Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0707 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 7, 1998 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER �... 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. il. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan �.. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Phil Joy Bob Hargreaves Joe Gaugush Martin Alvarez Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Consideration of the June 16, 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the June 16, 1998 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3-0-2 (Commissioners Beaty and Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent June 25, 1998 City Council actions. a.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 i VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. GARY TRYON, 74-047 San Marino Circle, asked if the City has done anything or is doing anything to eliminate the need for gun toting guards in his backyard for the Ruth's Chris parking lot. Mr. Drell replied no. He explained that property owners can provide security and that particular property owner has made a choice to provide security for his property. Other people have dogs, some have electronic security devices and that property owner chose to hire a security service. Mr. Tryon asked if Mr. Drell knew of any other restaurant parking lot in Palm Desert that had armed guards every night of the week. Mr. Drell stated that was not a decision the City makes. Mr. Tryon said there was a very hazardous condition over there and he felt the City has a responsibility and obligation to do something about eliminating it. He stated that not one of the commissioners would live with armed guards sitting in their backyards just so someone could eat a steak at a restaurant. Those lots should not be used at night, never should have been and he felt they knew that. He also wanted to know why the City puts conditions on use permits when the people who have the use permits ignore the conditions and the City refuses to enforce them. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Drell for an update on this matter. Mr. Drell said the proposal was continued and staff should be receiving a revised request this week and he would be rescheduling it for hearing. Also, he would be meeting with the property owner, City Manager and the Redevelopment Agency Director to discuss the status of the project. Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation that the matter would be coming before the Planning Commission shortly. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Tryon asked if this was a meeting on the existing conditions or the guns. Mr. Drell explained that the City does not control whether a property owner provides contract security services for their property. Mr. Tryon asked if, as far as this city was concerned, gun toting guards in his backyard are fine. Mr. Drell said the property owner is contracting with a security service that operates throughout the city and throughout the Coachella Valley as far as he knew. Mr. Tryon asked if as far as the conditions go if anything was going to be done to enforce them. He gave the City a list three weeks ago. Mr. Drell said the list has been transmitted to the applicant and he has been informed of the violations and requested that they be corrected. Mr. Tryon asked if there was some way that Mr. Drell could enforce them. He said that "Please 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 do this" hasn't worked for seven years and he thought Mr. Drell would realize that by now. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Tryon has been before the Commission before expressing concern about some criminal activity that has occurred in the area. He was a little surprised that Mr. Tryon had an objection to guards being in the area. If Mr. Tryon had concerns about that aspect of what is going on there, this was not the venue for it. The Planning Commission doesn't tell a restaurant whether or not they can have security guards or not. He wasn't sure what venue to tell Mr. Tryon to go to, whether that is the City Council or staff, but he could tell Mr. Tryon that Planning Commission wasn't it. Commissioner Jonathan acknowledged that Mr. Tryon has some concerns about whether that restaurant is meeting its conditions of approval for using that site and for that Mr. Tryon was at the right venue. He addressed Mr. Drell and noted that the matter was before Commission initially in an application for expanded use and modifications to the CUP. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that as part of that there were some concerns about whether the applicant was meeting the current conditions. He felt this was the appropriate venue when someone has concerns about conditions of approval and whether they are being adhered to and asked staff when that matter could be addressed formerly and actually get it on the agenda and basically dispense with it one way or the other so that Mr. Tryon didn't have to keep coming back to the Commission at every meeting. Mr. Drell said they went through this before last year and he recalled that the procedure involved a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council to reconvene hearings on violations of conditions and scheduling of hearings. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the next formal step was that Mr. Tryon needed to undertake and if it needed to get onto the Planning Commission agenda in the regularly scheduled matters under Public Hearings. He asked what Mr. Tryon's procedure was to get the matter formally heard before the Commission. Mr. Drell said he would have to look through the conditions and find the appropriate section for the precise procedure. Commissioner Jonathan suggested if nothing else that the Commission ask staff to advise Mr. Tryon on the next step of the process so that Mr. Tryon could have this matter formally heard by the Planning Commission and then either have satisfaction at this level, or proceed to the next level if that becomes necessary. He asked if that sounded like what Mr. Tryon was after. Mr. Tryon replied that at least something was being done then. Commissioner Jonathan said that since staff didn't have an immediate answer for Mr. Tryon, Commission was asking staff to contact Mr. Tryon with regard to the formal procedure Mr. Tryon needed to be undertaking on his part 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 to get the matter formally heard by the Planning Commission and hopefully that would happen very soon. Commissioner Jonathan stated that if for some reason that didn't happen, Mr. Tryon should come to the next Planning Commission meeting and tell them that staff never called and he didn't know what to do next, but he didn't think that would happen. He had every confidence with staff that they would be contacting Mr. Tryon within the next day or two. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PM 27432 - EDWARD BARKETT/ATLAS PROPERTIES, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a second one-year time extension for PM 27432, a six-lot parcel map consistent with the approved precise plan on the northwest corner of Hovley Lane and Cook Street. B. Case No. CUP 01-82 Amendment #4 - FOUNDATION FOR THE RETARDED OF THE DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension for CUP 01-82 Amendment #4 allowing construction of a 25,744 square foot office/warehouse addition in the public/institution (P) zone at Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert at 73-255 Country Club Drive. Commissioner Beaty noted that the Atlas Properties letter requested a two-year extension and Commission was only being asked to approve one year. Mr. Drell explained that City ordinance provided for only one year extensions. Commissioner Beaty asked if the applicants were so notified or would be. Mr. Drell stated they would be notified that they received a one year extension. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. i 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Continued Case Nos. GPA 97-6, C/Z 97-1 and PP 97-12 - F & M ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from medium density residential (PR-7) to PC-2 (district commercial) on 9.1 acres with a Precise Plan of Design allowing for up to 87,774 square feet of neighborhood center at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Drell noted that this matter was continued from the last meeting. An issue that received a lot of discussion was whether or not a tunnel should be provided around the loading area to mitigate noise problems. On closer examination of the noise study it was determined that only if incoming trucks always turned their air-conditioning units off before they entered the site could the project meet the noise ordinance without a tunnel. Staff felt it was not a reasonable expectation that truck drivers would remember to do that. Staff continued to recommend that the tunnel be constructed. Improving on the design from what they learned from the previous tunnel at Lucky, the new plan reflected a tunnel lower in profile than the building of the berm so it would not create any additional site obstruction and would have turns at either end directing all the noise out toward Country Club and not having the view of the loading dock as with the tunnel on Deep Canyon. Staff was recommending that as a solution to the noise problem that the tunnel was the acceptable solution. As part of that, the site plan was also changed. Previously there was a straight truck access road along the north side of the property, the south side of homes at Merano, and with the turning of the tunnel, truck traffic would now be directed to the middle access off of Monterey and while there would still be a customer drive and access to part of the parking lot at the northwest corner of the property, all the truck traffic would now be at the center. In discussing the typical truck route with the applicant, the trucks would be directed from the freeway to come down Cook Street to Country Club and make a right turn into the project straight to the back, around into 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 i the loading dock, around back to the south and enter into a right-turn exit onto Monterey to exit the center. They would have right turn access to enter and exit the site. There wouldn't be a requirement for the trucks to drive across or in front of the buildings. Staff felt those were all satisfactory solutions. He noted that a letter was received from Mr. Carver which reiterated his comments that he submitted at the last meeting concerning the prospects of a closed Lucky store on the south side of the street and what the City was going to do about it. Staff continued to recommend a series of mitigation measures. The issuance of building permits for the Lucky store on the north side would be contingent upon presentation of a signed lease from an acceptable tenant. There were some additional conditions, including Condition 20, which said that prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for Lucky, they would provide a letter of credit two times the cost of the tenant improvement for their prospective tenant. There would then be six months once Lucky vacates the building for those tenant improvements to proceed. It was being proposed that for every day beyond six months that the building stays dark that there be a $500 per day penalty. Mr. Drell stated that he would like to make an addition to that condition which would allow American Stores to request an extension of time beyond the 180 days without penalty if they could ..r demonstrate to the City that the extensive nature or unique nature of the required tenant improvements requires more time. If they showed they were making a good faith effort to finish the building in a timely manner, there would not be a penalty. These were just incentives to expedite both the leasing and completion of the tenant improvements. He noted that a petition from Merano residents was received which requested that the project not gain any access from Via Scena. In the last plan there was an exit only from the project to what would be a signalized intersection coordinated with the project across the street to provide signaled left turns for the project, residents of Merano and the project across the street. If all access to the project was eliminated, then customers of this project would have virtually no way to travel back to the east on Country Club. In that this project would be on the western edge of the city, most of the city lies to the east and that in essence limited and restricted access to the direction that a good number of Palm Desert residents would want to go. It would be a hardship to the center and would cause people to make inappropriate U-turns. He suggested that they might go around the block to Frank Sinatra to Portola and then back east, but staff felt that would not be appropriate. If the main access was just the right turn in and out off of Country Club, the street would not be signalized but would continue to have the access that it has now but over time he would 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 guess that the traffic on Country Club would grow to the extent that left turn access from Country Club would become harder and harder and more and more dangerous and probably over time would be restricted. The best way to achieve long term control and safe left turn access in and out would be combined access with the project and a signal. Also included in the staff report was a summary of the disclosure that all the residents of Merano received concerning the prospects of a supermarket on this site. The CC&R's went into great detail as to the potential nature of the project and the burdens and benefits of living next to a shopping center. As to staff's past experience, he had good news to report. When the move from the old Lucky on El Paseo to their new store took place, it took some time but the old building has been leased to Office Max, a major national tenant that is appropriate for the property. There were some initial false starts, but it took a long time to negotiate leases with large national tenants. They were expecting to begin their tenant improvements in August and would hopefully be finished by November. They had far fewer onerous restrictions or tools to force the release of that building. They did have a $250,000 letter of credit which they were able to hold over to motivate leasing of the building. In reality, most r..,, property owners want to lease their buildings and were not fond of having large real estate investments sitting idle. He felt the natural tendency to make money from property and the various penalties, requirements and limitations on the construction of the new building should be adequate to insure that the City gets an acceptable replacement tenant which would not be a supermarket and that the building is occupied in a timely manner. With the modified conditions, staff recommended approval. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any questions for staff. There were none. Chairperson Campbell indicated that the public hearing was still open from the June 2, 1998 meeting and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TIM BARTLETT, 73-382 Salt Cedar Street in Palm Desert, stated that they appreciated the time the Commission gave them to go back to the homeowners at Merano and discuss some of their concerns. He noted that he made some statements at the last meeting about the truck traffic and the number of trucks trips and he indicated that he was mistaken about that. He now believed after discussions with American Stores and other truck routing people that the truck traffic would be a total of six of the larger trucks during a day period and 10 to 12 of the r.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 smaller trucks. That was more of a peak situation and obviously on certain days they would have a lesser amount. He thought Commissioner Fernandez would have knowledge of that and he apologized for the previous misinformation. As mentioned by Mr. Drell, they agreed to do the truck tunnel. They concurred with staff that expecting truck drivers to turn off refrigeration units, especially on hot days, would not be a legitimate condition to try and uphold and they have agreed to do a truck tunnel. He believed that the commission had those drawings in their packets and he also brought one. He noted that Mr. Drell mentioned that they learned something from Deep Canyon and they wrapped the tunnel around the back side of the building so that any sound generated within the tunnel, instead of going out both ends, would kind of go toward Country Club where the traffic noise was generated. They wrapped it around both corners. He thought they resolved the truck access and delivery circulation pattern to Commission's acceptance, and at least to the acceptance of the Merano homeowners. He said they had a meeting with the Merano residents and felt it went fairly well. There was a group of about four people (that have now amassed into a larger number) that feel that access onto Via Scena would deter their ability to get in and out of their existing development. The residents actually proposed that they put in a wall along Via Scena, move the signal over to the first drive aisle, relocate the exit out of the existing Lucky center to the other side of the Octagonal building, and basically keep all the commercial traffic off of Via Scena. They approached Public Works with that idea and they were informed that their first desire for a signal was over at the Sagewood exit and that on a second fall back position they felt this plan, the original plan of having a signal crossing the existing exit out of the existing Lucky and at the entrance, made a great deal of sense. Mr. Bartlett said he remembered at least two of the current Planning Commissioners were present when the Merano project was approved four years ago. When they came in with that project, they came in with an Albertson's shopping center and Merano homes together as one project and at that time it was planned that Via Scena would be a common road to serve both the commercial and residential development. Mr. Bartlett used the overhead projector to show the Commission what he described as two views. One was as entering Via Scena into Merano. The driveway entrance into Merano at the corner of Country Club was 24 feet wide, two lanes, and then a third lane was 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 added for a left turn pocket which was designed to accommodate commercial traffic and at that point it was 36 feet wide and three lanes. He showed where it went into the commercial development and explained that right after exiting the gate at Merano there was an existing curb cut that they passed by on a daily basis and at that point it was 24 feet in width and as they get down to Country Club it became another 36-foot width. The City's traffic engineer and Public Works Department believed that the traffic generated from this development would not, either by ingress or egress, impact the 120 people coming or going from Merano. In fact, he asked several of the Merano residents who shop at Lucky how many cars were in front of them when they had to exit to get across. The response he received from most people, and he asked anyone to tell him if he was wrong, was at most they waited for two or three cars. (Several people from the audience indicated that was wrong.) He asked the audience how many cars maximum. The consensus seemed to be that nine cars backed up into the existing center. Mr. Bartlett felt that the backup was partially caused by people trying to turn left on Country Club to get back onto �... Monterey. When traffic backs up at that existing location it was generally because there wasn't a signal there and they were waiting for traffic to break between signals. He believed when a signal is installed there, and that Public Works would concur, that it would control the traffic exiting so that they could make a safe left turn and it would control the Merano traffic heading eastbound with a safe left turn and would also accommodate the commercial traffic. As mitigation and requests from the homeowners, they eliminated the ingress into the center by providing a kind of pork chop configuration. He said they were planning to extend the median so that it would be physically impossible to make the turn and get back into the center. From an egress standpoint, Mr. Bartlett felt they have agreed to every reasonable request made and that one they could not agree with. Quite simply, any traffic coming from the east had to get back there and the only way to do that would be to either come out and try to do a U-turn which was probably not a good place, or to go up around Frank Sinatra and come down Portola which didn't make a great deal of sense. The bottom line was they didn't believe there was enough traffic heading eastbound during a peak period that would generate a problem. He guessed that most turn right and there would be two lane widths, 24 feet, at their exit at the gate that would continue all the way down to .w 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 .i Country Club. Even if eight or ten cars were stacked up through this whole median, it would still provide one continuous lane down to Country Club because there were three lanes at the entrance. Even if one lane was continuously stacked all the way up and one lane was blocked, they would still have one lane to get out. He stated that they were at an impasse on that issue. They agreed to the tunnel, agreed to about 30 other conditions that they felt alleviated the concerns and the Commission had before them a petition from a great number of people that signed it that they didn't want any truck traffic on Via Scena. He stated that one thing they didn't do when they first met with the Merano homeowners was they didn't wait for the meeting noticing of residents within the 300-foot radius. They went right to the whole homeowners' group to meet with the residents directly to explain what they were proposing. They continuously met with the residents that wanted to meet with them and he posted a sign right on the corner with his phone number and indicated he was easy to find. He said he actually had a chance to go to some of their homes and meet with them on a personal basis and have met in a group situation. He compared this project with Deep Canyon. Deep Canyon was a change of zone ..r and it was basically a similar shopping center deal. The Hidden Palms residences backed up to the Lucky center and he thought they might remember that at the Hidden Palms hearings they had 26 very upset homeowners at Hidden Palms and at Council there were another six or eight people. Today, and he asked staff to correct him if he was wrong, he didn't believe there was one person who lives there that had a problem. He heard there was one gentleman who sits out on a bench out front and counts the trucks that come down Deep Canyon, but from his knowledge from talking with some of the homeowners and biggest opponents of that development, when all was said and done a lot of them enjoy it. They don't have to get into their cars to get a cup of coffee or a gallon of milk. Although everyone hates growth and everyone hates shopping centers, a lot of times people find out that they are actually a nice amenity to have. Mr. Bartlett said he considered this project very similar to Deep Canyon in a couple of different scenarios. Deep Canyon was not a major arterial and Monterey and Country Club is and it is the third busiest intersection in the city and these people were noticed. He showed the notice that was signed by all the original homeowners. There was also a statement in the CC&R's that became part of the property (which unfortunately most people 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 didn't usually read and there was a lot of fine print) but this in particular was a buyer awareness information statement and in his opinion did a fairly nice job of discussing what was being planned there. Under "adjacent shopping center site" the section he highlighted in particular mentioned that the planned shopping center would likely create additional vehicular traffic, noise, light and similar impacts normally associated with the construction/operation of a shopping center. He also pointed out under "other adjacent property" that neither the homeowners association nor anyone else owned the property outside the gates in the areas such as Via Scena, Country Club and Monterey. It also made further reference to views. Although this project was very similar to Deep Canyon, the Merano homeowners were noticed originally. This 40-acre development was brought to the commission originally as one development. Council turned down the commercial element but Merano was approved as proposed. They didn't come to the homeowners and hang the proposal over their heads. They came to them and asked what they could do to meet the concerns and he felt they have done a fairly good job. Most of the people tonight might not think so and opponents were generally more vocal than proponents, but he would let them speak for themselves. He said he would leave a site plan of Merano up on display and if the residents liked, they could point out where they live in relationship to the shopping center. He felt they made every attempt to win the Merano residents' favor and one of the commissioners at the last meeting mentioned that there probably wasn't a use on the planet that would make everyone happy. One of the things he felt they needed to focus on was that Lucky wasn't doing this to make their patrons unhappy. Palm Desert was growing and he identified the commercial areas on the current zoning map. What was interesting was that neighborhood commercial centers which typically included a market, drug store, video store and the normal uses associated with neighborhood type uses, were placed in neighborhoods to serve the neighborhood. If all commercial use was on Highway 1 1 1 and someone had to go out in the middle of the night to get a gallon of milk they would have to get in their car and drive all the way down to Highway 111 to get it. The idea was to keep non-regional uses (commercial neighborhood uses) in the neighborhoods. Looking at his map, there was a Von's at El Paseo, a Lucky at Deep Canyon, and he explained that markets generally service a three-mile radius. There was an existing Lucky at Monterey and Country Club and an existing Ralph's `. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 at Cook and Country Club. They serve the radius around them. Lucky's basically wanted to move for a number of reasons. The existing center has poor access, poor circulation, poor parking, and didn't have room for them to expand to meet the needs of the modern patrons. A lot of their business went to Ralph's. When Mr. Bartlett met with the Sagewood homeowners when he was proposing the Albertson's four years ago, some of the Sagewood owners said they go past Lucky's down to Ralph's because Ralph's was nicer, newer, bigger, had better parking, easy access, and they could get in and out. Some of the people at Monterey Country Club also said the same thing. They would go down Monterey, turn on Country Club, go right by Lucky to Ralph's because they can get in, get out, park and it wasn't a big problem. Lucky wanted to serve not only existing residences but also new residences. He showed projects that were being proposed 1200 units at Marriott (and he said timeshare users do buy groceries), 310 timeshare units at Intrawest, 486 on the McBail piece (and that was under contract and ready to start building), 240 units at the southwest corner of Monterey and Country Club, 220 units in the Hovley area and U.S. Homes was planning another 24 units. The ones he highlighted on the map totaled more than 2,000 homes. That was 2,000+ shoppers with 2-4 shoppers per home. Not all of them would go to Lucky. Basically there were 2,000 homes being planned in the immediate one mile vicinity. There were additional units planned in the Eagle project and that might take some time to happen, and what would happen in the north part of Rancho Mirage had been rather slow, so he wasn't counting that, but if it was counted there were nearly 5,000 homes being built in that area. Bottom line was that they would not only serve the existing customers but wanted to prepare for the customers that would be coming into the market trade area. Over 2,000 homes would mean a lot of business. As some existing homeowners do, if they had to go past Lucky to go to another store, they would create more traffic and that was why neighborhood centers were located on high traffic corners. The idea was that if someone was going to go out and get a gallon of milk they wouldn't have to drive four miles creating traffic just to get a gallon of milk. They could go to their neighborhood center, grab it and go home. He said they designed the corner as a commercial center and were providing two left-hand turn pocket lanes, a third right turn lane and on the Rancho Mirage side the property owner had the property under contract and made an agreement with the City of 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 WNW Rancho Mirage to duplicate that scenario. They would basically improve the intersection (which their traffic engineer said was a level "F" and the Marriott traffic engineer said was a "D") into a "C" level or better. He felt they were not only saving traffic that is driving by Lucky right now to get to a center where they can park and feel safe getting in and out of, but were accommodating the future growth of traffic. They were doing this to not only accommodate existing patrons but the growth of the area. With the 2,000 new homes coming in the future, they would need the basic necessities and Lucky would like to provide for their food necessity. He asked if the Commission had any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if anything had taken place for the existing Lucky center. Mr. Bartlett replied no. He explained there was a triple fold situation. It was difficult to lease a vacant building (and as Mr. Drell explained it took quite some time to secure Office Max) but more importantly it was difficult to lease something that isn't vacant, nor had any definite time frame for being vacant, nor definite economic impact. He commented that economic impacts shouldn't be part of the Planning Commission decision, but it was difficult to go to a tenant and ask if they would move into the existing Lucky site maybe in the next three or five or seven years and maybe they could rent it to them for "x" amount, maybe if they get approval. That has been their problem. They have a very strict condition that says they can't vacate that store until they hand a lease to the City that is acceptable and acceptable to Sagewood. Mr. Carver was concerned that the condition wouldn't be upheld, but he felt that staff has looked at it every way. There was no loop hole that they could sneak out of. They couldn't get a building permit for the new building until they delivered the City a lease and they couldn't move into that new building with a Certificate of Occupancy until they showed proof that they would not only go forward with a particular tenant, but do the tenant improvements, and they had substantial money they had to put up to prove that. To answer the question directly, no, they hadn't found a replacement tenant and part of the problem was they didn't know when, how or how much. That was a sincere problem. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Chairperson Campbell asked about the letter of credit that would involve the tenant improvements of the replacement tenant and upgrades to Plaza de Monterey. She asked if they were in agreement with that condition and what "upgrading" Plaza de Monterey meant to Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett said it was difficult for them to be responsible for someone else's property or to even upgrade someone else's property. What they have discussed with Planning staff was that they would try to upgrade their land in front of Lucky. Lucky owns their parcel and a proportionate share of the parking. They would try to bring that parking area up to the current Palm Desert standards. Just that area and not the whole center since they didn't own the whole center and didn't control the whole center. They wanted to encourage the owner of that center, and he understood that Mr. Carver sold the center and there was a new owner of the center, they wanted to encourage them to join them, clean it up, re-landscape it and bring it up to Palm Desert standards. They would want to work with them in that regard. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or old OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. STACIE WHITFORD, 164 Via Tramonto, said she was not speaking for a group, and she was the one sole homeowner on the board, but she was just speaking for herself and for a few other people. She said they were in favor of the project because they knew it was inevitable that the project would go commercial and she owned Lot 21 . She explained that she was the one who called the meeting and she wanted to let the Commission know that she called the meeting of homeowners as the board member and did invite the builder and developer to come in and answer any questions. When the meeting was over, she felt that except for the issue of Via Scena all the issues that the homeowners had raised were taken care of at that time. When they left the meeting it was agreed upon that the only issue that seemed to still be a problem was the issue of Via Scena. She was personally in support of the project and knew that there were others that weren't. She wanted to speak for herself and a few homeowners that weren't at the meeting. Ms. Whitford clarified that she didn't have a problem with Via Scena being an egress only. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 MR. GILBERT BOND, 182 Via San Nicolo, Lot 12, stated that it was his honor to present a petition signed by 56 Merano homeowners representing 45 separate homes. He indicated that the Commission had a copy of the petition and read, "We, the undersigned, hereby declare that our support of the proposed Lucky store shopping center, despite any earlier individual assents, is conditional upon acceptance of the following amendment: Via Scena will continue to be used for purposes of ingress and egress for Merano only. F & M Associates will separate Via Scena from the shopping center with a high block wall." He said that was the end of the petition and was signed by 56 Merano homeowners representing 45 separate homes which he believed was more than half of them that are occupied. He said that this morning one of the residents that signed that petition called him requesting that her name be removed from the petition. She had talked to someone who claimed that Mr. Bond was going to pull some kind of trick tonight to kill the shopping center entirely. He read his prepared remarks for this meeting to her and she reaffirmed her faith in the petition so he has no dissenters that he knew of. This petition didn't say that they are against the shopping center. They simply want F & M to agree not to use Via Scena. Mr. Bond also explained that until the Merano project is completely built the Board of Directors is controlled by the builder. This fact discouraged attendance in special shopping center meetings dominated by Diamond West and F & M Associates. His conversation with Merano residents suggested that they did not want any commercial development to use Via Scena in any way. Therefore, at the meeting on June 17 he tried hard to persuade Richard Frandsen and Mike Mahoney to eliminate the right turn exit on Via Scena from the shopping center plan. Those in attendance would recall Mr. Bond saying that he believed that F & M's problems would be over if they agreed not to use Via Scena. At one point in the meeting Richard Frandsen said, and Mr. Bond said he was paraphrasing, "I have already committed an additional $300,000 to please some of you and if you people continue to be unreasonable I'll ram it through without you." The very next day Mr. Bond said he started this petition. The purpose was not to kill the project and didn't say they were against it, it was just to let them know the will of the homeowners. They want their homes to maintain their value. He urged the members of the Planning Commission not to rush any approval of F & M's proposal. If F & M Associates did not accept the majority will of Merano homeowners, 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 then their next step would be to try and make Via Scena a private street. Yesterday he sought guidance from Palm Desert City Hall as to the procedure for attempting this. As he understood the discussion, the usual procedure is for the homeowners Board of Directors to pass a resolution and send it to the proper City officials. But their present board was not elected by the homeowners. There was considerable doubt that the Merano board would go along. Until those issues were settled, he pleaded with commission not to approve the F & M project. He said that in Merano, they were not dealing with a low end gated community. The average investment by the homeowners was more than $200,000. A great many homes had pools with expensive landscaping and Merano was there before F & M's proposal. They asked that the shopping center be kept separate from Merano including the main entrance on Country Club and he felt it could be re-engineered to do that. This would continue the Palm Desert tradition of not mingling a high quality entrance to a high quality gated community with a shopping center. He thanked commission for the opportunity to present the first majority view of Merano homeowners by petition on the subject of the proposed new Lucky store shopping center. MR. MICHAEL CARLE, potential homeowner in escrow for Lot No. 11 , stated that he was on the front lines of the proposed commercial site that Mr. Bartlett and American Stores wanted to put in on the corner. He said he has had some sleepless nights over the decision to purchase the property in Merano even at this present time. He had come to the conclusion that his decision to purchase his property was based on the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project Mr. Bartlett and his people have--the proposed Lucky store. He felt that Mr. Bartlett and American Stores have come in and added a great deal of money to this project to buffer not only his home but the existing 12 homes being built there. He wanted Commission to know that he is a Diamond West Homes employee and is the real estate agent selling those properties. He chose Lot 11 for the fact that when he met with Mr. Bartlett and American Stores and saw their proposal, they had guaranteed them they would put in the berm, that they would buffer the Merano property, and they would be buffered away from that center for noise and any other considerations he had. At that time he thought, yeah, he would i purchase that property. He was still purchasing that property but he was very concerned that if they don't get American Stores or the Lucky 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 center in there and another commercial developer comes down the road later, he didn't know what would happen to his property value. There were other homeowners that spoke tonight and he had a map that showed where those homeowners lived that were opposing the project. He couldn't understand the homeowners that were not even on the front lines of this center pushing the developer. He personally felt that Mr. Bartlett and American Stores had done everything they could to please the Merano residents and Diamond West Homes. Diamond West Homes wanted and needed this development to be satisfactory to their residents. He said it was a great concern to him because the proposal would be an asset to their community and wouldn't be what they see across the street. It would be a beautiful center and they would have a buffer zone with lighted palm trees, the shrubbery and the berm. He asked how much more Merano residents could ask for other than to have a commercial development like the one Mr. Bartlett and his people were proposing and add the dollar value they were adding to their project to appease the Merano residents. He was not only speaking for himself, but there was one other person in the audience, Joy Lovingfoss of Lot 13. Mr. Carle and Ms. Lovingfoss had discussions about this and he told her if American Stores didn't go in there they didn't know what would come along. Who knew what the next commercial developer would offer them. Where did that leave them? They had to speak for the other remaining future homeowners that would be there. He was selling lots 1 through 12 with the benefit of Lucky being on the corner because he needed to at least sell it in a way that he has concrete evidence that Merano would be buffered by Lucky through this berm, through the tunnel, and being able to sell that to the potential homeowners and allowing them to know they would be buffered from them. If they didn't get the Lucky store, he wouldn't be able to tell people what would be on the corner. In his mind the known was better than the unknown. He really wanted to encourage the Planning Commission to approve this project. He felt it would be a beautiful project and an asset to Merano and the community. As he stated at the last meeting, he loved Merano and he wouldn't be there selling homes if he didn't and he certainly wouldn't be buying a home there if he didn't. Gil Bond stated that they were an upper end community and he agreed. They have homes in excess of $200,000 but they were not getting a strip mall, an ARCO gas station and McDonald's restaurant on the corner. They were getting an upscale new Lucky store, a Sav-On %MW 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 .rP Pharmacy on the corner and he thought a lot of the residents in Merano were up in age. Some were in the higher age bracket and not his age of 35. Most were of retired age. They wanted to be able to have the opportunity to be able to walk to the store and get their groceries as they get to the point where they can't drive a car any longer. A lot of them wouldn't shop at the Lucky store by Sagewood because they couldn't cross Country Club because there wasn't a light there. They have a handful of homeowners and he could point out the instigators behind this whole thing that are opposing this and going around the neighborhood telling everyone this, that and everything else under the sun and they didn't have their facts straight. They have not really looked at what added benefit this could be for the community. It was very upsetting to him and he very much resented that. He asked Commission to take into consideration his property, Lot No. 11 which is in escrow, and he has 11 other homes that are up for sale that he is trying to sell there for Diamond West Homes and he needed to be able to sell those homes with the benefit of Lucky and knowing what he was telling his potential home buyers. He has told potential home buyers all i along that Lucky would go in there, there would be a berm and they would be buffered from this store. He didn't know what else to say except how that would affect those sales of those 11 homes there. He wanted to have neighbors there and didn't want to be the only one there for the next year trying to sell properties. He thought with the Lucky store they would be able to sell the benefits of the Lucky market, the Sav-On Pharmacy, they had a community that is of retired age, and they would have the benefit. As Mr. Bartlett said earlier, the residents behind Deep Canyon/Highway 1 1 1 Lucky store are now glad that the store is there. He felt that Mr. Bartlett and his people have bent over backwards for Merano residents to appease what they want and to buffer them away from the center. He encouraged the Commission to approve this project. He thanked the Commission for their time. MS. VIRGINIA BRIDGE, 272 Strata Nova, Lot 18 at the very end, stated that she was very much in favor of the project. The developer gave them all of the information when they bought their home. She was pleased with the proposed development of Lucky and she hoped that this could be approved this evening. She thanked the Commission. s 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 MR. WALTER RAPPAPORT stated that he doesn't own a home there nor would he buy a home there now. He said he was a merchant and owned three stores in the present shopping center (Papa Dan's, Michael's, and the beauty supply store). When he opened up the beauty supply store (and he has opened many of them over the past 44 years) he always opened up where there was an anchor store which was a food store because that was good for his business. Now they wanted to take it away. He didn't care what they said, once they put development in front of homes where there is a shopping center and where trucks were going in and out, the home values went down. He didn't believe that any of the commissioners would buy a home there. He said it might look pretty, but if they wanted to do something and change the zoning, they could put in a medical and office building there. He felt that was needed more than a larger food center. He heard the food centers were doing well and thought that Lucky's was doing phenomenally and was one of the busiest in town right now. Ralph's wasn't doing as well yet since there weren't enough people, but there would be eventually. That would take time. Timeshare patrons would shop in some of the markets. In their center right now parking was not bad. It wasn't the greatest but it wasn't bad and there was still plenty of parking in the back. He felt that people are lazy and wanted to park near the opening of the center. If they wanted to go into the back there was plenty of parking. What he didn't understand was that everyone was thinking home, home, home. The minute they put in a traffic light (and he wasn't saying it was a bad idea and they talked about nine cars without a light) but he felt the cars would be backed up to his store. He asked how many of the commissioners had been in that center and parked in there. He thought it would be very dangerous in there if cars started backing up and there would be a lot of accidents. Even though it wasn't in Palm Desert he pointed out that at one point in time Von's Pavilion wanted to move out of the area because there wasn't enough business and they knew there was growth coming in and on Frank Sinatra alone there were enough homes going in with Kaufman and Broad yet they still wanted to move out. Here they wanted a larger center and who knew what would replace it. He asked where the protection was for the store owners and merchants. He felt that if any of the commissioners had a store there they might be a little nervous. His store right now had a great reputation so that if the Lucky center did move across he would probably do more business because more 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 people would be seeing the store. He was still not concerned about that. He just thought that Lucky's right now served the community. Ralph's was still trying to serve the community even though it was a newer store and was still not busy. Now they were looking down the road to the future. He asked when down the road was and said he heard Mr. Bartlett say that Country Club and Monterey was the third busiest intersection in Palm Desert. He felt Mr. Bartlett was trying to make it the second or the first. He was not familiar with the streets, but if they were coming up Country Club and going into the shopping center through the area where the homeowners live, it would be a mess. He asked where they would come out, on Monterey or Country Club or both. Again, he thought that was a mess. If he lived in there, he didn't care what anyone was saying, there would be a lot of trucks going in and out. He didn't think it behooved the Planning Commission at this point in time to make a larger shopping center in that area and he was telling them he thought it would help his business. Papa Dan's, the beauty salon and the beauty supply he owns, but he still felt it would be wrong. It would develop in time. Office buildings and medical buildings were needed because there were a lot of old people in town. If he said anything that seemed "off color" and he said he was not speaking on behalf of homeowners and he indicated he lives in the Panorama section of Cathedral City which was building, but he was thinking of moving in across the street and he would not do it now. Property values would go down when a shopping center moved in front of residential. It wouldn't do well. At this point in time he felt it would behoove the Planning Commission to set it aside and wait awhile and maybe one of the realtors or builders or whoever it was might find an office and medical center that would be attractive and do a nice job and that could be put in there. He asked if any of the commissioners had checked the Ralph's market to see how busy there are--he said they weren't. He noted again the Von's Pavilion and how busy they weren't. They were waiting for homes to be built and then sold. Lucky's was busy so he asked why were they talking about growth five, six or seven years from now. He thought there would be a major problem traffic wise and that there would be a lot of accidents occurring in that area. As far as the light, maybe a 30-second light would be okay if they felt that was important for the people that live there to come across, but he F has gone out of that section many ways, both Monterey and Country Club, and he has had to wait whether going right or left. There were 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 two ways to go, he could go left or right and there were two lanes for that so there was really never too much of a problem but it was backed up a little. A light would back it up a lot more. MS. JAN GOLD, Lot No. 19 in Merano Homes, said this has got her a little upset. Going back to the CC&R's that were pointed out, they mentioned a shopping center. A shopping center could be anything. It could be something like Marshall's. No matter what the people do who have food and serve food, even if the proprietor's keep it perfect, they couldn't control people in cars who drop their Pepsi colas down or throw out a jelly donut or that type of thing that goes on continuously. One of the things that was upsetting her more than anything else was the almost threatening attitude that if they didn't take them, they didn't know what they would get and they might get something much worse. That was what had been pounded into people. This was the thing which really upset her. One other example of something that bothered her a great deal was that she has been here almost two years and they never had the Lucky's open 24 hours a day. All of a sudden in the last ... couple of months without any business during the middle of the night they decided to stay open for 24 hours. She brought this up at the last meeting that it concerned her because she felt it could be creating crime, etc., by having it open. They replied that they didn't plan to keep it open, however that would be up to Lucky's and if Lucky's wanted to keep it open 24 hours, they could always go to the City Council later and change it, but they didn't want that sort of thing. Her feeling was that this was done to set a precedent, and she acknowledged that this might be strictly her imagination at work, to have it open 24 hours a day now so they could do it later. In that case she felt they could have tremendous problems with crime. Again, she felt that in her mind there was no comparison with Deep Canyon because Deep Canyon didn't have a second major business and they, in a much, much busier area, were considering having a second major business there. As the gentleman who spoke before her mentioned, something that would be very good would be some type of medical use or skilled nursing facility like Manor Care. They were closer to Eisenhower and she felt it must be desirable for that because there was very little land left from Eisenhower to here. She felt there were many other things that could be put there that would be much more desirable. r.. She thanked commission for their time. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 it .r MR. STEVE FLEISHMAN, a merchant in the existing Lucky center, stated that the back end of his business was in the lot area where Lucky's currently moves all of their 18 wheel trucks as well as all the subcontractors that move their food. He greatly recommended a traffic study to make them fully aware of how many vehicles were currently there now and then take into account the proposed increase in business over time. With the ingress and egress that was there now (there were two off of Country Club, one off of Monterey and then there was an alley in back of Lucky's) and all of them were used consistently. Big trucks, big 18 wheels, and big Ford vans meant a lot of ingress and egress. He noted that the one ingress and egress on this new proposal was off of Monterey only. Again, he asked them to do more research about the ingress and egress because he had a very difficult time with his little Toyota van getting in and out of his parking area in back of his store because of all of the subcontractors, merchants and Lucky trucks that were in there all the time. He thanked the commission. MR. TOM CYANI, a resident of Regency Palms and a merchant at the Palms to Pines shopping center, the Monterey Plaza shopping center and Desert Dunes shopping center, said he thought that at one time this Lucky's was the busiest Lucky of their food chain. In the 1980's they did more business than any other Lucky's. In the 1990's their business is down and they think they will grow for the future. Any future growth they think they will have in the future they could be handled again in the same location because they did it in the 1980's. If commission remembered a couple of years ago, they had this same hearing where Wal-Mart wanted to put up a nicer shopping center even before the homes were built. The City of Rancho Mirage was here and they expressed their concern that they would have to rezone their lots from residential to commercial because that would devalue their residential lots. That meant they could put another shopping center in Rancho Mirage right across the street. If Lucky's thought they were going to have a new customer clientele growth, they might have a new competitor right across the street because there was nothing to stop Rancho Mirage from doing the same thing and they would have a lot more traffic and it would be more congested. That was something they should consider. At that time there was a meeting during the winter months when there are more people in town. This place had standing room only. Having a meeting in July there were a lot of people that 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 *MW would have been here after school was back in session and after vacations were over with that would be opposed to this project. He was opposed to it because they have enough shopping centers in town and the market share was diluted every time a new shopping center went in. He has three dry-cleaning establishments and it was hard enough to stay in business, pay the rent, put up with the slow summer season, and see more shopping centers continue to open. If this continued, he might as well close down his operations and move out of state because there were too many shopping centers in this town. As a merchant he had to worry about paying his rent, paying his mortgage and they didn't need any more shopping centers. Secondly, in the last meeting they had here, there was a target, an Albertson's and Wal- Mart. He didn't know if all the commissioners were at those meetings, but it seemed to him there were a lot of people that would be opposed to this. He felt they should hold off on this and maybe have another meeting about this after the summer was over with. He thanked commission for their attention. .w MR. DICK BAXLEY, 38-395 Nasturtium in Palm Desert, stated that he was speaking on behalf of Mr. William Shernoff who owns property across the street in Rancho Mirage just slightly north of Country Club immediately across the street from this property. Mr. Shernoff was out of town and was not able to attend and asked Mr. Baxley to speak on his behalf. Mr. Baxley stated that Mr. Shernoff was extremely concerned about the impact of a commercial development at this location on the values of the fairly large estates in the Rancho Mirage area, specifically his, and when he bought that in the 1980's all of this property was zoned residential and it was a major consideration for him when he made his acquisition. Mr. Baxley stated that he represented Mr. Shernoff in that acquisition and they searched all of the zoning to make sure that everything would be residential, and it was. Mr. Shernoff was also concerned about the traffic, the noise, and the smells that can emanate from food facilities. Those were Mr. Shernoff's concerns and he hoped the Planning Commission was able to even handedly address the concerns of the residents, both in Palm Desert and in Rancho Mirage, along with the need to have normal growth in our commercial markets. He thanked commission for their time. ir. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 MR. MARK KAPLAN, 152 Via Tramonto, Lot 23, informed commission that he agreed with Mr. Bond. The use of Via Scena as an egress from the proposed shopping center as well as the main entrance to Merano was likely to have a detrimental effect on the values of property, the aesthetic appeal and the ease of egress and entrance to the center. More so than that he represented a number of other homeowners who feel that the traffic in the area was of such concern to make this an inappropriate use for this proposed shopping center. As commission was told this evening by Mr. Bartlett and as they were aware this intersection is the third busiest within Palm Desert. To place a second commercial center directly opposite the existing Plaza de Monterey, both centers of which were likely to be high volume traffic centers, would serve to focus even more traffic at this location. If this area was to go commercial, which was likely in the future and he accepted that, a center that does not have as high a traffic volume would better serve the community. Something such as Mrs. Gold suggested, an extended care facility, professional offices, medical facilities or something of that nature. He wanted to point out specific problems with the traffic in this area and the use of Via Scena. All traffic from the proposed center intending to head eastbound on Country Club would have to use the Via Scena egress. In addition, all traffic from the center wishing to go southbound on Monterey would have to leave the shopping center in two locations only in the southeast corner of the shopping center. For right turns onto Monterey Avenue north was a protected right and the exit further down the street leaving toward Monterey and southbound would be impossible. Traffic heading in three out of four directions would have to exit the center from points near that southeast corner. In meeting with Mr. Bartlett they were also told that the gate at Merano currently exiting onto Monterey opposite Lot 20 was currently both a left and right turn exit. With future development there was a median planned that would restrict left turns. That would mean all traffic leaving Merano except those heading northbound on Monterey would also have to use the Via Scena exit. This would further magnify the problem. He said he delivered a letter today that he composed with 27 signatures of homeowners that were opposing the approval of this project primarily because of traffic concerns and the focusing of traffic that this high volume traffic center would cause in the area. In their opinion the proposed shopping center would be an inappropriate use for this site and it would be more prudent to wait for a proposal that would 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 be far less intrusive on and more compatible with the residential community which is immediately adjacent to the site. It seemed to him that Lucky's could contribute to the community by either further developing its existing site or perhaps looking at other commercial sites that would diffuse traffic from this one local rather than add to it. He thanked commission. He noted that he had the original letter with additional signatures as opposed to the photocopy he provided staff with earlier. He presented it to Chairperson Campbell. MR. RICHARD FRANDSEN, 77-043 Iroquois Drive in Indian Wells, stated that he was the developer proposing to try and develop this property. He wanted to speak for two reasons. One was to vehemently deny the accusations that he said he was going to shove this project down someone's throat in this city. He was sure that the commission knew this couldn't be done and that someone as experienced as himself in developing shopping centers would never say something like that. That was why he was here. Secondly, as this project continues there would be more papers brought to the commission opposing or agreeing to the development. The longer this goes on petitions get circulated and neighbors don't want to argue with neighbors and if someone is very vocal and upset about something and talks to the neighbors and those neighbors have no particular opinion one way or the other they will sign it just so they don't have a problem with their neighbors. Whether all of these people vehemently oppose it he didn't know but they have certainly done everything in their power as far as they could see to negate any concerns anyone had and he was here to say that he never, ever said he would shove anything down anyone's throat. He thanked the commission. MR. BILL CARVER, 72-955 Deergrass in Palm Desert, said he wanted to put a little different slant on what the commission has heard. He has been down here a number of years and what he noticed about the Coachella Valley, which is a very young area, is that they seemed to have a problem with what is happening after 20 years. They were starting to have older properties. When they were brand new, everything was brand new with a fresh look. When they have a situation where they have significant amounts of vacant land and priced at figures that make the entry fairly simple, it was a normal situation to have retailers wanting to step up and put a new market in or new 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 ..r locations. What was happening was that the older properties, the properties that have been here for a while, were suffering because they were zoning way too much property that could be used for commercial uses. He thought they really needed to think hard about the right thing to do. That thinking had been done through the General Plan. The General Plan is the road map of how they should be developing the Palm Desert area. As the residential activity takes place as stated by Mr. Bartlett, he felt there were other locations throughout the north sphere that were already zoned for commercial uses that perhaps weren't ready now, but would be ready in the near future. He thought it would be best if they would consider the total picture, about the whole of Palm Desert, and think about what they are doing with respect to the properties that are left behind. They needed to be somewhat protective, not necessarily protective in terms of down zoning and that kind of thing, but living up to the plan that was worked on for many months in the past. He really felt that they would be making a kind of secondary type of commercial development of Plaza de Monterey if they permitted this center to locate across the street. It would become a lesser development than it is now and he thought they had the ability •. now to prevent that from happening. He thanked the commission. MR. BOB MAYER, No. 4 Primrose in the Morningside development in Rancho Mirage, stated that about two years ago he was the owner of this particular property and was still the owner of the property, but he wanted to bring to the commission's attention that less than two years ago Mr. Carver, who just stood at this podium, was under contract with him to buy that particular property from him to build exactly what is being proposed there today, however it was an Albertson's store, not a Lucky's. He took strong objection to the fact that Mr. Carver would come here at this point and try to tear something apart that he was an absolute part of and thought it was a wonderful center just two years ago. He thought it was probably because of the fact that it was Mr. Carver's Lucky store that was being impacted, if it was ever impacted because there would be a substitute of some kind there and the commission had the power to define what that would be, but he took very strong objection to Mr. Carver taking the stance he has taken. He thanked commission for their time. j 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Mr. Rappaport readdressed the commission and said that he listened to Mr. Carver and the other gentleman and he said people were allowed to change their minds. For whatever reason, Mr. Carver didn't own the present Lucky property any more from what he understood. He asked each commissioner tonight to make believe they were a homeowner there and think whether they would want to be there. As a merchant he didn't know what would be across the street. He knew there would be a Lucky and a Sav-On, but he didn't know what else would be there or what would be on the Rancho Mirage side because they might get a little angry at us and build something over there. He didn't think they would like that either and then they would really have problems. He asked the commission to put themselves in his place as a merchant in that center knowing that Lucky does help the center and now they would be gone and they would have an empty store or from what he understood it had to be released first before they could do anything, which could take years and he was watching Home Base at the other end at Monterey and Dinah Shore and that will sit empty for years. He asked them to put themselves in the place of merchants and homeowners and asked if they would want seven people to decide their fate as far as business and whether their homes were worth more or less. In most cases it would be less. MR. DARYL HOOVER, 18-831 Von Karman in Irvine, the President of Diamond West Homes, stated that as the President of Diamond West Homes, they bought the Merano property a little over a year ago and they have continued to increase the value $10,000, $20,000 and $30,000 per home for the homes they have sold since June of 1997. They have sold those homes with the full knowledge and understanding that this would be a commercial corner at some time and they felt that was an advantage or they wouldn't be standing before commission today, they would be out front with placards and lines of people not supporting the project. They purchased the property but they have one major concern. Via Scena, which they understood to be a public street which it is today, but the traffic light (and they spent a lot of time in their due diligence looking at that situation) each week when they get a traffic report from the sales office they have on the traffic report any comments or intersection concerns because it is very dangerous to shoot out of Via Scena and go left across Country Club or shoot �.. straight across into the existing Lucky center. From day one they 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 believed that a light there was of utmost importance for all of the Merano residents. He said in the last three years they have sold 7,700 homes in three states. They are a home builder and when they bought the property here they bought it from Mr. Mayer, who also owns the commercial corner that is zoned residential now. He stated that Diamond West has no financial interest in that corner whatsoever so all their comments were strictly as a home builder that have 46 more homes to close or to be built and sold in Merano. He has heard so many numbers today that if they added all of the numbers that are on every petition that he has heard (and he said everyone was entitled to an opinion) but if they added up all the numbers it would come up to a couple of hundred. He did some math and suggested that perhaps staff could go through the names and numbers at a later time, but there would be 126 total homes when the project is completely built out. Forty-six (46) of those homes Diamond West owns either under construction or soon to be built out. The majority of those homes, including lots 1-12 which are in the final stages of construction that immediately border the future commercial center and then the large cul- de-sac area, would be built out with the four model homes plus another 14. In the rear of the property, some adjoining the golf course, there were a number of homes back there which would be one of the final phases built out. They own 46 homes. They could count them as 46 of 126 votes and one of the issues they have always had in the desert communities was a very silent majority. There were a lot of second homeowners who were not here and they were in quiet approval of the project. They bought their homes understanding that it was probably going to be a commercial use in the future and they think that is a great advantage to their homeowners. He felt that the shopping center developers made a big error early on. He thought the error was a judgement in psychology and that was simply that they came to Diamond West many months ago. As builders of 7,700 homes they have built next to dozens of commercial centers and there were two kinds of commercial developers, those they didn't want to be near and those that have a real interest in the community and the adjacent homeowners, and he said a sincere interest. He said with these developers the error in judgement was that they came to Diamond West early and offered them a real strategic plan early. Early meant they didn't have 46 homes they owned but 60 or 70 homes. The error in judgement was they very early suggested that in the retention basin 28 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 they would share the cost of taking care of that because some of their flood plain water went into that retention basin as does some of the water from Country Club and Monterey and some of the water to the very north off of the golf course which went into the retention basin to the right of the entry. They said they would share in the expense of that on a monthly basis, the changing of the flowers all up and down the public street of Via Scena, the lights on the palm trees, and the electricity. They added all of that up and it cost the Merano homeowners about $1500 per month to maintain that and the developers offered up early half of that amount, $750. Over a ten year period that was a boon for the homeowners of $9,000 per year or $90,000 over ten years that goes to their homeowners association. He has never had a commercial developer offer up that kind of thing. Their error in judgement was to offer it up very early along with putting up the berm bordering lots 1-12. The nine-foot berm with landscaping would literally block out the building completely, and the tunnel. They have night lighted palm trees and they have agreed to border lots 1-12 and they would very much like the lighted palm trees at the entry. ,.., Those homeowners, he believed, would pay additional money to have that kind of resort setting at night. He felt it would be a gorgeous view at night and they were selling it as such. Those homes have just been delivered and were ready for sale as of about two weeks ago. They were under the final stages of construction right now. He asked the Planning Commission to please consider the 46 homes they own, do the math from 126, they could help check the registers and he thought there were a lot of people signing a lot of things and it is a free country and people are allowed their own opinion. They believed the traffic signal was a key consideration for all Merano residents and it is a very dangerous situation. The landscape plan for the center was the best he has ever seen in commercial centers. He said his final comment was when the center is built he could tell the commission where all 126 homeowners would go shopping for their groceries. He thanked commission for their consideration. MS. JILL LOVINGFOSS, 143 Via Tramonto, Lot 13, felt the project would be great. The developers have gone out of their way to do what they can to make it so they have something nice to look at. When they were complaining about how they would lose the view of the mountains they came and made sure that the berm wasn't too high so that in the low 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 backyards they could still see the mountains. She felt it would be great and if it was going to be anything like the one at Deep Canyon, the store was big, it was beautiful and the parking was gorgeous. The one across the street from them now was awful. The store wasn't nice, the parking is terrible, and the one on Deep Canyon was gorgeous. It was like a Jensen's on the inside. Everything was perfect in it and there was so much in it. In the existing one it didn't have much of a selection and she felt that once the houses of the lots across the street from Monterey sold in addition to the rest of the houses, they would need a bigger store there. She thanked the commission. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Bartlett wished to offer rebuttal comments. Mr. Bartlett stated that one of the things the homeowners were concerned about, and rightfully so, were values of homes. He said he was engaged by the City of Indian Wells to perform a study on how affordable housing impacted adjacent properties. In that study he performed a few days ago, that had nothing to do with this project, in that study he looked at Hidden Palms and The Grove, which are very close to the Deep Canyon Lucky. He said he just thought of this study on the way to the meeting tonight. What the study showed was that the values were not impacted and in fact went up after Lucky went in. He wasn't claiming that it went up because Lucky went there. The market did increase but it went up the same rate that the market went up. He wasn't claiming that it added value to those homes at Hidden Palms, but he was claiming that the study showed that it didn't deteriorate values. He felt that a lot of their concerns were that this would be a negative impact. If they talked to some of the owners at Hidden Palms today, they believed that it was a positive impact. He submitted his study for the record. Secondly, he indicated that traffic was an issue with every project before the commission. He said that simply stated traffic was people going somewhere in their cars. Morning rush hour was generally people going to work, noon rush hour was people going to lunch, and evening rush hour was people going home from work. This intersection, and Mr. Bartlett was sure Public Works would concur, was impacted mostly in the morning and evening rush hour and during the noon hour. He noted that some residents don't work for a living but do go out for lunch and do their shopping around noon and those were the peak time periods. One of the 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 r.. conditions of the replacement tenant was that they find an off-peak user. It had been suggested that a medical facility or office facility would be better suited for this corner. Obviously they would generate traffic, people that work there, from other areas and generally an office development might pick up a larger area. People might come from Indio or Palm Springs and they would come at the peak hours during the a.m. rush hour, they would go out to lunch, and then leave during the evening rush hour. Other alternatives to this development included building more Merano homes. He believed if they continued the identical development right down to the corner it would be safe to say that the homes right on Monterey and Country Club would have to sell at a reduced value. It didn't take a real estate expert to figure that out. Obviously if they had homes selling for less it decreased values. Another alternative was to build multifamily units and the property was currently zoned PR-7, seven units to the acre. The zone allowed two story development. He didn't expect someone would want to build a high-end apartment complex. He didn't spread the rumor that they were threatening that the choice was to take a low income rental unit, `... but he had to believe that someone wouldn't build a high-end residential complex on that corner since it is the third busiest corner, which is why they want to be there. They want to cut the traffic off that is going down to Ralph's or to Von's Pavilion. They want to take the people in their neighborhood and market area and service their needs so they don't have to drive three miles to the Von's which is located on Bob Hope or to the Ralph's on Cook Street. There was also some mention about traffic accidents. He felt that Public Works would concur that a signal at that intersection was needed and there were numerous accounts of people telling how it is to try and get out at Merano, dashing across Country Club and Mr. Bartlett said he has done it himself. There was no question that a traffic signal would solve a lot of that problem and it could be timed with a short interval so there wouldn't be a question of cars backed up into the center. He noted that they heard from two merchants and he didn't hear from them say that they were afraid of losing Lucky as the anchor. (Mr. Rappaport spoke from the audience in disagreement.) Mr. Bartlett said he must have misunderstood because he thought Mr. Rappaport said that his business would do better if Lucky moved across the street. Mr. Bartlett also stated that he has done some calculations and it was in some of the information he submitted to staff that about 35% of that center is 40 . 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 currently fast food or restaurant types of uses (Papa Dan's, chinese, steak house, donut shop, etc.). Most of those tenants do not serve market patrons. When people shop for food they don't generally stop for donuts or chinese food, or at least he didn't. Some people might. He believed that another user in that center could actually improve the business in that center and supplement it. A beauty supply use is a normal market anchored co-tenant as well as a video store and Mail Box Etc. type of use. He believed that about 7,000 square feet of the center has common market anchor type users and some might feed off of the market, but the majority of tenants didn't. He felt that he covered the alternative uses, medical offices, home values and traffic. He noted there was a comment made that their development was actually impacting that and from what he understood from Public Works the solid median in front of the exit on Monterey from Merano, the solid median has been planned in the General Plan for numerous years. Their development wasn't impacting that condition. They weren't changing that element. He reiterated that when they brought these 40 acres before commission four years ago they brought it in as one project. Merano and Albertson's. Would this generate competition across the street? He said that since Lucky's had an inferior store, Ralph's was actually the partner of Wal-Mart in that original deal six or seven years ago. Albertson's was willing to compete with an inferior Lucky four years ago. He believed when Lucky provides a modern store that meets the requirements of the modern shopper, no one would compete with them. They would lock in their corner. Whether or not Rancho Mirage would go to other types of commercial use on their property was difficult to say. He thanked commission for their time and asked if there were any questions. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan thanked everyone for attending. He knew it was late and said they would try and keep their comments brief as well. They heard from a lot of different people with a lot of different vested interests in the proposed project. With the commercial business owners that spoke tonight he tended to discount many of their concerns because they seemed to be objections that were economic in nature and frankly were related more to their own welfare rather than the welfare of the city. From his standpoint as a 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 low commissioner, Commissioner Jonathan in his mind would discount those and focus more on the concerns of residents. Incidently, he said that he was satisfied with the mechanism staff has devised with regards to preventing a vacancy in the present Lucky site, the so called anti-raiding provision. He felt that economically they would not be creating a problem here. The project as proposed was consistent with the original plans they saw four years ago and even before then with Wal-Mart. As he understood it all homeowners have been made aware of the pending development, so he would have been more concerned with some of the issues that have been raised tonight if this was sprung on everyone, but it has been there a long time. He thought this particular corner lends itself to this kind of commercial development. When the commission has considered other alternatives for this area in the past, they have concluded that for this particular location the other alternatives are not nearly as attractive. They all bring different kinds of problems including traffic. Just because they might have residential didn't mean there wouldn't be additional traffic and congestion. In some cases it would create more. He thought a lighted intersection was necessary in order to provide easterly access onto Country Club and felt that most people would be in agreement `.. with that. The main question was where the lighted intersection on Country Club should be and his conclusion was that Via Scena was the most logical location. He understood the concerns of some of the residents, but he felt if it was properly designed those concerns could be mitigated and that the design is appropriate in that regard. He didn't think the residents would have significant trouble getting in and out of their homes. To put the intersection in a location that is more westerly created a host of other problems. This was a good example of the statement that there is no perfect solution but this was perhaps the most acceptable solution given all the aspects involved in where the location should be. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was a resident of Sagewood for more than ten years so he knew that people would never agree whether a store like Lucky's or a neighborhood commercial center is a great thing or a terrible thing. Sagewood has 100 homes so it was comparable and on any given day they would have 80 feeling one way and 20 feeling the other and the next day it would reverse itself. That was just how it is but there was a comment that said that when all is said and done people would go shopping there and he felt that was true and they kind of find a way to live with it, like it and enjoy it. For all of those reasons, and he listened to the concerns but he believed that it would work out with the project as proposed, and for all of those reasons he was in favor of the project as proposed. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION i JULY 7, 1998 Commissioner Beaty thanked Commissioner Jonathan and felt he did a beautiful job and enabled him to be much more brief than without those comments. Commissioner Beaty recalled that the first meeting he attended as a commissioner was to hear the Wal-Mart issue and he would love to know how many hours they have spent and how many concerns they have heard about that corner. When the parcel was separated and Merano was allowed to go forward and Albertson's was denied by Council, he thought that was when the decision was made, and he stated so at that time, that this corner would go commercial. He was not in favor of commercial originally, but he was convinced that was probably the only alternative at this point in time. He was comfortable with the conditions staff created to prevent a repeat of the Lucky fiasco on El Paseo and he thought the residents of Merano were a little overly worried about Via Scena. In his opinion there needed to be a traffic signal there for safety and didn't believe the impact would be nearly as severe as they feared. He was also in favor of the project. Commissioner Beaty noted that he was not a Lucky proponent, he shops at Ralph's. Commissioner Fernandez noted that there were a lot of positive and a lot of negative comments made and one of the things he appreciated were the people that were really going to be living closer to the project that were in favor of it. Like the gentleman stated earlier, they should try and put themselves into their shoes and he chose the shoes of the people who would living right behind the project. He also concurred with Commissioner Beaty and Commissioner Jonathan and felt that Commissioner Jonathan does a great job in expressing himself and the only thing he could say was that he was in favor of the project and felt it was a good location for it. A supermarket was very competitive and there was a lot of traffic but it would serve that neighborhood and community and also help the city. He was in favor of the project. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was opposed to the project. She referenced the Economic Development Advisory Committee minutes when the Lucky's project was presented to that committee. There was a motion at the time that the EDAC forward an endorsement of the concept to the City Council with the stipulation that the endorsement applied only if the "above stated concerns were addressed." Those concerns were that the existing shopping center needed a facelift. The committee would prefer to see a long term lease arrangement for the replacement tenant. But most importantly the developer must find a new tenant that is acceptable to Sagewood homeowners before 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 the request for a zoning change was presented to the Planning Department. She attended that meeting and it was her understanding after listening to the presentation by Lucky's that they were going to find an acceptable replacement tenant prior to taking the next step. So at their last meeting she was quite surprised when this proposal came before the commission. EDAC has always been concerned about the number of vacant buildings in this city and that is one of the reasons why they unanimously approved this endorsement with the stipulations. Their concerns were evident by how long it took to get the Lucky's on El Paseo leased. She thought that staff having to insert conditions 19 through 22 which deal with what will happen if the center is not leased and when building permits could be issued told her that they really are putting the cart before the horse. She agreed with Mrs. Gold that they couldn't really compare this shopping center with the one on Deep Canyon because they weren't putting two major commercial centers across from each other and she believed the traffic impact would be a negative one and that perhaps commercial may seem like the only alternative, but in her opinion it was an inappropriate use. They heard a lot tonight about this intersection being the third busiest in the city and she felt that condition would +► worsen. She was opposed to the project for those reasons. Chairperson Campbell stated that she was in favor of the project and felt that staff has learned from the other Lucky's center on El Paseo what they had to do with this one. Also, one of the Merano tenants brought up the fact that Lucky's would be open 24 hours. One of the conditions was to limit hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to midnight seven days a week and only the Sav-On service window would be open 24 hours a day. She also felt the center would be a good buffer for the Merano residents and that a traffic signal was needed at Via Scena, not just because of this development going in, but because of the existing traffic. Those people would be needing more than just trying to get across Country Club. She noted that she lives on Hovley Lane West and she never goes to the Lucky center because even though it is close to her it is hard to enter on Monterey because of the traffic and then trying to exit she had to go all the way down to Portola. Instead she goes down to Ralph's on Cook or to the Ralph's in Indian Wells. As far as Ralph's on Country Club, it shared the entrance with Desert Willow and Intrawest timeshares and she felt that would be a lot busier intersection than the Merano entrance. As Mr. Mayer pointed out, Mr. Carver wanted to put in an Albertson's there a few years ago with Lucky's right across the street and now if they put one on the northeast corner of Monterey and Country Club, they wouldn't have one in the 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 i e.rr present location. She felt that everyone in the long run would be very happy and she was strongly in favor of the project. She asked for a motion. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the Lucky store hours would be from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. He also stated that he respected Commissioner Finerty's statements and he was actually in agreement with them. The only reason he was voting in favor of the project was because it isn't a perfect world and if it were he would certainly want something that would guarantee no vacancy, that Sagewood residents would be happy with it, that there wouldn't be additional traffic, and so forth. Those were all very valid concerns and he was in agreement with them. The only reason he was voting in favor of the project was because he thought it was the best alternative for that particular site given the other alternatives they have considered in the past. He appreciated her comments. He stated that he would move for approval as presented and amended by staff relative to the potential time extension. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 97-6, C/Z 97-1 and PP 97-12, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 9:09 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:13 P.M. B. Continued Case No. DP 12-79 Amendment - HAHN/PALM DESERT, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and amendment to a Development Plan for a 172,562 square foot expansion to the Palm Desert Town Center and 956 space single level parking deck. Project involves additional retail space, 2,200 seat theater expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care facility. Project located on property generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1 , Monterey Avenue, Town Center Way and Rancho Grande Drive. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Mr. Drell explained that the Palm Desert Town Center was built in 1982-1983 and for various reasons there were changes in the structure of the retail shopping center market for the current financing of the center and very little improvements have occurred since the original construction. As a result the project has lost a market share in an otherwise expanding retail market. It has gotten to the point where the original developer (TrizecHahn) was proposing a major redesign to try and regain its preeminent position as the prime retail shopping center in the Coachella Valley. They were slowly developing their concept and the key to the expansion would be the creation of an entertainment component within the construction/redesign of the theaters and they would discuss that. The main purpose of this meeting would be to get exposed to the project and then they would be recommending a continuance to have the design go through the Architectural Commission and come back in August. The major impact of any expansion is, hopefully in this case, increased traffic. The purpose for the investment is to generate more traffic and more sales. The goal of the traffic study was not to decide whether or not the project should proceed, but to decide how best to accommodate the traffic that results. The financial well being of the center and the financial well `.. being of the City of Palm Desert was dependent upon the continued future success and to succeed in the retailing business they had to grow and constantly compete with developments happening around them. A traffic study has been conducted and they were still in the process of review and hoped by the next meeting when this comes back there would be a resolution addressing all of the traffic issues. The second issue was aesthetics. Concerns included the height and mass of the building impact and the typical concerns of views and how the city is perceived. In this particular case staff has a greater concern. They wanted the design to be as effective as possible to accomplish its primary goal which is to make the center successful. Staff would be looking at both those issues, environmental impact issues and economic impacts, and they would hopefully be convinced that what they are proposing to do will accomplish the goal of being successful. At this time that was all he had to say and indicated that the developer and the team of architects were present to introduce the commission to the project. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SKIP KUHN, the Project Manager for the expansion and remodel of the Palm Desert Town Center, stated that he was with TrizecHahn 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Centers and his address is 4350 La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego, California. He stated that they were at the meeting to give the commission an overview of the expansion of the project. The design team was present and would expand upon the overview provided by Mr. Kuhn with a lot of the design thrust they were using currently for the exterior of the shopping center and moving forward. The intent was to create a vibrant retail environment that would take them into the next millennium. He said there were several components involved in the expansion of the shopping center. They focused around the fact that they have five department store buildings with three department stores occupying them. Largely as a result of consolidations within the department store business they now have three department stores occupying all five stores. Part of the issue was to consolidate the existing Robinson's May store into one full line fashion presentation into 180,000 feet. That would require the expansion of the western store by approximately 55,000 feet and the sale of their other facility to a department store to be named later. That was in negotiations and since they didn't have anything in writing, he couldn't talk about it. Along with this expansion the Macy's Mens and Home Store was looking to expand by some 22,000 square feet to the north, and the J.C. Penney's store had in their original entitlements to expand by some 50,000 feet on two levels on the eastern side of the project. As part and parcel of the expansion, not only would the entire interior of the shopping center be remodeled, but the intent was to create an entertainment spline that would connect the front parking lot to the south of the project through the shopping center and go all the way through, past the food court and connect it with the parking structure that would be produced on the back side of the project to support all of this expansion. Anchoring the entertainment spline on the south side of the project actually in the depressed area that currently exists on the south side between the Macy's and Robinson's May stores was going to be a pavilion store. It would be a big statement store and would probably include a fine restaurant as well. As they moved through the leasing space within the shopping center, those would be entertainment ancillary uses. At the northern side they would be anchored by a two level stadium seating 18 screen metropolitan theater presentation. It was a state of the art theater presentation using the finest materials that are out in the market today. Stadium seating by its nature required a very tall building. As pointed out by Mr. Drell earlier, this was roughly 70 feet tall owing to 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 the stadium seating itself which allowed seats to step up so that when looking at the screen you aren't looking past someone's head, but over it. It required 34 feet more or less between each floor of the building and that was what accounted for the great height involved. Largely that was the basic overview of the expansion itself. The last piece of the puzzle was the parking structure and it would run from one end of the project to the other and was connected several places. It was a single level deck and would actually be kind of tall in that it would meet the second level of the shopping center which is 17 feet floor to floor approximately. He felt it would provide a lot of close-in parking which was more desirable than the "north 40" that is there today. He said he would introduce the project architect, Mr. Millard Archuleta, a principal in the firm of Feola, Carli & Archuleta and Mr. Archuleta would introduce the rest of the design team. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the design of the parking lot changed since Mr. Kuhn said it would go end to end. Mr. Kuhn explained that the design of the parking structure was in the architect's purview and he would address that aspect. He noted the parking structures were originally separated but based on input from a variety of different departments in the city they suggested they try and connect them. He felt this worked pretty well with the theater layout and allowed them to make that connection so that free flow on the second level would work. Mr. Kuhn introduced Mr. Archuleta and explained that he was the original architect on the project. MR. MILLARD ARCHULETA, 116 East Broadway in Glendale, California, stated that it has been 20 years now since they first started the initial concept for the Palm Desert Town Center with Ernest W. Hahn and Company. At the time the center was initially conceived this was a state of the art center. After 20 years evolution has now dictated that the center needed to be brought up to date and revitalized and they have been honored and privileged to serve the TrizecHahn Company to implement the revitalization of the Palm Desert Town Center. He wanted to introduce their director of design, Bill Diehl, another project designer Kevin Kanes, the project manager David Bircher, and this was a team that has worked very hard and would continue to work hard to satisfy the requirements of the City of Palm Desert. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 MR. BILL DEIEL, Feola Carli Archuleta, 8090 Balkan Canyon Road in Somas, California, stated that as suggested by Skip Kuhn they were creating an entertainment spline. Basically they were trying to bring one entry closer to the other one and the way it was planned was by providing an entry off the parking lot that is closer to Highway 1 1 1 . He showed some conceptual plans to the commission. The first showed a section cut through the project and it was cut through the porte coucher that would be off the parking and the area that is now empty would be filled in and they would have a set of escalators and stairs that would take people down and a bridge that would take people across all the way through. At that point was where the two branches really met. The main spline of the shopping center and the entertainment spline was where they would meet and it would cross over into the food court and go out to the outside which would be the entrance from the garage into the cinemas. The next sketch was of the main entry from the parking lot and right now it falls between one of the department stores and May department stores. They were introducing porte couchers that would change the look of the project and with the concept they were trying to get some ideas and they would carry that idea throughout the project. Next was the view of the back part where the theaters would be and the parking garage which was one level. He said it would have a bridge crossing over through another porte coucher to also be used as a marquee for the cinemas and as they were looking at the existing center the background was the two level theater. They showed the lower entry and upper entry with stairs that would lead up into the upper level which was the entrance to the theater. He showed the elevation of the parking that he was talking about. It was one deck and they were thinking about giving it a better look than just plain columns and beams so that it would have a residential feeling. He hoped there would be some trellises on the top for growth and lighting. He said they would try and keep it as low as possible in height, whatever was necessary, and at some point it had to come up to a certain height in order to meet with the existing second level. At one point it would probably be 14 or 15 feet high and where it came toward the residential area they would drop it as low as 12 feet so that it would not be seen by the residents on the other side of the wall. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Commissioner Beaty asked for them to outline the parking deck on the site plan. They did so. MR. KEVIN KANES, 3855 Riverton Avenue in Studio City, California, addressed the commission and stated that he worked with Mr. Deiel. He said the object of the drawing was to indicate the impact the cinema structure would have on the adjoining street, Rancho Grande Drive. He explained that he constructed a computer model which is based on the view of a person standing in the middle of Rancho Grande Drive and he chose that because it is a fixed position. He said it was approximately 50 feet to the north of the existing wall on top of a four-foot berm. Right now there was a four-foot berm, six foot wall and varying degrees of density of growth that exists along that wall. He also showed photographs. He indicated that when he constructed this he didn't show the full height of the trees, but a height of growth that would cover the cinema building from that position on the street. In reality the trees would be much higher but he thought it might appear that they were trying to push something on them. When looking at the NEW photographs they could see the existing building sticking over the wall and he took the photographs from the road at various positions and the building was just sticking up over the wall from some of the view points and they could see the height of the trees almost off of the photograph. They were looking at increasing the height of the building some 23 or 24 feet higher than the existing center and the intention was to increase the intensity of the growth where it would have the most severe impact visually and once the density was increased they would have it virtually obliterated from the residential area across the road. He said that if they went very far back from the project they would see the top of that building. He stated that he spent considerable time thinking about this structure and his thoughts were that with the height of the existing building, he was attempting to layer the look of the building architecturally so that it looked like it was stepping back and to also treat a large portion of the upper area in a very negative manner so that it would almost disappear when looking at the structure. He said they would be working with the designer of this portion of the center to make sure the impact is minimized to the largest degree. He thought the effect was largely reduced. He pointed out that the structure would be diagonal to the residential wall to the north instead of being parallel so that just the end of the theater was what they would be looking at. ti.. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 That made the perspective disappear. He asked if there were any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if on the second level of the parking lot if he was planning to put in any type of trellises. Mr. Kanes replied absolutely. Chairperson Campbell asked if they would see that detail in the drawings at a later date. Mr. Kanes concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that the City was being asked to contribute some money for the parking structure. He asked if there was an analysis provided on the cost and whether it was even potentially feasible to add on a second level to part of or all of the parking structure. He noted that this was brought up at the Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting. Mr. Kuhn replied that literally all that would have to be done by virtue of the way it is constructed is to "beef up" the footings to allow something to be added at a later date. He said it wasn't currently in the plans for the center in a large measure because the additional parking wasn't warranted based on the size of the expansion. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were certain about that because he thought part of the analysis looked at the expansion only rather than the deficiency that may currently exist. Mr. Kuhn said that was what the traffic study addressed and both Public Works and Mr. Drell were reviewing that now. He said they just received the traffic study last week. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a determination made that additional parking is required to meet not only the expansion, but also any potential current deficiency if any exists, if a second level might be a feasible t option or would at least be looked at. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Mr. Kuhn agreed. Mr. Drell said there was also another area identified for an additional structure. He noted that structured parking was extremely expensive and they couldn't just build a little of it, they had to build a lot of it and so the big question was whether it was cost effective to do that "beefing up" up front, which was probably easier to do it when pouring the footings initially than coming back later. Mr. Kuhn said there was obviously a premium to doing that, but he didn't think it was out the realm of possibility. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't have a predisposition on that, but if they find there is a deficiency even after this structure, then he didn't want to wait another 20 years to cure a deficiency. Mr. Drell said they hoped there was a deficiency. Commissioner Jonathan said that would be a good problem and noted that an additional investment would then be warranted. Again, he didn't have a predisposition, but it has crossed his mind and he brought it up .., for that reason. Commissioner Finerty stated that she has spoken with some adults and teenagers regarding the current theater design and she was told by many that they preferred going to Indio rather than the mall and she asked why. Part of it had to do with the number of kids/teenagers that kind of hang out in the ticket purchasing area. They were often smoking and often hit up other teenagers for money. She was wondering what changes they might be making in the design that would help to address those problems. Mr. Kuhn indicated that currently the ticketing was on the outside of the building and that promoted certain loitering. He said they were relocating the ticket booth to the inside of the shopping center right off of the center court and that would do two things. One, it would promote traffic coming through the shopping center and give the customer more opportunities to impulse shop and cross shop based-on their trip of going to the theaters, but it would also cut down (because of their security force) the loitering teens. He said he would pass this information on to Molly Doyle because they have full time security there and they would try and do something about it. `. 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was very happy to see this take place. He was sure the city would be happy to see continued increased revenues, but from both a planning commissioner's standpoint and just purely a resident's standpoint, the mall has always been a wonderful thing to have, a wonderful resource and place to go and do things, buy things, etc. But it has had its attendant problems and he could see prospectively those problems being solved. It was a real improvement to our quality of life so he was happy to see that hopefully it was finally coming about. Chairperson Campbell felt that the Commission was behind them 100% to support this project, but they needed a lot more information, drawings and so forth. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any other questions. There were none. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell indicated that the public hearing would remain open and would entertain a motion of continuance to August 4, 1998. Mr. Drell asked if the Commission wanted to go on record in a formal way by minute motion that they are generally in support of the direction the applicant's going. The applicants might wish a formal action of support. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would present a motion indicating conceptual support for the proposed project pending submission of the architectural design and he noted there were other issues that may or may not arise, but conceptually he felt they were in support of the proposed project. Chairperson Campbell stated that she would second that motion. Commissioner Finerty requested that the motion be amended to include the traffic impact study, the memo from Dick Folkers. Her concern had to do with the recent Walgreens issue with the amount of parking and traffic that would be generated and there were people who enter the mall from San Gorgonio and the Palma Village Specific Plan references the possibility that San Gorgonio might close. She asked if the motion could be amended to include the issues raised in Mr. Folkers' July 7 memo. Mr. Drell stated that it went without saying that the resolution of the traffic issue would be part of the final approval action. Commissioner Jonathan felt there would be a number of significant issues and certainly traffic would be one of them, the parking would be one, the height, and he was sure some people would be objecting and they 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 a... would be looking at the aesthetics, etc. They could add all of the above. He said the motion was for conceptual support and certainly in a conceptual sense they were in support but it would be subject to resolution of all issues that may arise in the approval process. He said the motion could be that they indicate conceptual approval subject to resolution of all issues that may come up in the approval process. Commissioner Finerty said she would second that motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, indicating conceptual support for the proposed project subject to resolution of all issues, and continuing the public hearing to August 4, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. TT 28861 - SUNRISE COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 28861 to subdivide six (6) existing lots into seven (7) single family lots on the east side of Mesa Grande Drive, south of Tomahawk Drive in Indian Ridge Country Club. Mr. Drell noted that the commission had the report and indicated that basically the request was in response by Sunrise to the market conditions there and staff recommended approval. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. PHILLIP SMITH, President of Sunrise Company's Coachella Valley Division, stated that he was present to answer any questions. There were none. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1874, approving TT 28861 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. TT 28846 - G.L. LAND HOLDINGS AND WINMAR PALM DESERT, Applicants Request for approval to allow three foot side yard setbacks for 15 lots within the "Mountains at Bighorn" north and east of Wikil Place. (APN's 771-029-008 through 019 and 030-003) Mr. Joy indicated that the same tract map was before Planning Commission a month ago; staff just had a misunderstanding with the applicant as to the timing of setback requirements necessitating this second public hearing on this tract. Staff recommended approval of this change and was ready to answer any questions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they were looking for an exception to the five foot requirement, but asked if the total of 14 feet would remain or if they were seeking an exception to that as well. Mr. Joy replied that it was a request for three foot side yards so the total would be six. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there were two requirements with regards to side yards, five feet minimum and 14 feet total and what Mr. Joy was saying was three feet minimum and a total of six feet. Mr. Joy concurred and said that was how they have done other units in Bighorn. He indicated that zoning at Bighorn is Planned Community Development and he thought that perhaps Commissioner Jonathan was thinking about R-1 zoning and those side yard setbacks. The PCD zoning at Bighorn related to the original Bella Vista project where it was permitted up to 1 ,300 dwelling units and the City had a further implementation agreement with, at that time Westinghouse, which lowered the density of the project down to 311 units rather than the 1 ,300 units. There were some trades that went along with that and one of the reasons staff was agreeing with the decreased setbacks was with the original plan called for two story condo units in the same locations which were actually attached. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that the standard side yard setback was a 14-foot total. He asked if Mr. Joy was saying that in Bighorn there are numerous exceptions due to the contour of their project. Mr. Joy explained that when the staff report talks about the 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 standard 14 foot setbacks as relating to the Palo Brea tract immediately adjacent to the south of this property and this was where the total 14 foot side yard setbacks related to the R-1 zoning for lots less than 10,000 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they were asking for an exception and asked if there were other exceptions already granted at Bighorn. Mr. Joy replied that this subdivision would be a combination of The Villas project and the Palo Brea that they offer at Bighorn. The Villas project was where the three-foot side yard setbacks are which is the minimum per the Uniform Building Code and the houses weren't actually attached to each other. Mr. Drell said that the issue here was that in lieu of having attached condominiums they wanted to separate them somewhat. In the zone and plan they originally had attached condominiums. In lieu of that they were wanting to separate them but at the minimum distance required by the building code. Mr. Joy pointed out that the density remained the same and was below the 311 units called for in the implementation agreement between the City and the developers of the project. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Engineering at 74-410 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, stated that he was representing Winmar. He apologized for the inconvenience of being back here one month later with this request. He said there was miscommunication a month ago and what they were asking for were the same setbacks that were approved for the 12 units of the golf villas with three feet on each side as a minimum. He said it wouldn't be a blank wall with three feet down the whole side of the house, but it would be three feet for a portion and then it would open up to an alcove where they were borrowing an easement for land for adjacent property owners to have a side yard swap through private easements, but there were minimums on both sides which would be three feet at the hinge point. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked approximately how many of the total units in the Mountains at Bighorn have an exception to the 14/5 side yard standards. Mr. Ross replied that with the three feet there were 12 units that were next to the golf clubhouse which were approved about two years ago. i 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 He said it was the same units, same setbacks, and everything, but of the 300, he thought it was only those other 12. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1875, approving TT 28846, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. CUP 98-8 - MR. AND MRS. RALPH FINNEGAN, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer and wine license for an existing 740 square foot restaurant known as "The Original Crunchy Grinder" located at 74-868 Joni Drive #1 in the Service Industrial District. Mr. Drell indicated that Mr. Alvarez was present to answer any questions. Mr. Alvarez stated that staff was recommending approval. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. NANCY FINNEGAN, 10-840 Ambrosio in Desert Hot Springs, stated that a lot of their customers asked if they would serve beer. They said they would like to have beer with their sandwiches. None of the other people who had the business before them did this and that was why they were before commission now. Ms. Finnegan said they were open now until 4:00 p.m. but if they received approval they wanted to stay open later but she noticed in the conditions of approval hours were limited. She asked if they could stay open after 5:00 p.m. 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Mr. Drell stated that he didn't see any reason to limit their hours of operation and recommended that condition no. 2 be deleted. Commission concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1876, approving CUP 98-8, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. PP/CUP 98-11 - MELANIE PLACE PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise plan/Conditional Use Permit to ,.. allow construction of a 11 ,957 square foot office and studio addition at KESQ TV, parking modification to reduce parking from 36 spaces to 31 spaces, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for a 21 ,928 square foot lot on the east side of Melanie Place immediately north of the existing KESQ facility at 42-650 Melanie Place, also known as APN 634-142-004. Commissioner Jonathan informed commission that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter because he owns property on Caroline Court. Mr. Drell stated that very simply staff didn't have a problem with this project except for one aspect and that was the number of parking spaces provided. In analyzing this they utilized every option for reducing the parking requirement and applied them to this project and still came up that they were short five spaces. While this particular tenant or occupant or even owner/occupant of the building might be acceptable in terms of their demands relative to parking, the City typically required that the minimum requirements are met in anticipation of growth of the business or some future tenant which might have a normal requirement. As a result staff was at a loss to come up with a viable 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 j justification for the reduction beyond what they have already recommended in terms of how they have dealt with the studios by classifying them as industrial space and by recommending approval of the compact parking spaces, etc., and the deductions they were able to note relative to interior space in terms of stairwells. With that exception staff was recommending approval but staff felt the parking should be in compliance. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MELVIN SHERMAN, 73-441 Mariposa Drive in Palm Desert, said that staff did a very good job in the report, however, there were a couple of items he wanted to call to the commission's attention. They plan to add to the existing building more than 500 feet of office which was never going to be occupied, it was strictly technical equipment, and if that was considered as part of the warehouse space then they would still be short parking, but not five spaces, only three. The other point was the report mentioned that KESQ TV when they acquired Fox Station (and Mr. Evans was present and could speak for himself as manager of the station) the report mentioned that they were going to pick up 18 additional people from the other station. It would really only be 10-12 people and that would make the total 70-80 people. At the present time there were 66 parking spaces for the building and they would be adding 31 spaces and with the number of people they have and when considering that they are not all there at one time, they would have plenty of extra parking spaces available so that every employee could park there and still have ample parking spaces. He realized that in the future it was conceivable that when the present tenant, if they were to leave and they have a 15-year lease with two 5 year options, they put a lot of money into the property for their own use and things that had to be done electrically, etc., and it was very unlikely even at the end of 15 years that they would leave, but if they did, he felt the number of spaces they had would take care of any other tenant and if it couldn't, they could make changes that could reduce the building size. It couldn't be reduced now for their needs, but part of that studio, which was like a warehouse and that studio was very seldom occupied, it was occupied when they have newscasts in there and even then more than 4,000 feet of studio was occupied by 3-5 people. The other } problem was that if this conditional use permit was not approved one j ..rl 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 of the problems they faced was that right now the report mentioned that they have about 12 people parking on the street. That would be eliminated without any problem and they would have extra parking space available and they were asking for approval giving them permission to be short three spaces, maximum five. MR. BILL EVANS, 55-385 Marguerite Court in La Quinta, stated that he was present to answer any questions that he could. He wanted the commission to understand that the 4,000 square foot studio they were adding on and the technical area when it was not in use for news programming, it was not in use. It was not an area where they put employees in for any other reason than to run a camera or sit at the anchor desk and do programming. Much of the time it is empty and the employees that work in these areas are already at the station. They didn't come to the station, park their cars to go into the studio to work, they were already working there. There was really no parking required to house employees who work in those areas. That is where they come up with their difference in the parking spaces. Also, the report said �. there were 10-12 cars on the street and he said that was true, however, he didn't claim that they were all their employees. He noted that if commission has been down that street Cardiff had just opened up a new facility there and he believed they were responsible for probably half of those cars there. He didn't think it was fair to put those cars under them. MR. JOE DUNN, Cal West, the architects, civil engineers and structural engineers on the building, asked for approval of the project. He said they fought very hard to take square footage out and make it an easy case, but the demands of the building didn't easily allow that. He asked for approval of the exception. He asked if there were any questions about the building. There were none. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he would move for approval. Mr. Drell asked if they wanted to change any conditions. He noted that condition no. 6 was the condition that related to the size of the building. In lieu of reducing the square footage, the commission could eliminate the condition entirely and 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 grant them blanket approval. As an option they could require that any future tenant would be subject to modification of this conditional use permit to determine whether the peculiar uses of the building that the current tenant has for parking demand would be duplicated by any subsequent tenant and the city would retain that authority. They want to have the ability to say a use was not appropriate if there were different circumstances. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with Mr. Drell's suggestion. Commissioner Finerty noted that the parking survey was done in June and she works right across the street on Melanie and she knew that in January and February there were a lot more than 12 cars parked on Melanie. She felt that staff's conditions were appropriate and agreed with them. Chairperson Campbell stated that she was also in agreement with Commissioner Finerty. The ordinance required a certain number of parking spaces and she felt that needed to be conformed with. Staff recommended that the applicant reduce the size of the building to comply with the parking. Mr. Drell noted that the applicant said they couldn't reduce the building to meet their physical needs. Chairperson Campbell noted that there was a 15- year lease with two 5 year options and it would be a problem if the next occupant wasn't able to comply with all of the parking conditions. She was opposed to the removal of the condition. Commissioner Beaty asked who the owner was of the north vacant parcel and if they were noticed or had any concerns. Mr. Drell stated that they were noticed but was not aware of any concerns. Commissioner Beaty asked if we knew who owned that parcel. Mr. Drell said he could get that information. Commissioner Beaty declined and said he would second the motion to approve the project. Action: 1 . It was moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, to approve the findings and deleting Community Development Condition No. 6. Motion died on a 2-2-1 vote (Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Jonathan abstained). 2. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff, with Community Development Condition No. 6 as originally recommended by 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 staff. Commissioner Finerty felt the building was fine, but didn't agree with the reduction in the parking. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Motion died on a 2-2-1 vote (Commissioners Beaty and Fernandez voted no, Commissioner Jonathan abstained). Mr. Drell stated that since they wouldn't be able to get a fifth vote, an alternative motion would be to simply refer it to the City Council with no recommendation from the Commission. 3. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, referring Case No. CUP 98-8 to City Council by minute motion. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff could explain the reasons why they couldn't come to a decision. Mr. Drell noted Council would get the minutes. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be explained in the staff report. Mr. Drell said the minutes would describe the rational for each vote. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). tow Mr. Drell indicated that the hearing before council would have to wait until August 27, 1998, which would be the next available council meeting. Chairperson Campbell noted that there wouldn't be any action taken with regards to the resolution. Mr. Drell concurred and indicated that their action was a minute motion. Commissioner Beaty noted that the applicant had an option to consider some other alternatives and come back with a different proposal. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted the applicant to speak. Chairperson Campbell concurred. Mr. Evans readdressed the commission and indicated he wanted to respond to the comment made about the parking during the months of January and February. His employees are 12 months per year and it didn't really matter what the month was, his employees didn't change. They weren't going away for the summer. The other thing he wanted to say was that they operate 24 hours and a lot of the employees and at any one time they only had 70 to 80 people maximum who are on site working and that was during the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. time period. Out of that group there were ten of them in sales that were not to be in the office, so hopefully they weren't there. The rest of the 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 x people work after hours, or after 5:00 p.m., and around the clock until early morning. He had a question as to what the problem is. He understood the rules, but he felt they had a lot of parking spaces available now. In the staff report when staff looked at the facility on the given days they put in the report that at any one time there were 10-12 lots available for parking in their parking lot even though there were ten cars on the street. He thought they had adequate parking now. With the new facility and 31 more spaces he didn't see the problem. Chairperson Campbell explained that when they make an exception for one, everyone else would want it. Commissioner Beaty noted that Mr. Evans convinced half of the commission but that wasn't good enough. Mr. Sherman readdressed the commission to stress that as mentioned in the staff report they own property around the corner that is 550 feet away according to the staff report. If additional parking is needed, that space is available. He noted that 550 feet might seem like a long distance and he knew that he has parked at the Town Center 800- 1 ,000 feet away. However, if Mr. Evans needed that space and required five employees to park there, they have that space available. He said they have plenty of empty space there and he couldn't see why that couldn't be used. The other thing was that they would be there 15 years and if they leave in 15 years, if the additional parking space was then needed, they were willing to put it in and tie it to a permit for occupancy and they would reduce the size and part of the station. He said it was like a warehouse and it could be reduced. They couldn't reduce it now because they needed it, but they could reduce it in the future if they got a different tenant. He said they would agree in writing and they would have a lawyer write it up to become part of the report and they would agree to do that in the future if it is necessary. He clarified that they would agree to meet the parking requirements of the city in the future if it was needed for a different tenant. Chairperson Campbell thanked Mr. Sherman for his comments. Mr. Drell indicated that unless the commission was willing to reconsider the action that was the end of the agenda item. Just to throw out an idea, Commissioner Beaty stated that he read the report and 550 feet seemed like a long way away, but asked if there was any possibility of creating a condition now that 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 they must park a certain number of vehicles or at the risk of complicating it even further, if it was a problem, and insert the condition that if the building was vacated before another occupancy permit was offered that they comply. He asked if they could do that and if it would satisfy the other commissioners. Mr. Drell said that was a condition that was offered. Commissioner Finerty said no. She felt that was as unrealistic as having the Lucky drivers turn off their truck air conditioning. She also felt that staff's report was accurate and right on when they say it is unlikely that they would park there. Chairperson Campbell asked if they added a condition that employees would park there, who would make sure that was being complied with. Commissioner Finerty concurred that it wasn't practical. Mr. Drell indicated that if commission was done then the action was as completed. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (July 7, 1998) Commissioner Finerty stated that they talked about the art and leisure trail. Intrawest had big plans, however, they were not convinced they needed to pay for it and it needed to be made clear, so she didn't know where that would end up. Regarding the clubhouse, they still planned to open on May 1 , 1999, however, it was being held up by the structural engineer because of the seismic rate factor. There was going to be a hotel review process and they were expecting three proposals by July 15 and hopefully they could arrive at a time table and choose one of the hotel companies soon so they could get those going. C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) Mr. Drell informed commission that over the last few years and last several months there had been considerable angst over the committee's 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION S JULY 7, 1998 purpose, function and staffing and the decision was that until that was defined, the committee would no longer exist. He said it might be resurrected in the future, however it would probably be placed under the Business Support Center and as part of that action the current Economic Development Manager position has been eliminated and temporarily transferred over to Sunline which has taken over the responsibility of the fuel cell program. 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 - (July 1 , 1998) Chairperson Campbell indicated that they discussed RV's and storage in front and side yards. She said the city was going to check with Emerald Isle to see if they have spaces available so that they could tell some of the RV owners that they could park their vehicles there. Also, they were going to wait to have some RV owners come to a meeting to tell them what things are required, if it would be convenient for them to be there, how affordable it would be and so forth. That wouldn't be coming to the Planning Commission until September or October. Regarding the political sign ordinance that would be coming before Planning Commission for approval soon and could be implemented in time for the upcoming political season. The marquee awnings would remain as is and ARC would go ahead and consider all the applications and impose appropriate restrictions so they would be aesthetically compatible on the streets. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Beaty asked about the order of agenda items. He felt sorry for the applicants that had to sit through lengthy hearing items when theirs only took a few minutes. He asked how it was determined. Mr. Drell noted that typically continued items were given priority. Commissioner Beaty noted that with Sunrise, they didn't know it for sure but could guess that it wouldn't be t controversial. He asked if there was a way they could place those up front and not make the people go through the other hearings. Mr. Drell said they 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 r.. could. Chairperson Campbell asked if they could just do that at the meeting. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Beaty felt it would be easier for staff to do because staff knew what kind of response staff was receiving from the public and which ones might be controversial and they could just do it. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the commission has the ability to rearrange the agenda. Commissioner Beaty stated that his point was that staff knew which ones were going to be controversial. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that perhaps they could do both. Staff could make an effort and if they needed to the commission could rearrange the agenda order. Commissioner Finerty suggested that when Ruth's Chris comes back that it be placed at the end. Staff agreed. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. STEP EN R. SMITH, Acting Secretary ATTEST: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California /tm 57