Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-05 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2019 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Lindsay Holt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Vice-Chair Lindsay Holt Absent: Chair Ron Gregory Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Bo Chen, City Engineer Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II 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 MARCH 5, 2019 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2019. Rec: Approve as presented. Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner DeLuna, and a 3-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory; ABSTAINED: Pradetto), the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to allow Auto Desert to expand its car dealership outdoors and display up to 10 automobiles within its shared parking lot for sale purposes located at 74-990 Joni Drive, Unit Al, and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. CUP 17-111 (Auto Desert, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this item to March 19, 2019. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit application to expand an existing 11,089-square-foot place of worship by 3,630 square feet within an existing office and industrial building located at 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 104-114; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. CUP 19-0001 (The Rock Church, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Assistant Planner Nick Melloni presented the staff report (staff report(s) are available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He noted that staff did not receive any comments in favor or opposed to this matter. Staff recommended approval. Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. With no testimony offered, Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2753, approving Case No. CUP 19-0001, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of an appeal by Dr. Jeff Suderman of a decision by the Zoning Administrator to approve an Administrative Use Permit to allow the construction of a horse shelter for the recreational stabling for up to three (3) horses on a residential estate property located at 77-630 Delaware Place; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. AUP 19-0001 (Marc and Jenny Gerhardt, Thousand Palms, California, Applicant). Mr. Melloni gave a PowerPoint presentation, reviewing the staff report in detail. Staff mailed notices to property owners within 300 feet from the project site on January 30, 2019, and February 14, 2019. Staff received comments from property owners voicing their concern with odor, dust, and viewsheds. At the end of his report, he offered to answer any questions. Historically, Commissioner Nancy DeLuna inquired if horses have been in the area or Residential Estate (RE) zone. Mr. Melloni answered yes, generally; however, not many horses. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the applicant is requesting to shelter two horses. Mr. Melloni replied yes, explaining that the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) allows for two adult horses and one pony (up to three). The applicant is requesting two adult horses on the property. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the horse shelter would be 100 feet from the closest resident to the north. Mr. Melloni replied yes. He stated that the PDMC requires a 100-foot setback from the northern property line, which the applicant meets. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if there was any discussion with the applicant concerning horses going out of the stable area. Mr. Melloni said yes. Per the PDMC, the horses could only be within the horse shelter and not allowed to run free on the property. Commissioner Greenwood asked what conditions are in place specific to noise if it were to become an issue. Mr. Melloni responded that the Commission could potentially require the applicant to plant a landscape barrier to create a type of noise attenuation. Commissioner Joseph Pradetto asked staff to explain how discretionary an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) is in comparison to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 Mr. Melloni explained that the PDMC allows AUPs for uses anticipated not to create a major impact on surrounding land uses. For example, AUPs are permitted to allow restaurants along the Highway 111 corridor or ancillary retail and restaurants in industrial and office parks. Commissioner Pradetto inquired if the Zoning Administrator has the ability to deny an AUP if the applicant demonstrates compliance with the code. Mr. Melloni replied no. Principal Planner Eric Ceja interjected that under an AUP; it is anticipated to have a minor impact on surrounding properties. Therefore, it is a semi-administrative act allowing staff approval. City staff is required to make three findings: 1) the request must comply with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in the General Plan. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance has standards for this type of use; 2) the site must be adequately suited for the type of request. He stated staff felt an acre size property is well suited for this request; and 3) the Zoning Administrator must determine that the request is not detrimental to public health, safety, or interest. He communicated that the applicant met the minimum setback standards established in the Zoning Ordinance and there are mitigation measures recommended as conditions. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator and staff did not deny the request. Staff applied conditions to mitigate any impacts. Commissioner Pradetto made clear that the disagreement is on the subjective nature of the health and welfare in terms of the property is not a conducive site, which is not the Zoning Administrator's subjective decision. He conveyed that the decision is based on the PDMC, which states the site must be an acre in size and meet the setback requirements. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell added that the Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 25 defines certain levels of authorities. The Principal Planner is deemed the Zoning Administrator. He said when interpreting an application, the request rises to the Director of Community Development then the City Manager. Concerning this matter, the interpretation stopped with the Zoning Administrator and the Director because the three findings were met. Vice-Chair Holt asked if landscaping at the rear of the property was discussed with the applicant. Mr. Melloni replied that staff and the applicant had brief discussions. Vice-Chair Holt asked if the applicant would be amenable to the installation of a hedge. Mr. Melloni deferred the question to the applicant. Vice-Chair Holt inquired if the entire property would be fenced outside of the horse shelter in the event a horse gets loose. Mr. Melloni replied yes. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 Vice-Chair Holt asked what recourse would the residents have if the applicant was to move forward and issues arise with stabling horses, such as odor and dust. Mr. Melloni responded that the residents could contact him or the Code Compliance Division to address any issues with the applicant. Vice-Chair Holt asked what would happen if the applicant does not address issues. Mr. Melloni answered that staff would move to revoke the AUP and have the horses removed from the property. Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter MR. MARC GERHARDT, Applicant, Thousand Palms, California, informed the Commission that in April 2018 he and his wife found the property advertised as a horse property. They were excited to be able to build on the property and bring their two horses with them. He said he and his wife worked with a builder and an architect to draw up plans. He met with Mr. Melloni to make sure all codes and regulations were met. Mr. Melloni explained to him that the City of Palm Desert has very strict rules and he agreed to adhere to all the strict rules and regulations. For that reason, they proceeded to build the house and notify neighbors about the intention to put two horses on the property. He stated that they do not exercise the horses on the property, and clean the stables every day and sometimes twice a day. He stated that he does not want a fly problem. He said manure is stored in a covered container and picked up once a week. They keep their property immaculate, and people that have lived next to them would agree. He stated that they pride themselves in being good neighbors and not an adversary. He said they purchased the property in good faith under the understanding that they could have the horses on the property. He expressed that they would not do anything to violate or jeopardize their ability to have horses on their property. He mentioned that they do intend on adding landscaping to the rear wall to help mitigate any nuisances. Commissioner DeLuna asked the applicant if they have owned horses before. If so, did they stable the horses near residents? MR. GERHARDT replied absolutely. Horses were on their property at previous residences. Commissioner DeLuna asked if they have a good track record for keeping horses on their property and adhering to all the rules and regulations. MR. GERHARDT replied that he has never had a complaint in Garner Valley or Thousand Palms. Commissioner Pradetto asked where the applicant would place the covered dumpster on the property. MR. GERHARDT believed they would place the dumpster in the shelter. Vice-Chair Holt asked the applicant what methods they would use to control flies. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 MR. GERHARDT responded that they would use fly spray and install a misting system. Vice-Chair Holt inquired how the applicant would store the feed. MR. GERHARDT said they would section an area of the shelter for the hay and keep pellet feed in metal containers. When a horse(s) needs a veterinarian or farrier, Vice-Chair Holt asked if the horse(s) would be serviced on the property or take them off the property for service. MR. GERHARDT replied that they have had the horses serviced on and off the property. He stated that they would do what the Planning Commission suggests them to do. Vice-Chair Holt asked what material would be used in the barn area to mitigate dust. MR. GERHARDT responded that the misters would help mitigate dust and they would water down the area. MR. JOHN GILHULY, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, commented that he has lived in his home for 23 years and was aware the zoning for the lots behind his boundary wall allowed horses. However, has never known of horses to be on any of the lots on Delaware Place, Mountain View, or Robin Road (streets with estate size lots). He believed the zoning is a relic when the area was Riverside County and later annexed in 1993 by the Palm Desert. He also believed the City would not adopt this type of zoning in new areas of the City. He respected the applicant's right to have horses on the property. He expressed his frustration with the short perimeter of notification and that he only found out about the horses from a neighbor. He voiced his concern with flies and odor, which could be unbearable during the hot months. MR. JERALD BAILEY, Brighton Street, Palm Desert, California, stated that his issues were addressed and had no further comments. MS. JOLENE CYR, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, stated she bought her home 34 years ago, which is located directly north of the proposed project. She noted that everyone knows if you live on a ranch or farm; you never build stables, barns, or corrals next to your house. She pointed out that the applicant is building the horse shelter next to her house, which is 100 percent of her back wall. She voiced her concern with flies, not able to enjoy her backyard, and depreciation of her property value due to horse odor. She also stated that the notification concerning this matter was short notice. MR. MIKE SCHWARTZ, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, stated he has breathing problems and is on oxygen 16 hours a day. He felt it is not fair to the neighbors to be subjected to the proposed project. MR. DAN WITTEMAN, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, commented that he and his wife have lived in their home for 33 years. When they first moved into the area, there were a couple of horses about four houses away from their home. He stated that there were many flies, and when there were winds, they smelled the odor of horses. He was thankful when the residents moved out of the area after three years. Since then, there have been no horses in the area. He expressed that horses do not belong in a residential neighborhood. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 He asked why the City did not give residents the opportunity to comment prior to the AUP approval in January. He felt this matter is not fair to the applicant or the residents. DR. JEFF SUDERMAN, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, stated that he is also representing residents that were not able to attend this meeting. He mentioned he recently played golf at Desert Willow and thought that Palm Desert would never allow horses within 100 feet from the tee box. However, the City made a decision to approve a horse shelter within 100 feet from their backyards. When he spoke to City staff, they explained to him that this is a simple bureaucratic process to indicate a policy was followed. He believed approval of the proposed project would be precedent setting. Therefore, it needs careful and more consideration by the City's public servants, public servants who act in the interest of all taxpayers. He listed five reasons to be concerned with this project: 1) they have legacy bylaws that do not fit the current makeup of the City of Palm Desert, which are bylaws inherited from Riverside County. The legacy bylaw no longer fits the character or the long- term vision of the City; 2) the City decided this project was not detrimental to public interest. However, the site backs up to medium- and high-density neighborhood backyards, which is detrimental; 3) the City decided this project would not negatively be an impact on the health and welfare of the public. He stated this project would cause odor, allergies,fly and rat issues for neighbors; 4) the City decided this project was not detrimental to the public interest or materially injurious. He said realtors and land assessors have indicated otherwise, which is detrimental to the public interest; and 5)the City only notified residents within 300 feet of the proposed project. He believed the 300 feet is grossly inadequate, noting that fecal odor does not limit itself to 300 feet. He said the Salton Sea is evidence of that. He communicated that legacy bylaws have created this issue and caused this issue to arise. Therefore, he looked forward to the City revoking the Zoning Administrator's decision. MS. ZELDA SMITH, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, voiced her concern with flies and her allergies. She has to take medication because she is allergic to dust, grass, trees, dogs, cats, and more. She is also concerned with losing her views and not being able to enjoy her backyard. MR. SCOTT CROFUT, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, commented that the main reasons they bought their home in the area were for the views and most of the houses on Delaware Place were up front enough that they would not be impacted. He mentioned a couple of years ago the City approved an RV barn that overlooks his entire backyard and he no longer has views. He stated that he was a little upset with the City for not allowing the neighbors to have input until two outs in the ninth inning. He felt the project would affect dozens of homeowners and they are being overlooked and overshadowed for one resident. MS. CAROL NORHEIM, Hastings Street, Palm Desert, California, voiced her opposition of the project. She felt bad that they are all complaining about something that is already in the works and finds it difficult knowing that this matter was not dealt with a long time ago. She mentioned she had a friend that lived in the area back in the 70s and 80s, and she used to ride her horses around Mountain View and Robin Road. However, it was a different time in the 70s and 80s in which there was a lot of open space in those days. She stated that Delaware Place is not horse country or rural area. Landscaping is not going to help mitigate flies and odor during the brutal summers. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 MR. ROGER KRANZ, Missouri Drive, Palm Desert, California, listed questions he has for City staff: 1) how many horses are currently in the City of Palm Desert; 2) how many one- acre estates are there in Palm Desert; 3) is Delaware Place and the other two blocks in Palm Desert the only streets that have one-acre lots; and 4) would the City approve a request if someone wants to have a chicken coop, a pigeon coop, a cow, a sheep, or a dog kennel. Additionally, he questioned how the applicant is going to have a corrugated metal roof in an area that has 110-degree temperatures 100 days in a row, which he believed is harmful to the horses. He voiced his concern with odor and asked the applicant to store his horses elsewhere. Commissioner Pradetto asked staff to respond to the question concerning keeping other animals, such as chickens, on residential properties. Mr. Stendell responded that the General Plan (Chapter 5 Health & Wellness) suggests the City be more flexible with residential uses in the future. He shared that many studies suggest allowing chickens in residential zones. However, it has not been implemented into the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Pradetto asked if an AUP runs with the land. He also asked how discretionary the conditions of approval are and how much leeway is there with an AUP. Mr. Stendell replied that there is some leeway with an AUP, noting Chapter 25.64.040 outlines the AUP. He indicated that Section E states, ". . . the Zoning Administrator may impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the approval will comply with the findings required, as well as any performance criteria and development standards contained within this code." He mentioned, if "findings required" included landscaping and food stored in containers, those are reasonable conditions that could be imposed. He also defined an AUP to be an anticipated use qualifying for an administrative use review that is minor in nature, only have an impact on immediately adjacent properties, and can be modified and/or conditioned to ensure compatibility. Vice-Chair Holt inquired if the noticing requirements for an AUP the same as a CUP. Mr. Stendell replied yes. Concerning the number of horses in the City of Palm Desert, he had no idea. He did not know if there were horses in the neighborhood in the past. He stated that the only areas in the City with one-acre lots (RE zone) are located between Delaware Place and Robin Road. Mr. Melloni noted that horses are only allowed in the RE zone. Commissioner Pradetto asked if dust generated from horses exceed the amount of dust generated from a vacant sand dune. Mr. Stendell replied he did not know. Commissioner Pradetto commented that nearby residents mentioned the codes might be a relic of the past. He stated that is not the fault of the Zoning Administrator. If the Zoning Ordinance changes in the future to be more restrictive or ban horses in the area, he asked if it is correct that the use would become a non-conforming permitted use. Additionally, if the current owner sold the property, would the AUP transfer to the new owner. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 With an AUP, Mr. Melloni stated that there is a little more leeway in terms of termination. He pointed to Condition of Approval No. 12 that states the following, "This AUP approval is non- transferable and for the exclusive use of the applicant/property owner listed on the project application."Therefore, any successor in interest must reapply for a new AUP if the property changes ownership. In response to a comment made by a resident, MR. GERHARDT said that they have had a corrugated roof for over 12 years in Thousand Palms. Because of the misting system, they have never had an issue. He said the reason they are leaving Thousand Palms is due to the strong wind belt. He has been a full-time resident in the Coachella Valley since 1994 and is aware that winds predominately come from the northwest area. He felt that the landscaping should be sufficient to mitigate odors. If they pick-up waste twice a day and keep feed in containers, he does not foresee an issue. He offered to meet with residents one-on-one or answer any questions from the Planning Commission. With no further testimony offered, Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner DeLuna pointed to an exit sign near the Council Chamber doors and asked staff if the distance is approximately 100 feet from the dais. Mr. Stendell replied that he is not certain if it is 100 feet unless he gets a tape measure. Commissioner DeLuna commented that she lived in a neighborhood that allowed horses and had concerns when she moved in. However, she never had an issue. She stated it is possible for horses to be good neighbors if they are well cared for and the owner obeys all the rules. She said she finds it difficult not allowing an owner to enjoy a use, a permitted use. She pointed out that there are strict conditions and the owner has agreed to obey the rules. Vice-Chair Holt voiced her concern with setting a precedent; however, she is also concerned with the precedent the Planning Commission would set. She communicated that the current RE zone allows for the owner to have horses on the property. If the Planning Commission decided to approve the appeal, then the appeal would rescind the rights of the applicant and set a precedent for anyone moving into the area. She said if owners are concerned with this issue, the residents or the City needs to look at the Zoning Ordinance as a whole and not at one particular property. She said it might be true that the stabling of horses in this area is no longer appropriate. She felt that they could not make a determination on a parcel-by-parcel basis. She mentioned that she kept her horse located on Clancy Lane next to $17 million homes, so she knows there is a way for the two to co-exist. If the Commission decided to approve the AUP, she suggested watering the dirt and keep food in containers as additional conditions. Commissioner Pradetto stated that in order to overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision, he needs clear and convincing evidence that the Zoning Administrator made an error with the decision. However, he does not see clear evidence of an error. He is convinced there is a small impact, but is not convinced the idea of precedent is persuasive because the residents have an opportunity to petition the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance. If the residents are successful, this AUP might be the last to exist in Palm Desert. He reaffirmed Condition of Approval No. 12 states the AUP is non- transferable. He also is not convinced shame is a sufficient form of persuasion to say that 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 the rules the Zoning Administrator and the City are following bureaucratic relics. He expressed that this is a law set by the City Council and can be changed. He asserted that residents knew the RE zone existed or potentially existed and now residents are blaming the City for throwing this item on them at the last minute. Therefore, he is not persuaded there is a sufficient reason to overturn the appeal and the nature of an AUP. With that said, he moved to adopt staff's recommendation. Commissioner Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2754, approving Case No. AUP 19-0001, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to recommend approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Council amending the El Paseo Overlay District and the Downtown District to allow professional office type uses on the ground floor fronting El Paseo; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. ZOA 19-0002 (City of Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja outlined the salient points in the staff report and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the amendment would prohibit medical offices. She asked if current medical offices would need to relocate or the City would grandfather them in. Mr. Ceja replied that the City would grandfather in current medical offices. Commissioner DeLuna asked what would happen with the post office. Mr. Ceja responded that the post office resides outside of the El Paseo Overlay District and the Downtown District. Commissioner Greenwood asked why medical offices were precluded. Mr. Ceja believed it had to do with parking and timing. People visiting medical offices are usually there for an hour or more. Mr. Stendell added that the City Council directed staff to look at office uses that would add shoppers and restaurant goers to the street. He explained that staff did not feel medical offices fit the description. Additionally, medical offices require more parking. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the amendment would prohibit attorney offices. Mr. Ceja replied no and referred to Exhibit A, Section B. The section discloses permitted office uses. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the adjacencies and buildings that have both El Paseo and Presidents' Plaza frontages apply. He also asked if the adjacency applies to the read of Presidents' Plaza. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 Mr. Ceja replied no, stating that the frontages along Presidents' Plaza are not included in the overlay. Vice-Chair Holt pointed out that a word is missing in Exhibit A, Section C, and Item B after the word intellectual. Mr. Ceja responded that staff would add the word "property." Vice-Chair Holt inquired how staff would maintain the 15 percent of ground floor office frontage within each block. Mr. Ceja responded that all office uses would need a CUP. A CUP would allow staff to do an analysis on the lineal frontage and allow the Planning Commission to review the plans. Mr. Stendell interjected that a geographic information system (GIS) layer would assist staff in maintaining the 15 percent of ground floor frontage. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if a massage parlor would be allowed on El Paseo. In the past, Mr. Stendell said that the City allowed massage parlors with a CUP on El Paseo. Mr. Ceja noted that massage parlors are allowed on El Paseo; however, the City's massage ordinance requires a 1,000 feet separation from another massage establishment. With massage parlors on Highway 111, it is difficult to have a massage parlor on El Paseo. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the massage parlor would need to be part of a day spa. Mr. Ceja explained a massage parlor could not be the primary use; therefore, it would have to be part of a day spa. Vice-Chair Holt asked if engineering and architectural offices would be allowed on El Paseo. Mr. Ceja said yes, subject to a CUP. Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. MICHAEL CORLISS, El Paseo, Palm Desert, California, stated that he and Ms. Masha Vincelette are in favor of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA). They are also in favor of Case No. ZOA 19-0001. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time. MR. DAVID FLETCHER, Covered Wagon Trail, Palm Desert, California, stated he has been in Palm Desert for 35 years and manages several buildings on El Paseo. He noted that he is speaking on behalf of his company and expressed they are in favor of relaxing the ordinance. Mr. Fletcher commented that retail is changing substantially and El Paseo has always been a long street for retail. Therefore, it is more important now for the City to allow other uses as opposed to vacancies. He felt it would be better to let the property owners and the market decide the course of the uses rather than the City dictating specific prohibitions. For this reason, he recommended the ordinance be eliminated and no conditions. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 With no further testimony offered, Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed. In reference to Mr. Fletcher's comments, Commissioner Pradetto said he is sensitive to that idea and letting the market take care of itself. He commented that El Paseo is an evolving thing and the ZOA is a step in that direction, and less risky. He supported the ZOA and moved for approval. Commissioner Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2755, approving Case No. ZOA 19-0002. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). E. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to recommend approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Council amending the City's Zoning Map to expand the Downtown Core Overlay District to select parcels located along El Paseo and Highway 111; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. ZOA 19-0001 (City of Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Mr. Ceja reviewed the staff report. He noted that staff mailed out a public notice and comments received were in favor of the ZOA. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner DeLuna pointed to the map and asked if the areas shaded in red with the black hatches are the areas where four-story buildings would be allowed. Mr. Ceja replied that the areas shaded in red with black hatches is the existing Downtown Core Overlay District. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the current overlay excludes residential on the first floor. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna asked what the addition to the overlay expansion is. Mr. Ceja pointed to the map indicating the changes to the proposed overlay expansion. He clarified that residential would not be allowed on the first floor. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if staff has any concerns or potential issues with the smaller corner lots. Mr. Ceja responded that City staff, Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and Planning Commission would thoroughly review the plans submitted for consideration. When reviewing a four-story building, they would look at stepping the building back and finding a way to make the building lighter on the street. With the increased density, Commissioner Greenwood asked if the City would consider and review parking. Mr. Ceja replied yes. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 If California moves away from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) requirements and traffic studies, Vice-Chair Holt asked if Palm Desert has made a determination as to what the threshold would be for VMTs and how the City would handle traffic studies in the future. Mr. Stendell replied no. He communicated that in the most recent General Plan update, the City allocated trips at a much higher amount because the City is trying to create neighborhoods that are attractive to all generations of buyers. With the addition of four-story buildings, Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the City is going to require subterranean parking. Mr. Ceja responded that the City would determine parking by a project-by-project basis. Mr. Stendell added that it is highly likely some of the smaller parcels would have subterranean parking if the applicant wants to move forward. Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. BARBARA SATTLEY, San Luis Rey, Palm Desert, California, stated that she lives behind Ristorante Mamma Gina. She voiced her concern with four-story buildings, noting the change would be dynamic. She requested a copy of the Downtown Core Overlay Expansion map. MR. CORLISS stated that he is also in favor of ZOA 19-0001. Commissioner Pradetto asked if any of the proposed parcels for four stories are currently vacant. Mr. Stendell responded that the former Union Bank site is vacant. With no further testimony offered, Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Pradetto commented that they have discussed four-story buildings before. He believed it would not happen tomorrow and whoever purchases these parcels would need to invest a lot of money to remove a current building and rebuild. Looking into the future, he said it is consistent with the direction the City wants to go with bringing more life and residents to the El Paseo area. He declared in favor of the ZOA. Commissioner Greenwood commented that any proposed plans would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The expansion would give the City the opportunity and more flexibility to provide the best project and moved for approval. Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2756, approving Case No. ZOA 19-0001. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019 XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XIII. COMMENTS Commissioner DeLuna commented that the Commission received a memorandum from Best Best & Krieger (BB&K). She asked if there is an explanation for the memorandum. Mr. Stendell said BB&K sends City staff routine updates when the laws change. He noted that the memorandum from BB&K was a routine update related to the 500-foot rule. He informed the Commission if they have a question or concern, City staff and BB&K are available to answer any questions. XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Vice-Chair Holt adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. L N SAY HO ICE-CHAIR ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY MONICA O'REILLY, RE DING SECRETARY 14