restaurant tenant would like to have valet parking for the dinner guests. Mr. Rasmussen stated that they already anticipate having valet parking during dinner. There is a condition in place that would require valet parking during dinner. Vice Chair De Luna asked about the potential volume of customers during lunch. Mr. Rasmussen commented that he doesn't have a signed lease, but he estimated the number of lunchtime vehicles at approximately 30-40 per day. Commissioner Tanner stated that he understands Mr. Rasmussen's concern about having valet service during lunch. Here in the Coachella Valley, like many places that attract tourists, the lunch rush happens between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. The one hour parking can be put in place, however, someone could be parked there for possibly two hours. He stated that people aren't going to move their cars after one hour if they're eating lunch. Mr. Rasmussen commented that they have over 120 parking spaces in the front, down the sides and around the office buildings which are designated as one hour parking. As a landlord, they would not closely monitor the one hour parking. Their desire is to keep eight hour per day users parking in the back, which is also where all the carports are located. The future tenant for the restaurant space may set up valet service during lunch, but Mr. Rasmussen preferred to make it optional to have this service. Valet parking is not free and will be a cost to the restaurant owner, which may be a burden on the restaurant. Commissioner Tanner commented that the Commission didn't want to discourage restaurants coming into Palm Desert. However, the businesses in the immediate area need the same space for parking. Chair Campbell asked if there was anyone in the audience in favor or opposition, there being none, the public hearing was declared closed and asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Limont stated that she would like to move for approval with Commissioner Tanner's suggestion of having valet parking during dinner. ar 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Commissioner Dash asked why the valet service would be required in the i.r evening when the potential parking problem is during lunch. Ms. Wightman commented that most of the offices in the area are closed after 5:00 P.M. Commissioner Limont stated that she was more concerned with traffic and thought that too many cars would be near the front of the restaurant. Valet needs to be offered to those who would like to use this service. Chair Campbell commented that she didn't feel that requiring valet during dinner should be added as a condition. Commissioner Dash agreed. Commissioner Limont asked if LG's had a valet requirement. Mr. Bagato stated that they had a valet permit, but it wasn't a requirement. He suggested that they could add a condition that states that if a parking problem arises from lunchtime use, a valet permit will be required. Commissioner Dash agreed with Mr. Bagato's suggestion. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded approving CUP 11-386 (Amendment No. 3 to CUP 89-3), subject to conditions, with the added condition that if a parking problem, as determined by the Director of Community Development, arises during lunch service in the future, a valet parking permit will be required. Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2576 approving CUP 11-386 (Amendment No. 3 to CUP 89-3), subject to conditions, with the added condition that if a parking problem, as determined by the Director of Community Development, arises during lunch service in the future, a valet parking permit will be required. IX. MISCELLANEOUS NONE X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION Commissioner Campbell stated that there would be a meeting November 16, 2011. B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont stated that the committee will meet in December. .. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15. 2011 C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner said that there wasn't a meeting. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Dash stated that there wasn't a meeting. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Limont commented on the American flag. If someone in the City of Palm Desert is flying an American flag, they should follow protocol, per military standards. The flag should be raised in the morning and lowered in the evening, unless there's a light on it. The City does have a light abatement ordinance so it has to be appropriate. Ms. Aylaian wanted to clarify that there is no municipal code governing protocol for the flag. Mr. Erwin stated that the protocol for the American flag is in the United States code, and he would provide this information to the Commissioners. Commissioner Tanner wished everyone a happy and safe Thanksgiving. Ms. Aylaian commented that staff anticipates that the Planning Commission will meet at the first meeting in December, but not the second meeting. She introduced Donna Evans, who is the new secretary. She previously worked in the Planning Department for approximately five years and has returned, at this point, on a temporary basis for Tony Becker. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Tanner motioned and Chair Campbell seconded the motion for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: \{ f SONIA CAMPBELL, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission Me 20