Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0401 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - APRIL 1, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE '�' * * * * * * * � * * * * * � * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * � * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL � Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan a Staff Present: Phil Drell Joe Gaugush Sandy Jacobson Tonya Monroe �, IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 18, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner, approving the March 18, 1997 minutes. Carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent March 27, 1997 council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ' VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-4 - JEANNE ROUSSELLOT, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment and consolidation of four (4) existing lots into two lots at the southeast corner of Shadow Mountain Drive and San Luis Rey Avenue. �.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIt 1, 1997 B. Case No. PMW 96-42 - S. DAVID JOHANSEN, Applicant "'� Request for approval to merge Lots 21 and 22 of Tract 25639 together with a vacated portion of Desert Mirage Drive to form one lot. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0. �VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. DA 97-2 - MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Agreement for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of '� Cook Street. Mr. Drell noted that the Planning Commission received the revised development agreement at the last meeting and needed time to study it. He said that basically it vested the property owner in the existing recently approved land use � regulations. It did not freeze fees or any other exactions. Any project that goes forward would be subject to those generally applied fees and exactions that are in effect when a project occurs. The applicant was also being given credit against their drainage fees based on the value of the property being dedicated for the Mid Valley Storm Channel. Staff recommended approval. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if he wished to address the commission. MR. MARVIN ROOS, Mainiero, Smith and Associates at 777 E. Tahquitz in Palm Springs, concurred with staff and said he appreciated the commission's holding it over so they could get things clarified. He said he was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the development agreement. There was no one and he closed the public hearing. He asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty said they had now had time to review the development agreement and indicated that he had no problems with the presentation and said he would recommend approval when the commission was ready for a motion. Chairperson Ferguson noted that he would not be participating in this vote for reasons as previously stated. � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 �"" Commissioner Campbell stated that she concurred with Commissioner Beaty and saw no problem with the development agreement. Commissioner Fernandez said that he also did not have a problem with the proposed development agreement and agreed with Commissioners Beaty and Campbell. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). � Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1797, recommending to City Council approval of DA 97-2. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). B. Continued Case No. TPM 28448 - MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, '� Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map of an existing 306 +/- acre site south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street, ` into 19 parcels consistent with the development plan and precise plan of design which have been recommended to the City Council for approval. Mr. Drell explained that the parcel map would create subdivided parcels consistent with the development plan previously approved. Staff recommended approval. Chairperson Ferguson o�ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. BOB MAINIERO, Mainiero, Smith and Associates representing the David Freedman Company, noted that the commission had seen ti�e map before, but they had expanded the map to include not only Planning Area i, but the entire 270 net acres. In conversations with staff, it was concluded that it would be in everyone's best interest to go ahead and do that and they created parcels that were now consistent with the various planning areas, the development plan and the development agreement. He concurred with most of the conditions. He asked for clarification on Condition #17 under Public Works that had to do with undergrounding of utilities. He wanted to make sure that everyone agreed that it did not include the Edison transmission lines ihat exist along the northerly boundary of the property. r�.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � � Mr. Drell noted that it was a Public Works Department condition and referred the � question to Mr. Gaugush. Mr. Gaugush stated that the condition is not intended to include the 115 KV transmission lines, it was applicable to the electrical distribution lines. Mr. Mainiero thanked Mr. Gaugush and said that he was present to answer any questions regarding the tentative parcel map. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments. � Commissioner Beaty noted that they had seen this several times and felt it looked well done. He was in favor of approving the tentative parcel map. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Beaty. She noted that the applicant has been before the commission many times and would move for approval. a Chairperson Ferguson stated he would be recusing himself from this vote for reasons as previously stated. i Action: � Moved by Commissioner, Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, . adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1798, approving TPM 28448, subject to conditions. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained►. C. Case No. PP/CUP 96-12 - PRICECOSTCO, Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for construction and operation of a fully automated self Serve fueling station at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Drell stated that the location of the automated fueling station was on an existing approved pad from the original County approval. There would be no attendants, it would be all credit and debit cards and it would only be open when the Price Club itself was open and it would be monitored with a video camera and there would be a direct phone and alarm system connecting the gas ' station with someone in the main building. He noted that the Architectural ; Review Commission granted preliminary approval of the architecture with some landscape screening conditions. He said that the circulation/access was � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 r"'' approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the proposal complies with all applicable ordinances. Staff recommended approval. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there had been an operating history with fully automated fuel stations where there were no employees on site. Mr. Drell said he was not aware of them and directed the question to the applicant. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. LAURIE BULL, from Mulvanney Partnership Architects representing � the applicant, stated that the gas station was an accessory use to the Price Club, just recently changed to Costco. She indicated that it was a members only gas station that was fully automated with no cash transactions. There were three islands that would be covered by a canopy that would match the main warehouse in texture and color and there were six fueling dispensers and 12 spots where vehicles could obtain fuel. She said there were three underground fiberglass tanks and �' they were state of the art. Costco decided to put a Ivt of their money in the tanks and undergrounding and it was a state of the art program to be the safest as possible. She said she was present to answer questions, and she also had some questions regarding conditions of approval. ,�, Otherwise, she concurred with the comments. Commissioner Campbell asked what their hours of operation were. Ms. Bull said that was one of the things they would like to discuss. Number 9 of the conditions of approval said that their hours would be while the Costco was open and they would like it changed to be while there were people in the building getting ready to open and after closing, which would be from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Campbell noted that it would be for members only, so if she decided to pull off the freeway and saw this gas station, she would not be able to get gas. Ms. Bull concurred and explained that she would have to become a member. She stated that the prices wouid not be dispfayed out at the corner, it would only be displayed in the building and on the pump. Commissioner Campbell asked if it would make it inconvenient for other people if they wanted to get gas and drove up to the pump as they were running out of gas. Ms. Bull said it would be a problem for those individuals the first time, but then they would join Costco and would be able to get gas then. Commissioner Campbell suggested that maybe they should have a sign that said "members only". Commissioner Beaty didn't think it would be very visible from the interstate since it was tucked in the corner. Chairperson Ferguson said that was why he asked if there had been an operating history. For people wanting to get gas, there wouldn't be an attendant there, so they couldn't and wouldn't know where to go, or they wou(d wa(k all the way over to PRfCECOSTCO to try and get a membership and then walk back. It seemed that having no one on site might be a problem and asked if they had these stations in other locations. Ms. �""' Bull stated that they have five in operation right now; two in California, two in 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � Arizona and one in New Mexico and they were ali members only stations and � they were doing fine. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the gas was inexpensive. Ms. Bull replied yes and explained that Costco splits the profit between themselves and the buyer and it was generally six to 12 cents a gallon cheaper, depending on the market. Commissioner Campbell said that if she wanted to get gas and she was not a member, she could go to Costco and buy a membership card. She asked how much a membership card would be; Ms. Bull said they were about 530, but people had to qualify to be members. Ms. Bull asked for clarification on the condition regarding the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee that would be S3,458 per fuel .. dispensing unit and said that she would be talking with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and she spoke with Mr. Gaugush of the Public Works Department and he said that if they talked with CVAG, they could assess that fee at a later date. She said they might try to talk them down since they were not increasing the traffic to the site. She just wanted to apprise the commission of that. Mr.'`Gaugush confirmed that basically the program was administered by CVAG so any appeal or negotiations would be entertained by CVAG, which he discussed with the applicant. Chairperson Ferguson noted that any relief that CVAG might afford would be between the applicant and CVAG, but understood her point because it was one of the City's conditions of approval. Chairperson � Ferguson asked if the condition should be clarified to add approval from CVAG; Mr. Drell suggested "as determined by CVAG" be added to the condition. Mr. Drell clarified that the applicant's comment on condition number 9 and the hours of operation as mentioned in the staff report would allow the fueling to only be in operation when employees were present. Chairperson Ferguson agreed that was how he read the staff report. They didn't have to be open to the public to have the fuel station in operation. Mr. Drell said the condition would be clarified that operation meant when employees are present and someone could monitor the video. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was clos Commissioner Campbell stated that she didn't have a problem with the fuel station, but she thought that some of the people coming off of the freeway would not be happy. As far as the project being there for the convenience of the Costco members, she was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Beaty said that he has seen this type of operation and he thought it was very obvious when looking at the project that a person would have to be a a member of Costco to use it. He didn't think it would be confusing, except for � perhaps the first time. He thought that it fit with the Costco mode of operation. � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 �"""' Commissioner Campbell thought they might get a lot more members. Commissioner Fernandez also stated that he did not have a problem with a fuel station in this location and he moved for approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1799, approving PP/CUP 96-12, subject ., to conditions. Carried 4-0. D. Case No. PP 97-2 - KIRKPATRICK ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a 10,238 square foot retai `� building on the north side of EI Paseo, 220 feet east of Larkspur. Mr. Drell explained that this proposal was on one of the last remaining vacant lots on Presidents Plaza. Under the original plan the rear 100 feet of those lots i„ was dedicated to Presidents Plaza and the balance was considered to be a buildable pad. Under the Zoning Ordinance, they were permitted to build out setback to setback in that area at a height of one story. He stated that the . proposed building was one story, 22 feet in height, and it would be designed for general retail use. He noted that the project complied with all the required setbacks and all the findings for approval could be met. He indicated that the preliminary plan received approval from the Architectural Review Commission. He said that a member of the public was present who wished to speak about parking availability and noted that if anyone had been out to Presidents Plaza recently at lunch time or at certain times during the evening, those lots were very full. He informed commission that the City is in the process of proposing a redesign of both of those lots from the current short north-south little aisles to east-west aisles which would add as many as 200 spaces in Presidents Plam East and West. As well, they would be upgrading the lot to meet the City's standards for commercial parking lots. He said staff would agree that there is a parking shortage which they hoped to address, but by right every parcel on Presidents Plaza had a right to develop and given the pedestrian nature of this project and the rest of EI Paseo, in essence that the same customers that were there walking up and down the street would be customers of this store. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Beaty asked what the status of the parking lot redesign was and if it would be done in advance of construction of this project. Mr. Drell replied that it probably wouldn't. Staff has a preliminary design and they were currently """ getting an engineering estimate so that it could hopefully be included in this 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � coming year's budget for 1997-98. Commissioner Beaty asked if construction � would be by next summer. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Beaty noted there would be more parking available in association with the Saks project. Mr. Drell concurred and explained that Saks was providng 200 spaces in excess of their requirement. Ultimately, the City's goal for EI Paseo was that people would find those places to park. Right now in general the lots on the south side of the street typically were not full and by filling in this hole they would generally make the retail environment stronger for all the tenants. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. � MR. GRANT KIRKPATRICK, Kirkpatrick Associates Architects, stated that he believed the project was self explanatory and he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Kirkpatrick had any problem with lowering the building from 27 feet to 23 feet based on the Architectural Commission's request. Mr. Kirkpatrick replied no, they didn't. There were a few considerations given but eventually they found it to be a good request and they were happy with the result, as obviously the architectural commission was also. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or � OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. ED1TH MORREY, 900 Island Drive in Rancho Mirage, stated that she was the owner of the building adjacent to the new building. She said she was concerned about the inadequate parking. The 200 feet of frontage would require a lot. She stated that she donated 100 feet of her parking and they were promised adequate parking, flowers, trees, and trash pickup and said that they paid quite a sum for that each year and they had quite a few dead trees that haven't even been replaced. She said they didn't even rake the gravel that they replaced the fiowers with and the planter took up a lot of space. She also thought they needed a division going east and west in the center of the parking area so that customers of the Highway 11 1 side would not be coming across. She Moted there were three restaurants facing Highway 1 1 1 that serve lunch and dinner. It didn't affect them, but during the day they come over to her area. She said that would be all right if they each had 100 feet so that there would be parallel driveways and they could park right up to the building, not on an angle but straight forward. She thought they would gain a lot more parking spaces and they wouldn't be coming over to her side. She said it was impossible to find a place to park there during the day. With double the business they have now, she could just imagine � what it would be like. She felt that nothing was more hazardous to a � business than lack of parking. � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 ` Chairperson Ferguson noted that Ms. Morrey was touching on a problem that has been identified and asked if there was something about this particular application that she did not approve of or would like changed. Ms. Morrey asked if he meant the building itself. Chairperson Ferguson concurred. Ms. Morrey asked if that was all they were considering tonight. Chairperson Ferguson stated that staff indicated they were doing a redesign of the parking lot, and she was discussing adequacy of parking, but as he understood it, it was not part of their application tonight. Mr. Drell concurred. Ms. Morrey said she wasn't told that. She asked when that would come up because they couldn't have a building and everything approved and then no place to park. They had to work together. Chairperson Ferguson indicated the question was asked ,. previously by one of the commissioners and felt the answer was that they wouldn't be done concurrently, but the parking redesign would be done shortly after the building, but budgeting was going in and improvements would hopefully occur commensurately with the beginning of the season, which was when he understood the parking problem began to escalate. He hoped they would happen in tandem, but maybe not precisely. Ms. Nbrrey stated that she didn't have any complaints about the building. She thought that every addition to �1 Paseo was very good, but they had to have a place to park. She didn't want to be squeezed out of her parking area and ihought the situation was bad now. She asked when the parking issue would come up. Chairperson Ferguson asked if they would have public hearings on that issue. Mr. Drell explaned that �,,,,, when they have a parking lot design, they would bring it to the Planning Commission. Ms. Morrey asked if she would be ncrtified. Mr. Drell replied yes, but explained that there would be other steps before Planning Commission. He said that after they determined the cost, they would be taking it to the EI Paseo associations and all the business people who share that lot to get their input on the design, etc., so there would be a lot of discussion among the owners and tenanis refative to the improvements. Ms. Morrey asked if there was a surplus of money and noted that nothing has been done there. Chairperson Ferguson stated that it would be addressed, but not tonight and not on this application. Ms. Morrey asked that they not forget it. Mr. Drell said it was a priority for the Department of Community Development and he woufdn't forget. Chairperson Ferguson closed the pubfic hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of this building on EI Paseo, but she wanted to add one condition of approval that there would be electricity and water to the wells that would be on the sidewalk in front of the new building. She said that the City would be putting the palm trees in, but some of the wells were there previously and they had been covered over with concrete. She wanted to have the electrical and the water to the wells installed and that added as a condition of approval. Mr. Drell said that condition number 9 would state that the landscape plan shall include provision of water and electricity to the street tree and front planter area on EI Paseo and that the `�"' applicant shall maintain those as part of their required landscaping. Chairperson 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 Ferguson asked if the electrical provision was for (ighting purposes. � Commissioner Campbell concurred that it would be for lighting the palm trees. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Kirkpatrick replied that to make sure there was no confusion on that part, he asked if they could clarify whether or not additional property owners were also having the same requirement. In other words, did other property owners typically provide electrical and water to city trees on city owned property. Mr. Drell replied yes. He said there was no city irrigation system. He said the plan shows a line of palm trees across the front and it was the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to maintain them. Mr. Kirkpatrick said that they were • anticipating that the City would install the trees, but the property owner would be responsible for their maintenance and lighting. Commissioner Campbell said that was correct. Mr. Drell also concurred. Mr. Kirkpatrick asked if that was typical of other neighboring properties and if they were also supplying irrigation and electrical. Mr. Drell said yes and explained that there was no city irrigation system. All the trees on EI Paseo were maintained and irrigated and all electrical outlets were maintained (with the exception of the medians) by the property ow�ers. Mr. Kirkpatrick said he was sure that would be acceptable with their client. Commissioner Campbell said she had already discussed this with his client and they agreed. Chairperson Ferguson said he concurred with Commissioner Campbell and was � delighted to see the vacant lots on EI Paseo being filled and noted that it helped pedestrian flow and the overall look of EI Paseo. That coupled with the Saks development going in would really step up the east end of EI Paseo and he was happy to see that happening. Mr. Drell stated that he didn't participate in the architectural review meeting, but relative to the street trees, it was typically the applicant's responsibifty to plant them when new projects go in. In cases where they have old trees that died at some time in the past and they had no effective lever to force those property owners to plant trees, the city planted them, but typically in new projects it is a requirement of the applicant to do the street planting. Chairperson Ferguson said it sounded like a non issue with the applicant and asked fbr a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1800, approving PP 97-2, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. • � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 °r E. Case No. CUP 91-9 Compliance Review - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for review of compliance with conditions of approval for a conditional use permit allowing 8,000 square feet of restaurant use (Ruth's Chris - 6,000 square feet and Tsing Tao - 2,000 square feet) at the northeast corner of Portola and Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell stated that the project and the restaurants occurred within a commercial complex that includes the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Portola and the north side of Alessandro. This was approved as one project in .. 1989-1990. The project was approved with one common parking lot which is in two parts, one on the north side of Alessandro and one on the south side of Alessandro. In June of 1991 application was made for a conditional use permit for an 8,000 square foot restaurant at this complex. The complex totals 40,000 square feet of area and includes both office and retail uses. That CUP was granted based upon accessibility of both parking lots on the north side and south side of Alessandro. At the time of that hearing, a petition was received from res�ents on San Marino Circle discussing concerns with the restaurant application relative to availability of parking, night lighting of the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro, location of restau�ant dumpsters, etc. They felt there was a potentiai that parking would be inadequate and parking would spill r., out onto San Marino Circle and they requested the closure of San Marino Circle to prevent this parking intrusion. Subsequently after the approval of the restaurant the City did block off San Marino Circle. From the outset two adjacent property owners, Ray Winner and Gary Tryon, expressed dissatisfaction and complained about noise emanating from the parking lot. The self parking for the restaurants was located in the south lot adjacent to the buildings and in an attempt to control the noise and limit uncontrolled behavior, the north lot was subject to a valet parking program which was processed and permitted through the City's Technical Traffic Committee. He noted that the Planning Commission received in their packet copies of various permit applications and minutes and conditions that were imposed through the Technical Traffic Committee process. In that the vast majo�ity of the noise complaints related to the behavior and operation of the valet service, the City attempted to address the noise concerns through regulation of the valet parking permit process. With each succeeding year the list of conditions applied to the valet became longer and longer. He said that Mr. Winner and Mr. Tryon participated on some occasions in that Technical Traffic valet permit process. Despite the attempts of the Public Works Department to regulate the valet company, there were continuing complaints of noise which ultimately led to the cancellation of that particular valet's contract in 1996. Mr. Tryon also submitted to the City in January of 1996 a video tape on which he documented some of the loud and irresponsible behavior of the valet. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the tape was of the old valet company or the new �"'' valet company. Mr. Drell replied that it was the old valet. The tape was from 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � January 1996 and the contract with that valet was finally canceled in May, w� 1996. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was relevant. Mr. Drell said that they met with the new valet and impressed upon him the seriousness of the problem which led to his predecessor's contract cancellation and the original conditional use permit contained a condition which specifically identified parking lot noise as being grounds for review of the conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. They impressed that upon the valet and upon the owners of the restaurant and the center that this was something that required a maximal effort to address. In essence the valet operator was being held responsible for how this would turn out. A short time after more correspondence was received from Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner ihat in their view conditions had not significantly •• improved. The correspondence was forwarded to the City Council and as a result of that council initiated a review of the conditional use permit as specified in the conditions. To objectively assess the noise environment and noise conditions for this �eview, the City contracted with an acoustical engineer to conduct noise studies in Mr. Tryon's backyard. Initially they were planning it for November, but at their request it was delayed until January to assess the peak season impact. The first scheduled test was done on January 10, 11 and 12, 19�7 which was a Thursday, Friday and Saturday (the peak evenings of Ruth's Chris) and basically the acoustical engineer sat in Mr. Tryon's backyard with the noise monitoring equipment between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 11 :00 p.m. As shown in the report, the machine calcuiated via a recognized acoustical ;� engineering method the noise level as specified in the noise ordinance. Also, it � kept a running tape of the actual fluctuations on a minute by minute basis in the lot. The engineer or technician would attempt to annotate each of the fluctuations to identify whether the sounds came from parking lot activity or other noises in the general vicinity that he could identify. He said that they would see in looking at the printouts that there were a lot of fluctuations that were not identified, but basically the acoustical engineer felt he was able to identify all the ones that came from the parking lot. The result of that study was that the overall sound level as measured on those evenings was well within the levels specified in the City's noise ordinance. Basically the City requires or sets noise standards in both residential and commercial areas. In residential areas between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. the noise level is 55 decibels. After 10:00 p.m. the maximal level drops to 45 decibels. In commercial zones it is ten decibels higher; between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. it is 63 and between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. it is 55 decibels. At the boundary between a commercial and residential zone, the ordinance in Section 9.24.030 says that the limit between two zoning districts shall be measured at the higher allowable district. According to the noise ordinance, the commercial noise limit would apply. Staff, in doing this review and based upon the condition of the goal for compatibility between commercial and residentiai areas, recommended that they would attempt to apply the residential standard. When they examined the measured noise levels, between the hours of 8:00 p.m, and � 10:00 p.m. the noise levels met the strict residential standards. The other � aspect of noise measurement dealt with the measurement of ambient noise � levels, which was the noise being generated by sources other than the one they 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 ""�' were specifically trying to look at. In this case it would be noise generally being generated by traffic on Highway 1 1 1 , Portola, the surrounding neighborhoods, airplanes overhead, etc. Section 9.24.030 B states that if the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise limit as noted in Table 1 , the allowable average sound level shall be the ambient noise level. The ambient noise levef sha(I be measured when the alleged noise violation source is not operating. Basically in a particular environment a user could not be accused of violating a noise standard where the ambient level is above that standard. In those cases the ambient level becomes the noise standard. Obviously he has no control over lowering that noise level. The conclusion of the noise engineer was that in that period between 10:00 p.m. and 11 :00 p.m. where for exa�rple . on January 11 the measured level was 49.7 decibels. Those levels were in fact the ambient level according to the engineer. That would have been the measurement and the result of ineasurement of the noise environment even when there was no noise coming from the restaurant operation. In essence the conclusion was that the noise that he measured was what one would have expected given the property's proximity to very noise generating facilities called Highway 111 and Portola. In the annotated tapes, there were things like aut�mobiles and trucks on Highway 1 1 1 and cats fighting, and although there were noise events which occurred on the lot which were of comparable volume, the applicant would be just as likely or more likely to be disturbed as measured in terms of volume decibels from noise being generated throughout the area. ` When discussing the first noise study with Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner, they concurred and felt that this was an especially quiet weekend and therefore was not a fair representation of the conditions. Therefore, the City agreed that maybe we should try it again. To further insure that there was no "tipping off" of the valet or the applicant or the restaurarrt, staff specifically contracted with the engineer who dealt directly with Mr. Tryon without informing staff or anyone else of the date of the test. Staff was not to be informed until after the test occurred. That test was redone on January 20, 21 and 22 with essentially the same results with noise levels in the 45 to 48 decibel range consistent with either the residential standard or the existing ambient noise level. The acoustical engineer went further in summarizing the events and there were events which occurred in the lot which were shown on the tape, but there were far more peaks resulting from noise sources other than the parking lot. All of those peal6 went into calculating the ambient/average noise level and the character, volume, intensity, and duration of those noises being generated by the parking lot were of a similar character of those in the surrounding environment. Based upon the analysis the engineer concluded that there were no violations of the City's noise ordinance as a result of activities on those nights that were being measured, even using the more restrictive residential standard. Whether or not the results of these studies were caused by the valet operator impressing upon his employees to behave responsibly or not was hard to say. So whether the conditions in the past were significantly worse they were unabfe to say. The engineer could only speak for the six days or 18 hours on which he sat and listened to the noise and watched the meters. He said that the commission '� would hear from Mr. Tryon and felt he would give his up to date impression on 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � the current conditions. If in fact the conditions applied by the valet permit � process have been effective in reducing what was a more severe problem, staff was recommending that all those conditions be raised in stature through inclusion as conditions of approval on the conditional use permit. That would make not only the valet operator responsible for those conditions, but would also apply to the property owner and owner of the restaurant as well. Mr. Drel! said that the City Attorney received a letter late today from Attorney Lisa Garvn from the firm of Garvin, Eggebraaten, LLP, who specifically raised some objection to the original conditional use permit and the process before the Planning Commission tonight. The first objection dealt with due process. ,. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the commission had a copy of that letter. Mr. Drell said he had not made a copy but he could get copies. He asked if they wanted them right now. Chairperson Ferguson said if they were to dea! with this matter tonight they might as well take a look at it. He was wondering the same thing about imposing conditions that weren't really conditions and that were just now becoming conditions. Mr. Drell said the commission could impose conditions. The original CUP had a specific condition that said conditions could be �mposed to address night noises. Chairperson Fe�guson asked if the conditions could be imposed by staff. Mr. Drell replied no, by the commission. Chairperson Ferguson requested clarification. He thought Mr. Drell said the conditions here were memorialized conditions that have been unofficially imposed over the last few years. Mr. Drell clarified that they have been imposed � through a separate permit process to regulate valet parking through the Technical Traffic Committee. When that committee receives a valet parking application, they look at the situation and place rules for approval under this different permit process. Technically in that the applicant is the valet parking operator for something he is liable for, and staff tried their best to enforce them, this brought the conditions up a little higher. Chairperson Ferguson said this would bind the property owner as well as the valet parking operator. Mr. Drell concurred. Relative to due process, he explained that there was an ascertain that when the City originally approved the conditional use permit in 1991 that the City didn't inform people that the lot on Alessandro would be used as part of the restaurant parking. Before the meeting, when he looked throu� the file, based upon the petition received and signed by 25 residents on San Marino Circle, it was evident that they knew that entire property would be used for the restaurant purposes�. They felt that the parking would be insufficient and would spill onto San Marino Circle. The staff report and minutes indicate significant discussion of the use of that north lot. A condition of approval specifically talks about not allowing night lighting of the north lot. The staff specifically recommended approva! of the restaurant only because of the existence of those parking spaces. Otherwise, without question without those parking spaces it wouldn't have vaguely met the parking requirement. The legal notice identified the project as a 40,000 square foot retail office complex. That includes the office buildings on the north side of Alessandro. The notice sent out in � connection with this review had a diagram and map that clearly showed it included both north and south of Alessandro. The project from its original � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 �`" conception and construction always has included both sides of the street. He said that if commission continued this item staff could prepare a written analysis in response to the letter. Chairperson Ferguson stated that if there was going to be litigation as a result of this, the commission should take a look at Ms. Gavin's letter. He didn't want to delay things unnecessarily, but he wanted to review a copy of the letter. Mr. Drell said that the second issue dealt with CEQA and the Negative Declaration. Ms. Gavin's letter said it was an inappropriate Negative Declaration. Mr. Drell stated that for better or worse under the Public Resources Code, Section 21167, an appellant has 180 cfays to challenge a Negative Declaration. That obviously expired a Iong time ago. It was clear from the file that both Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner were signatories of •. that petition where upon reading it indicated that they clearly had an understanding of what the project was. Their participation in the valet parking permit process also indicated that they were active participants in the regulation of that north parking lot. The last issue had to do with measuring of noise levels. He said that the measurement of the noise level is described in the City's noise ordinance. He said ihat if the commission continued this item he could have the acoustical engineer present to provide some explanation. If the cor�mission or others have questions about the noise study, those questions could be referred to him and he could be here at the next meeting to answer them. Mr. Drell said that the conclusion was that while the character of the noise in this area might be more disturbing than elsewhere in residential areas w.., in Palm Desert, its proximity to the center of town, to a commercial area, to the most highly traveled highway in the Coachella Valley other than I-10, to Portola which was another arterial in this location, given all those conditions, the noise environment is consistent with the standards for a residential area in the city and the noises being generated by the parking lot did not substantially contribute to that noise environment. The engineer did discuss that ultimately in many respects the perception of noise was very subjective. That it was very possible that the history associated with the operation of this property may have sensitized these residents to particular noises being generated by this lot, more so than noises being generated by the immediate environment. But the present time is what the commission was discussing. The concfusion was that the findings could be made that the subject restaurants are in compliance with all applicable City ordinances relative to this conditional use permit and the conditions of approval and that by continued vigilant enforcement of those conditions and expanded conditions as recommended, that the issue of compatibility between this commercial project and the adjacent residents could be maintained. That was not to say that this is an environment that everyone would find acceptable. One makes certain choices about where they choose to live, whether it's in a more protected insulated area or adjacent to a major commercial center. Those were choices that one has to make and to a certain degree there were impacts associated with those choices. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution and asked for questions. Commissioner Campbel( asked who paid for the tests, the residents or the City. °`� Mr. Drell replied the City. Commissioner Campbell asked if the City paid for the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 ; second one without knowing when the test would be done; Mr. Drell aoncurred and explained that they contracted with the acoustical engineer with direction not to inform the City of the date of the test, but it was a City contract. Chairperson Ferguson said that to summarize what Mr. Drell was saying was that they have investigated compliance and they are complying. Mr. Drell agreed that currently they appear to be in compliance. During the 18 hours when the studies were done, they were in compliance. Chairperson Ferguson said that secondly, the conditions that the commission was being asked to approve were conditions that came through the valet parking permitting process and they were now extending them to the property owner through his •• conditional use permit. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Ferguson said thai lastly, Mr. Drell had reviewed the letter for its merits and considered all the items that were raised and asked if it was still Mr. Drell's opinion that the restaurants were still in compliance. Mr. Drel( said that was correct. Chairperson Ferguson asked the City Attorney if all the exhibits referenced in the letter, Exhibits A through F, were in their packet. Ms. Jacobson said that some of them were and some were not. Mr. Drell said that they referenced the minutes of the original Planning Commission hearing and they did not have that or the original staff report. Chairperson Ferguson asked if they were included with the letter from Ms. Gavin as exhibits. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Ferguson said he would fike to review them. He noted that Mr. Tryon was j present and expected that the letter would reiterate those points that he � expected Mr. Tryon to make. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there were questions for staff. Commissioner Beaty noted that they were again being presented with material at the last minute that they haven't had time to review, but they should still hea from the public. Chairperson Ferguson stated that most of the exhibits were already in their packet and he was trying to understand from staff if there was any need to continue the case based on Mr. Drell's review and the City Attorney's review of the letter since he had a chance to review it and asked if there was a need to continue it or if the points made there seemed to be reiterated elsewhere, except for some of the due process issues which he was sure the attorneys could work out. Mr. Drell stated that it was a measure of how comfortable the commission wanted to be. He said that he could provide the commission with all the minutes and staff reports and the petition that in staff's view, not to argue about what events had actually occurred during the last five years, they could only speak to what was measured by the acoustical engineer. Siaff was confident that the surrounding neighborhood was well informed as to what the project proposal was, they made specific requests to the City in response to it, and the City responded to their request and tried to address their problems. Regarding the CEQA argument, it was far beyond the statute of limitations. He stated that they have a documented concerted effort through the valet permit process to try and address the problems knowing that there is a fundamental conflict where they had to weigh the rights of both property owners and staff felt that the neighborhood was well informed of this 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 r""' hearing and he felt that the acoustical study was valid. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he wanted Commissioner Beaty to look at the letter as well. He noted that the commission was being asked to evaluate compliance with a CUP that is in effect and a large part of the letter challenged the validity of the CUP in the first instance, which the commission was not being asked to vote on tonight. He was not sure a continuance was necessitated, notwithstanding the late arrival of the letter. That was what he was trying to work out so that the commission could be comfortable moving forward with compliance issues and they could leave the legal issues to the lawyers. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there were any other questions for staff. There were none. �. Chairperson Ferguson o�ened the public hearing and indicated that since the City of Palm Desert was the applicant and the commission just heard from staff, he asked to hear from the opponents first, the proponents would be invited to address the commission next, and then the complainant would be given an opportunity for a brief rebuttal. MR. GARY TRYON stated that he had copies of Ms. Gavin's letter for the �' commission. Chairperson Ferguson noted for the record that each commissioner was given an individual copy of the letter with the exhibits. r.. Mr. Tryon said he didn't know where to begin--he would rather be any where in the world than before ifie commission since he wasn't a public speaker. As far as the noise went and as far as they were concerned, the results were as phony as the City's noise ordinance. The first year the lot was in existence, they complained repeatedly with phone calls and letters and they came down to City Hall continually and received no response. They found out recently that on October 22, 1992, a year after that lot opened, that the City solved the noise problem by rewriting the noise ordinance. He was given quite a bit of an education about the City's noise ordinance by the people who did the noise study and he said they got quite a laugh out of it when they read it. What it did was take an average over an hour. The man told him there could be a dozen horns an hour out in that parking lot and according to the new noise ordinance it meant nothing. There could be half a dozen car alarms and according to this new noise ordinance it meant nothing. On February 21 he happened to be out on his patio and it was 10:40 p.m. and he was talking to the man doing the study when a car alarm went off. It was right on the wall and directly behind his bedroom. The decibei levei registered 65 decibels and lasted approximately one minute. The man told him it didn't mean a thing according to the new noise ordinance. It takes an average. It could be quiet for several minutes, a car alarm would go off, quiet for several minutes again and then it all averaged out. That was where they came up with no violation. The night before the study i''� happened he was in bed at 11 :22 p.m. when a car alarm went off on the 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 wall directly behind his bed and it lasted about a minute. (t was a Ruth's Chris employee car parked on the wall. He said he gets up at 4:00 a.m. and it got kind of annoying when this was a common occurrence. Last Thursday night an alarm went off right outside his bedroom window and it lasted approximately three minutes. According to the City's new noise ordinance that meant nothing. The man told him that there would almost have to be a full-blown rock concert in that lot before it would be a violation with the way they average out the sounds. They considered the new noise ordinance to be a total joke and felt it was passed simply to cover up things like this. It didn't help residents whatsoever, the only people it helped were the owners and operators of noise makers like that .. from complaints from people like him. He informed commission that Mr. Winner couldn't be at the meeting or he would be saying the same thing. He was out of the state on business. Mr. Tryon stated that this was an ongoing problem. To say that the last five years could be judged or the next five years could be judged from a three-night period he thought was ridiculous. As far as that being a valet parking lot, it was not now and never has been. When the Planning Commission allowed the Fitness Mart '`� in last year, it just compounded the noise and made it worse. As far as he was concerned this Planning Commission had absolutely no respect for the residents of that area. They have been ignored and just dumped on for the last five or six years. They had been at City Hall continually tryirg to do something about it, but they get snowballed, whitewashed, swept under the rug, hidden and nothing ever happens. They had meetings and nothing ever happened. Last year when the valet service was replaced they �ere given another set of rules and regulations. The rules and regulations didn't get used by the valets. He said they were at their wit's end. It surprised him that one of them hadn't gone postal and went over there and shot someone at night because it gets so bad sometimes. He said they wouldn't do it, it was just a figure of speech, but he had no doubt that none of the commissioners would put up with the situation for more than five nights and they had been forced to live with it for the last five years. As far as moving into it, it wasn't there when they moved there. It was put in their backyards. The residents complained and tried to stop the zoning change in 1989 but they were ignored. They tried to stop the restaurants in 1991 and they were ignored. They had been ignored ever since. Every time they have tried to do anything they have been ignored. That lot took precedence. He felt it was like they had no rights over there. They do have rights and as far as he was concerned their rights were more important than the wants and desires of out of town developers and out of town business owners. They were residents of this City. He was always told and grew up thinking that elected public officials were supposed to look after the rights of their constituents, but in this case they haven't. The City had failed miserably as far as that neighborhood was concerned. He said he had hours of things to say, but he didn't know what else because he just gets so upset about it. He said 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 '�"' that his attorney said he should submit a video tape as evidence or whatever it needed to be. He asked if the commission wanted to hear it. Chairperson Ferguson concurred that the facilities were in place to allow the commission to see and hear the video and he wanted Mr. Tryon to submit everything he had that he felt was relevant to the compliance situation. Mr. Tryon explained that the tape was from a year ago, but the situation was on going and had not changed. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the City would be given a copy of the video tape .. to maintain it. Mr. Tryon said it was the commission's copy and it was the exact same copy that was given to the City Council last year. Mr. Tryon informed commission that the tape lasted one hour and 45 minutes and didn't think the commission would want to see the whole tape. A few minutes would show them what it amounted to. He said that he had newer tapes from � newer incidents, but he just didn't have them transferred to VHS yet from his eight track. He said that the sound on the tape was not what they listened to at home. It was blasting at his home. He said it was probably 70 decibels in his back ya�d. � After reviewing the beginning of the tape, Chairperson Ferguson asked if that particular car alarm continued for 15 minutes. Mr. Tryon said that the same alarm did and the tape was just a continuation of different alarms, different vehicles, all pretty much the same thing. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was a good representative sample of what was on the tape. Mr. Tryon agreed that it was a representative example of a lot of what was on the tape. He said there were a couple of more examples within the last two weeks. A tour bus backed in about 9:00 p.m. for the full distance of the lot clear out into ihe far northeast corner. The bus backed all the way in there with his backup horn blasting. That was normal. A couple of nights ago a noise woke him up. There was a chauffeured limousine sitting outside his bedroom window. The motor was running, all the doors were open and the chauffeur was sitting in the back seat with the radio running. Mr. Tryon said he yelled at him to stop it and the chauffeur turned the radio full blast. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the commission had any questions for Mr. Tryon. Commissioner Fernandez asked how long Mr. Tryon had lived there. Mr. Tryon replied six and a half years. Commissioner Fernandez asked if there were any other neighbors complaining about the noise besides Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner. � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 { Mr. Tryon said that George Buhl used to constantly and was the main one at it, but his wife left him about two years ago and he gave up on everything. He was hardly even home anymore. Mr. Tryon said that he and Mr. Winner were the ones mainly complaining because they were sitting on an island in the middle of this mess. Chairperson Ferguson said that Mr. Tryon's criticisms were noted about the City, Planning Commission and enforcement. He asked what Mr. Tryon wanted the City to do, practically speaking. He was sure that ideally he wouldn't want anyone within the 300-foot radius of his home that made noise. � Mr. Tryon replied that they didn't mind the lot at all, as long as it was being used as it is zoned, Office Professional. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Tryon wanted the City to shut down the restaurants. Mr. Tryon said they would like to see the late night commercial parking �' out of that location. He said it was an office professional lot, not a commercial lot. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was anything less than that that Mr. Tryon would be willing to accept to mitigate noise. As an example, if the north lot was � restncted to valet only after 6:00 p.m. Mr. Try�n said.that wouldn't make a difference. The valets were just as noisy as the rest of them, Chairperson Ferguson asked if the valets set car alarms. Mr. Tryon said yes, that it was quite common. Part of their rules was that they were not to set any more car alarms. They still did. Some of ihe newer cars were automatic, but they still set car alarms. Sunday night he went out and looked and there was a kid, the valet, in someone's new Cadillac and the northeast lot was pretty well empty and he thought the kid must have thought he was a race car driver because he was roaring around that lot and squalling tires. Mr. Tryon said he shined a flashlight at him and the valet stopped, looked at him, then floor boarded it. The valet parking was not an answer and never has been. Chairperson Ferguson said that as he read Mr. Tryon's attorney's letter and as he listened to Mr. Tryon tonight, his position was not that the use was out of compliance with the noise ordinance, but that the noise ordinance was so poorly drafted that it didn't meaningful(y address f�is concerns. Mr. Tryon replied that according to the men that did the study, Christopher Dean specifically, the sound engineer that was there two of 20 __.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 `�"' those nights, said that when he and Mr. Bricken read the noise ordinance they laughed. It was a joke. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Tryon understood that what the Planning Commission was asked to review was whether they comply with the ordinance, irrespectively. Mr. Tryon stated that he realized that they were complying with the ordinance as it is written. That was stated right in the report. Mr. Tryrn said he would like to know how Mr. Drell found a sympathetic councilman from another city to do the noise ordinance. � Chairperson Ferguson suggested that was an issue that Mr. Tryon could take �.Q with Mr. Drell personally. They wouldn't take that up tonight and the City still wrote their own ordinances and assumed that the City wrote this one. Mr. Tryon said he would like to know why the City just ignored them for w ihe first year. Chairperson Ferguson said that what he would suggest to Mr. Tryon a little later during the meeting was that his concerns with respect to the ordinance probably belonged before the City Council. The Planning Commission did not make ,,,� ordinances. The Planning Commission occasionally commented on them and reviewed them, but they hadn't been asked to do that tonight. While he was not saying that Mr. Tryon's concerns were illegitimate, he was just saying that they were misdirected at the Planning Commission because they were simply being asked to find what he essentially stipulated, which was that they are in compliance with the ordinance as stated. The points of Mr. Tryon and his attorney might be very well taken, but they were out of the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he wanted to clarify one other thing in a public forum. Businesses were residents of this city as well. He viewed their role as a Planning Commission to weigh competing uses. Businesses served the �esidents of the city and they generate sales tax figures to the city which are used to provide services to the residents' homes. It was the reasonableness of uses that they evaluate and that was a decision that the council would have to make if Mr. Tryon appealed this case to them n reviewing the noise ordinance, but to say that the commission cared more about developers who were out of town and don't care about residents was inaccura� and secondly, they cared about both of them and wanted to make sure there was a proper balance. What Mr. Tryon was telling the commission was that there wasn't a proper balance, although it complies with the ordinance. The commission was only being asked to see if it complies with the ordinance, so he wanted to make that clarification. Mr. Tryon restated that the only thing going on tonight was if it complies with the ordinance. �. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson said that was correct. Mr. Tryon asked if that was his only argument. Chairperson Ferguson said that the Planning Commission was asked to review if they were complying with their conditional use permit and there were many aspects to the conditional use permit, but the one that Mr. Tryon took issue with, as he understood it, was the noise. As a result of the studies and the ordinance as drafted, staff found that they were complying with the ordinance. When he asked Mr. Tryon the question, Mr. Tryon replied yes that the ordinance was a joke and though he didn't want to put words in Mr. Tryon's mouth, the . Planning Commission couldn't amend the ordinance or even consider it. That was the proper role for the City Council. Chairperson Ferguson said he didn't want Mr. Tryon to take those comments as being "shined on" by the City again. Mr. Tryon said that he realized that there were different strokes for different parts of the city. He was saying it here because he was told to � just say everything he had to say tonight for everything he could think of. Chairperson Ferguson said that he could tell from the frustration in Mr. Tryon's voice that it was a real problem for him. Mr. Tryon said that in order to get it into the record, he was told to voioe � everything he could think of. Chairperson Ferguson concurred and asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Tryon. Mr. Drell said that he had something to add. What Mr. Tryon was reporting, regardless of the noise study, was that some of the conditions that have been applied to the valet parking permit he observed were not being adhered to relative to parking along the back wall and the controllable behavior of the valet people. The City's attempt throughout the valet permit process wa5 to try to eliminate all those causes of the noise which were in the direct control of the valet attendants themselves. There might be noise inherent when turning on a car which couldn't be avoided. Sometimes there might be inescapably some trigger of car alarms. The permit expressly prohibits employees from parking in that lot; it expressly prohibits the playing of loud radios. He said that he strengthened that by saying that while the valet permit said they shouldn't have the radio loud, he was saying that the radio shouldn't be on at all. There should be no radios of any sort. He said they would hear from the valet parking representative, but there still might be opportunities for improvement if a consistent behavior of the valet attendants could be strictly monitored and enforced. Staff was still committed and it was somewhat encouraging that to a certain degree that those evenings that the study was being done that it was relativeiy quiet which showed that whether it was just fluke luck or not, they ; were capable of doing better than they do some nights. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 """ Mr. Tryon said it wasn't that quiet. It seemed quiet to Mr. Dreli because of the way the ordinance was written. He could show parts on the tape that were taken from the machine that showed it was not quiet. Mr. Drell said that they have those tapes, but it showed lots of noise and most noise was not coming from the lot. Chairperson Ferguson informed Mr. Tryon that there was one thing that the commission could address tonight which he wanted to ask him. He noted that about a year ago they had the Fitness Center go in. He asked about the status of that since it was a temporary use. Mr. Drell confirmed that it was a .. � temporary use and explained that Mr. Muro was attempting to try to find a permanent location. The City extended his temporary use until the whole issue was resolved. Mr. Muro was now being sent a notice to vacate the property in 30 days since his temporary use permit expired. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Mr. Drell mentioned that it only compounded the problem and he was aware of the fact that Mr. Muro's temporary use permit had expired. '`' Mr. Tryon said that the last he knew the City Council said the Fitness Center was supposed to be out of there by October 1 , 1996 and they were still there. He said they could sit at night with the television on and hear those people screaming. �.. Chairperson Ferguson said they would be leaving within 30 days time per Mr. Drell. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak on this matter. MR. RICHARD R. OLIPHANT, 77-900 Avenue of the States in Palm Desert, stated ihat he was the Oliphant of Oliphant, Lizza and Associates that owns the property in question. He said he was hoping for Mr. Tryon's sake, their sake and everyone's sake that they could bring this to some kind of a conclusion. This had been going on for quite some time. They have been working with Mr. Winner and Mr. Tryon to try and mitigate the problems they have had, but it was very difficult to run a successful commercial establishment and not have some impact, particularly in a situation where they were part of their parking lot because they surrounded the residences on three sides. He wanted to talk about why the circumstance exists. This was a corner in the city that was a hazard. At one time it was almost impossible to pull a long wheel-based car off of Highway 1 11 onto Portola without running into the curb. They had at one time attempted to develop that corner but couldn't make any economic sense out of it. The City came and asked them to reconsider that with financial aid from the City. They did that and found what their needs were and the City agreed to assist them. They even went to the extent of condemning the properties on that corner so ihat they could acquire them. When it came to the residential i"' units, they were not willing to condemn the residential units, only the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � � business units. The rest of the residential units they were either able to �i acquire or they were owned by Ron Gregory and his brother. They were not able to buy out Ron Gregory and his brother, so they created a relationship with them. They did a design on that lot to find out what would economically work and it required about 40,000 square feet to economically develop that site. The City encouraged them to go fo�ward and build a superblock. They built the building with approximately 20,000 square feet on the corner facing the highway and the reason that the 20,000 square feet was put there was because that was the engine that drove the whole thing, that one building. Obviously on the south side of Alessandro there wasn't nearly enough parking for 20,000 square .. feet, so they balanced it and parking was put on the north side of Alessandro. One of the conditions of approval was that they narrow Alessandro. Usually they widen streets, in this case they narrowed the street. The reason was that the City didn't want any overflow from the parking lots to become curbside parking on Alessandro and required them to put all of their parking in the parking lot on the north side of the street He stated that Oliphant Lizza owns two thirds of all the parking spaces �`' on the north side of the street for the building located on the south side of the street. That was where the bulk of the parking was for the south side of the street. They built two office buildings for Mr. Gregory to complete the superblock and they have defined parking spaces which they do not use. Those two buildings have spaces assigned to them and � they do not valet park in those spaces. They were not theirs and they did not use them. They only use the spaces that are owned by Oliphant Lizza and Associates. They have had complairrts from the City for some time. As Mr. Drell outlined there was meeting after meeting to try and resolve that. They finally decided in working with Ruth's Chris and Tsirg Tao that the valet service was not responding adequately to the City, to them or to anyone else so they let that valet service go and they hired another valet service that has done an outstanding job. They still receive complaints even after they had the valet service changed, so last summer he decided it was time to figure out how to bring this all to a head. They called a meeting here at City Hall which Mr. Drell and Steve Smith attended, as well as Ray Winner and Gary Tryon, the valet company, Mr. Lizza and himself and the manager of the Ruth's Chris restaurant. They �II sat down and asked how to resolve these problems. Essentially the list of conditions with the exception of two of them tonight were the conditions they discussed at that particular meeting. There were some others and they have complied to date with all of those conditions, from that date to this one. Another one was that they put signage on the wall, all the way around the wall where they jut out into the parking lot that says no parking next to this wall after 6:00 p.m. Only the valets are supposed to park next to the wall, but there are some people who still drive in the�e and park their own car. They have had an occasion or two j when they have had an alarm go off and found out that it was not a car � parked by their valet and no one had a key or knew who it belonged to. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 'r"' In that case that was when Mr. Tryon has had an alarm that has run longer than one minute or two. If it was an alarm that has been accidentally set because some cars have proximity alarms and when someone walks by the car it essentially triggers the alarm. If that was a valet car, they were on that immediately. They have someone in the lot during the season that is a valet all the time on the north side. As cars go out, that valet is moving the cars forward toward Alessandro to keep cars away from the wall. That is an extra service and cost, but that had been taken over by their valet and they had been doing that service. He didn't know what else they could do. They meet all the requirements sound wise, they have bent over backwards to assist Mr. Winner and Mr. „ Tryon with their problem and have even given them the pager number of their valet service so that if there is a problem they could page them. Don't call Mr. Drell, call them--they were the problem solvers. But they don't call them. They would rather run down the next day and complain to Mr. Drell. That continues to aggravate the mat�er and it needed to be brought to some kind of conclusion or this would go on for another ten years or however long Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner live there. He said he t wanted to ask about a couple of conditions. Number 9 said should the valet parking services be terminated for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Ron Gregory and Associates must be notified in advance. He asked what Ron Gregory and Associates had to do with their parking lot. �.. Chairperson Ferguson said he had that same question as well. Mr. Drell said it was taken from the valet permit regulations. Mr. Oliphant said that Mr. Tryon had found a sympathetic ear in Ron Gregory and he frequently called Ron Gregory to see if he would talk to one of them and do something. He said that they don't use Ron Gregory's lot and Ron Gregory doesn't use their lot. They just happen w have adjoining lots. That would be the same way with "valet parking service must obtain written permission from Ron Gregory and Associates to use the north parking lot". He said he owns the north parking lot, not Ron Gregory. Why would he have to ask for Mr. Gregory's permission. Mr. Drell stated that those were conditions that have been on the valet permit for many years. Mr. Oliphant stated that he wanted them removed because he didn't want to have to ask permission of some third party to use his own property. That wasn't right. Mr. Drell said it was within his rights to object, but those were conditions that have technically been in force to obviously no significant effect. Mr. Oliphant said they have never had Ron Gregory at a meeting. They '� have never consulted with Ron Gregory and the only time Ron Gregory 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 had entered into it was at the time the Fitness Mart asked if they could use ten parking spots of Ron Gregory's and Ron Gregory wrote a letter to the City giving permission to allow them to use those ten spaces after 6:00 p.m. The Fitness Mart closes at 6:00 p.m. so they were not creating the problem over there because the City Council required them to eliminate their evening dance class so they haven't been operating the evening dance class because they have to be out of there before Ruth's Chris business picks up. Chairperson Ferguson asked why wouldn't Mr. Gregory, whom he understood didn't operate business in the evening, allow them in some sort of an � arrangement to valet park on his spaces and decrease the demand in the north lot. Mr. Oliphant replied it was because they haven't needed the space. Chairperson Ferguson said that if he heard Mr. Tryon correctly, they most certainly needed it and it would make his life nicer. a Mr. Oliphant said that if they used Mr. Gregory's they would not just be behind Mr. Tryon's lot, but on both sides of it. They don't park on the sides of his lot now. , � Mr. Drell confirmed that Mr. Gregory s spaces were also part of that north lot. Chairperson Ferguson said he thought they were to the east. Mr. Oliphant explained that they were also on the north side where Mr. Gregory has two lots that flank their center lot and they were the entire center of that lot which was the rear of Mr. Winner's and Mr. Tryon's homes. If they parked in Ron Gregory's lots, then they would go down the sides as well and they were not doing that. That wasn't to say that someone doesn't pull in there that they have no control over. He said their valet was present tonight who could answer a lot of those questions. He also wanted to correct the record that he was not an out of town builder, developer or business owner. He was in his 35th year in Palm Desert and was certainly a resident of this area. . MR. GREGORY FAIA, General Counsel for Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, stated that the actual mother company was located in New Orleans and the company that operates this particular business was a California corporation that employs 65 people in this local area. He said he wanted to make a couple of comments because he has lived with this problem over the last year and he discussed it with Mr. Drell and Doug Phillips a number of times. He said this was a franchise location that the mother , company purchased back from the franchisee. He said that Paul Fleming was the one who operated the company as a franchisee prior to their acquisition. During that time when the previous valet company was in 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 `"�' place there seemed to be no movement and no ability to move them out. As soon as they could they put pressure to get that situation taken care of. He thought they had done it as best they could under the circumstances. No being from here himself, it was quite obvious to him that one of their simple problems was that there were no natural sound barriers in this area. There were no trees with heavy leaves or heavy foliage that would help break sound. There was no way they could plant heavy flowering or heavy foliage shrubs across the back that would in any way help Mr. Tryon. He didn't doubt that he has a serious probfem with the noise and it obviously appeared to bother him, but he felt that Ruth's Chris Steakhouse was a victim. They have been a victim from the �. beginning. His problem was really with the fact of what happened six years ago when this was approved. It started with a petition before they were ever around and now it was just landing on them and they were the ones that had to deal with it. As to the changes and the additions they wanted to make to the conditional use permit, he had a problem. They are meeting the compliance of the current sound study, and he disagreed with Mr. Tryon and he thought the reports proved that they have not �`' violated those sound studies and he thought that if the commission looked at the sound studies it was clear that ambient noise levels, not averages, and sounds of cats and airplanes are much louder than they are. Those sounds were much higher than the ones he was talking about ,,,� and those occur more often and both of those reports showed that. All they had to do was look at the January report and the February report, or the summary report at the end of February. It was the same thing. What they have here was they were taking the conditional use permit a step further. Now they were going to tell him that he could lose his business if valet attendants don't speak quietly and only when absolutey necessary. From a reasonable business standpoint, he asked how he could even implement ihat. "Only when absolutely necessary". He could understand not operating radios, but now they were not supposed to talk and that would create an impossibility and they were going to tell him that his business was now subject to all of these things. He was now up to 25 conditions that he has to worry about or he loses the right to have his business here. He thought that was a serious problem that they would have to consider if they were to keep a relationship with the City af Palm Desert. He was very confused. He received this on Friday and did not know that there was any attempt to change the conditional use permit. He came in from New Orleans just for this meeting and he had to admit that he was stunned when this came about. He said that Mr. Tryon might feel that he is not being fairly treated, but he also didn't think they were being treated fairly at all. He said he would be happy to answer any questions. He thought the noise study showed a lot different result than what Mr. Tryon felt it showed. He thought the two made it very clear that the highest sounds on there were motorcycles down Highway 1 11 and Portola and an airplane. They had nothing to do with '�"' them. An ambient noise level was different. In speaking to the sound 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 Y people that they have in New Orleans, the reason it an ambient noise level becomes the level was because it was like white noise. They have white noise of a certain level and anything up to that range just constituted that white noise. That was the reason for an ambient noise level. They didn't even come close, but it didn't seem to matter. He thought this problem was created a long time ago and now they were the ones dealing with it on a day to day basis. He thought that if this conditional use permit was amended to add these particular items, there was no way. It was a physical impossibility. What they were telling him was that his business was threatened here in Palm Desert. That is what they were telling him. He said they were happy to work with the City •. and they had been trying for the last year to get through this situation, but he didn't feel it was a situation they created and the reports showed that. Mr. Tryon asked to present rebuttal comments and noted that Mr. � Oliphant said that he has called Ron Gregory. Mr. Tryon said that he has never talked to Ron Gregory in his life. He wouldn't know the man if he �' walked in here now and walked up to him. As far as the valet alarms not being the ones that go on, he could remember one alarm that wasn't a valet alarm that went for a significant length of time and that was the security guard who was supposed to be guarding the lot. That was on February 19 at 11 :22 p.m. He felt he should be smart enough to open � his own car without setting off the alarm and then couldn't figure out how to turn it off, That was an employee from over there. He said that the Fitness Mart did not close at 6:00 p.m. It was open until at least 9:00 p.m. every night and sometimes until 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Tryon if after all of these years of putting up with this if he thought about moving. Mr. Tryon said that he would like to say the same thing to Ruth's Chris that Phil Drell said to him the last time he was in his office, "why don't you move". Mr. Tryon said that he was there first and his neighbors were there first. Commissioner Campbell asked if anyone ever approaChed him to sell his property. Mr. Tryon said that no one approached hfn about buying his p�operty at all. Last summer Tony Lizza finally asked what he would take to sell out and he and Mr. Winner came up with a ridiculous figure just to let him know that they weren't interested in moving. He said that all of her adult life his wife dreamed of having a home. She was 47 years old when that dream was realized and within six months the City turned it into a nightmare and it has been that way for the last five years. , Commissioner Fernandez stated that he has been to Ruth's Chris a couple of times and he sympathized with Mr. Tryon because there was some noise by the 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � valet, by the traffic and by the cars and he never heard a cat or a plane fly by, but he heard plenty of noise from the parking lot. Commissioner Beaty said he didn't have any comments but was going to ask what the commission's options were. Chairperson Ferguson said that he would like to look at the two conditions that were pointed out by Mr. Oliphant. He said he put a note by condition number 9 asking why the City wasn't being notified as opposed to Ron Gregory and as he understood the testimony, why should Mr. Oliphant ask permission from a third party to use his own land. If there was no rationale for those conditions, � he wanted to see them removed. Mr. Drell said that if the commission looked at the most current valet parking permit conditions for 1996, he just took those conditions from there. He had no problem with removing them from the resolution and the Pu6(ic Works Department could enforce them any way they liked. Realistically they had no effect so he had no problem getting rid of them. Chairperson Ferguson said he had a couple of comments. It seemed to him that mu�'h of what he said to Mr. Tryon was true. He thought that the study that they were asked to look at showed compliance with the ordinance. If the ordinance needed to be changed, it was not for the Planning Commission to decide, but the City Council. He didn't know how they did things in New �.,. Orleans, but down here they put conditions on a project, which was why they were called conditional use permits and the City maintains continuing jurisdiction to modify those conditions and he did not understand how the most successful restaurant in Palm Desert felt like it was a victim. It might be that Mr. Tryon made his nightmare their nightmare as well by his constant complaining, but that was his right as a citizen of the city. They welcomed Ruth's Chris here. It was a fine establishment. The conditions he saw imposed here basically told them to try and be a good neighbor. Mr. Faia asked if they would get their CUP revoked if someone spoke too loudly, one valet to another, but it would not be by him. If the valet service was present (although the commission didn't hear from them) he hoped they were taking note of the sensitivity this commission has for Mr. Tryon. He thought it was a competing interest for the reasonableness for the use and when he had two people standing in front of him both saying that were unhappy with the compromise, it was usually a very good compromise. He hoped they wouldn't take exception to that but his personal feeling was that they were in compliance with the conditions of their conditional use permit and the additional conditions they were adding basically asked Ruth's Chris and the center to be a good neighbor and they were not happy with the noise study. He was satisfied by the noise study and the methodology. He didn't know how much the City spent on it, but didn't think anyone was out to skew those figures and if the ordinance was as Mr. Tryon said it was, then his recourse was to the City Council. His personal concern was for the residents and businesses alike to try and strike a balance. He was not prepared to shut down two restaurants because there were spikes of noise. By the same token '�"'' he understood how he feels in his own home when someone squeals around the 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � corner at 11 :00 p.m. and it was evident from his comments that Mr. Tryon was � irritated. As far as whether they were in compliance with the ordinance or not, they are and the conditions for Ruth's Chris were reasonable and he was prepared to support them as drafted by staff and amended by Mr. Oliphant's concerns. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Commissioner Beaty wanted to discuss options. Commissioner Beaty said either approval or disapproval of the findings were the options and asked if Chairperson Ferguson was ready for a motion. Chairperson Ferguson said he would make a motion approving the findings as presented by staff, subject to the elimination of staff report condition number 10 and the . modification of condition number 9 that the City be notified (the Planning Department) as opposed to Ron Gregory and Associates. Action: Moved by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Mo�ed by Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1801, adding conditions to CUP 9�-9. Carried 4-0. Chairperson Ferguson notified Mr. Tryon that he had 15 days to appeal this � matter to the City Council if he so chose. He asked if the Commissirn received everything he wanted to present tonight, the tape and handouts. Mr. Tryon concurred. F. Case No. CUP 95-11 Amendment - DENISE ROBERGE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit increasing the net floor area of an approved restaurant from 2760 square feet to 5000 square feet located at the southeast corner of EI Paseo and Prickly Pear Lane, 73-951 EI Paseo. Mr. Drell indicated that on December 14, 1995 a conditional use permit was approved for a 2760 square foot restaurant with a 1300 square foot patio in conjunction with a 14,000 square foot retail/residential mixed use remodel of the former Security Pacific Bank building at Portola and EI Paseo. As the commission would recall there was a considerable amount of discussion over parking when that project went through and due to the fact that the project took up a whole block, it had an unusual number of on street parking spaces. With 49 off street parking spaces and the 22 on street there was a total of 71 parking spaces. He noted that at one time they had up to 51 off street spaces, but with the City Council's desire to get better lot circulation, two spaces were � deleted. Mr. Drell said that in June of 1996 the Commission approved a � secondary 33 space lot on Portola at Shadow Mountain on the basis of it being � 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � employee parking and overflow parking for special events at the gallery. Now the phase one remodel of the Security Pacific building was completed and the applicant was requesting increasing the size of the net area, which was the gross area minus mechanical/equipment rooms, stairwells, refrigerators, etc., 5,000 square feet, which would approximately double the size of the restaurant. Originally that 33-space parking lot was being provided voluntarily. The City did not compel Ms. Roberge to provide it in that all her required parking was being provided on site and as part of those designated street spaces. With the expansion of the restaurant, those 33 spaces became required spaces for the project. The goal of the City's economic development strategy and the Core Commercial Specific Plan relative to EI Paseo and more specifically the east end .. of EI Paseo was to try to create significant attractions to bring customers and potential retail buyers to the east end of EI Paseo, which has languished in recent years. Having a larger restaurant, especially one that would be open for lunch, would be an important part of that strategy to attract pedestrians and business to the east side of the street. To effectively utilize that 33-space parking lot, staff believed there would have to be a rigidly enforced empfoyee parking program to get all of the employees, not only of the restaurant but also of the gallery, to park there at lunch time. Staff estimated that the combination would have approximately 30-33 employees. At the dinner hour when the gallery demand was diminished and demand of some of the uses at Pricldy Pear Square on the west side of Prickly Pear Street were closed, staff felt there r,., would be sufficient parking in the lot, on the street, or in the general vicinity to service the restaurant. Staff didn't want to encourage late night parking in the lot on Shadow Mountain. Practically speaking they woufdn't get night customers to park in that remote lot. Relative to architecture, the building site plan was on display and there was a slightly modified building elevation from the one commission received in their packet. An issue before the Architectural Review Commission when the project first went through dealt with trying to create a front of the building facing EI Paseo. The restaurant was oriented toward the sculpture garden in the rear and there were six parking spaces in front of the building principally for the jewelry customers who wanted to quickly access the gallery and the building on the corner. The commission at that time worked with the applicant to develop a more pedestrian interesting face on EI Paseo. The original building was p�incipally a one story elevation. As they could now see the building had been increased in size partly creating a second story element on the west side and creating a large volume which was the effect the applicant wanted to create over the main dining area. They were at the Architectural Commission's last meeting and they expressed their same concerns about this new elevation as they had with the old relative to its face on EI Paseo and wanting to develop more pedestrian interest. To a certain degree the revised elevation responded and somewhat modified the roof line, it showed the location of an art piece on the wall which would have been a fairly blank wall facing EI Paseo. They had also cut back the balcony on the second floor, allowing for trees to be planted in planters in the parking lot. He was sure they would go back to the Architectural Commission on April 8 and there would �"'� be more discussion. Whether it got resolved or not he wasn't sure. Given the 31 MINUTES PQLM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � City's desire to see this project completed and the constraints of time, he felt it was important to get something resolved either way so that the project could be availab(e to the restaurant tenant for next season. Although they didn't have Architectural Commission preliminary approval, staff was recommending that the Planning Commission act on the conditional use permit request, subject to the final approval of the architectural drawing. Staff recommended approval of the attached resolution and conditions of approval. He said he added more conditions and the most important one was that the spaces approved under CUP 96-15 for the remote lot were now required as a condition of approval and would be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the restaurant. As it stated now, a deed restriction would have to be recorded on - the remote lot to restrict the use to parking for the restaurant and would prevent the sale of the property or change in use without City consent. In lieu of a deed restriction, he said staff would accept an easement for parking purposes on this lot in favor of the restaurant lot, which could not be removed without consent of the City. In essence, staff wanted to make sure that at some future time, whether he was here or the applicant was still the owner, that someone couldn't sefl that property or that prior to the sale they were aierted of that desire. a Chai�person Ferguson asked if the easement was tied to the ownership of the restaurant property or the operation of a restaurant facility. Mr. Drell replied that it would be tied to the ownership of the restaurant facility. If the restaurant � ceased operation and they agreed to give up or to the revocation of this � conditional use permit, then they would have no problem releasing them of that restriction. Staff didn't want to learn after the fact that some poor property owner had bought something that in the City's view could only be used as a parking lot and staff wanted to be informed before that could happen to be abl� to act accordingly. He said that it was also a requirement that all employees of businesses occupying space would be required to park in the remote lot prior to 5:00 p.m. He didn't believe in the evening ihat it would be a problem. If it turned out that the remote lot was impractical for employees to park in or to be effectively used to address the parking of the restaurant, that some sort of alternative parking program would be imposed. Chairperson Ferguson asked if from the staff report Mr. Drell changed condition number 16 from a deed restriction to a parking easement in favor of the EI Paseo property. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there were any - questions for staff. There were none. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MS. DENISE ROBERGE, the applicant, stated that she was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was very familiar with this matter and didn't have any questions. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � Commissioner Beaty asked if Ms. Roberge was comfortable with the parking situation. Ms. Roberge replied yes. She wished there was more, but she felt that they could function. They didn't plan to overcrowd the restaurant and it was more spacious than it needed to be inside and therefore she felt they had adequate parking although she would love to have a hundred more spaces. Commissioner Beaty asked what the status was of the sculpture garden. Ms. Roberge said she hasn't gotten that far yet. Commissioner Beaty asked if she wanted to put parking there. Ms. Roberge replied no, it was still for a scu�ture garden. Commissioner Beaty noted that was a big lot. He also complimented Ms. Roberge on the construction and result of her new building. � Chairperson Ferguson said he wanted to compliment her also. He was in her facility for the first time during the Soroptimist Art Walk and said he was most impressed. He didn't know what issues the Architectural Review Commission might have, but he felt it was one of the nicer designed buildings in the city and he was very impressed by it. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OP�'OSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for other commission comments. Commissioner Beaty said that he was in favor of the proposal. e.. Commissioner Campbel! said she was also in favor and noted that her business was located at the east end of EI Paseo and she heard comments from customers that the building was the most beautiful one on the block and she felt Ms. Roberge was doing very well and that it was an attraction. Commissioner Campbell felt the restaurant would compliment the new building and she was in favor and would move for approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1802, approving CUP 95-11 Amendment, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES �""' A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE- (March 25, 1997) Mr. Drell said that EDAC talked at length about the Freeway Overlay Zone and for a while it looked like they were going to recommend against it, that basically the city didn't need these sorts of things. Mr. Doug Simmons pointed out that the criticisms were aesthetic and socio-cultural and he pointed out that it wasn't part of their job on that committee and that the property owners along the freeway should have the ability to •• compete with other property owners on the other side of the freeway. Another related issue that he probably should have brought up under City Council was that a large portion of the Economic Development function was being taken over by the Department of Community Development by the creation of a Business Assistance Center, which would include business licenses and which would have two technicians and a Business Assistance Manager whose job would be, since that would be the primary �� contact for all business in the city, to try and find out all of the things that would make businesses more prosperous and more successful and try to facilitate, both working with other city departments and with financial institutions, etc., to try to not only attract high tech industry, but fio try and provide a lot of the assistance that small businesses in town ` with long range issues and things that would help them prosper. That "'r was a new task. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (March 19, 1997) Chairperson Ferguson said that the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee took up the lively discussion of what home occupations to allow, or if they should be restricted at all, with the most controversia( issue being Jvhether to allow employees to come to people's residences to assist in a home occupation. That debate ranged from not allowing any to not imposing any restrictions whatsoever and dealing with problems if they arise. He wasn't sure there was a resolution, although it was tending toward dealing with problems as they come up rather than precluding people from starting businesses in their homes with employees. He asked if it would be coming to the Planning Commission at some point. Mr. Drell said that once the committee had accepted a draft ordinance, it would go to Planning Commission. � 34 MtNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 `` XI. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Beaty said that he had a brief comment that related to the continual scrutiny that the commission gives to parking problems. He feft that certain members were very sensitive to parking and he has stated for the record that at times he thought ihis wasn't the Planning Commission, but the Parking Commission. He just wanted to support his feeling and felt that someone like the last applicant had enough sense to know that if they didn't have enough parking, it would affect their business. Mr. Drell said that it was a balance. He first worked in a town that had beautiful parking lots that they would have foved to have full. On the � other hand, they didn't want parking to be restrictive or limit people's growth. The policy in the Core Commercial Plan specifically states that they will deal with parking shortages in a positive way to create more parking, not by creating restrictions on successful businesses. 2. Commissioner Fernandez asked for an update on the old Lucky's store on EI Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell said that the City was holding a '`' S250,000 letter of credit which technically they could seize right now. On the other hand they didn't want Lucky's, who holds the lease and who was negotiating with another broker to take the lease, they didn't want them to necessarily act in haste over fear of the City using their ,,,�, letter of credit. He noted there were conditions that said they couldn't rent to a bowling alley or discount store and a whole list of things. Unfortunately, there were a lot of things they could do that wouldn't be the best for the street. The City wanted them to get the best tenant they could and the City had just informed them that they have the hammer and are ready to use it, but ihey wanted to be convinced that they are trying diligently to find the best tenant--one which ultimately maximizes the rent would be one that feeds off the Saks Center and that was the goal. He said that the most logical use for it was another supermarket. There was interest from Bristol Farms, but obviously that was something that Lucky's wouldn't tolerate as a respective tenant. He said that was the obstacle that sometimes the private market created and could be far worse obstacles to leasing than those of the City. Commissioner Campbell said that if the Gardens on EI Paseo didn't happen, Ms. Roberge had an idea for that land. Mr. Drell said that they expected to be pulling building permits on Saks within the next two weeks. Chairperson Ferguson said there was a rumor that Saks had withdrawn from development. Mr. Drell said that was not the case. He thought they should be seeing within the next two weeks a construction fence going in. For the mobilization of their trailer, they have an arrangement with Mr. Stein who owns the vacant property east of the project. It was a complicated project and it was his understanding that it would still happen. He said they were trying for February 1998, but he felt it would more likely be done for the fall season of 1998. Commissioner Campbell 'r""" stated that she has been contacted by them and she said they were 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1997 � putting a mailing list together and wanted to get all the merchants on the .�ii street together before the ground breaking to explain to them what was going on since there was so much speculation going on. Mr. Drell said that the ground breaking was tentatively scheduled for mid April. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. w � ^-� ,...._ - --- ..- --"-�_ / , . � PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATT T: �'� a • � JAM S C F GUSON, hairperson ; Pal Desert Pla ing Com ssion ` �i � /tm / _ / �--- � ; � 36