Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-01 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2017--6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Nancy DeLuna called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto Chair Nancy DeLuna Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, City Attorney Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner John Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of July 18, 2017. Rec: Continue to the next regular scheduled meeting. Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner Gregory, and a 4-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was continued to the next regular scheduled meeting (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None Vill. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Precise Plan to construct a new 6,840-square-foot automobile sales and service building for CarMax located at 73-500 Dinah Shore Drive; and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. PP/CUP 17-059 (CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, Lakewood, Colorado, Applicant). Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, presented the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org and offered to answer any questions. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. GREG SAIA, Centerpoint Integrated Solutions, Lakewood, Colorado, thanked the Planning Commission for their time and consideration of the proposed CarMax. He provided the Commission with a PowerPoint presentation relating to the history of CarMax and renderings of the building and layout. He noted that they must close at 9:00 p.m. per the Conditions of Approval, and requested to have the hours of operation extended to 10:00 p.m. He said 9:00 p.m. are the typical hours for CarMax. However, customers are still on the lot after 9:00 p.m. and there are employees that need to get to their cars. In addition, there are occasions when car carriers arrive around the hours of 8:30 or 8:45 p.m. and cars need to be unloaded. Mr. Saia stated that they would start dimming lights between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. For the reasons stated above, he G:Tlanning\Moniea CRe IWIammng Cammi9sionh20171Minu1esVW-17 does MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 hoped that the Commission would consider extending the hours of operations to 10:00 P.M. Commissioner Ron Gregory asked what the City's perspective on changing the shrubs from Lantana to Yellow Bells is. Is it because the guardrails are unattractive? Mr. Ceja responded that the guardrails are similar to highway guardrails. The guardrails are used by CarMax for security reasons, and the City prefers to see the guardrails screened with landscape. Commissioner Gregory said he's curious from the applicant's perspective, if the use of larger shrubs would screen the cars. MR. SAIA answered that they understand the City's perspective on screening the guardrails. He said they are fine with the screening the guardrails, as long as the shrubs do not grow above the rails. Commissioner Gregory pointed out that the landscape specifications are great for the state of Colorado, but not in the desert. He asked the applicant to check with their landscape architect to make sure the specifications are appropriate for the desert. Chair DeLuna commented that the applicant is requesting to have the hours extended to 10:00 p.m. and the lighting would be dimmed between the hours of 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. She asked the applicant to explain how the lighting would be dimmed, and would the lighting be intrusive to nearby residents or other businesses. MR. SAIA responded that they are proposing light-emitting diode (LED) lighting. With LED lighting, there is the opportunity to adjust the lighting discreetly. CarMax is proposing to step down the lighting incrementally, starting at 9:00 p.m. to non-operating hour levels at 10:00 p.m. for safety and security purposes. He stated that there are no residential homes near the proposed site location. Chair DeLuna asked if the lighting is directed down. R. SAIA replied yes. (Vice Chair Joesph Pradetto asked City staff what their stance on the hours of operation request is, and are there any other facilities that have lighting permissions to go beyond 9:00 p.m. Mr. Ceja responded that there are businesses that operate past 10:00 p.m. He I� said the operations plan that staff reviewed indicated CarMax would close at 9:00 p.m. Therefore, staff wrote the condition to be in line with the closing time. He GAPlanningWonica ORe01planning Commission120171MinutesV6 1.17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 noted that most parking lot and sports field lighting could stay on until 10:00 p.m. Mr. Ceja stated that staff is open to amend the condition to extend the hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. with dimming to start at 9:00 p.m. Vice Chair Pradetto inquired if other shading elements were considered or discussed since it gets hot in the desert. Mr. Ceja replied no. MR. SAIA interjected that shading elements are a visibility issue for CarMax. If the cars were covered with shaded structures, it is harder for people to see the vehicles. They also did not want to use trees because they litter and cause maintenance issues. MR. TOM NOBLE, Palm Desert, California, stated he is the president of the property owners' association of the industrial park, and is in favor of the proposed project. He said CarMax would bring in a lot of synergies to the development. He has been working with CarMax and they have been great to work with, which is unusual for companies of their size. He mentioned he does not have a problem with the lighting transition. In his opinion, shaded structures do not work in automobile sale lots. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Gregory noticed that the landscape area covered is 29 percent of the total lot area, and the amount required is 20 percent. He noted that CarMax is giving something, which might help make up for the lack of trees. It Is understandable why they do not wish to have the trees adjacent to the cars. Commissioner Greenwood said it is a great use for the area, and he is excited to see a CarMax in Palm Desert. He appreciated the work that staff has done, as well as the applicant working with the City. Vice Chair Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2703 to approve Case No. PP/CUP 17-059, subject to conditions; and amending Condition of Approval No. 8 to allow outdoor lighting until 10:00 p.m. with dimming of lights to begin at 9:00 p.m. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). Chair DeLuna thanked the applicant for coming to Palm Desert to do business. 4 GAPlenningWuniw Oftlly\Plenning Gommission1201Mnules\8.1.17 dock MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Precise Plan to construct a new 23,385-square-foot laboratory and office building for the Coachella Valley Water District located at 75-519 Hovley Lane East; and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. PP 17-093 (Coachella Valley Water District, - Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja outlined the salient points of the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org) and offered to answer any questions. He noted that the applicant is also available to answer questions. Vice Chair Pradetto commented that the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency. Theoretically, the CVWD could move forward on the proposed project without the City's approval. Mr. Ceja responded that all of the CVWD buildings have come before the Planning Commission so staff is following the normal process. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. DAN RUIZ, CVWD, Palm Desert, California, indicated that any project not directly related to the production of water, the CVWD has to obtain the City's permission for a new building. He said the new building would allow the CVWD to consolidate and expand their services. He believed the new building is designed to complement the other two buildings that they have on their campus to minimize any impacts. Commissioner Gregory noted that there are 256 parking stalls, but only 94 parking stalls are required. He asked the applicant if they plan to have large meetings or events. MR. RUIZ replied that they are not modifying any of the parking stalls, which was previously built and over parked at the time. However, there are times parking gets full when they have their board meetings. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Gregory commented that the project was very well presented and well thought out. The new building will be a nice asset to the community. Vice Chair Pradetto agreed with Commissioner Gregory's comments. 5 G.Tlanningftnita Oftflykftnninq Commission12017Winutes18.1-17.doox MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2704 to approve Case No. PP 17-093, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Pradetto and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Holt). C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to adopt a resolution recommending approval to the City Council to adopt a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to revise Palm Desert Municipal Code 25.56 Signs and modify Section 25,99.020 Land Use Definitions to allow for freeway-oriented monument signs on commercially zoned developments abutting Interstate 10; and adopt a Notice of Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. ZOA 17-070 (Fountainhead Development, Newport Beach, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja reviewed the staff report (staff report is available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He recommended the following standards to be applied to freeway-oriented signs: 1) require the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) review and approval as part of the sign program; 2) limit the maximum height to 40 feet; 3) limit maximum sign area to 400 square feet; 4) limit to only one (1) sign per project; and 5) limit to Planned Commercial (PC) development of at least 10 acres in size. He concluded his report and mentioned that the applicant has a presentation for the Commission to view. Chair DeLuna referred to a rendering, and inquired if the sign would be a bright orange. Mr. Ceja believed that the sign would be beige. There is a perforated metal element, which may give the sign an orange glow. Chair DeLuna clarified that staff is recommending one sign per project. Therefore, at the Monterey Avenue interchange there would possibly be two signs. Mr. Ceja remarked that there would possibly be three signs. Commissioner Gregory voiced his concern with the menu aspect of the sign. He said when a sign starts to get a lot of business names; it becomes more difficult to read. Mr. Ceja stated that in the current ordinance, there is no limit. When a sign is reviewed by the ARC, they look at the overall monument design and how many menu signs fit within the monument sign. In the past, Commissioner Gregory said there was a philosophy that signage was helpful for the smaller stores that were not easily seen from certain locations. If there is a large box store with its name hugely printed on the side, would it be 6 G:1Planning\Mmira OftllyVPlanning Commission120171Mmutesh8-1.17.doex MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 superfluous having that stores name on the monument sign, or is it an opportunity for a smaller store to show that they are located there too. Mr. Ceja answered that the applicant can address Commissioner Gregory's questions. He mentioned two things staff has learned through the process: 1) because of the speeds people are traveling on the freeway and the distance from the freeway, the sign letters have to be a specific height to be visible and readable; and 2) major tenants on a menu sign is what draws people into a center. Commissioner Greenwood clarified that the intent of the application before the Planning Commission is to modify the Zoning Ordinance. He asked if the Commission is also approving the sign design. Mr. Ceja replied that the Commission is not approving the design. The rendering that the Commission viewed is a potential sign, if the ordinance is amended. Commissioner Greenwood reaffirmed that if the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) is approved, a freeway-oriented monument sign would go to the ARC for review and approval based on the standards recommended by staff. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Commissioner Greenwood inquired how staff felt if large monument freeway- oriented signs went before the ARC, as well as the Planning Commission for review and approval. Mr. Ceja responded that staff has language incorporated for a sign program to be reviewed by the ARC in the current ordinance. If the Planning Commission would like to specifically review freeway-oriented signs, staff could change the language and modify the process. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. ERIC SCHNEIDER, Newport Beach, California, thanked the Commission for their time. He felt that the freeway monument signs for Monterey Crossing were aesthetically subtle but first in class. Commissioner Gregory brought up two important points for the reasons for having two signs and not one. He stated that as proposed, two signs would allocate positions for approximately half of the anticipated tenants. If it is limited to one sign, it would only allow for a quarter of the tenants. Addressing Commissioner Gregory's comment regarding an anchoring tenant, there is no anchor tenant for the Monterey Crossing. The development is unique, exciting, and a gateway that would provide an assortment of food users and services that cannot be identified with a Walmart, Lowe's, or a Home Depot. Mr. Schneider stated that they listened to the ARC, 7 G.1PtandingWonica OReillyTIanning Commission120171Minutes\8.1.17.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 and they were mindful of the number of tenants on a high sign. Following the guidelines and suggestions by the ARC, they chose to stay within the building limit lines to keep the sign small and subtle but elegant. In conclusion, he expressed that the Monterey Crossing is a unique project and felt it is worthy of two signs. MS. VASANTHI OKUMA, Fountainhead Development, Newport Beach, California, stated that it was not too long ago that she was in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council describing their project proposal, which was extremely well received in terms of the design. For the type of center they have proposed, they have a need for signage. She explained that they understood the City's concerns, and they designed a sign that is artistic and in scale with the buildings. She also explained that the backdrop of the design is a rust color, with metal and steel materials that would blend in with the architecture of the center. To compare their signage to others, Ms. Okuma provided a PowerPoint presentation displaying pictures of various freeway signs in other cities. Lastly, she hoped that the Planning Commission would consider their sign proposal, which would make the Monterey Crossing very successful. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the tenant's name would be identical on both sides of the sign. MS. OKUMA replied that the tenant's name would be identical on both sides. She noted that there would not be enough panels for every tenant in the center. MR. ROBIN BELL, AD/S Sign Designers & Fabricators, Corona, California, stated that his firm has built most of the pylon signs in southern California. In regard to the sign menu, he mentioned they originally requested a 450-square- foot sign. The further back a sign is placed, the more difficult it is to read. He communicated that the proposed sign for Monterey Crossing is the most elegant he has seen come out of their factory in about 10 years. Commissioner Gregory remarked that it is a nice looking sign. MR. TOM SWIECA, Fountainhead Development, Newport Beach, California, stated that for the last two years they worked with City staff and have truly enjoyed the relationship. They have created something that is elegant, they are thrilled with the architecture, and the location of the project; the gateway to the City of Palm Desert. The main purpose for a freeway sign is to allow their tenants the ability to have exposure to the market place. Consequently, the number of panels requested is important because they have more than five tenants in the center. Mr. Swieca conveyed that they are very sincere in bringing a product the City of Palm Desert would be proud of; however, the most important reason for the freeway signage is to give their tenants the ability to succeed. 8 GAPlanningWoniCa ORoillykPlanning Commission12017 MinuleMB-1.17 does MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Chair DeLuna asked Mr. Swieca if they have signed any leases with tenants indicating signage rights. MR.SWIECA responded that their leases are contingent upon getting freeway signage. The signage is very important as far as their tenants are concerned. MR. TOM NOBLE, Palm Desert, California, noted that the proposal reads commercially zoned properties. He said most of the property along Dinah Shore Drive and the freeway is service industrial properties. He asked if the proposal includes service industrial properties. Mr. Ceja responded that the proposed ZOA does not apply to service industrial properties; only planned commercial centers. MR. NOBLE stated that a lot of the uses in the Service Industrial (SI) zone are commercial in nature. Therefore, he requested that the proposal be revised to include Planned Commercial (PC) or SI zones. Secondly, he also requested that signs be located on a parcel where the sign does not interfere with the signage exposure of adjoining properties. To be clear, Chair DeLuna asked Mr. Noble if he is requesting the ability to have other properties in the SI zone included in the ZOA, so as an effect there would be more signs along the freeway. MR. NOBLE replied yes. He pointed out that two of the three locations Mr. Ceja referred to are in a SI zone. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenwood understood the need for signage and the need for tenants get exposure. He felt that Palm Desert has done an exceptional job with the attention that has been given to monument signs within the City. He said Monterey Crossing is first class and it is exciting to see the project come into fruition. He also understood that the Planning Commission is not approving the sign design, but the sign would go before the ARC. In terms of the quantity of signage, he agreed with staff and is comfortable with one monument sign. However, he is interested in having a request for a second monument sign go through the Conditional Use Permit process for the Planning Commission's consideration. Vice Chair Pradetto mentioned a cap-and-trade sign program. He explained that if they cap the number of signs, each development can have a right to a sign. However, if they wanted to sell their sign rights to the developer for a second sign, it would limit the number of signs. g GAPlanningWonica bfieillIAPlanning Commission12017\Minutesl8.1.17.doc: MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 cannabis retail operations that could be high-end and specialized and fit in well with El Paseo, The Conditional Use Permit process will ensure that a cannabis retail operation would be an appropriate use on El Paseo. Commissioner Greenwood asked if staff has completed an analysis in regard to looking at the restrictions as it applies to schools, day cares, etc, as well as the 1,500-square-foot radius. He also asked how many dispensaries would be allowed within the 111 Corridor. Mr. Ceja responded that he does not have a number of dispensaries that would be allowed within the 111 Corridor. Due to the definition of a youth center and how broad that is, it has been difficult to identify the location for a dispensary within the 111 Corridor. He noted that the maps with the red circles gave the Cannabis Committee an idea of approximately how many dispensaries could be permitted. Commissioner Gregory voiced that the cannabis ordinance is a living document, and he would not be surprised if there is an amendment. The City has to start somewhere and see what happens. Commissioner Greenwood conveyed he spent a lot of time working on the General Plan Update process.. He also sat on the Cannabis Committee. Cannabis is new for a lot of people and there tends to be a little bit of a stigma. He felt that time would show cannabis retail establishments are businesses like any other business and it will go by the wayside. To say that the cannabis ordinance is a living document, the Planning Commission may see some of the restrictions become lesser in the areas along the 111 Corridor. He questioned why they are not opening the 111 Corridor since there is a 1,500-square-foot requirement, the same goes for some of the other areas. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. CHRISTOPHER CRANFILL, Palm Desert, California, stated he is in favor of the cannabis ordinance. However, he is against some of the proposed restrictions. He said restricting anchoring locations is going to create a hole where the City will wind up with cannabis zones. The cannabis zones would create overpriced properties, which will mean more buildings that sit empty for a longer period'of time. He expressed that synergy is huge. Palm Desert has a huge population, it is the center of the Coachella Valley, and it is the retail center of the Coachella Valley. Palm Desert also created a very good environment and it has very high standards. For those reasons, the cannabis industry would like to see their business in Palm Desert. He stated that cannabis was voted in by the people in California, therefore, it is something that the people want. If the City is concerned with the visibility of cannabis retail businesses, the City should focus on restrictions on what retail locations could look like and enforce how they 16 G1PlunningWonim Ol9eillyhPlanning Gommission=175MinuleM&1.77 docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 advertise and present themselves beyond the State regulations. By restricting dispensaries from areas with retail traffic, other local businesses could possibly benefit from the people who would be frequenting dispensaries. He voiced his concern with proposed buffer and the need to have exposure in the marketplace. MR. TOM NOBLE, Palm Desert, California, stated that he has nothing against the cannabis industry. He noted that he provided the Planning Commission with a correspondence prior to the meeting. He voiced his concern with Section F of the proposed ordinance, which states "Commercial Businesses are prohibited from operating on properties that abut public parks, single-family residential properties . . ." He stated that abutting means sharing a property line. He does not think the City would want a commercial cannabis business sharing a property line with a single-family residential community or a public park. He noted that most of the ordinances he has seen have a 250-square-foot requirement distance from residential properties. He voiced that the ordinance is far from being voted on and should not be acted upon at this time. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Gregory was confused with Mr. Noble's remarks in regard to the abutting of facilities to public parks. He asked if the suggested amendments precluded facilities abutting public parks. Mr. Ceja responded that cannabis businesses are prohibited on properties that abut a public park, same for single-family residential properties. He explained that it does not create a numeric distance requirement. He said that there are neighborhoods in very close proximity to Highway 111 and El Paseo; therefore, staff has limited parcels that abut a property line of a single-family residential property. Vice Chair Pradetto commented that he does not know enough about the industry to make an intelligent decision on whether the cannabis ordinance is good compared to everything else that is out there. Secondly, the nature of how fast things are changing, adds another complication. He stated the ordinance could be great, or it could have a gaping hole that the City will not find out until it is put into action. He said he would like to hear from Commissioner Greenwood since he sat on the Cannabis Committee. He would like to know some of the thoughts that lead to the draft cannabis ordinance. Commissioner Greenwood commended staff because it has not been an easy process. He said the Cannabis Committee looked where retail and cultivation establishments would be located, and spent a lot of time discussing residential use. He agreed with Commissioner Gregory, the ordinance is a living document and there will be changes made to the ordinance. 17 O:IPlanningWonira ORailly0anning Gaomissien12017UWinutes19�1.17 dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Chair DeLuna shared that the City is breaking new and controversial ground. She believed, out of an abundance of caution and before moving forward to the City Council, the issue of cannabis businesses being in close proximity to the post- secondary education corridor merits further discussion. She stated that the post- secondary schools include kids under the age of 21, and she would like to see the same 600-square-foot exemption included for post-secondary schools. She said the City is trying to enhance the education corridor, attract students, and keep students. Therefore, the City has to guard that area as something unique and different. She voiced that she is also concerned with commercial zones and youth centers, and referred to The First Tee and The Hitting Zone. The two facilities would be less than 1,500 square feet of a cannabis business. Chair DeLuna rioted that the use of marijuana is still illegal at the federal level. She believed it was prudent to proceed conservatively in accordance with new State laws. There are no current limits set for marijuana consumption and no testing methods to determine the amount of consumption. Therefore, responsibility rests with the City's ordinance. She stated that the City could revisit ordinances and relax them, but it is difficult once an ordinance is in place to constrict. Vice Chair Pradetto disagreed with Chair DeLuna. He stated that bars are not banned near colleges because there are students under 21. Chair DeLuna interjected that the amount of alcohol in a person's system could be tested. Vice Chair Pradetto believed that the State is working on finding a way to determine how much cannabis is in a person's system. He imagined that a cannabis business operator is salivating at the opportunity to be located near a college, and he is sure there are plenty of students that would appreciate having a cannabis business near campus. Commissioner Greenwood remarked that the cannabis dispensaries would be a licensed facility, which would have accountability. Chair DeLuna asked why the ordinance should exclude post-secondary schools from being considered as part of the definition of a school. Commissioner Greenwood commented that staff spent a lot of time looking at case studies. He inquired if staff found any research related to Chair DeLuna 's concern with post-secondary schools. Mr. Ceja responded that they did not find any research pertaining to cannabis businesses in close proximity to post-secondary schools. Commissioner Greenwood mentioned that he recently visited the state of Colorado. He stated that he did not see any separation from post-secondary schools. 15 G IPlanningWonka OFIWIIVlPlanning Commission120171Minu1os18.1-17 dots MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Commissioner Gregory commented that an effort has been made to distribute possible locations for cannabis dispensaries quite well, with a very conservative approach. As far as post-secondary education, he felt that the concern with younger children is that they might be influenced in a way before they have enough mental capacity to make a wise decision. He stated that a- cannabis dispensary would have too much to lose in selling to someone that is underage. Commissioner Greenwood referred to the permit issuance process. He clarified that a cannabis facility could obtain a building permit, but not a Certificate of Occupancy until the license from the State has been issued to the business operator. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Following brief discussion pertaining to obtaining permits and post-secondary schools, the Planning Commission referred to the map displayed on the screen. Mr. Ceja pointed to areas where cannabis retail businesses would not be permitted. The Commission questioned the wording "single-family residential properties" under Section F, No. 2. Mr. Ceja proposed that the wording be changed to "private residential properties" which is a broader term than "single-family residential properties." Commissioner Greenwood referred to the area near Sage Lane. He mentioned that the City looked at opportunities to change that area to mixed-use. If it were to happen, could the area ultimately become available for cannabis retail use? Mr. Ceja replied no because the area still has a zoning designation of Downtown Core Overlay. The overlay prohibits cannabis retail use. Chair DeLuna asked if the motion must include the amendment to Section F, No. 2 of the ordinance. City Attorney Jill Tremblay replied yes. Commissioner Greenwood asked what the process is if the ordinance moves forward to the City Council. Mr. Ceja responded if the Planning Commission approves a recommendation to the City Council, the ordinance would go to a City Council public hearing. It would require two hearings, and then the ordinance goes into effect 30 days after the date of the second hearing. Theoretically, the City could accept Conditional Use Permit applications once the ordinance has gone into effect. Any amendment to the ordinance would have to go back to the Planning Commission. 19 G:W1annin9\Mon1ca OAeillplanning CommissloO2017WinutesVO-17.doc: MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2017 Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2706, recommending to the City Council to approve Case No. ZOA 17-027, with an amendment to Section F, No. 2 second paragraph; changing "`single-family residential properties" to "private residential properties." Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Pradetto and carried by a 3-1-1 vote (AYES: Greenwood, Gregory. and Pradetto; NOES: DeLuna; ABSENT: Holt). X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XII. COMMENTS XIII. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. NANCY DE UNA, CHAIR ATTEST: _AW__- RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Cy z MONICA O'REILLY, REC30RDING SECRETARY 20 GVlanningWonica Oft0yTianning Commission12017Winutes18.1-17.doox