Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-20 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT g,„ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner Roger Dash Commissioner Connor Limont Commissioner Van Tanner Vice Chair Nancy De Luna WW Chair Sonia Campbell Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, Deputy City Attorney Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chair De Luna led the pledge of allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, stated that the City Council met Thursday, March 8, 2012, and they took a couple of actions relative to land use. The City Council set a date for a Public Hearing on April 12 for the vacation of the public right-of-way of a portion of the frontage road in front of Highway 74, which is associated with the Rosewood Hotel that was proposed. She noted that the hotel has been approved by both the Planning ; ,,,, Commission and the City Council. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2012 w She also stated that the City Council continued indefinitely a potential request to annex areas north of the Interstate 10. Ms. Aylaian mentioned the City Council denied a request for an exception to a moratorium the City has on roof decks. She stated that there was a single applicant who had requested a building permit for the construction of a casita with a roof deck. The application was received before the moratorium took effect, but the moratorium is on issuance of building permits. The applicant did not yet have a building permit so he requested an exception; the request was denied. Ms. Aylaian stated the City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance governing short term rentals under the same conditions that Mr. Bagato has described in the past. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 6, 2012. Chair Campbell stated that she had a correction to the minutes. She indicated that she led the pledge of allegiance, and not Commissioner Limont. Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of a rear lot line adjustment into common area at Bighorn. Case No. PMW 12-44, (Patricia Ann Mariash and K.W. Mariash Sr., 360 Metate Place; and Bighorn Golf Club, 535 Mesquite Hills, Applicants). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a lot line adjustment into common area, Case No. PMW 12-44. Upon a motion by Commissioner Tanner, second by Vice Chair De Luna, and carried by a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Limont absent, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2012 Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION to revoke Amendment No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit 96-20 allowing the applicant to operate as a European style wine bar as was originally approved in 1996, rather than a restaurant/bar in a General Commercial Zone located at 73-900 El Paseo #2. Case No. CUP 96-20 Amendment No. 1/HTE CUP 11-297 (Ramon Vega, Applicant). Rec: 1. By Minute Motion, approve the findings as submitted; and 2. Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2585 approving a revocation of Amendment No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit 96-20 subject to conditions. Chair Campbell excused herself from participating for this item because she has a business next door to the applicant. Vice Chair De Luna proceeded with the Public Hearing. Commissioner Tanner commented that he would be standing from time to time. He recently had back surgery, and is unable to sit longer than 15 minutes. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, reported that on July 16, 1996, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 96-20 (CUP 96-20), allowing the operation of a 1,575 square foot European wine bar serving draft beer, espresso, alcohol-free beverages, and finger foods with a maximum of 30 seats. On October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission approved Amendment No. 1 to allow the applicant to operate Napas Tapas as a restaurant/bar between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., seven days a week. He stated that after the Planning Commission approval, the City Council added the following conditions of approval: 1) a third-party certified, licensed security guard between 10:00 p.m. and midnight; and 2) a seating plan that had to be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety and the Fire Marshal's office to determine the occupancy for the maximum number of people. Mr. Swartz stated that since the January 12, 2012, City Council approval of Amendment No. 1, the applicant has failed to operate Napas Tapas in compliance with the conditions of approval imposed on the business. In addition to failing to comply with the conditions listed, the business has received notices of violation from Code Compliance, visits from the Police Department, and staff has received complaints from adjacent property owners. He stated staff believes that the way the business is currently operating is a public nuisance, and there is valid reason for revoking Amendment No. 1 of CUP 96-20. Staff recommended that the original CUP remain as a European wine bar, serving beer and wine with the attached conditions of approval to the resolution added. The most notable conditions is No. 7, which states the am European style wine bar shall have a maximum building occupancy of 30 people; 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2012 inside and outside, and Condition No. 11, which states that the restaurant only shall serve beer and wine, and any non-alcoholic drinks. Staff recommended approval of revocation. He offered to answer questions. Commissioner Tanner mentioned that during the time of 2008 through 2011, the Finance Department sent out four letters, with one sent certified, indicating that the applicant must renew their business license. He stated that the letters were sent back to the City as undeliverable, and asked why that happened. Mr. Swartz responded that the applicant was not receiving mail at that address, and believes they had a PO Box. He mentioned that the applicant was present to address that question. He explained that the Finance Department sends out a letter, and if it comes back, they send out another response saying that they have to renew their business license by a certain date. The third letter is sent via certified mail, which was returned. Commissioner Dash asked if there was any communication between the Planning Department and the applicant during this period of non-compliance. Mr. Swartz replied that there was communication after the City Council approval for the applicant to submit the seating plan for the occupancy. There was also communication after the Code Department visited after 10:00 p.m. to address the non-certified security guard, and the Police Department visited the site to see if they had shut down before midnight. Commissioner Dash commented that it appears the applicant has done very little, if anything at all, in terms of compliance. He asked if the applicant had a reaction to the communication. Mr. Swartz responded that the applicant did submit a seating plan, but it was incomplete and the Building Official did not approve the plan. Staff requested more information for the seating plan. He stated that he would let the applicant address the security guard issue. Vice Chair De Luna declared the public hearing open and asked the applicant to address the Commission on this matter. Mr. Ramon Vega, Napas Tapas at 73-900 El Paseo, Suite 2, stated he has a security guard that has a license and a permit. He noted he did not see in the letter from the City that the security guard must be a third party, and said he had a licensed security guard at the bar. He mentioned the letter indicates there was never security at the bar, which he said there was. Mr. Vega referred to a letter with findings for revoking Amendment No. 1 to CUP 96-20. He noted January 15 is a Sunday, which is their worst business day, when they don't stay open past 12:00 a.m. The letter states they were open until 12:30 a.m., and he said that is a lie. On Friday, February 10, the letter states they were open until 12:15 a.m. and 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2012 said that is a lie. Mr. Vega mentioned February 17 was his birthday, and they were there until 11:30 and then they went to The Hood. He voiced that the letter Now is a lie, and he does not know where they are getting the information. He said when they bought the bar, they understood it was a bar and able to sell liquor on El Paseo. It was not a wine, beer, and espresso shop. When they took over, there was a liquor license and they always sold liquor. Mr. Vega stated on April 24, 1997, there was a letter from the City and the City Council issuing a full liquor license or permit for that bar. He does not know what is going on, or if the City is trying to shut them down. He expressed he is trying to make a living, and does not know exactly what the City wants. Commissioner Dash inquired if there are continuing complaints from the community about maintenance, trash, noise, etc. Mr. Vega responded that they do not have any music. He stated that when he took over, he let go of the deejay. He informed the Commission that his days are usually slow Monday through Friday. Mr. Vega asked what complaints the City has received. He stated that they are talking about the past when Mr. Guillermo Avalos had the bar; and noted that he recently took over. Commissioner Tanner asked Mr. Vega when he took over. Mr. Vega replied he took over in October 2011, but the bar was not his until December 2011. Commissioner Tanner inquired if the bar is now owned by Mr. Vega. Mr. Vega He answered that he owns about 70 percent of the bar. Commissioner Tanner asked who his partner is. Mr. Vega replied Mr. Avalos. Commissioner Tanner inquired when Mr. Avalos purchased Napas Tapas. Mr. Vega responded that they purchased the bar in 2006. Commissioner Tanner communicated to Mr. Vega that the Planning Commission approved Napas Tapas as a European style wine bar. He asked Mr. Vega when they bought the bar in 2006, was it a beer and wine bar. Mr. Vega replied yes. Commissioner Tanner mentioned that in 1997 there was a liquor license. Mr. Vega interjected there was a liquor license when Mr. Bobby Rivas owned the bar. 5 s; MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2012 Commissioner Tanner conveyed to Mr. Vega that the Conditional Use Permit would be fine. There was no question from City Council's standpoint whether the current owners qualified for a liquor license or not. He stated that the problem was Napas Tapas did not have a business license. Mr. Vega stated that in 2006 they took over with the business and liquor license. Commissioner Tanner stated that a business license was not renewed. Mr. Vega interjected they did renew their license. Commissioner Tanner continued to state that there is a renewed business license and there is a liquor license, but that does not completely allow Napas Tapas to do business in the City. A business license must be renewed every year. He explained there were a number of issues that came before the Planning Commission and the City. He explained they were all issues that came during the period they did not have a business license. He stated that when they came to apply for a business license and came to the Planning Commission for a CUP, the Planning Commission added some restrictions to the CUP, and the restrictions were not met so, whether Mr. Vega took over in 2011 or not, they would be going through the same process today. He stated that Mr. Avalos has been doing business in Palm Desert for a long time, and the Planning Commission has gone through this before. Commissioner Tanner said that the City has suggested the revocation of Amendment No. 1 unless there is something Mr. Vega could say otherwise. He informed Mr. Vega that he did not comply with the City's requirements. Mr. Vega stated that they have been closing at 12:00 a.m., and said that he did not know where information to the contrary came from. He stated that if the City wants to make the bar into an espresso and wine bar, it would force the business,"down the hole." He stated that he knows that is what the Commission would want. Commissioner Tanner interjected that this was not so; the Commission asked for the applicant to do something, and he has refused to do it. Mr. Vega responded that he has not refused to do anything. Commissioner Tanner stated that they are not trying to close the business. Mr. Vega stated that the espresso and wine is not going to work there. He mentioned another place that opened on El Paseo for espresso, wine, and finger foods. He noted they were only open for six months. He stated in 1997 a liquor license was issued, and asked what he needs to do to make everything okay. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2012 Commissioner Tanner stated that they are meeting today to decide if they are going to revoke one of the Conditional Use Permit conditions. He explained the next step would be to go to the City Council to let them determine what the next step would be if they are not in favor of the Planning Commission's decision. Commissioner Tanner asked Ms. Aylaian if he missed a step. Ms. Aylaian responded if the Planning Commission were to approve what staff has recommended, then the applicant could appeal that decision to the City Council. She mentioned that what the City Council and Planning Commission requested from the applicant was to close by midnight, have an independent security guard during the last two hours of operation, that the number of people inside the premises is limited, and that a seating plan be submitted to the Building Official so that he could determine how many people were safe to have inside the premises. Since those requests were not met, the matter was before the Planning Commission again to consider a new recommendation, which is to revoke Amendment No. 1. She said there is no desire by the City or by staff to put this or any other business out of business. The desire is to condition it so that it would be successful in its location. Staff has recommended that they return to the beer and wine license, since staff believes a number of problems have occurred as a result of serving too much alcohol, and having too many people on the premises. Typically with only a beer and wine license, there are smaller crowds and it is better controlled. Also, it does not produce a high number of calls for service by police or code officials; therefore, these recommendations were made. Vice Chair De Luna asked Mr. Vega if they currently have a business license. He replied yes. Ms. Aylaian mentioned that they are current on their business license and on payments associated with it. Vice Chair De Luna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. With no public testimony offered, Vice Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Dash commented that until the inconsistencies and the misunderstandings are cleared, he would have to support staff and its request. Once that has been cleared, perhaps they could take a different look at it. He is not sure that the applicant has put forth every effort in satisfying the conditions that this Commission applied when the CUP was approved. Commissioner Tanner stated for the record that they are not trying to force any business to leave Palm Desert or El Paseo. He said it is their job to make sure that all businesses and operations are going to work side by side and hand-in- hand with the neighbors within the conditional use permits that have been issued. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2012 He stated that part of the problem is the conditions that were given to the applicant have not all been complied with, and this is a way to force the issue to Now get things done and appeal to the City Council to let them make the final determination. Commissioner Tanner suggested to the applicant to take a look at what they were asked to do by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, and to have the answers the City Council is looking for, if they want to maintain their operation on El Paseo. He asked if Commissioner Dash had a motion, if not, he would make the motion to accept staffs recommendation to revoke Amendment No. 1. Vice Chair De Luna commented that it is not the Planning Commission's job to either help the applicant's business or to impede their business. The Planning Commission is here to make sure every other tenant or owner on El Paseo abides by the City's rules. There is a reason for the rules, and they were carefully constructed and need to be obeyed for the overall well being of the City, and particularly on El Paseo. She stated that Napas Tapas has been out of compliance, and that is why the applicant was previously brought before the Planning Commission. The applicant was given another opportunity to bring the business into compliance, but he has not done that. She noted that the applicant has accused the Code Compliance Department of lying about whether or not the times were correct, and accused the Planning Commission of lying. She does not think there is any record of City Officials lying to a particular applicant. She stated that the Police and Code Departments have been used, staff time has been taken, and staff has called the applicant repeatedly to help the applicant come into compliance; the applicant has done nothing. The applicant has taken Planning Commission, City Council, and public officials' time; yet the applicant is still out of compliance and asking what to do and accusing the City of trying to put them out of business, which is not the case. Vice Chair De Luna called for a vote. Ms. Jill Tremblay, Deputy City Attorney, asked for clarification on who made the motion and who seconded. Commissioner Tanner clarified that Commissioner Dash made the motion, and he seconded the motion. Commissioner Dash moved, by Minute Motion, to 1) Approve the findings as submitted; and 2) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2585 approving a revocation of Amendment No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit 96-20, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Tanner and carried by a 3-0 vote with Chair Campbell and Commissioner Limont absent. IX. MISCELLANEOUS too None 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 2012 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE None XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Tanner commented for the record one last time that it was implied the City was trying to force a business out of business; it is not what they are here to do. They are here to send their recommendation to the City Council, which is what they have done tonight. XII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Tanner, second by Vice Chair De Luna, and a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission with Commissioner Limont absent, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m. r SONI�CA MPBELL, CHAIR ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION /mo 9