Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0818 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 18, 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 7:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan %W Members Absent: George Fernandez Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Mark Greenwood, Traffic Engineer Martin Alvarez, Assistant Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 4, 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the August 4, 1998 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Vll. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 96-13 - MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between Lot 1 and Lot B of Tract 27570-1 and Lot 2 of Tract 27570 for the construction of an operations building and 12 unit building. B. Case No. PMW 98-15 - MINISTRELLI DEVELOPMENT, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for parcels 8-16 of PMW 97-10 and Lot "I" of Tract 27520 within the Bighorn development. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. 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. Case No. C 98-9 - CLK INC. DBA CARL'S JR., Applicant Request for approval of an exception to the city's sign ordinance (Section 25.68.300) to allow a wall sign above the eave line of the building at 72-795 Highway 1 1 1 in the C-1 S.P. zone. Mr. Alvarez stated that a request was made by Carl's Jr. restaurant located at 72-875 Highway 1 1 1 . Carl's recently received approval by ARC to modify the exterior elevation on the Highway 1 1 1 and parking lot side. The modification z consisted of raising the parapet to 20 feet 6 inches and incorporating the new VJ 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 colors as illustrated in the exhibit that was included in Commission packets and which were on display. In order for the applicant's signage to comply with the ordinance, he explained that the signage required an exception to Section 25.68.300. This section limited the location of signage above the eave of the building. With this special design which was approved by ARC staff felt the signage location was acceptable and the findings could be affirmed. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions attached to the draft resolution. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the exception to the ordinance was the fact that the signs would exceed 20 feet six inches. Mr. Alvarez said no, it was the fact that the sign was above the eave of the building. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the reference in the ordinance was regarding the 20 feet. Mr. Alvarez stated that at no point shall a sign exceed 20 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this sign would exceed 20 feet. Mr. Alvarez said no, it was only because it was above the eave. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. r.. MR. CARL L. KARCHER, 72-875 Fred Waring Drive, Suite C in Palm Desert, stated that the exterior remodel was part of their interior remodel also. They were doing major renovations to the dining room to give it a more contemporary look with new booths, new tables and new carpet. They were also adding their Green Burrito line of products as shown in the signage. It included Green Burrito and Carl's Jr. The signage met code as far as square footage and the only exception was because that building was built with low eaves. That required the Planning Commission approval. He asked for any questions. 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. Commissioner Beaty noted that there was a discrepancy in the address and he didn't want it to become a problem. The agenda had one address, the address was the same on the staff report, but there was a second address on the back. Mr. Alvarez clarified that the address was 795. (That was incorrect--the correct address is 73-125 Highway 1 1 1 ). law MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 i Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't see a problem with the exception and would be prepared to move for approval. He noted that he has been to and enjoyed the Green Burrito. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1885, approving C 98-9, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. PP/CUP 98-13 - HOLDEN AND JOHNSON ARCHITECTS FOR DAVID AND LEISA AUSTIN, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a Precise Plan of Design for a 17,992 square foot art gallery located on the east side of Highway 74, 400 feet south of El Paseo. aJ Mr. Alvarez stated that the parcel in question is located on the east side of Highway 74, 400 feet south of El Paseo. The parcel has frontage on the Highway 74 frontage road to the west and Ocotillo Drive to the east. In November of 1997 Commission determined that the applicant could apply for a conditional use permit at this location since it was a Planned Commercial Resort District and since the existing restaurant to the south could be considered a part of the project. The applicant's proposal included a two story, 17,992 square foot art gallery with a maximum height of 35 feet. The project would have access from a single ingress/egress drive off of the Highway 74 frontage road and would have a secondary emergency access only onto Ocotillo Drive. The first issue that came up was parking. The art gallery proposed a total of 40 parking spaces with 34 off-street parking spaces. Although the city's parking ordinance didn't have a specific requirement for art galleries, they could be categorized as a two per 1 ,000 square feet use which typically included uses such as furniture stores and appliance stores. Exhibit A, which was included in Commission packets, illustrated an alternative parking plan which showed a capacity of 59 spaces. He noted that on display was a modified Exhibit A alternative parking plan which showed 60 parking spaces. Although the details for the modification 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 had not been entirely worked out with planning staff and Public Works Department, it could accommodate the parking requirements for a four per 1 ,000 square foot use, which was typically the general commercial use. Condition 15 required the implementation of this Exhibit A for any future tenant which would have a four per 1 ,000 use parking demand. Condition 14 limited the building square footage to 17,492 square feet which would create a maximum parking demand for 59 parking spaces. Staff recommended the addition of Condition 16 which states that the modifications to the on-street parking spaces designated in Exhibit A be designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director in that no building permits would be issued until this approval is received. The second issue was the north side yard setback. The ordinance requires 15 feet on the side yard and the applicant's project showed a 12-foot setback. The setback deficiency would not create a negative impact on the adjoining property since it is a commercial parking lot. The ARC granted preliminary approval at its June 23, 1998 meeting. With the exception of the setback issue the project met all of the zoning ordinance requirements. Staff received one letter in opposition which was submitted to Commission. The letter was from property owners adjacent to the west across Highway 74 in Sandpiper. Their concerns focused mainly on traffic, noise and security caused by the new development. There was also one letter in favor submitted by Churchill Management Group. For purposes of CEQA this project would not have a negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the attached conditions and the addition of Condition 16 which would read that prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant must produce an alternate on-street parking plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the two per 1 ,000 requirement was consistent with other art galleries that have come before the city and if there was consistent treatment of art galleries since there were a number of them built in the city. Mr. Alvarez didn't recall any being built from the ground up. Mr. Drell clarified that the Roberge project was similar and they did grant significant parking exceptions because they also have a large sculpture garden. The justification was that if the use was no longer an art gallery the sculpture garden could be converted to parking and that was kind of what this applicant would be doing. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they have an ancillary parking lot on Portola. Mr. Drell indicated that was a requirement when the restaurant was built. Also, the city gave them credit for a great deal of street w parking because they had so much street frontage. Commissioner Jonathan 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 j A asked about the conversions on Corporate Way where there was kind of an art colony going on there. Mr. Drell said they were all at the 2/1 ,000 rate. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this would not be inconsistent with those. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the reference to the 59 parking spaces where the applicant was being required to reconfigure on- street parking to provide for 59 spaces. He asked for clarification that the 59 total wouldn't be solely on-street, but would be a combination of off-street and on-street. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if the applicant had any problems with cutting the square footage by 500 square feet. Mr. Alvarez informed Commission that the applicant was notified and didn't have any problem. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK HOLDEN with Holden and Johnson Architects at 44-267 Monterey Avenue, stated that they have already reduced the plans and the building was cut by 500 feet to meet the requirement. They were trying to work with the city. Basically he was present to answer any questions the Commission might have and he noted that the Austins were present, also. The parking that was added was mostly in the sculpture garden and he thought there were 12 spaces shown on the street and that were difference between pulling in or parallel parking against the curb. He thought the difference was seven or eight spaces that way, but it hadn't gone through engineering and that was why Mr. Alvarez added that condition. He noted that the Austins have a successful gallery on El Paseo right now and this wasn't a new venture. It would be a long term asset to the city. He stated that the last project that was approved on this site was a two or three story Red Lion Hotel. He was sure the traffic, noise and traffic movement for the art gallery would be a lot less than the hotel. He said they were available for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the reduction of 500 square feet changed the design the Commission had seen in any significant way. Mr. Holden said not substantially. It was almost the same footprint. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Commissioner Jonathan noted that the art galleries he has frequented didn't generate a lot of noise and asked if this art gallery was going to be an exception in some creative way. Mr. Holden didn't think so and asked if there had been any complaints about their existing gallery. Commissioner Jonathan replied no. Mr. Holden indicated that they weren't planning any concerts. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to this proposal. MS. GERTRUDE NEWMAN, 45-608 Ocotillo Drive, thought this building would create too much of a traffic hazard for them as they are in the residential area. Mr. Drell noted that the project would not have access to Ocotillo. There would be a gated emergency access which would then allow pedestrian access. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1886, approving PP/CUP 98-13, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. TT 26553 Amendment #1 - CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES, Applicant Request for approval of an amended TT 26553 to allow the ... subdivision of 8.207 acres into 36 residential lots at the north 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 I end of Avondale Country Club at the southwest corner of Eldorado and Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Drell stated that this project involved development of a vacant property associated with the Avondale Country Club. It previously had a tentative map approved for 22 single family lots. The location is on the north side of Avondale adjacent to Frank Sinatra. The amendment was to increase that map to 36 lots and eliminate what had been a proposed gate to Avondale that was going to be part of this project. He explained that Avondale is a planned community development with a golf course and homes and is currently zoned Planned Residential, three units per acre. With the addition of these lots, overall density of the project would still be far below that at 1 .35 units per gross acre. The parcel had been voted for annexation into the Avondale Homeowners Association. Therefore, the project would become part of the country club. Mr. Drell said that there were basically two issues which were also raised in correspondence the Commission received from a Charles McCabe, Charles and Beryl McFarland, Edward Chott and the from Goodyears who live on Tandika Trail which is a street directly south of the proposed project. Issues were the increase in the number of units from 22 to 36 and the elimination of the gated access. Instead, what was being provided were two emergency fire accesses. He indicated there was an internal dispute between property owners adjacent to this map and the overall expressed desires of the Avondale Homeowners Association. He said in Commission packets there was correspondence relative to the Homeowners Association's official position. There was apparently an election concerning the annexation, the design of the project, and accepting the property into the association specifically without a gate. The issue raised by those objecting to the project concerning the gate is that all of the traffic movements generated by the new project would have to go past their area of Avondale to go to the main access. Based on this concern a traffic study was conducted which analyzed the impact of the overall project with or without a gate. The conclusion was that if a gate was opened onto Frank Sinatra, while a portion of the traffic generated by the project would exit that gate, also a portion of the existing homes in Avondale who now all travel to the southeast to exit would also now be traveling to this gate to exit. For example, if they were heading to the freeway and were closest to this access, this would be the most convenient way to leave. Basically, the traffic consultant concluded that in comparing the two, there would be virtually no discernible difference. In essence the increased traffic from existing residents would equal the increase resulting from the new project if there were no gate at all. Based on that staff 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 tow determined that traffic was not an issue in terms of comparing the project with a gate or without a gate. The property and number of units proposed was within the approved zoning and typically they rely on homeowners' associations in these situations to guide the city and advise staff as to the compatibility and acceptable nature of subsequent developments within their jurisdiction. Again, the types of units generally being proposed were not dissimilar to products that have been developed in Desert Falls Country Club that have in addition to very large single family homes moderate sized attached units and stacked two story units. The same occurs at Palm Valley Country Club and to a somewhat different degree in terms of scale at Bighorn Country Club. He explained that the diversity of housing types was not unusual in country clubs and was inherent in the concept of the PR zone. He said that based on a determination of compliance with the zoning, the determination that traffic impacts from one alternative to the other were not significant, based on a question raised as to the Fire Marshal's condition relative to the two emergency accesses there was a letter from the Fire Marshal reiterating his desire to have two emergency accesses, and the again the Homeowners Association, who was in charge of representing the overall best interests of the development, with all of that staff was recommending approval of the map and based on the findings of the traffic study which represented the main identified potential environmental impact and the determination that it was not significant, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared. He said there was a request for distribution of a copy yesterday of that Negative Declaration and staff had not been able to respond yet. If the person who made the request was present tonight, staff would give them a copy tonight. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. HARRY CROWELL, of Century Crowell, stated that he has been a nearly 20-year resident of Avondale and member of the Homeowners Association and he was also the developer and part of the team developing the last group of homes in Avondale. He said they have spent a lot of hours and years working on this design, working with the residents within Avondale, and more recently working with City of Palm Desert staff and he believed they have reached full concurrence with all of the city requirements and the requirements of the Homeowners Association and at this time they would like to leave it up to Commission's questioning of anything they wanted to ask him and 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 requested that they be able to address any questions brought up by anyone in the audience. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that Mr. Crowell lived in Avondale. Mr. Crowell stated that right at the moment he didn't have a home in there but he would be having one as soon as they got some houses started. His brother lives there full time. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Crowell would be able to tell her the price range at which the homes would sell. Mr. Crowell said they would be in the $300,000 to $400,000 price range. Chairperson Campbell asked if that was equivalent to some of the homes in there right now. Mr. Crowell said they were about in the same price range. Some were above, some below. He said there were some very nice homes just completed, one 7,400 square foot home. He said the proposed houses would be from 2,000+ to about 3,000 square feet and would all be finished with pools and landscaping completely on each home. There would be side yard fences and all the landscaping would be in place for the buyer. Chairperson Campbell asked if the homes would lower the property values of the existing homes. Mr. Crowell said he didn't think so. Chairperson Campbell asked if a gate was to be installed on Frank Sinatra, if all the homeowners in Avondale would then be required to pay an assessment toward that gate. Mr. Crowell said there would be a monthly increase in the homeowners dues for everyone in the development. He indicated they have discussed this many years with many of the residents of Avondale and the general consensus was that they prefer a single entrance and exit 1 for security purposes. He said he has been an active member of the 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 rr.. Riverside Sheriff's Department and the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department for a number of years. He reviewed it currently with Larry Smith, our Sheriff, and Royce Byrd, our previous Sheriff, and in discussing this they both went to the property with him. He also reviewed it with Gary Penrod, their San Bernardino County Sheriff and his senior people, who have also been to the project with him regarding gates and security for people. He as one who lived there prefers the security and they wouldn't get it with a second gate, not without a high cost of a personal 24-hour guard service. He said it was very difficult to man the gate and he felt it would create more traffic through the development, reduce the number of houses and overall he felt the proposal was a very good plan. They have two cul-de-sacs with emergency exits reviewed and suggested by the fire department and police department for emergency ingress/egress and they all feel that Frank Sinatra Drive access could become somewhat of a traffic hazard for people who weren't paying a lot of attention going in and out because as they all know, it is a single purpose road not used by a lot of people and if they travel on that road, sometimes a lot of them don't pay as much attention when they are driving as they could. That was part of their thought process where the entrance on Eldorado was well maintained, monitored and seemed to be adequate according to the traffic reports that were put out. One of the other things was that two thirds of the people who own homes in Avondale don't live there full time so traffic was really reduced from what a normal traffic study would show. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were many school aged children in the community. Mr. Crowell said he didn't know of any. Some grandchildren were there, but not on a normal basis that he was aware of. He has been there a long time and didn't recall seeing very many children. Chairperson Campbell asked if these new homes would attract families with small children that would be going to school that would require quite a few vehicle trips during the day. Mr. Crowell said it wasn't really a family oriented area. Most of the residents were from far away places and as they get a little older they spend more time and there. There were quite a few people that have _ 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 moved in full time from other states, but in his experience they didn't have a lot of full time residents and indicated that perhaps some of the people in the audience could answer that better than him. Commissioner Finerty noted that it said that the vote on the annexation package was 77%. She asked how many people voted. Mr. Crowell said he thought it was almost everyone, but the president was present and could answer that question. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. MR. STAN MATTOON, a resident of Avondale and a member of the Homeowners Association Board of Directors, addressed the Commission. He clarified that 199 of the 270 homeowners voted and it was 77% of those that voted. Regarding children, he thought there was one family in his neighborhood that has two little kids, but they were getting ready to move. He didn't know of any school age children. Most of the residents were retired. Commissioner Jonathan asked if when the Board and residents considered this matter if they were aware of the two primary issues that the Commission seemed to be addressing tonight, specifically the increase of units from 22 to 36 and the elimination of the gated access. Mr. Mattoon replied yes. Chairperson Campbell asked for testimony of anyone in OPPOSITION to the proposal. MRS. ELOISE GOODYEAR, 38-230 Tandika Trail, said that she was assuming that they all saw the picture that was sent in to the Planning Commission. She showed the location of her home and the Wingren's home. She said that Mr. Crowell built her home and the other Crowell built Wingren's home. She said if they were to lie down there in six feet, and she showed the location of their breakfast room and master bedroom, she said their heads would be in both of the rooms. This was why they were speaking about traffic congestion and it being harmful to their property and values. She said she wasn't at the meeting to 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 fight this project. She said she looks out at it with her cup of coffee every morning and this vacant lot wasn't nice to look at because it wasn't maintained. Steven's Estate was supposed to keep this prepared and taken care of and it has never been done. The Board had never enforced it to be done. Mrs. Goodyear stated that the traffic condition in Avondale is horrendous. They speed and she can barely back out of her driveway because there was a hill that comes down. They weren't controlling traffic now and she asked what they were going to do with 36 more homes in there. She said she wasn't at the meeting to be a complainer about the project. She wanted it built and Frank Sinatra finished as much as the Commission and it needed to be done, but she didn't like the way it was presented by Mr. Crowell or their homeowners. She informed Commission that she is a real estate broker and she has been State Director for California Real Estate Association, she has been president of homeowners' boards, she and her husband have developed condos, and she presently owns Goodyear Realty in San Marino. She said she wasn't talking over the top of her head just to be talking, she wanted the Commission to listen to her, that she has true cause for why she was here because apparently their Board had a blind and deaf ear and when this vote went through it was a no choice vote. They had nothing to vote for. They either voted for it yes or no. There was no choice of a residential gate put on anything. They felt that was very unfair. Then Mr. Crowell walked in and said he builds 36 homes with no residential gate or he would walk out. That was what the Board told them. The Board never combated, never went back and said, "Mr. Crowell, there are people in here that would like to have a residential gate. They feel that maybe about 80% of the people that are building in the new project would use that gate and it would alleviate some of the traffic." Mrs. Goodyear said they were never listened to and they never went back to Mr. Crowell, that she knew of, to ask if he would build a residential gate. He was now building two and he's got room to put a residential gate, but she couldn't decide that and all she could do was plead with the Commission to listen to their side of the case. Another thing was that this wasn't a very convenient time to have a meeting because there were so many people out of Avondale and out of the desert at this particular time of the year to present themselves and the two letters she brought in tonight, one was a fax and one was delivered today because they weren't aware of the meeting and there were so few people notified, only those within 300 feet, and then people in Chicago didn't get the message. She said she 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 arl didn't want to be lengthy because the Commission would shut her up. She stated that most people don't understand development of real estate and how increased density and traffic would erode their property values and it's always said that if you buy on a busy street you get a bargain. This was a well known real estate fact. She said she has never been involved in a real estate association or ever heard of one where it didn't take 66 and two-thirds vote to pass something of this magnitude. They just flung it out there and didn't say how many votes it would take, just the majority of votes that came in. She felt there were just under 300 votes that could have come in and a lot of people back east were gone and didn't even get the votes and didn't answer. Another thing she did not appreciate was when Mr. Crowell made his presentation to the homeowners. The plans he submitted then has varied to now. She was not saying that they probably are not upgraded, but they were not the original plans and guessed it was an amended plan. She said they videoed that meeting and she knows everything that was said and not said and he was not able to answer lot sizes to the people or other factual questions and it ended up, the presentation, which she thought was in poor taste, with a free cocktail party and they served prior and during the discussions. It was so noisy and unruly that a developer tried to talk on the other side of the room to no avail and Mr. Crowell's table, who was sitting up there, when people got up and made suggestions they booed people that even wanted to know more about what was happening. She said she has proof of everything she was saying. Mrs. Goodyear also said that she was told by one of the planners that Mozambique was always a feeder street. That was not true. When they purchased 15 years ago from Mr. Harry Crowell, it was a dead end street which joined the golf course and it was used only by them for maintenance purposes. Now they were saying it was always a feeder street. She never heard that it was always a feeder street. They could see by the narrowness of the street in the picture, and that happened to be Mr. Crowell's 4 x 4 coming through there when cars were parked on either side, that showed there would. be congestion on that street. Plus the fact that people would have to dodge the golfers between three and four and they have to stop at Tandika. If they don't, they will get killed and then they would have to go to the main gate. That meant there would be a lot of pollution, a lot of stopping, and a lot of noise there because it would be continual. It didn't matter whether they are families or whatever. Families could buy in there very easily because it was easy to buy with 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 low money today. She said she was mainly asking that the Planning Commission look beyond the improvement of Frank Sinatra Drive, but all the other issues that affect the lives of other people that have lived there 15 plus years in a low density, quiet community. There were so few left she felt it was time to consider preserving and protecting it to the best of the Commission's ability and to our city of Palm Desert. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mrs. Goodyear knew who the cars belonged to that were parked on the street that was shown in the picture she submitted. Mrs. Goodyear said she thought there were gardeners on one side and there were some workers on the other. Mr. Crowell's car was in the middle. Chairperson Campbell asked if those cars were just employees that work there. Mrs. Goodyear said yes, or said they could be pool men, she didn't know exactly. low Chairperson Campbell asked if there were that many cars parked on that street all the time. Mrs. Goodyear said no, they come and go. MR. BILL REID, a resident of Avondale, said this seemed to be the season of misstatements. The vote that was presented to the homeowners consisted of one question. "If this project was built, can the people who ultimately occupy the residences become members of the homeowners association?" Yes or no. That was it. There was nothing about whether they approved the streets or the plan or anything about it. There was one question. He said he was a former member of the Board there and he was also a retired law enforcement officer from Los Angeles. He has spent ten years in security here in Palm Desert. The design of a remote gate as proposed by Mrs. Goodyear was his original design. It is used at The Lakes, where he originally put it, Palm Valley, and The Springs. The price of that gate was something in the neighborhood of $24,000. It was not a manned gate. It was a remote gate with a camera that connects to the main gate. The only maintenance on that gate would be the occasional person who tries to get through and breaks a gate arm. The maintenance on the streets, 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 especially Tandika, would be far more than the maintenance on that gate. He would challenge the traffic study in that they were trying to tell him that if there were two gates of egress that the traffic would be the same in front of his house. That was what they were saying. In other words, someone wouldn't use one of the gates. He asked if that was right. Mr. Drell explained that if there was a gate, and he could provide Mr. Reid with a copy of the study, a percentage of the residents of the new subdivision would use that gate instead of going south. But also a percentage of those south of them would now find that new gate convenient and they would go north. Those two would cancel each other out. As opposed to taking all 36 households going south to the main gate, the additional traffic of those who now live in the project who will now use the new gate will increase and make up for those in the new project who will also use it. The ultimate result will be an increase in traffic from the project. There was no question. They were adding 36 units to the whole project, but the impact in front of his house on Tandika would be the same in either case, different cars would just be going by his house in different directions. Mr. Reid said that if there were no gate there, then all the traffic went by his house. Mr. Drell said that all of the homes that are now south of him who now go to the main gate, a portion of those would also now choose to go to the north gate. Mr. Reid said it depended where they were going. Mr. Drell said that the traffic engineer made an assessment of the location of those houses in the direction they want to go. Those who want to go to 1-10 and want to go north, instead of winding their way through the project to get to the main gate would most conveniently go out this new gate. It would be a service to them. Those increased trips would, according to the traffic analysis which was a reasonable one, those additional trips of existing residents using this north gate would also be driving by his house. They all now drive south. A portion of those people would now drive north and that would result in the increase being the same. There would be an increase because part of the project was never developed, but it was always planned on being developed and that would increase traffic, but the addition or deletion 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 of the gate in analyzing the impact in this particular area would not have an effect. Mr. Reid said he challenged that. He thought that should be reevaluated because if he was going to go north to the freeway, it would be more convenient for him to go out the main gate and faster to go up Eldorado and turn on Frank Sinatra rather than wind his way through the project, and a lot safer. What Mr. Drell was saying was that they were going to add 36 units with the people and the maintenance and the gas company and television and not increase traffic by his house. Mr. Drell said he didn't say that. He explained that what he said was that the completion of the project will increase traffic by his house but in comparing the traffic projected to go by his house in the general area of Tandika the increase in traffic when compared with this project, with a gate and without a gate, looking at those in close proximity to this gate and deciding how many of those people were likely to go north and how many were going to go south, the majority of the people in the project would continue to go south. But again, they were only talking about 36 units in the new project in a 200-unit `r project. In assigning those existing units, which was a minority but it was enough to make a difference, who are likely to go north, that made up for those proposed units that would utilize that gate and not have to go south. He said he would make the study available to Mr. Reid and thought the study was made available to the Goodyears. (Mrs. Goodyear spoke from the audience and said it wasn't and there was a request from her lawyer.) Mr. Drell indicated that he received the letter from her attorney yesterday and would make it available to him. Mr. Reid said to finalize his position, the addition of a gate in lieu of two emergency gates was not going to affect the security of Avondale. Mr. Drell said he would like to clarify two things. One, the City staff is absolutely neutral relative to whether or not there is a gate. Based upon our study, he didn't see a significant impact either way. Ultimately he felt it was a decision that should be left up to the residents and Homeowners Association of Avondale. If the decision was made that there should be a gate and the people there want a gate, he had absolutely no problem with them having a gate. Relative to security, while he wasn't a security expect, it was again a decision that the residents of Avondale have to evaluate. There were many 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 i .�i projects that have remote gates, but he didn't know if there was a problem with them. Mr. Reid said that over ten years there has been a reduction in crime rates within the gated communities with the addition of that type of gate because it was unmanned. As he read the map, there was no loss of any lot by putting in a gate. Mr. Drell indicated that typically when they have a gate they needed space for cars to get off the street before they get to the gate and the plan proposed didn't include that and might create that area and they needed a place if people are rejected if by chance they come up to the gate and can't get in and someone gets behind them, they typically needed room to turn around and get out. It would require some redesign of the map but whether they would lose lots, he wasn't sure. Mr. Reid said if they looked at the proposed northeast emergency gate, there is a lot there beside it to the west that was apparently not meant to be built on. It wasn't that large. The loss of that lot would certainly s' not affect Mr. Crowell's project. "1D Commissioner Jonathan stated that the Commission was very interested in Mr. Reid's comments and asked him to proceed because the Commission tries to limit the speakers to five minutes. He noted there were a lot of people at the meeting that all wanted to be heard also. He requested Mr. Reid to proceed with his concerns. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Reid talked about the ballot that went out to the people. The issue was that when the people buy homes, if they could become members of the HOA. She asked if that was the only question on the ballot. Mr. Reid said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Reid had a copy of the ballot. Mr. Reid said no. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Commissioner Finerty asked if anyone in the audience had a copy of the ballot. (A lady in the back came forward and gave the ballot to Commissioner Finerty.) Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Reid where he lived on Tandika and his proximity to the corner of Mozambique and Tandika. Mr. Reid said he lived two houses from the corner. Chairperson Campbell asked if he was the second house from the corner. There was some discussion in the audience and Chairperson Campbell again asked where Mr. Reid lived on Tandika in relation to the corner of Mozambique. Mr. Reid said he was north of the main gate on Tandika, two houses. Chairperson Campbell asked if that was a mile away. Mr. Reid said no. Mrs. Goodyear also spoke from the audience and said it was the first or second duplex there where they come in from the main gate. He and another person were the first ones on the street. Chairperson Campbell thanked them and asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. MR. GEORGE SANDERS, 38-811 Tandika, stated that he was not against the project, but he was against not having a gate exit at the north end of Avondale. He bought his house in 1972 and became a permanent resident in 1977. Any plan he ever saw about the possibility of developing that property always showed an entrance and exit on Frank Sinatra. He said he made a count of the number of units, liveable units, not fillers, because they have two units in several buildings. There would be an increase in traffic of 40% in front of his house and he thought that was quite an increase in traffic. When they buy in a residential area, they don't expect to have all that kind of traffic. He believed that the gate should be put in there and not at a substantial cost to Mr. Crowell. He might lose a lot or two, but he was increasing the number of lots from 22 to 36 without taking into consideration that there should be a gate there. He voted against the annexation of that 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 area for the very reason that there was no gate shown on the information that was sent to them. MR. JIM LEWIS, Desert Management, stated that there was a very important point that needed to be brought out. That was that the Association and the developer have been instructed that if a gate was put on Frank Sinatra, if they were exiting the property they would only be able to make a right-hand turn and head east on Frank Sinatra or if they were trying to enter the property, they would have to be traveling east on Frank Sinatra to enter in. Any area that a gate would be installed would be so close to the intersection of Eldorado and Frank Sinatra that they could not have a total traffic flow gate on Frank Sinatra. He felt that was a very important point that hadn't been brought up and discussed this evening. He thought that would clarify many different issues and trains of thought of what constitutes a gate at the north end of Avondale. Mrs. Goodyear spoke from the audience and said she addressed that ' when she was at the city planning commission and thought it was Mr. Drell that said it was a possibility that they would allow a median there. MR. ERNIE BEALE, a ten-year resident of Avondale Country Club at 39- 740 Tandika Trail, said that between Country Club and Frank Sinatra is exactly one mile. The entrance to the club itself, Avondale Golf Club, bisects that area. In other words, it is a half mile from either Frank Sinatra and/or Country Club into the main entrance of the project. The folks who talked tonight would have the Commission believe that they are living within close proximity of the proposed Avondale gate that considerably inconveniences them and he couldn't see that happening. The traffic they had a picture of he thought was on Monday through Friday where, because they don't live under condominium law and were all single family residences, so each of them had their own gardeners and pool person. Most of them also have people that take care of their homes for them. Consequently, at various times of the day early in the day and in the afternoon these people leave the property, never to be seen again until the next day, hardly causing horrendous traffic that he heard tonight. In addition to that, he asked Commission to take into consideration that the widening of Frank Sinatra was part of this proposal. Currently Frank Sinatra is two lanes, one in each direction. Because there is no stop between Cook and Eldorado, they have a one- r 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 mile stretch of roadway that is only two lanes wide and it is used like a race track. He even found himself going 50 mph because there isn't anything to stop him. If the gate would permit egress from the project, it would be a very dangerous gate because it would be limited in sight by a hedge and secondly, being a right turn only the driver would have to cautiously exit because he was going into traffic traveling on two lanes under the proposal, each of which would be going 50 mph and as Cook Street and the development of the university across on Frank Sinatra develops, they were looking at a potential speedway. He thought that would be far more dangerous than what they have and the minute or two that people might have to give up to use the main gate. Eldorado had recently been repaved and it would be re-striped and it was the only road that he knew that was six lanes wide and only two miles long and according to the traffic count on it, he wondered how they ever paved it. They did and they were happy for that. He asked the Commission to take into consideration that those of them that live there and have for some time, and it was a golf club closed to the public so they don't get public attendance at their golf matches, the restaurant wasn't open to the public as some of the neighboring clubs `ow are, and from the standpoint of traffic it was at a minimum. Basically at any time of the day, outside of the gardener or pool person parked on the street, no one parks on the street. They all have a 25 mph speed limit, they were careful and from a standpoint of danger, he hasn't even seen a sparrow run over. They don't have kids and they weren't that sort of an area. Most of them were retired people. They have their grandchildren. The greater part of the club members, particularly the ones that live there year round, were members of the golf club and very seldom leave the complex. They love their golf game. The proposal as they've seen it before was voted on in a legitimate manner. The cares and concerns for danger that were brought to Commission by the opponents just didn't exist. He thanked the Commission. Mrs. Goodyear spoke from the audience and asked Mr. Beale if he ever went out at night because there were solid cars parked on Tandika Drive, solid cars. Chairperson Campbell interrupted and asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Crowell for rebuttal comments. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Mr. Crowell stated that he just wanted to make a comment about what Mr. Reid and Mrs. Goodyear stated. He said when he first bought into the project about 1978 or 1979, there was a proposed development for that last eight acres. There was a golf maintenance shed and there was an entrance and exit for the golf course maintenance which was moved to the west end of the property and further opened up. With the housing lots developed, there were 22 lots, duplexes, scheduled for that property with no access on Frank Sinatra and as long as he has been aware of the project there has been no proposal for that. Mr. Steven's or his estate a couple of years ago had a plan developed showing an access out on Frank Sinatra which was clearly discussed with many members of the homeowners association of which he didn't recall anyone wanting the gate other than the Goodyears talking about it and Mr. Reid lives right at the entrance to the existing gate on Eldorado. That might be why he wants another exit. It has been thoroughly discussed with many members of the association and the ballot that went out was written by the homeowners association attorney, Wayne Guralnick, and the Board, and it was properly dispersed and votes were counted by the homeowners association and he believed it was an accurate, honorable well-publicized event. They invited homeowners to come for a showing of their proposal prior to the vote so everyone that was in the area and they chose it at the height of the season so they did have a good turn out of 100 or more people. He didn't have a count, but there was a lot of discussion and show and tell and the vote was taken after that meeting, probably a month later, so there was plenty of time for discussion among the homeowners. He said if there were no more questions, he would request a positive vote for them to continue. He thanked the Commission. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she could appreciate very much the hard work that went into preparing the ballot and went into the fact sheet that went out to all of the homeowners. She, too, was president of a homeowner's association and has been a board member for ten years and she knew how difficult it was to try and balance the wishes of all homeowners. But she has learned whenever they have an issue it is always best to give both sides of the issue. What they do in their association is a point counter point and they include associated costs and potential revenues. The fact here was 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 that they wouldn't really know which homeowners want the gate because they were really never asked, according to the material that went out. She would feel more comfortable if another vote was taken of the association with that option, associated costs and maintenance of the gate. Commissioner Jonathan thought that some of the concerns they heard tonight about the gate, traffic and noise were sincere and that there is some validity to them. However, as a planning commissioner looking at the proposed project, it was in compliance with code, whether it has a gate or not it is compliance with code, so that was more of a personal choice on the part of the developer who has taken the added step to consult with the Association. He really tried to shy away from internal issues and appreciated Commissioner Finerty's comments, which he felt were well founded, but he didn't want to get involved in internal matters, whether the ballot was worded properly or not, whether it presented all sides, or whether it presented all sides fairly. From what he could tell there was an internal process that has been undertaken and it has been undertaken in a reasonably fair and comprehensive manner and therefore the conclusion he could see was that the homeowners overwhelming support the addition of the project or the addition to their project as it was presented to the Commission tonight. Given that it is in compliance and he didn't discern any negative impacts to the overall project and certainly not to Palm Desert as a community, he would be in favor of the project as presented. He had one other comment. He said he was very regretful, since Palm Desert is still a small town and most know each other and this process was to enable them to talk to each other and for an application to be heard. He was disturbed that the first brush they got in that communication process from one resident was a letter from an attorney. He said he would hope in the future that they all give communication a shot before they run to their attorney. He was bothered to see that, although it certainly did not impact his conclusion. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was generally in concurrence with Commissioner Jonathan. The issues raised by the opponents didn't seem to be supported by the facts. He wasn't reading on the ballot what was reported and going on the assumption that WPA Traffic Engineering out of Laguna Hills is a certified, competent firm, of which he was sure they were since the City of Palm Desert hired them, and their statements that even though there would be an increase in traffic the gate issue was really a moot point, he would be in favor of the project. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 a r Chairperson Campbell stated that she, too, concurred with Commissioners Jonathan and Beaty. They looked to the homeowners' association for their say so in matters like this since they were not in the community and as far as the project was concerned, she didn't think it would really impact many of the neighbors that were here with only 36 new homes. She said she lives in a gated community and they didn't seem to have any problems, especially if most people are retired and there weren't many children where the mothers have to go back and forth through the gate. She was also in favor of the project. She asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1887, approving TT 26553 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). i D. Case Nos. GPA 98-5, C/Z 98-6 and DA 98-2 - DEL WEBB CALIFORNIA CORP. Applicant Request for recommendation of approval to the City Council of: 1 ) the general planning and prezoning for the purpose of future annexation of property generally located north of Interstate 10 and Varner Road, east of Washington Street, west of Adams Street and south of Frances Way to PCD (Planned Community Development); 2) adoption of a development agreement which would, among other matters, vest existing Del Webb Sun City Palm Desert County of Riverside approvals; and 3) certification of an addendum to the County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report as amended for Specific plan No. 281 as it pertains to the above. Mr. Drell explained that this was a pre-annexation adoption of a very comprehensive extensively studied and analyzed specific plan and substantially implemented specific plan for the Del Webb development. They were simply adopting the product of the process that the County has been going through for the last number of years and most recently just amended. They received one letter of comment from the attorneys of the Adams Ranch property to the 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 %W east relative to the maintained existence of Avenue 36 which is shown in the specific plan as a primary access for a proposed development of Adams Ranch. Mr. Drell stated that Avenue 36 is part of the plan that is before Commission and is included as a public road and is identical to that which was included in the County approval. In terms of the development agreement, it essentially provided vested rights in this specific plan to allow Del Webb to proceed as approved for a period of time. Partly because the process was just beginning, the annexation contained reference to language of the city's commitment to in essence support and implement and go forward with the annexation of the property. That ultimately would be a city council decision and would be based on a still being studied fiscal impact of potential annexation of this property or potentially in combination with other properties north of 1-10, so with that one reservation that ultimately the adoption of this development agreement would not occur unless the city affirmatively determined that yes, we want to pursue this annexation, then those sections would apply. But at this point in time staff and Planning Commission would not be able to affirm those sections, but in other respects he felt it was appropriate to pass on to city council, who would ultimately be making the decision on annexation. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were one or possibly two fiscal impact analyses conducted. Mr. Drell said that Del Webb conducted one in association with their application to LAFCO for the addition to Palm Desert's sphere of influence. They've contracted and had various drafts of one examining the same question. Staff's examination of the Del Webb study showed certain conflicts between the two studies and certain conflicts they saw were inconsistencies and they each came up with a different result and they were still trying to reconcile the two and were having the consultant go back to the police and fire people to make sure they understand the questions and to more accurately determine what the actual increase in service costs would be, but at this point in time they have yet to have a definitive answer to that question. Commissioner Jonathan asked if we were uncertain of the fiscal impact that would result to the city from annexation. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan indicated Commission was not being asked to comment on that aspect of an annexation. Mr. Drell said that was right. With the exception that statements to that effect were contained in the development agreement. If the city adopts the development agreement, they are agreeing to actively pursue annexation and so he would say, and it would be reflected in the minutes, that at this point in time the Commission is not in `, a position at this time, in terms of that aspect of the agreement, to be 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 recommending that since it was really the purview of the city council. Commissioner Jonathan said that was because the projected fiscal impact was unknown at this point. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that obviously the city council would take that into consideration if it wishes to undertake a negative fiscal impact it would do so. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Campbell o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. PAUL QUILL, representing Del Webb California Corporation, 39-755 Berkey Drive in Palm Desert 92211 , stated that it was a pleasure to be before the Commission tonight in the first of what he hoped would be a long and ongoing relationship with the City of Palm Desert. Their General Manager, Helen McEnerney, would really have loved to be here tonight but she was on a well deserved and long awaited vacation this week. He wanted to extend her apologies for not being present. Mr. Quill said they at Del Webb and their residents have been looking forward to annexation to the city of Palm Desert for quite some time. They have several residents present tonight and all three of their resident Board of Directors members for the Sun City Palm Desert Community Association were here in support of the application before Commission. They didn't bring all the bells and whistles tonight, didn't bring pictures or all of the graphs and charts and things that were typical in a hearing like this because they are part of the community already and the project is significant and he was sure all of" the commissioners were fully aware of it and have seen it and have seen the quality and pride they take in their development. This afternoon the stack of paper before the Commission with Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan 281 was approved by the County Board of Supervisors. He stated that the application is now formally approved by the County. Understanding that the Commission has received a significant stack of paper over the last couple of weeks from them, and he thought it was about five inches in depth, they have in the audience with them tonight representing Del Webb their bevy of consultants to be at the Commission's disposal to answer any questions they might have regarding the rather substantial documentation before them. They didn't want to spend a lot of Commission's time but wanted to be here and prepared to answer any and all questions they might have and thought they had the people present to do that. He said they looked forward to Commission's approval and forwarding of this application on. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 He also wanted to reserve the right to respond to any comments that might come from anyone in the audience or the Commission. Commissioner Finerty asked what Del Webb's position was on Avenue 36. Mr. Quill said that Avenue 36 was part of their specific plan. It has been part of their specific plan since its inception and still is. Frankly, he wanted to call on one of their consultants, Kurt Ely, to speak to that issue a little further. He said he could do that now or he could answer any other questions. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was curious about the annexation and development agreement and asked if Mr. Quill would prefer that questions were addressed to Mr. Ely. Mr. Quill said yes. The annexation development agreement was in flux. He asked if there were any questions for him regarding zoning issues or in the text of what they had in front of them. Commissioner Jonathan said that as a follow up with regard to the staff report, he asked if Mr. Quill was in general agreement with the report itself and asked if he took any exception to what the Commission was looking at in terms of what they were being asked to recommend to the council. Mr. Quill said no. MR. KURT ELY, 69-844 Highway 1 1 1 in Rancho Mirage, stated that he was the attorney for Del Webb California Corporation and has been involved with the project since its inception in 1990. At the outset of the project and at the time they were preparing the specific plan, Avenue 36 was a street that showed as a general plan street on the General Plan circulation for the County of Riverside. Because of the fact that the street bifurcates the project, Del Webb desired in the beginning to eliminate it. The first draft of the specific plan showed the elimination of Avenue 36. The Adams 34 project located directly east of Avenue 36 wanted to have 36 remain. There was a lot of discussion about it and probably the early position of the hearings the attorney for Adams 34 sent a letter to the County of Riverside, a 22 page letter basically indicating that if the street didn't remain, that a California Environmental Impact lawsuit would be filed against the project. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 t .ri Obviously they had a lot of money and a lot at stake at that point in time and they didn't want to get off to a bad start and as a result of that they left Avenue 36 on the specific plan and as Mr. Quill said, it remains there today. They have had a lot of negotiations with Adams 34, most of which ended up in discussions about Del Webb purchasing their property. They were several million dollars apart so as a result there has never been a resolution and Avenue 36 was still part of the specific plan. Adams 34 has an easement, a 30-foot easement, that is on the north side of the section line. Their position on that is that it is a private matter between private properties and not an issue for the Planning Commission. He also mentioned that at the time the specific plan was first prepared without Avenue 36 being indicated on it, they proposed that to the County Transportation Department and the Transportation Department in fact approved the specific plan without Avenue 36 being located on it. The obvious point in doing that was that they didn't feel the traffic impact in that area was necessary to require the street; however, because of the Adams 34 property it did remain. He also mentioned that in terms of getting to Adams 34 there are several routes they could go. If proceeding north and going over the interchange, they could continue to go north to the Avenue 36 ..� intersection and then if the street is built they could turn right and go on Avenue 36 to Adams 34. Another route might be if they go over the interchange, immediately turn right or east on Varner Road over to Adams Street and go north. In fact, Adams Street was pretty much completed at this point. Another future route would be to go over the interchange north until what would be a future street, Frances Way, at the north portion of the Del Webb Sun City project and then they could turn east and end up at the Adams 34 property that way. He said there were several ways to get there and the point was that it was not absolutely imperative that Avenue 36 remain; however, as he stated before it is part of their specific plan. He said that was all he had and if Commissioner Jonathan had questions about the development agreement, he would try to answer them. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Ely if he had a chance to review the August 12 redlined version of the annexation and development agreement. Mr. Ely said they looked it over but had to admit that Del Webb representatives had not done what they would like to do which was get 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 together and sit down and go through those which they feel are important and separate them from those that they could live with. Commissioner Jonathan asked if from Mr. Ely's perspective they were not yet at an agreeable document in its completed form. There was still discussion that would likely take place. Mr. Ely said he believed it would be fair to say there would be further discussions that would take place. Chairperson Campbell noted that another speaker wishing to speak in FAVOR was Sy Kaplan and asked him to come forward. MR. SY KAPLAN, 37-590 Copperstone Court in Sun City, stated that he was a board member for the Sun City Community Association, along with their other two resident board members Robert Pete McKinsey and James Street who were also present. He said they were representing 3,000 residents and came to the meeting tonight to get this "paragraph B" approved. They would like to see that happen. However, they took a survey and 78% of their residents in Sun City were in favor of annexation into Palm Desert if Palm Desert would have them. Twelve percent (12%) didn't care one way or the other. What he was saying was that as far as the residents are concerned, they would like to see this happen. They weren't speaking for Del Webb, but for the residents. They want to see this thing happen. It would be a good thing for both Palm Desert and Sun City. He thanked the Commission. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Gluck to address the Commission. MR. E. ROBERT GLUCK, the Manager of Adams 34 Ranch, said he has been the manager since its inception in 1979. He said it was disconcerting to see a man as young as Mr. Ely having a failure of memory but just to set the record straight, he said there were four offers to purchase Adams 34 Ranch from Del Webb in 1989 and 1990 before the whole issue of Avenue 36 came up and he wanted to make sure that no one had the impression that they tried to extract the purchase of Adams 34 from Del Webb in order to solve their problem with Avenue 36. Secondly, he distributed a copy of easement documents to Commission (on file in the Department of Community Development) which showed they were legally obligated under that 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 easement to work to make Avenue 36 a public road. At the very last paragraph of the document he highlighted their obligation to work to make it a public road. He said Adams 34 was neutral on this. They were not asking Commission to vote for or against this. All they were saying was that Avenue 36 was the prime access to Avenue 34 and the plan was designed around that. They started long before Del Webb did with Specific Plan 231--Del Webb is Specific Plan 281 . They came in later and Adams 34 was pushed aside so that Sun City could go through first, but both plans as a condition have Avenue 36. There were additional reasons for Avenue 36 which developed later, one being that the County was concerned about flooding from Pushawalla Canyon and from Thousand Palms Canyon in that area and they were concerned that the flooding would close off both Washington Street and Adams Street with a 100-year flood. If that were to happen then Del Webb was required by its approval to maintain Del Webb Boulevard as an all weather road and the access to get to Del Webb Boulevard would be via Avenue 36. They were saying that Del Webb is legally obligated to build Avenue 36 and are obligated for good planning reasons to build Avenue 36 and he hoped the City of Palm Desert when they ultimately } take jurisdiction over Sun City would keep that in mind. He thanked the +•� Commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked, given the status of the application and the inclusion of Avenue 36 at this point, if Mr. Gluck had any objections to the annexation. Mr. Gluck stated that he had no objections the way it was approved by the County. Chairperson Campbell asked for a show of hands from the audience of those in favor of the annexation of Del Webb into Palm Desert (there were several). She asked if they all wished to speak and if so to come forward. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked for any OPPOSITION to this matter. There was none. Chairperson Campbell asked for any rebuttal comments by the applicant. Mr. Ely said he was a little perplexed about why there was an issue at this point and he found himself trying to disprove the nonexistence of a fact that doesn't exist. If there was any evidence at this point of Avenue 36 not being on their approved plan, then they would have laid 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 r something to argue about, but it is in fact there. He also felt he should address the issue of the all weather street. He said the truth of the matter is that the entire area out there can be subject to some fairly serious flooding at times and in fact Washington Street, the main street they use to get to Sun City Palm Desert, was not an all weather street. They have a flood drainage plan out there that contemplates that there would be flow across the streets, including Washington, including Varner, including Adams Street, and including Frances Way when it gets built up at the north side. The statement in the letter from Mr. Gluck's attorney that Del Webb is required to build an all weather street with respect to Adams was not correct. He said it has never been required by the County to build Adams as an all weather street and in fact Adams was built, pretty much, and it wasn't an all weather street. He said there were some recent changes that resulted from the fact that hydrology studies done subsequently to the original approval of Sun City Palm Desert indicated that the flow, with respect to Adams Street, wouldn't be as severe as they had originally thought and therefore they were allowed to reduce the kind of structure they were going to build to handle a two-year storm. There were changes that were made but it didn't convert an all weather street to a non all weather street. All it did was allow Del Webb to reduce the improvements they would be making because the hydrology studies indicated that less water would be coming across Adams. With respect to the easement, he said that again that was a private matter. The easement is a 30-foot wide easement on the north side of the section line. Avenue 36 was actually an 88-foot street designated for an 88-foot right of way. He didn't have any further comments about Avenue 36 and asked for Commission questions. He said that after Del Webb acquired its holdings in this area Frank Pankrats, the former General Manager of Del Webb, and himself, and he didn't think it was an exaggeration to say they spent hundreds of hours negotiating with Adams 34 with respect to either eliminating the easement or acquiring the Adams 34 property. Those negotiations were unsuccessful and no resolution had ever been reached. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty noted that in a letter dated August 13 to the Planning Commission there was a statement that said both the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors confirm the importance of Avenue 36 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 ..r by requiring it as a Master Plan roadway in both the Del Webb Sun City and Adams 34 Ranch Specific Plans. Her question was if Del Webb Sun City becomes annexed into the city of Palm Desert, if it was up to the City to then decide on Avenue 36 or if it was an issue that Del Webb decides. Mr. Drell said that Del Webb would have to apply for an amendment to their plan for it to be eliminated and they would have to go through this process again. They couldn't unilaterally decide to eliminate it. Commissioner Finerty indicated that it would then be the City who would be actually be deciding. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said what they were being asked to approve tonight or were being asked to recommend to the council was approval of the General Plan Amendment 98-5, Change of Zone 98-6 and the Development Agreement 98-2. With respect to the first two items, the general plan amendment and change of zone, he certainly heard no opposition and thought the annexation made eminent sense to the city of Palm Desert and he could see the residents of Sun City are overwhelmingly in favor of the annexation, so he would welcome the Sun City community to the city of Palm Desert and would be prepared to recommend approval to the city council. However, with regards to the development agreement, it is an agreement that is in a state of i./► transition and that portion of the staff report he would want to send onto city council without comment, which he understood was one of the Commission's options in this type of situation. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would second Commissioner Jonathan's comments and would look forward to having Del Webb Sun City in Palm Desert. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was in complete agreement and felt that Del Webb was a first class organization and looked forward to their annexation. Chairperson Campbell concurred and called for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 %W It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1888, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 98-5 and C/Z 98-6. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, to, by minute motion, forward Case No. DA 98-2 to City Council without comment because the development agreement was not complete and involved provisions concerning the annexation which are the sole purview of the City Council. Motion carried 4-0. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8:52 P.M. CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:57 P.M. E. Case No. PP/CUP 98-5 (Revised), TT 28818 (Revised) and DA 98-1 - MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORT, INC., Applicant Request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit, %W Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 18-hole golf course, 966 unit timeshare resort and supporting amenities on 306± acres on the east side of Monterey Avenue between Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Drell stated that he wanted to start off with a correction. There was a revision in the unit count as reflected in the staff report and there were now 999 units. He noted that this matter was before Commission on May 5 and 19, 1998, at which time the Commission recommended approval of the project to the city council. After a hearing was held on July 9 before council, there was a great deal of input given to the applicant by the council as to design problems and certain suggestions they had for the project. As a result significant redesign has occurred to the extent that the project was sufficiently different to warrant a re-review by the Planning Commission. Those changes included a 15-acre commercial site at the corner of Frank Sinatra and Monterey was which was not included and the council inquired as to how the ultimate development of that site would relate to the project and that problem had gone away. It was purchased by Marriott and was included within the design of the resort. There would not be any commercial use at the southeast corner of �..► Monterey and Gerald Ford. Unit count as a result of the redesign decreased 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 j from 1200 units to 999 units. Previously there was a combination of 2, 3 and 4 stories. The reason there were two stories was because there were a number of units that were directly adjacent to either a street or an internal property line. Because of the need for the two stories, that generated at that time a need for four stories to reach their unit count goal. The project had now been redesigned with golf course fairways adjacent to all the streets or interior property lines with the exception of property to the west in Rancho Mirage, which is a commercially zoned property. Since the setbacks for the units had increased substantially from approximately 150 feet to about 340 feet, the line of sight analysis showed that the two story units were no longer necessary to preserve views and therefore eliminated the need for four story units. Also, the reduction in unit count from 1200 to 999 eliminated the need for four story units. All units would be three stories. There was a question at council relative to the alignment of the access to Frank Sinatra as it related to the access to Palm Desert Greens. The project was redesigned so those driveway streets coincide and align with each other. As occurred before Planning Commission in the original discussion with the design and location of the units relative to the homes on Drexell in the Kaufman and Broad project with the elimination of all the units adjacent to them and substitution of the 3 golf fairway and the orientation of the three story units such that there would .r be no units in the vicinity that actually front toward Drexell they were only looking at end units without balconies so in addition to the substantial increase in setbacks the design of the units addressed those residents' concerns. Another comment had to do with the landscape concept of the project. A councilman was concerned with the dominant tropical nature of the proposal and felt there should be some sensitivity to the fact that this project is in the desert and the exhibits/renderings showed that the perimeter would now highlight desert planting as both the entrance statement and desert waste bunker area similar, although not as extensive, as we have included in the design of the golf course. So there would be some understanding on the part of residents and golfers that this project is in the desert. There had been an inclusion of a walking/jogging path that would allow the area to circumnavigate the entire project and the perimeter wall would be designed similar to what is seen at Desert Springs with the view corridors which allow the general public to see into the project and get a flavor of the quality and amenities. Staff recommended approval of the original plan and in terms of design the plan has been changed substantially from what they originally saw. The impact on the K & B project was substantially less and most people perceive that having their homes on a championship golf course fairway was typically an enhancement to property value. That has been designed so that 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 all the hazards are on the east side to encourage golfers to avoid hitting their balls toward the residences. The council had other comments regarding revenue impacts of timeshare projects and he believed the Commission received copies of an analysis done by Marriott. Staff was also reviewing this and would be preparing an independent analysis to the council. Basically when they first adopted the timeshare ordinance there was some uncertainty and concern about the impact that timeshare would have on other revenues in the city and based on staff's experience there were many significant sources of revenue that make them comparable overall in terms of fiscal impact compared to a hotel development and more importantly they provide the local economy with a weekly infusion of very affluent customers for Palm Desert's commercial economy. He said the previous traffic study was based on 1200 units in that all the mitigation measures recommended by that study are still conditioned on the project and now that the unit count has been reduced by 200 units those impacts would be less, but they were assuming the same mitigation measures. More specific questions about the project he would direct to the developer. Staff recommended approval to city council in the revised form. Mr. Drell stated that there was an issue raised by the Palm Springs Unified School District voicing their concern that this project might generate impacts on the Palm Springs Unified School District and would somehow generate students to that district and they have requested that certain restrictions be placed on permanent occupancy. He said there was continuing negotiations between the District and Marriott as to the exact language. Staff included a condition. Based on recent discussions he also had some amended language for the development agreement and the conditions of approval. Basically the school district wanted some sort of recorded document limiting or preventing the permitting of permanent occupancy in the units. Notwithstanding the fact that based on our experience there has never been a student generated from the existing project, in deference to the concerns of the District, staff included a Section 28 on School Mitigations. Based on what he understood to be discussions between Marriott and the District's attorney the proposed amendment would read, "The developer will prohibit residential permanent occupancy on the site except in conformance with the procedures of this section 28. Permanent occupancy will be defined as residency greater than 60 consecutive days. Any conversion of the project or any unit within the project to other than timeshare or transient tourist use must first obtain approval by the City in consultation with the Palm Springs Unified School District or such school district which is serving the property at that time through an amendment to this agreement and the Precise „r Plan/Conditional Use Permit." In essence, they agreed to this 60-day 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 ..r restriction and if there were any changes in the project it would have to come back to the Planning Commission to amend this agreement and conditional use permit since agreements are recorded documents and in essence accomplish the goals of the District. He also recommended that Condition Number 23, which in essence restates that, be deleted and replaced with what is now 24 which says that the project has to be timeshare or transient tourist use and if it changed it had to get approval from the City. With those amendments staff recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the boundaries of the Palm Springs Unified School District actually reached this particular area. Mr. Drell said yes, everything north of Frank Sinatra is in the Palm Springs Unified School District. Commissioner Jonathan understood that discussions and actual negotiations at one point were taking place with Palm Springs Unified with regards to that area as well as some of the other areas within the city of Palm Desert including even Cahuilla Hills and some other regions to transfer those regions into the Desert Sands Unified School District. He asked what the status was of those negotiations. Mr. Drell said there was a pending application from the K & B project residents. Basically it is the property owners and residents that have the ability to petition changes in school districts. The City, other than as .J a mediator in terms of getting the districts together, and in that capacity we were discussing the issue with the District. That is being processed and was rather a cumbersome, lengthy process that has to go through the local County Superintendent of Schools and then conceivably up to the state. It was not like a municipal annexation where ultimately the residents have the final say in voting. In this case the State Superintendent of Schools has the final say if there is a finding of financial impact, and there was a whole list of things that could be used as justification for denying annexation/transfer. It was in the process and staff made the suggestion that if in fact they felt this property would unduly impact them they would be glad to de-annex them to Desert Sands. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff knew if the procedure staff just described was the same for the formation of a new district. Mr. Drell said yes. Basically if it was a financial issue, if the projected revenues from a certain area were deemed to be necessary for the financial well being of the district it was being de-annexed from, then that was an issue. The other issue was the terms in which some other school district would accept the area. Neither of those discussions had gotten very far. Commissioner Beaty stated that he would be abstaining from the Marriott discussion, but he served as the Chairman of the County Committee for nine 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 years and it was a very complex process. Under some circumstances it could be approved right here but it would never happen with this one. It was a financial issue and if Desert Sands or the City wanted to give Palm Springs $10 million or $20 million Palm Springs would love to give it away, but that wasn't going to happen. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RONALD E. EASTMAN, 935 Farmhaven Drive in Rockville Maryland 20852, stated that he was a Vice Present of the applicant. He thanked the Commission for reviewing their project for the second time. Since they previously presented Desert Springs Villas North to them, they have worked very closely with Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith to incorporate changes to their plan that were suggested by their neighbors and members of the City Council. On August 3 they presented their revised plan to their neighbors and on August 26 they would be erecting poles to demonstrate the visibility of the top of the buildings from their neighbor's homes. As of today they have not finalized their school facilities funding and mitigation agreement with the Palm Springs Unified School District. Hopefully they would have that done prior to the council meeting on September 10, but this has been a difficult negotiation and he didn't know where they would end up. He stated that he received a copy of the letter that was given to the Planning Commission after closing of business today where the school district's attorney says that she is not challenging their coming to Planning Commission tonight, but she wanted to make sure that the council didn't go ahead until they are satisfied with the agreement. He would continue to work on this and it is quite difficult, but hopefully they would be able to work it out. At this time he introduced their Vice Present of Design, Stephen Withers, to explain the exact changes they made to the plans since the Commission saw it last time. MR. STEPHEN WITHERS, Vice President of Architecture and Design for Marriott Ownership Resorts, stated that they have presented this project before and the changes were as Mr. Drell outlined very clearly. He said he has three pages of notes and Mr. Drell hit every one of their points tonight so he would make his comments short. The only other point the council asked them to consider was the operations building and they asked that the area be bermed and they did that. They pulled 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 the employee parking back so that could be well bermed and heavily greened up. The question the council asked them was about the landscaping around the perimeter and how the wall design would be and he showed the Commission the new drawings. He said they were trying to make the wall very minimal and terminating in landscaping and rock features so that it would become part of the desert landscaping. The intense part of it would be recessed behind the wall to give them more depth and give them more chance to undulate the grades and sidewalks. Also those areas would be open so the vistas would pass into the golf area and community. They also asked them to make the landscaping and desertscaping move into the site instead of just being along the perimeter wall. They did that in many locations so that people going down Monterey or Frank Sinatra would have a chance to look into the site and view the golf community beyond. They also brought an illustration of how the desert theme could be brought to the outside along with how the potential of the corner of Gerald Ford and Monterey might have a desert theme in the sizing of palms and the rock and desert landscape. He said he brought the boards they had before showing the buildings. The only difference from before was the last time they brought Commission a four-story building and they eliminated Ind all of those and only had the three story buildings. As pointed out by Mr. Drell the drive along the top of the property was relocated so that it aligns with the traffic flow and keeps it off of the neighbors to the north, which was a concern of theirs. The entry was in the exact location and they readjusted the golf and planning to bring it more internally oriented with the buildings and brought the golf around the perimeter all the way along Frank Sinatra and the 14th fairway was against their neighbors. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Campbell asked if there would be a lights at Frank Sinatra and Palm Desert Greens. Mr. Withers said they would both have one. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Greenwood if there was a light at Frank Sinatra. Mr. Greenwood said there never had been one proposed in the past. Monterey yes, Frank Sinatra no. Chairperson Campbell asked if one was necessary in that location. Mr. Greenwood said the traffic study hadn't been revised with the new layout so it hadn't been evaluated. f 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Mr. Withers said they planned to have it gated at night and didn't anticipate a light being needed there. When they lined them up, he thought there was a light, but agreed there wasn't. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. MS. DENISE WELCH, 37-575 Drexell in Palm Desert, stated that she was appearing in front of the Planning Commission to hopefully bring closure to an otherwise lengthy process. Last Tuesday owners on Drexell Drive met with Mr. Eastman and Marriott representatives once again to debut yet another plan that is taking place directly behind her property. She was pleased to say that she thought they finally got it right. However, she was dismayed at the number of attempts it took them. She told Mr. Eastman at the last meeting that she didn't understand why a company engaged in the business of making people happy would propose such horrendous plans and make so few residents who reside on Drexell Drive so unhappy. She is a business owner in Palm Desert who delivers quality computer training service to her clients every day. If they don't get it right the first time, they certainly do the second. If they don't get it right at all, then they don't do business with their clients. In conclusion she stated that the plan proposed before Commission tonight where a five par golf course would reside on the backside of her property instead of an access road is acceptable to her and she believed to the residents on Drexell Drive. They looked forward to this development. MR. TERRY LUDWICK, 37-547 Drexell Drive, stated that Marriott has called them on the phone, they wrote them letters and also came out to their property and showed them the revised plans. They asked for their opinions and concerns. He wanted it known that they have proven to be good neighbors and he was really happy with the revised plan and recommended it for approval. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Eastman wished to address the commission. Mr. Eastman thanked the neighbors and the council for helping them make this a better plan. He really believed it is a better plan and was thankful for the input. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 s .i Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said she would move for approval of the project. Chairperson Campbell stated that she would second that motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was going to oppose the project and wanted to explain why. He thought it would be wonderful for the city for all the right reasons but he has been a resident in the city for 20 years and the two story limitation was there for a reason and to go beyond two stories he thought would gradually have a very real negative impact on our community. He was not saying that we would turn into Los Angeles overnight, but it begins somewhere and he felt when we cross that line that is where it begins and that line is when they make exceptions to the two story limitation. He said that knowing that this project would still probably come out okay and would be a good addition to our city; he just hoped it didn't begin that precedent and that road down that L.A. path. He said it was really only for that reason that he objected to the project. Everything else that was positive about the proposal he was in full agreement with and he could see why anyone would vote for it. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 2-1-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Beaty abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1889, recommending to City Council approval of PP/CUP 98-5 (Revised), TT 28818 (Revised), and DA 98- 1 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 2-1-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Beaty abstained). F. Continued Case No. DP 12-79 Amendment - HAHN/PALM DESERT, INC., Applicant (Continued from August 4, July 7 and June 2, 1998) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and amendment to a Development Plan for a 183,094 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. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Project located on property generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1 , Monterey Avenue, Town Center Way and Rancho Grande Drive. Mr. Drell noted that the Commission had the staff report and they were well aware of the history of the Town Center and motivation for this proposed remodel. The issues that staff felt were important were: 1 ► the nature and goals of the remodel to make the place more successful and generate more commercial traffic and therefore they were interested to see the designs in terms that there is a request being made to the Redevelopment Agency for financial involvement. If we are going to participate financially, they want to make sure the improvements are successful and accomplish the goals they are designed to. In that it is designed to increase commercial traffic, hopefully, it would increase commercial traffic and therefore the traffic study identified impacts at two intersections. The report said three intersections and he would explain why it said three. The final draft of the executive summary identified Highway 111 at Town Center Way and Monterey at San Gorgonio. The mitigation measures at Highway 1 1 1/Town Center Way involved the addition of a second eastbound left turn lane north on Town Center Way. Somewhat similar to our discussions relative to the drug store project on Monterey and +� San Gorgonio, the increase in traffic at that exit to San Gorgonio Way could potentially increase the traffic on San Gorgonio. The proposed mitigations in the report were presented as either the installation of a traffic signal at the more northern entrance to the mall which would be the main access to the parking structure to direct more traffic to that entrance/exit and creating less of an enticement for people to go straight down San Gorgonio, or two, improve the left turning movements at the existing signal to facilitate people making the turning movement and lessening the inducement to them to go straight. In looking at the generalized problem the traffic engineer basically saw a generalized improvement of traffic circulation on Monterey and the functioning of the signals at Fred Waring and Highway 1 1 1 and generally the facilitation of the movement which would probably have the greatest impact of reducing the incentive of going down to San Pablo. If people's experience on Monterey was enhanced then in likelihood that would decrease. He was prepared to discuss more general city improvements to the area through our capital improvement program which would again improve traffic on Monterey and reduce impacts on San Gorgonio. Originally there had been some projected impacts at Highway 1 1 1 at Plaza Way. The city already has some planned widening improvements to the south side of Plaza Way which Mr. Greenwood could address. As it was explained to him, as the balance of traffic on Plaza Way relates better to the traffic on Highway 1 1 1 , they have 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 iM the ability to get more green time on the north-south leg and, therefore, actually mitigate the potential congestion created by more traffic in and out of the mall. These recommended mitigations would be recommended with approval of the project. The secondary concern was with the architecture. Again, they wanted it to be effective in accomplishing the goals and be a successful center. The most prominent features of the remodel involved the construction of the two level stadium seating theater which, although being on the existing building pad, would now extend some 70 feet from grade as opposed to the existing 44 feet. It was presented to the Architectural Commission and they were quite pleased with the direction of the rest of the project but at the time they still had concerns about mitigation for the bulk, height and mass of this rather large structure. He indicated that the applicant could speak to that. He said he didn't know if the Commission had been on Rancho Grande recently, but when the mall was first built there were concerns about the impact of the mall on that street. The street was closed and as a result of a request by the residents, a great deal of landscaping was planted. Fortunately most of it has survived and prospered. If they go back down there right now it is one of the quietest serene residential streets we have in the city. He said the homes that face the mall are some of the better maintained houses in that whole neighborhood. While there might be some need for enhancement of that landscaping either because of the original design or because it didn't fill in, that was a case where their screening solution was quite effective in protecting that neighborhood. Again, they were recommending that the overall project description and scope be approved as part of the development plan amendment. There were still unresolved architectural issues especially involving the design of the theater and he suggested that Planning Commission continue to look at it as the design evolves, but due to certain scheduling constraints and getting this project going, the timeliness was a concern and they didn't want to lose a whole season given the current potential financial problems that are occurring at the mall. He wanted the Commission to move this along to the council while they continue to deal with the architecture of the theater. His recommendation was that Planning Commission recommend approval to the city council. Chairperson Campbell asked when they would be going in front of Architectural Review again and council. Mr. Drell said they would go to ARC when they have new drawings. Mr. Kuhn spoke from the audience and said they wanted to go to the next meeting. Mr. Drell said that basically staff would be scheduling them when they have something and the next meeting would be next Tuesday. They were scheduled for council August 27. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation that the Commission wouldn't have a chance to look at the drawings before they go to council. Mr. Drell agreed that it would go to council before Commission's next meeting, but the recommendation to council would be the same. Obviously they won't be passing on the architectural solutions until they have been finaled. Chairperson Campbell asked if council would be approving the project. Mr. Drell indicated that it would depend at what stage the applicant was at on the 27th. He felt the Commission should see what the applicant had and go from there. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on exactly what action staff was asking from the Commission. The way it read was recommending approval to the amendment and in Mr. Drell's conclusion he was saying that he wanted the Commission to give overall approval to the concept. He wasn't sure exactly what Mr. Drell was asking the Commission to do. Mr. Drell said approving the amendment with the provision that there would be continued review of the architectural design of the theater. Commissioner Jonathan said that was the part that bothered him. Staff acknowledged that there were significant architectural issues that remain regarding the theaters and maybe a couple of other items. He was saying that the overall plan could be recommended for approval and asked if Mr. Drell was looking for conceptual approval for the direction that this is heading and if so if they were going to get another chance to approve or disapprove a precise plan of sorts. Mr. Drell said that the precise plan in terms of the footprint of the building and the description in terms of the scope of the expansion was as defined. Commissioner Jonathan asked for what reason this would come back to the Commission and if this was their final look. Mr. Drell proposed that if the Commission so chose that it could come back to them as the architecture changed, and changes would be presented tonight he hadn't seen, and the Commission might think it was great, but as the architecture of the theaters was more defined, he could schedule it back before Commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that would be after council gives approval to it. Mr. Drell replied potentially. If the council saw something on the 27th that they love they would one, know that the Commission hadn't seen it and so they would have the choice, depending upon their inclination, of either approving it and giving it the same sort of endorsement. If they want the Planning Commission's opinion, they could ask for it again. It would be his intention to present it back to the Commission as soon as they have a greater definition of what is being proposed. Commissioner Jonathan noted that as Mr. Drell acknowledged in his report, that procedure was unusual but Mr. Drell 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 9 alluded to certain significant economic issues involving the construction schedule which dictate a phased review process. He asked if Mr. Drell could be a little more specific and if the applicant was under a time crunch and that was what they were seeing. Mr. Drell said his understanding was that the mall didn't want to miss out on the Christmas season for 1999. With the timing of the construction they wanted to get started as soon after the 1998 Christmas season as possible so they could be completed in time and the mall could be open and not torn apart for 1999. He said that was a question that should probably be addressed to the applicant and they could describe the constraints. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SKIP KUHN, a Project Manager for TrizecHahn Development Corporation, stated that he was present representing Hahn/Palm Desert. Mr. Kuhn indicated that a number of changes had occurred to the drawings since the last time they were before Commission. Specifically they have appeared before the Architectural Review Commission and received a number of comments as Mr. Drell already alluded to, which were mostly directed to the size and mass of the theater building which was a two-level stadium seating theater presentation. They have taken those comments to heart. The major concern was that it was a big box and they tried to modulate the exterior design of this thing. He said he would give an overall project presentation and then he would introduce Bill Deiehl, the Director of Design of their architectural firm, and they could walk the Commission through some of the specifics, particularly as they relate to the changes to the theater building and how they tried to mitigate some of the concerns raised by the Architectural Review Commission. Last time they were here the entire project was comprised by several parts, most notably three department stores that were planning on expansion. The fourth department store, also owned by Robinson's May, was currently in negotiations to sell to another department store. The existing Metropolitan Theater has approximately 35,000 feet in it and ten screens. They would like to expand that into a full line stadium seating presentation which would give them approximately 18 screens and become another entertainment anchor for the shopping center. Coupled with this expansion program was a complete remodel of the existing shopping center and the creation on the north-south direction of an entertainment oriented spline to intersect 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 r.. with the east-west existing shopping center, which has a more traditional retail presentation. Included in this expansion was a single level 960 car parking structure which would extend along the entire north side of the project and provide close in parking, doubling the amount of close in parking that is there today and shading approximately 1 ,000 cars. He introduced Mr. Bill Deiehl, the Director of Design, and he would walk the Commission through the major architectural improvements as well as address what they were doing with the theater and the parking structures. MR. BILL DEIEHL, 8090 Balkan Canyon Road in Somas California, said he wanted to take the Commission through the project from one entry to the other. He showed the entry off Highway 1 1 1 and the parking structure which would symbolize the main entry into the shopping center. Once in, they would be adding new skylights and some kind of ambiance that was more than just retail. Where the two arms of the center intersect, they were trying to provide an area that would be a lot better for public use, but the design wasn't yet decided--the area of the space was defined, but not the design. He showed another view looking toward the entry to the theater with the escalators and food court at the top. The next view was of the ticket buying area looking toward the food court on the second level. He then showed the entry to the garage and parking lot. He noted this would be where the identification for the cinemas would be located and the two level entry to the mall. He said there was a question about the two 70 foot walls and he said it was very difficult to change the wall especially when they were dealing with a theater in back because it didn't give them room for windows or room to do anything. They were kind of stuck with a wall. However, what they found would work very well for them was when they took the exit stairs from the inside and put them on the outside, they were able to articulate the wall and to give it an architectural look, rather than an applied look. In some cases there were two big theaters that stick out and some of the smaller theaters stay to the inside. That would break the wall by itself automatically. Now they were providing some accent corners in the back with some type of columns. For the landscaping, they were providing a whole series of palm trees, not set in a formal look, but an informal look. That would break the height of the wall visually. He showed a rendering of the project if they were standing in the parking lot and looking at the corner of the building. In their opinion the building wouldn't look as high as 70 feet, but would 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 be rather small and it would be fragmented. He hoped that would meet the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. He then referred to the other parts of the sketch that showed how high the structure would look from various parts of the area surrounding the building. Mr. Kuhn informed Commission that one of the big concerns of the Architectural Review Commission was the massing of this building and exactly what they would see. He noted that Mr. Drell alluded to the fact that along Rancho Grande there exists today a pretty high berm on the back side of the shopping center coupled with a high wall and some mature landscaping. Some of those trees were probably 50-60 feet tall. There were some gaps in the landscaping and going farther and farther north into their neighbors' area, more and more visibility of this large building would be seen. Consequently the idea of enhancing it with significantly more architecture than they showed last time was hopefully a good way of "splitting the baby" in that they would provide something that was visually appealing to look at and they could also mitigate it by adding more landscaping into some of the gaps that exist today along that wall, with mature trees, not 24" box trees but much larger ones so they would already have a head start and get some height on them pretty quickly. He said last Friday they floated several balloons at the corners of the building. They were basically weather balloons but they got them into the air at the height of where the top of the parapets would be and took a number of photographs which the architect was about ready to present and what they did was add in what the architecture of the theater would look like and how it would appear from various places in the neighborhood. They were trying to be good neighbors, too. Their neighbors were their customers. Mr. Deiehl said they superimposed the buildings on photographs to show the Commission the impact the buildings would have. He went through a series of pictures showing different views. He also pointed out the location of the yellow weather balloons. The pictures included views from Monterey, the front, coming up Monterey turning onto the site, the location of the garage, moving into the neighborhood where a little bit of it would show, from Rancho Grande, from the corner house which was where they were talking about the lack of trees. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification that the picture they were looking at showed how the new building would be seen. Mr. Deiehl pointed out the location of the weather balloons in those pictures. He noted that some of the walls would set back because perspectively some of the buildings would be shorter. Commissioner 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Jonathan asked for and received clarification that the current building height is 44 feet and the new building would be 70 feet high and all the pictures depicted a 70-foot high structure on the same footprint. Mr. Deiehl said they just drew over the existing buildings. He noted that the wall wasn't straight and the reason they didn't do that was because they would end up with the garage and once it came in that was the end. Chairperson Campbell asked about the height of the garage. Mr. Deiehl said it was between 15 and 17. Mr. Drell clarified that there would be an 18-foot garage right in the foreground. Other pictures were shown as viewed from Tampico, the intersection of Fairhaven and Tampico, from Sierra Vista, and from Macaroni Grill and Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Deiehl felt that once the trees were mature very little would be seen of the building. He again showed pictures of the theater area, the big theaters and small theaters, and indicated there would be a colonnade or arched cover to let plants grow against that surface. Mr. Drell asked if all the existing pine trees would be eliminated and/or destroyed with the demolition because there were some tall 40-50 foot high pine trees there. Mr. Kuhn didn't think they could dig them out and save them. Mr. Deiehl said they would be installing a whole set of palm trees, both high and low in clusters and there would be room for landscaping. Commissioner Finerty asked if there was any thought to taking ARC's recommendation and lowering the structure below grade. Mr. Kuhn said they were investigating that and while it was conceivable, from a financial standpoint it would cost about $1 million. Mr. Deiehl also explained that if the theaters were below grade, then they would have to have a place to come out at as well as having retaining walls since they would be coming out of a hole and from that area there would be many retaining walls and stairs which would be really tight and he didn't think they really wanted that; it would be very uncomfortable. Commissioner Finerty noted that the picture with the change in architecture and palm trees looked very busy. It looked like too much and that they were trying to hide the 70-foot height. 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Mr. Deiehl explained that it was pencil work and a lot of line work. Commissioner Finerty asked if there was another solution since it looked like they were trying to cover it up. That was why she was looking at what ARC had recommended. Mr. Kuhn said in large measure the Architectural Review Committee thought that the plainer quality of the large building didn't have enough break up to it and this would modulate that and bring it back and forth and one of the other suggestions was to introduce some landscaping to soften it. He felt it addressed specifically the concerns of the Architectural Review Commission and allowed them to play off a couple of the features so it didn't appear as just a flat line and wouldn't be just a colorless box. It would have some style and interest to it. He thought what the Architectural Review Committee was trying to get across to them was that it needed a lot more than they had and he felt they had responded to their comments, although there would be more redefining. Chairperson Campbell asked if they would be doing this same type of .r�1 architecture on the other stores. Mr. Kuhn stated that the department stores all know that they have to come back before the Planning Commission and City Council with their own architectural designs. He said he didn't have a lot of control "over what they do. He knew that they generally take the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission and City Council to heart and incorporate them. Chairperson Campbell felt the whole center needed to be in harmony with the new architecture for the mall and theaters. Mr. Kuhn said he thought the department stores would capitalize on the existing architecture and wouldn't just paste on a stucco box on the end of their buildings. They have concern for their image as well and he thought it would be harmonious with what they have shown Commission. Chairperson Campbell asked what the height of the other buildings were that face Highway 1 1 1 . 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 irr Mr. Kuhn said that in general it was about 44 feet as it related to the parapet. The reason it was 44 feet high was to hide mechanical equipment and things like that. Chairperson Campbell asked if the stores in the front of the theaters were going to be 44 feet and then have the theater at 70 feet behind them--that was a difference. Mr. Kuhn said because of the site line, and that was what they were trying to show, because the theater was on the back side of the building from Highway 1 1 1 , they only saw a very thin line at the top of the cornice. In large measure because there exists today on the Robinson's May a mechanical parapet and between Macy's Store and Robinson's May store they would shield this building from view from Highway 111 with the exception of the entry area. He showed the view from Macaroni Grill and the roof line of the theater. He said they would be able to see six feet of building. He showed the location of Robinson's May and J.C. Penney's. He said that going farther away, the Robinson's May building sticks out far enough it obscures it. He said it had to do with the sight line and as they go farther and farther out on this site and the angle, that would be how much they saw. He said there would be very little visibility from Highway 111 of this building. They wouldn't get a full view of it until they got to the northerly entry off of Monterey or on the other side. Mr. Kuhn stated that his traffic engineer was also present if the Commission had any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked why there was a rush. He asked what the time table was here that was necessitating that they as the Planning Commission look at the project now. Mr. Kuhn said there were several issues. The first was that the theater was looking to expand next year and have asked them to move what was their time table off of construction starting this year into next year. Basically all the work would be done at that time. They also had a commitment to Robinson's May to deliver their pad next year. If they just backed up the construction drawings that need to be done they find themselves in a situation where that becomes problematic in addition to the situation which exists in their own corporation that they have five `, issues they are trying to pull together to make this project happen. The 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 aril first was to get the commitment from the department stores to expand and they got that. Second they had to get a refinancing commitment to the project which they were working on right now. The third was to work out a buy out provision with their partner and they have a structure in place for that. The fourth was to expand and finalize the deal with the theaters and last was to seek some financial assistance from the City. He believed they have come to at least the back bone of an agreement as it relates to that and he understood that draft was in process now with the City Attorney. They were trying to move this forward so they could control their own destiny. They were asking for some assistance from the Planning Commission and City Council. They weren't trying to do an end run around the Commission. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't sense that but wanted to explain his standpoint. Personally he felt he was looking at a work in progress and he was uncomfortable giving formal approval as the Planning Commission knowing that city council gets last look and has the binding action, but as the Planning Commission he felt they were looking at a work in progress and he was uncomfortable with that. If there was an overriding reason, because overall he personally wanted to see this project move forward but had some • other questions and concerns, but overall he wanted to see it move forward and he wouldn't want to stand in the way of its progress or in some way intentionally divert its potential success. He was asking if it was possible to work within a framework where maybe as a Planning Commission they were giving further conceptual approval to what they were seeing but that before it progressed to council they would see something that was a little more final. He got the sense that what they would approve tonight would be very different from what would ultimately be built. He wasn't really comfortable with that. It wasn't that he thought they were attempting an end run around them, he just perceived that they haven't finalized the design and the Commission was being asked to approve something that wasn't final. He said they could come back to that but he wanted to explain his perspective and why he was asking about the need to move forward quickly. Mr. Kuhn introduced Mr. Bill Doyle, the Senior Vice President of Development for TrizecHahn. MR. WILLIAM DOYLE, 10204 Jeraback Drive in San Diego, informed Commission that he dealt with more of the financial affairs of the project. He said there was at least one element of the project he felt 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 was very important to try and get completed now so they could move it forward to council. That was basically the plan, the entitlement aspects of the project, because with that went the OPA agreement that needed to get to the City Council. They shared the Commission's concern about the design of the theater and they knew that things needed to be done to make it more compatible with the rest of the project and with the community around it. He felt that if there was a way they could move this project forward from here to council reserving the Commission's right to specifically approve the exterior of the theater that would be a great assistance. That was really what their objective was tonight. If there was some way through the approval process that they could do that, that would get them to where they needed to be. There was a whole bunch of timing constraints that were a series of dominoes and if they don't get the entitlement process going forward they would really get themselves into trouble. Commissioner Jonathan suggested doing something along the lines of giving approval to the overall concept that was being presented tonight but reserving the right to see the final design, with an opportunity to comment to council, something like that would probably work if it was engineered in a way that gave them those entitlements. Mr. Doyle said that would be very helpful and would work for them. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that might be a viable option. Along those same lines he heard for the first time that the department store designs was not up to them but up to the individual stores. He asked if they were talking about the exteriors. Mr. Doyle said yes. Commissioner Beaty noted that the Planning Commission would still review it. Mr. Kuhn said yes, in addition to the Architectural Commission and City Council. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the commission wasn't seeing the complete mall renovation and that some of the components would be up to the individual tenants. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Mr. Kuhn said with respect to department stores they were sort of partners because they own their own buildings, space and land and parking. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the department stores own their own self contained pad, legally. Mr. Kuhn said yes, they were all governed by a reciprocal easement agreement that basically said that the respective customers could park in each others parking spaces and they shared the cost of maintaining parking lots and things like that. Because he didn't own their buildings, he couldn't really dictate to them how they design their expansion. However, they were subject to the same rules as it relates to the precise planning process and they all know that. It was all part and parcel of that same reciprocal easement agreement. Consequently they would all be coming back here with him to show Planning Commission the design of their building and the expansion. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was akin to a condominiumized deal, j technically speaking. .r Mr. Kuhn said it was strung together like a string of pearls. Commissioner Jonathan brought up the issue of security and loitering in front of the theater which had come up before. He said that security and loitering came up during their last discussion and Mr. Kuhn had said that he wasn't aware of the problem and he would talk to security about it. He said that yesterday (Monday) afternoon he went to the movies to the 4:30 p.m. show. It was a weekday afternoon in August and they couldn't find a parking space, which was good news. That meant the mall was doing well and they need the parking expansion and so forth. But it was the usual array of young kids that were there smoking, riding skateboards, looking like someone they wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley. He wasn't always conservative, but some of the girls had painted hair and black fingernails and black lipstick, that was an example to give them an idea of what they are seeing. The thought occurred to him that tomorrow night he would be talking to the mall people and they said they were concerned about this the same way the Commission is and that all related to the retail mix. He understood that the applicant would be targeting the mid level merchants as opposed to the upper end Robinson's May, Macy's and maybe he was mis-categorizing them, but his concern was 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 if they were heading toward a down grading of the mall instead of the upgrading they all envisioned when they think about renovating the mall and getting their Indian Wells type patrons back as opposed to the kids he just described. He asked what the plans were for the retail mix and if they were truly going to be upgrading not only the facade but the kind of patrons they would be attracting to the center of the city. Mr. Kuhn said he just received correspondence from the leasing person this afternoon. Commissioner Beaty asked if the residents immediately north of the project were noticed. Mr. Drell replied yes. Commissioner Beaty asked if the people in the audience were present as residents. He asked if the residents would have the opportunity to see the conceptual designs at some point in time. Mr. Kuhn said absolutely. He said he asked the marketing director to set up some sort of an informal coffee and cookie kind of thing at the center some evening in the next ten days to go through the entire exposure for all the residents. He stated that when they did the sight line study last Friday they asked everyone to come by and had coffee and donuts, but it was so warm he thought everyone must have said to just forget it. Mr. Kuhn said he wanted to read something he received from their leasing group and felt it summed up where they were trying to take this shopping center. What they were trying to do was become the Coachella Valley's year round retail oasis and it might sound like a buzz word, but what they started in with their remodeling and some of the exterior treatment of the building was how they actually craft and make it a viable marketing tool for them. In large measure what they wanted to do was enhance their merchandizing categories and increase the home furnishing areas, the restaurants, and men's and women's ready to wear which were lacking in the center today. Right now there was about an 18% vacancy, although they didn't see a bunch of vacant stores because they put in temporary tenants to make sure the place continued to look viable. It is hurting and in large measure what they have found in other places was when they do go through the renovation process several things happen. He said he did mention to security the kids smoking and just being offensive in general because they are teenagers. He didn't have a good answer as to why that was a problem. He said he would mention it again and make sure that .. something gets done about it. They planned to enhance the retail mix 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 that was there today and would be bringing in a number of tenants and categories they think would benefit not only the shopping center, but appeal to a broad spectrum in the Coachella Valley. He named many restaurants they have been in contact with and said they have made those telephone calls and there were some conversations going on about bringing in some nice restaurants and they wanted to bring in a nice restaurant in the order of Johnny Rocket's, Chili's, etc., and something like that so that they kind of get both sides of the spectrum as it relates to all of the residents here. They have talked about bringing in a large sports retailer like RE[ or Sports Chalet, Large Concept or maybe Copelands. Something along the lines of Z Gallery, maybe Restoration Hardware and some stores like that. That required a little bit of market study on the part of their leasing people, but in large measure between the remodel and re-energized food court that plays off the new center and theater and the fact that they have an area where they can capitalize on with another anchor for the entertainment spline that would incorporate something along the lines of a Borders Books that have the coffee presentation and perhaps a nice restaurant. Something that could capitalize on the porte cochere that is out there 4 with valet parking and something like that. He thought they would two move this shopping center back into the economic engine for Palm Desert it used to be 10-12 years ago and the entire story that was being woven right now was to one, enhance the tenant mix and there was quite a bit of money that had been devoted to tenant allowances which are the incentives that bring in better tenants and that was all part and parcel of the proforma that he put together and worked on with a lot of other departments in the company to make happen. In a nut shell that was the design direction and from a leasing prospective of what they hope to accomplish in this mall. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were a new anchor tenant, in ten years would it more likely be Montgomery Wards or Nordstroms. Mr. Kuhn replied that depending on how much growth occurred in the valley, it might be Nordstroms. He didn't think it would ever be Montgomery Wards. Commissioner Jonathan said that was somewhat reassuring. i 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Mr. Kuhn said he understood Commissioner Jonathan's point and with the future department store the new presentation they are bringing to their expansions and remodels was sensational. He felt it would be a wonderful new store and it would have a lot of the same hallmarks that the Nordstrom stores do in terms of fixtures. He noted that J.C. Penney's went through a remodeling a couple of years ago and spent a few million dollars on this store and Robinson's May was looking to bring their store into the new millennium. He felt that when Macy's remodels or expands their store on the north side, he was counting on the fact that right on the heels of Robinson's May they would be remodeling the new store on the Highway 1 1 1 side. That was what they were counting on and they were hoping to leverage and capitalize off that and use it as a spring board to their leasing effort and bring in a lot of good stores to the shopping center. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Kuhn had anyone else that wanted to make a presentation. Mr. Kuhn asked if the Commission had any questions relating to the traffic study. Commissioner Jonathan said he looked at it and he didn't have any questions. He thought he knew what would happen with traffic out there and that there were some improvements planned. There were references to other parts of the city that were going to be impacted and he didn't know that they needed to get into that tonight, but he didn't have a problem with the impact that he thought would occur and the mitigations that were going to be put in place. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Greenwood if they were going to have a problem on San Gorgonio. Mr. Greenwood stated that the traffic study indicated that they could expect about 120 cars a day more than what they have now. Whether that was a problem or not was up to the residents. Commissioner Finerty asked if San Gorgonio were to close, what street would then be impacted. Mr. Greenwood said the residents of San Gorgonio had been offered the opportunity to close that street in the past and have rejected that. They didn't want that choice. It was something staff would entertain if the residents feel that traffic is a problem in their neighborhood. They have closed other streets and this street has been a candidate before and could certainly be a candidate in the future. Commissioner Finerty asked if San Gorgonio were to close at the residents' request, where the majority of the 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 cars would enter the mall and what kind of an impact that would create. Mr. Greenwood said the majority weren't projected to be on San Gorgonio, only a very small percentage of about two percent. That two percent would then have to use Fred Waring or Highway 1 1 1 which were the streets he would prefer them to use. Chairperson Campbell asked what they were proposing to do on Monterey if San Gorgonio was closed. Mr. Greenwood said those 120 cars that would have been on San Gorgonio would now be on Monterey. Chairperson Campbell asked if they were planning to widen Monterey. Mr. Greenwood said they were planning to implement six lanes in the existing roadway, but they wouldn't be widening the road, although there would be widening at the Walgreen's site and a little bit to the north of that which was just minor widening. Chairperson Campbell asked if they were proposing a traffic signal at the entrance of the existing parking lot area. Mr. Greenwood stated that the traffic study indicated that there were two alternatives. One would be to install a traffic signal at the north driveway or add a lane at the driveway at San Gorgonio, an additional eastbound lane at Monterey so it was a choice of one or the other. He felt the project would like to see the signal on the north driveway. Chairperson Campbell noted that would be the entrance to the parking structure. Mr. Greenwood concurred. Chairperson Campbell said she just had a little bit of a problem about the theater building and the rest of the mall. If there were different architectures and the stores would have their own facade of some kind, she asked what if the Commission said they liked this current proposal and they came to the Commission later with something else and the new facade didn't really go with the current proposal's architecture. Mr. Drell said they just wouldn't approve it. He felt that everyone to a certain degree liked the path of least resistance and he would assume that they would take guidance that TrizecHahn has gotten from them on this other project to come up with a plan. He felt they understood that a positive appearance to the mall was beneficial and they would hopefully think hard and propose something that wouldn't' create resistance at the city. They would be reviewing it and if it didn't work, it didn't work. The Architectural Commission wasn't shy. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. MR. BEN PICKELL, 72-814 Tampico Drive, one block north of Rancho Grande, stated that overall he was in favor of the mall being expanded and renovated since it was 15 years old and badly needed it. What he saw of the drawings and renderings it looked like it would enhance it 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 tremendously. The only concern he had, which was the same as the Commission, was the height, the additional traffic and noise, because he faces the back of the Town Center. It sounded like they would be adding more trees and bushes and that should knock that out. He wanted them to improve security as well because they occasionally did get people jumping the wall and coming in their neighborhood, but he noticed they have been patrolling along Rancho Grande and Fairhaven at night when he walks his dog. Overall he was in favor of it. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would very much like to hear what Architectural Review has to say. She was still interested in lowering the structure below the grade, tiering the elevations and she saw that the applicant installed palm trees and was wondering if there was a possibility of having the applicant go to Architectural Review on August 25, come back to Planning Commission on September 1 , and then go to the City Council on September 10. That would mean just a two-week delay. Aside from that security was still a concern to her as well. She brought it up originally and sometimes questioned increasing the number of theaters. She felt it had the potential to increase the loitering. With that she was wondering if security was adequate and wanted some sort of commitment to an increase in security to get this problem under control. Mr. Drell felt that part of the solution Would be that the entrance to the theater was now inside the mall. Commissioner Finerty asked how they would prevent these people from being inside versus outside. Mr. Drell felt the ability of the security staff to control activity inside the mall was a bit more in that the activity would then be impacting the food court. Basically the problem in the past had been that the theater was a separate entity and there might have been a tendency on the part of the security people to turn their back to it. Now with the theater's face looking into the mall they weren't going to be able to ignore it because any detrimental activity at that point would be openly viewed to the whole mall. Commissioner Finerty felt a lot of people were concerned about the element that is right in front of the theaters and she didn't think the theater area was a large area to patrol. It was condensed into one section and she personally thought that they were not there following up and checking on a regular basis because if they hassled this element long enough they would learn that they weren't welcome and they would find some other place to hang out. 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 Commissioner Jonathan said it was worse than that because security was aware they are there and they were either indifferent to it or for whatever reason they were not making them go away or asking them to go away. When he saw these kids doing stuff, one security car was parked in the drop off zone. They were parked there watching these guys smoking and doing their skateboarding. Additionally, there were two theater personnel, not the ticket takers but guys wearing polo shirts that say Metropolitan Theaters. He didn't know what their jobs were but they were watching these guys skating and jumping over the stairs and potentially hurting the people coming out of those doors. He was wondering when one of those kids would hit one of the shoppers and felt it was a bad situation. He agreed with Commissioner Finerty that whether it was inside or outside, the kids were going to loiter. That was what teenagers did and he had a couple at home, but they didn't do some of the things these kids were doing and felt they were discouraging certain kinds of patrons. As a contrast he indicated he was at the Ritz Sunday and people sitting next to him at dinner were talking about where to go next and they suggested going to the mall. Again on Monday he was wondering what kind of experience these people at the Ritz had and if they would tell their friends not to go to the mall because it had really gone down hill. Word spreads and he was very concerned that they not create a source of negative stuff instead of an enhancement to the city. He was very concerned about that and if they didn't nip it in the bud now when the problem looks small compared to when there are 18 theaters and more space to do bad stuff, what chance would they have then. Commissioner Finerty stated that the loitering has kept her away from the mall and she didn't feel comfortable there. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't think she was the only one. It wasn't as pleasant an experience as it used to be. Commissioner Beaty asked what enforcement powers that security force had and if they had to rely on the sheriff's department. Mr. Drell said it was private property. Mr. Hargreaves agreed that it was private property, but noted that it was open to the public so there were certain constraints. Eliminating skateboarding would not be a problem. People do have certain first amendment rights and it is private property, so he wasn't sure exactly to what extent they could prohibit people from having black lipstick, but some of the more objectional behavior could be controlled. Commissioner Jonathan said he would have to apologize and said he grew up in the 60's and 70's and he didn't look like he does now and he wasn't saying they should take away rights or freedom of expression or that all teenagers were bad because 95% were not. He was into that world because his kids are teenagers and he sees other teenagers, but he wasn't talking about the typical teenager wearing shorts down to their ankles and three or four earrings. 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 aw These kids were beyond that and he was talking about something other than kids that dress different. These were kids that were into things they wouldn't want their kids to be in and it was just an example of what is going on over there. Commissioner Beaty thought that Commissioner Finerty identified the harassment technique, but they would go somewhere and find some place because they want to be seen with the black lipstick and red hair. That was why they did it. Commissioner Finerty said that part of deterring them was to let them know they are not welcome. They wanted them to go somewhere else, hopefully out of the city. She thought that they had to be aware that in order to have a successful mall they had to have people feel comfortable to go there. When they have an 18% vacancy rate, maybe they needed to look at _this as part of the problem. There were a lot of people that feel what she is feeling and she didn't know if that had been communicated to the people at the mall, but it was a serious problem and if it was allowed to continue, she thought they would see the demise of the mall. Commissioner Jonathan felt that wrapped up the point. They wanted to take some action here tonight but they were sending a recommendation to the council and he thought the security, the eventual tenant mix, the kind of patrons they attract, all combined into a very real and very important issue and hopefully the council �.. would read these lengthy minutes and see their concerns, but the issue all wrapped into what future they were creating within the center or heart of the city of Palm Desert. Were they creating a positive for the future or a negative, because the potential for that site went both ways depending upon what happened. It could either be a huge positive, which it has been for most of its 15-year existence, or it could turn into a huge negative and that was an issue he felt needed to be dealt with in some way that hasn't been adequately addressed yet, but he thought could be. In terms of timing, he was willing to be flexible. This could be a terrific thing for the city. Conceptually they could make this work. The areas he had a problem with weren't significant and he was actually okay with the height, but he thought they could do a better job, whether with stairs or coverings or something without spending too much money they could be creative and make it aesthetically palatable. He didn't have a real problem with that and the rest of what they were proposing he felt looked wonderful. Timing wise he was willing to work with the applicant. He indicated that Commissioner Finerty's suggestion ended up with a two-week delay that let ARC take a look at it, then it came back to Planning Commission before going to Council. If that was too much of a delay, then maybe what they could work toward was giving them approval conceptually to what they were seeing tonight and moving it on to council but then reserving the right to see the final renderings as this evolves with a further opportunity to make 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 recommendations to Council. Mr. Drell said he wasn't convinced the council would be ready to make a decision because he didn't know if the business agreement would be ready for August 27 and he thought they would take their final action on everything together. One of the applicant's goals was to get before council and, just like what happened to Marriott, council would have their own set of concerns that the applicant wanted to hear and get feedback on. He suggested that the Commission could pass it on with a request to council that they be given the opportunity to continue to review and monitor the evolving design and give input. The design process would continue after August 27. He didn't think they would have a definitive decision on those issues. Commissioner Jonathan said he was comfortable with that as long as council understands that he felt they were looking at a work in progress and it looked great so far, but he would like an opportunity and would request the council to give them an opportunity to review the final product and pass along their comments on that final product. Chairperson Campbell asked if the action would be that they just approved the concept. Mr. Drell said no. The definition of the project was more than just a concept. It had certain parameters which they would be approving, but not the design. Commissioner Jonathan felt they were recommending approval to the city council for DP 12- 79 Amendment as it has been shown to the Planning Commission this evening, with the concerns that have all articulated and with the request that because they were looking at a work in progress, they request council that the Planning Commission review the final product and be given an opportunity to pass along their comments on that final product. As far as what they were seeing tonight, they were giving the formal approval as staff requested. That worked for him and he was okay with that. He wanted to see it move forward, but it was up to the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Beaty stated that he understood Commissioner Jonathan's concern, but he was more concerned that Architectural Review have the input. He was interested but didn't feel he was qualified. If ARC was comfortable, he was comfortable. Mr. Drell said staff would put this on the agenda for September 1 as a miscellaneous item and Commission would be getting reports and would able to make those comments to council as a matter of course as it evolves. Chairperson Campbell asked how often they could go back to Architectural Review. Mr. Drell replied every two weeks, but hopefully they wouldn't need to. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that this would be going back to ARC and the Commission would be apprised of their comments as things progress. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan stated that given that the applicant was looking to secure some kind of entitlement rights and that they need for this application to get through the process, he was comfortable giving them 60 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 ftw that kind of approval as discussed earlier at this point if it worked for the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would prefer, as she suggested earlier, that the project go before ARC on August 25, come back to Planning Commission on September 1 , and then proceed to City Council on September 10. Commissioner Beaty said he would concur with Commissioner Jonathan as stated earlier. He didn't feel he needed to see the final drawings and he put his faith in Architectural Review. Chairperson Campbell said she would like to see it also and wanted to have everything blend in and as she understood it no one had any problem with the parking, so she would concur with Commissioner Jonathan to let the project go to Council and then it would probably come back to the Commission. Commissioner Jonathan said he would make the motion. `MW Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1890, recommending to City Council approval of DA 12-79 Amendment #1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. CONSIDERATION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT ABANDONMENTS (VACATIONS) AND PROPERTY DISPOSITION FOR: 1) LOTS 15 AND 18, BLOCK A-3, PALM DESERT UNIT NO. 3, HIGHWAY 74 FRONTAGE ROAD/OCOTILLO DRIVE SOUTH OF EL PASEO; 2) TAMARISK ROW DRIVE, NORTHWESTERLY OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE (PALM VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB); AND 3) HIGHWAY 111 FRONTAGE ROAD BETWEEN DEEP CANYON ROAD AND SHADOW HILLS ROAD. 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 1998 ..4 Mr. Drell noted that the Commission had the report before them and that Mr. Greenwood was present to answer any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, determining that the subject street right-of-way and public service easement abandonments (vacations) are in conformity with the City's General Plan. Motion carried 4-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 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 - (No meeting) .. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan requested that Economic Development Advisory Committee (Item C) under Committee Meeting Updates be removed. Staff concurred and indicated that would be done. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 p.m. PHILIP DRELLI Secretary ATTEST: ONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California /tm ' 62