Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1006 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 6, 1998 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 15, 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, to approve the September 15, 1998 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1 Commissioner Finerty abstained. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent City Council actions of September 24, 1998. two MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 Vl. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Vll. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 98-17 - ART PALM, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments to coincide with the new right-of-way for Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive. B. Case No. PM 24255 - EDC CONSULTANTS, Applicant Request for approval of a sixth one-year time extension for a parcel map permitting 100 commercial/industrial lots on 173 acres located southerly of Dinah Shore Drive extended, easterly of Monterey Avenue and southwesterly of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, to approve the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Commissioner Jonathan asked for staff clarification for the record on item number B. He understood that this wasn't a sixth one-year time extension and that there was a development agreement that kind of superseded this particular requirement. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Smith explained that this map was originally approved by the County prior to the City's annexing that area. Prior to the annexation there was a development agreement entered into which ran for 15 or 20 years. Hence the parcel map ran with the development agreement and they have requested the extension in a timely fashion. Commissioner Jonathan thanked staff. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. 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 Wiwi MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Chairperson Campbell asked for a show of hands of all those who were present for Item C, regarding Chevron, and Item E, regarding the Palms to Pines Center. There was no one. She noted that both applicants were requesting continuances to October 20, 1998. Mr. Drell indicated that both the public hearings would have to be opened and on the Chevron case staff was going to recommend an additional continuance. The applicant was going to conduct a traffic analysis and depending when staff received it, it would have to be reviewed. He felt it should be continued a month. He said the Commission could go to those items, but the public hearings had to be opened. A. Case No. CUP 89-2 Amendment No. 1 - HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to allow expansion of the Hope Lutheran Church parking lot on four lots on the northwest corner of Fairway and • Lantana. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. The landscape plan denoted the 105-space parking lot and the overall church property at Fairway and Portola. He noted that the matter was reviewed back in 1988-1989 for the phased expansion of the Hope Lutheran Church. At that time the church did not own these four lots. Over the past ten years they acquired them and the buildings were removed. As a result of building the 105 space parking lot they would see a net increase of 37 spaces over what the City had been shown in 1989. This property was not owned by the church in 1988-1989 so it was not included in the conditional use permit at that time. They owned it now and were seeking to expand the conditional use permit to include it. Findings for the approval were outlined on page two of the staff report and is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. Staff recommended approval. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MILTON CHAMBERS, the architect for Hope Lutheran, stated that they agree with the findings and had no problem with the conditions of approval. He said he was available to answer any questions. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. NAN KAPERNAROS, 74-075 Fairway Drive, asked if there were elevations provided and how they were proposing to build it, wall it and conceal it. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Chambers to describe how the layout and design would look from the street. Mr. Chambers explained that the perimeter was screened with landscaping and a low wall and the spaces between the wall would be landscaped and mounded to block the visibility of the cars. The low wall would be four feet on Fairway and five feet on Lantana. Ms. Kapernaros felt that if four feet was the same height as the existing wall it wasn't high enough to conceal the cars or their headlights or prevent people from sitting on the wall which she has noticed on the weekends and they drink and smoke. The way it is now didn't do any of that. There were big lights and now there would be headlights going in facing forward onto the other side of the street which is residential. As it exists now, she didn't feel it addressed the concealment of the automobiles, the lights and the grounds (the exposed work on the tall commercial building). There was a big spotlight and a fence exposing a lot of playground things. Children were there and there was a lot of skateboarding and if that was going to go on in the new area as it did now, the way it is landscaped now did not address that whatsoever. Mr. Chambers stated that the landscaping and height of the wall was well within the city standards. He disagreed that the four foot wall wouldn't block the car headlights, although there might be some spillover. As for the parking lot lighting, they were going to have very low level ground lighting. No tall poles. They planned to redo the existing landscaping on Fairway, a portion of it, to the first driveway so that it all tied together. He felt the landscaping and wall would adequately screen the parking. Ms. Kapernaros indicated that they have put in a sidewalk where they tore down the buildings and asked how close to the sidewalk the wall 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 would be and what sort of lighting would be on the street side of that wall. She has driven around the area and had seen very nice landscaping done around public areas that raise up and use desert landscaping and some low voltage lighting to curb the possibility of vandalism or loitering. She was new here from the east coast, but that entire area was the biggest eyesore. That entire block between Fairway, Lantana, and Portola where the school is and the way it is now didn't address any of the issues which she felt were very important issues. She said there was a school there, residential homes, children and she saw no indication of that being addressed other than perhaps that it meets city code. She didn't think that was the issue. It was a little more than that. Having taken down eight homes, she felt those things needed to be addressed in a residential area. Chairperson Campbell asked if there would be any landscaping between the wall and sidewalk. Mr. Smith replied yes and explained that the walls were located about midway between the edge of the back side of the sidewalk and the curb edge in the parking lot. In this case there wasn't a continuous wall. W As Mr. Chambers indicated it is a series of wall segments that are 25 or 30 feet long followed by a 15 foot gap with landscaping planted in the gap. There would be landscaping on the front of the walls, on the inside of the walls and then planting in the gaps also. MR. CARL WITT, the Senior Pastor at the Hope Lutheran Church, stated the landscaping plan would be beautiful. They were adding some 30 trees to the area and the walls would be bermed and it would have southwest landscaping. The trees would be in the perimeter and inside. The lighting would be at ground level. There wouldn't be any poles and they would relight;the whole parking lot with the same kind of lighting. Chairperson Campbell asked if they would be having any lighting around the perimeter of the wall. Mr. Witt said there wasn't any lighting on the outside at all other than a light at each entrance for their sign that already exists. Right now they had pole lighting but that would be replaced with ground lighting. He said they expected it to be an absolutely beautiful project. They were proud of their neighborhood and felt by taking down those four or %NW 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 five houses and putting in the parking lot with the proper landscaping, they were improving the area. Ms. Kapernaros stated that where she came from, and she has had to do this numerous times with her own business, she had to provide drawings for anything she planned to do, whether it was an awning, lettering, lighting, displaying something on the sidewalk, the name, anything. She was fully expecting to see elevations. If there was a landscape architect, she felt that was what they needed and what should be presented, other than just that it would be beautiful and that they were putting up trees. She asked what trees and felt that oleanders had no purpose whatsoever and actually destroyed the land. She asked for that to be required. Any other place she has been, that was how it was presented, rather than them saying they would guarantee it would be fine. They had the capability of presenting those things and she felt that would be the proper thing to do and that was what she wanted to ask the Commission. She suggested they be allowed to put up the parking lot but now they needed to see how they planned to actually do this. It was no different than building something. That was what they were doing and they were changing the whole area. They tore town those homes, but those were people across the street from other people that made it a community and now it would be nothing but a parking lot, a big wide open space. That was not part of residential living. It totally changed that area and she wanted to see that at least it was presented properly rather than just "it was going to be great". She could never get approval to do anything by just saying what she wanted to do and that it would be fabulous. She said they should show her a drawing and show her what it was going to look like. She said she has a design background and had to present those before anyone was going to give her any money or permission to build anything. Commissioner Jonathan informed Ms. Kapernaros that the Commission have detailed landscape drawings and it was on display or was available at City Hall for her to review. The plan specified each plant. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 to Commissioner Jonathan asked if the parking lot would be required to comply with the shading ordinance. He couldn't quite tell from the drawings and didn't see a condition. Mr. Smith replied that it would comply and noted there were changes made by the Architectural Review Commission to the material selected and that would be done. It would meet the species specified by the ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a requirement for an actual landscaping island between every three spaces or along those lines. Mr. Smith said that rather than provide a space every three spaces they provided a continuous six foot planter area which was better. Mr. Drell asked what the height of the berm would be in the gaps between the walls and if the planting would provide screening. Mr. Chambers stated that the berm varied in height between two and three feet and that plus the plants that were selected to go in between would give them more height than the wall. Mr. Smith stated that there were one gallon sierra negra called out, four between each and a 24-inch box tree, cercidium desert museum and there were 16 of those 24-inch box trees over the site. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith studied the landscaping and if he was satisfied that the landscaping would serve to both provide the requisite shading and at the same time shield any kind of undesirable parking lot activity from the exterior, particularly from the residential areas. Mr. Smith asked for clarification regarding undesirable activity. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they heard testimony regarding skateboarding, lights, etc. Mr. Smith said that they would be able to see kids going by on the parking lot inside if there was a four foot wall. He .personally wouldn't classify that as undesirable. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that Mr. Smith's answer was that he didn't perceive that there is a problem. Mr. Smith noted that the landscape plan was reviewed by the City's landscape consultant, Mr. Johnson. It was then reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission and approved. Commissioner Jonathan asked if ARC made modifications to the landscaping plan. Mr. Smith replied yes and indicated that he had a copy of the redlined plan. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that they looked at the plan in detail and made some recommendations and changes. Mr. Smith said that was correct and explained that some of the species were determined not .. to be adequate. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was convinced that 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 this was going to be about as pretty a parking lot as they were going to see and he was particularly pleased that they ended up with a greater parking ratio than they have now. He said he was prepared to move for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1897, approving CUP 89-2 Amendment No. 1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Drell noted that appeals could be filed within 15 days of the approval. B. Case No. CUP 98-15 - DANIEL LARSEN, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor golf cart display located at 73-737 %2 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was proposing to display a golf cart on the sidewalk facing Presidents' Plaza as a custom golf shop. He said the application was made pursuant to the City's provision in the C-1 zone which allowed for a conditional use permit for outdoor sales and that the existence of the provision implied that there are circumstances where something might be approved and one of the circumstances where staff felt it might be approved was the display of objects or merchandise that normally occurred outside, i.e., landscaping, plants, patio furniture, golf carts. He said that staff's assumption was also that it would be displayed in a setting similar to which it was normally used. In analyzing this application staff concluded that although a golf cart was an object which conceivably could be displayed outside, the physical dimensions of the area and the general setting didn't meet what he believed were the standards for outdoor displays. He felt the area was too tight and physically it looked like a golf cart parked on a sidewalk. Therefore, staff was recommending denial. Chairperson Campbell asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. There was no response. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. She asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty stated that she agreed with staff's recommendation and moved for adoption of the resolution to deny the golf cart display request. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Beaty said he was in agreement but wondered if it would be permissible for the applicant to park the golf cart in a parking space. Mr. Drell said no but that the dealers had been told that if the golf cart was a licensed commuting vehicle under the golf cart program, then they could park it anywhere they wanted in a public parking space. Otherwise, they would be using the public space as a sales area. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1898, denying CUP 98-15. Motion carried 5-0. C. Continued Case No. CUP 98-4 - CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 2,900 square foot retail food mart at 72-801 Highway 111 . Chairperson Campbell noted that there was a request for a continuance and asked if staff had any comments. Mr. Drell informed Commission that basically the applicant was requesting a continuance because they were taking issue with the traffic study which they feel is why the city is requiring them to do some street improvements. They have requested a two-week continuance. Since he thought it would take them a couple of weeks to do the analysis and then staff would need time to review it, he recommended the continuance be a month, to November 3, 1998. Chairperson Campbell asked if there would be a meeting that day. Mr. Drell noted that we usually have a meeting on election day. Commissioner Beaty asked if the extra two weeks had been proposed to the applicant. Mr. Drell said no, but he assumed that 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 the applicant was one of the people here who left after Chairperson Campbell noted that they were requesting a continuance and he said at that time that staff would be recommending a one month continuance, but he couldn't speak for someone who wasn't there. If the applicants in a hurry, they wouldn't have asked for a continuance. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing Case No. CUP 98-4 to November 3, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained). D. Case No. CUP 91-9 Amendment - OLIPHANT & LIZZA, Applicants Request for approval of an amendment to an existing conditional Nei use permit modifying certain valet parking restrictions for the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro east of Portola Avenue and including 24 parking spaces within an adjacent parking lot (the Ace Hardware lot) for an existing 6,000 square foot restaurant at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Portola Avenue at 74-040 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Drell noted that if at the conclusion of the staff report the Commission wished to, and the city attorney could explain the justification, since there were issues of potential litigation involved in this case which have a certain bearing on the Commission's decision to a certain degree, he felt it would be inappropriate to discuss those issues in open session. If the Commission so wished, they could go into closed session to discuss those issues. He explained that the request was an amendment of a proposal that was submitted to the Commission in April-May which originally included a 1 ,000 square foot expansion of the Ruth's Chris restaurant and the modification and deletion of a lot of the valet parking requirements as well as the inclusion of the Ace Hardware parking lot to expand the parking available to the valet for 4 the Ruth's Chris restaurant. As a result of some continued unresolved issues concerning potential purchase of some of the adjacent residential lots to 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 alleviate some of the conflicts between the restaurant and residential neighborhood the hearing was continued indefinitely and was to be renoticed. In the interim the applicant submitted an amended request without the 1 ,000 square foot expansion designed to meet the parking requirements of the existing restaurant. Presently there were 54 valet spaces available according to the lease. The applicant (Oliphant & Lizza) was obligated to provide 70 valet spaces to Ruth's Chris so they are presently in non-compliance with their lease and have requested in Exhibit B use of 24 spaces in the Ace Hardware lot and some of the "managed spaces" in the existing north lot. In essence, extra spaces at the end of some aisles against the building and the opening up of the south lot adjacent to the building which currently under the valet restrictions was all self parking and those would be allowed to be valet parked as well, or a portion of them, reserving 20 spaces for the Tsing Tao chinese restaurant, which was their parking requirement. The restrictions on the north lot would remain, which would mean no parking along the back wall and the east and west sides of that center section. The back three spaces of the Ace Hardware lot would also be excluded from the valet. The Ace Hardware lot was approved in 1983 and currently contained no specific restrictions in terms of hours. There was a condition in the current Ruth's Chris conditional use permit which specified adherence to the existing valet restrictions and one of the actions would be modification of those restrictions adding the Ace Hardware lot to allow it for valet use. As discussed at the time of the original submittal, the physical circumstances with the Ace Hardware lot was different and to a certain degree was a better buffered lot than they have in the existing lot in that the lot itself was set back 36 feet from the rear property line and the lots and houses that back onto that lot were long narrow lots and they were 50-60 feet set back from the rear property line. While they are dealing with the two houses which have been the most discussed relative to the north lot which are within about 20 feet of the rear property line and the parking lot goes right up against it, those houses would be 100 or more feet back from the parking. As was noted before when they did their rather exhaustive acoustical review of the operation of this lot which they did on six separate nights, unannounced during peak season last year, noise levels were what would be expected in a location such as this within 300 feet of a state highway, a large commercial street, and within proximity of a commercial parking lot. They have a fundamental land use conflict that was recognized in the Palma Village Specific Plan and in the Core Commercial Specific Plan. The plan as an ideal situation tried to recommend a situation where they don't have commercial lots backing onto residential and they have lots going to a 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 buffer to a street to a front yard. He felt a good example of that was the neighborhood behind the Palm Desert Town Center. They have a huge commercial lot, a wall, a street, then a front yard and it was one of the quieter areas and created a much better situation. They couldn't achieve that everywhere, but on the other hand this was, while not the quietest most tranquil lot, what could be expected when living downtown. He indicated there were continuing discussions. When he scheduled this hearing it was his understanding that the issue of the potential purchase and relocation of the residents most impacted by this application was not going to go through. Therefore, given the existing conditions it was time to make a decision. Subsequent to the scheduling of this hearing there had been new contact with the management and president of Ruth's Chris relative to their participation, if it formed into a solution which would eliminate the direct conflict between the parking lot and residents. Unfortunately, those meetings wouldn't occur until November and therefore staff would be recommending that a decision should be deferred until they know once and for all if there would be a land use redesign which would address the problem or whether they have to deal with the existing geometry as it is now. The recommendation would be a continuance until December 15 so that Council would have time to meet since the discussions involve Council's negotiation in relation to the real estate so December 15 would be a better date to know what the final geometry would be. In meantime staff recommended that the applicant be allowed, on a temporary basis, to use the Ace Hardware lot as described. He felt it was necessary for the operation of the restaurant. It would be subject to the provision that they would be moving the cars out of that lot by 9:30 p.m. which he believed they were doing anyway and hopefully by December they would have a better handle on how they were finally going to deal with this fundamental land use problem. Chairperson Campbell asked if it would be acceptable to the city attorney to go ahead with the closed session for five minutes or so. Mr. Drell said it was up to the Commission. Mr. Hargreaves explained that in discussions with staff it became apparent that there was a potential for litigation both against the city and potential litigation that the city may wish to initiate that impacts this particular project. If the Commission wished to discuss it, he would prefer that it be discussed in closed session. The Commission would need to have a vote to add closed session to the agenda as something that came up since the agenda was posted. That would require a four-fifths vote and it would be per Government Code Section 54956.9 B and C and that would be the 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 appropriate motion at this time and they could go into closed session and discuss the matter. Commissioner Beaty asked if staff and counsel felt the closed session would be beneficial prior to or subsequent to public testimony. Mr. Drell said as far as he was concerned it wouldn't matter, but would be helpful before making a decision. Commissioner Beaty suggested hearing testimony first. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would feel better getting a full report before hearing the public testimony. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adding Closed Session to the Agenda by minute motion per Government Code Section 54956.9 B and C. Motion carried 5-0. Closed session was called at 7:47 p.m. CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:03 P.M. FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION. .. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any other questions of staff. There were none. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing was open and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICHARD R. OLIPHANT, 45-500 Navaho Road in Indian Wells, informed Commission that this was kind of a "catch 22" situation. The project was approved in order to take advantage of that corner. As a part of that approval parking was approved. There were mitigations that were required. They met all of those mitigations. They have probably one of the most successful businesses in the whole Coachella Valley in that building producing for the City of Palm Desert approximately $5 million per year in taxable sales, employing about 60 people, and they would do just about anything to get businesses like that in the valley and they were doing everything they could here to run it away. They had 22 spaces taken away from them to mitigate the problem with the residents who live behind them. Those residents lived there when this project was approved. Council knew that when they approved it, but nonetheless they still had their CUP amended and those 22 spaces taken away. That didn't mean they emptied a bunch of tables in Ruth's Chris, it just meant the cars had to go somewhere else. They came to the City and asked if they could move those cars into the 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 lot next door at Ace Hardware and they made a lease agreement with Ace Hardware to use the lot because they close before the restaurant begins. It was a use that didn't double up. Prior to their starting to lease the lot they stretched chains across the driveway at night to keep people from driving into that parking lot and illegally parking. That has been working and they use it as overflow parking. When they fill their own lots, then they start putting cars in the Ace Hardware lot. There were many nights during the week when they don't use that lot at all, but nonetheless the space was available to them at the time they need it. The Ruth's Chris company since they rented to them have changed hands. Before that the Ruth's Chris Steakhouse was a franchise. It was owned by a gentleman who lived in Scottsdale. He owned six or seven of these franchises in Hawaii, California, Nevada and Arizona. The company decided they would go public so they bought out all of the franchises. They no longer deal with an individual franchiser, they were dealing with a major international corporation. They didn't have the same kinds of feelings about things as an individual franchiser would. That wasn't to say that they weren't interested in community and so on, but they would be a publicly traded company whose bottom line is extremely important to them. They are looking for quiet enjoyment of their lease which has two more years to run. They have notified Oliphant & Lizza that they are now in violation of that lease because they weren't being provided with the adequate number of parking spaces that was required in the lease. By leasing the space next door at quite an expense to both Mr. Lizza and Mr. Oliphant, they had been able to satisfy the lease requirement. The president of the company has never been here. He was relatively new with Ruth's Chris and has been in communication with Oliphant & Lizza and with Carlos Ortega on many occasions. It was hard for the president to deny this location isn't an ideal location for this store because it is one of the top producing stores on the west coast. It was certainly one of the top producers for the city as a revenue generator and employer. He said they have a major concern. They have expressed that concern to the president and he has agreed to come out and discuss the issue with them. He said he was talking about meeting not only with Mr. Lizza and Mr. Oliphant, but with the City of Palm Desert as well as with Mr. Ortega, who has had ongoing conversations. Mr. Oliphant said it was their desire that after that conversation they could resolve all of these issues and there were several ways the issues could be resolved. There 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 was one issue that was important to the president. His business is very successful here and it is his opinion that he needs ten more tables in that restaurant and he wants to talk to Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Lizza about an expansion. They have to negotiate that expansion. They have had no conversations with him financially about that expansion and they would be having those conversations with him when he arrives here in November. He was quite surprised that there was any discussion here because every other place that Ruth's Chris goes into the communities were extremely glad that they are there. He couldn't quite understand why that wasn't the case here but what Mr. Oliphant was trying to portray to him was that it is the case here. They do like Ruth's Chris in this community and they do want them to stay and they were going to do certain things in order to assist them and help them to stay, but that message had to be conveyed in person. When he gets here in November, that was when that message would be conveyed by Mr. Ortega and themselves and they have a lot of confidence that they would be able to have a successful negotiation. That issue of expansion, additional parking and solutions to the existing parking problem would all be resolved after Mr. Hyde, the president, was here and met with all of them and they have the conversation. In the meantime, until that happened they had to continue to park cars somewhere. If they couldn't park them in the Ace lot he wasn't quite sure where they would go. They were already parking in the frontage of all those businesses along Highway 111 from Cabrillo to their business in public parking spaces because their spaces weren't available to them. They were setting empty every night and they were adhering to the requirement of the CUP. As the people move out, the cars in the back were moved forward so that they stay as far away from the residential area as possible. They didn't allow their valets to yell at each other. If someone was in the lot and had the wrong key they couldn't yell across the street to bring the right key, the valet had to go back and get that key. They enforce that as strongly as it could be and they were trying to be the best neighbors they could, but they had to stay in business. It was a huge investment on that corner and they didn't want to see that investment disappear. He requested that the matter be continued until after they have had a chance to meet with Mr. Hyde. Mr. Oliphant felt that December 15 was an acceptable date. tow 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 Commissioner Beaty asked if they was using the same valet company as they were using the last time they were before the commission. Mr. Oliphant thought they were and that they were an excellent valet company. He said the first valet company was hired by the franchise. Commissioner Beaty indicated that they heard some conflicting answers at their last meeting that concerned him from the gentleman who owned that valet company. Mr. Oliphant noted that the first valet company that was there was hired by the franchise holder. They as landlords gave them notice on a number of occasions to fire those valets. They were not good neighbors, they were not acting in a manner that they would like them to act, they did not work for Oliphant & Lizza and they tried to control them and weren't able to. It took them a period of time to finally convince the franchise holder that he had some bad apples he needed to get rid of and he did and he brought in a franchise that they recommended that parks almost every country club and most of the major businesses and has an excellent reputation. The owner of that valet company has met with the two gentlemen who are most effected, given them his pager number, his telephone number and has asked them if they have any complaint or problem to let him know about it right then. He has tried to keep the lines of communication open with them. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the required number of parking spaces under the lease is 70 valet spaces and he understood the request for the modification to total 62 spaces. He asked if he was missing something. Mr. Oliphant said they have 52 spaces now that they park in. They have 77 total but they were actually only parking in 52. They have 25 spaces they aren't utilizing and those spaces were the ones they were replacing in the Ace Hardware lot. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the staff report indicated that the request had been modified to 24 spaces in the Ace Hardware lot, 14 spaces in the north lot and 24 spaces in the south lot. Mr. Drell clarified that the 14 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 spaces were the "managed spaces" in addition to the existing spaces and totaled 56. Mr. Oliphant concurred. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that would mean they were way over the 70 required in the lease. Mr. Drell said they wound up with more mainly because in reality that was how much parking they really needed. Mr. Oliphant concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MR. RAY WINNER, 74-039 San Marino Circle, said this parking lot expansion would cause more noise and more havoc in the parking lot. Last night he yelled at some guy who was urinating against the wall right behind his house and he went to get the video camera but he was already gone. That was the kind of stuff that went on in that lot. No matter how they thought it was managed, it was not managed. It was chaos out there. They still had auto alarm problems. Earlier in the season they had problems over there in Ace Hardware. On May 3 there was an armed car jacking out of that parking lot at gun point and the very next night they had hired Westec. On the 4th Westec chased a perpetrator out of that parking lot with a bullet proof vest and gun on and chased the guy over the Ace Hardware parking lot wall right into their properties. All that guy had to do was jump over the wall and he was in their backyards. There were a lot of things going on over there. There were problems with Westec also. They were creating all kinds of problems because,no one managed what goes on over there. It was like a whole bunch of different aspects working separately and no one seemed to work together. It kept going on and he felt that expansion would just cause more problems over there. He said where they planned to park on the outside 14 extra spots was a fire lane and said they thought that because they couldn't park against the wall that they could use that area for the fire lane. Regarding due process on this and Mr. Oliphant's comments that it went to City Council and was approved and everything, they were never notified that there was going to be nighttime parking there. He had a copy of a contract from Oliphant, Lizza, and Gregory that was dated the 1 st of July, 1990, for 66% of 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 the use of that parking lot. On June 4, 1991 , a year later, Mr. Oliphant stated, "We feel that the project would not impact them because it was only the buildings that fronted Highway 1 1 1 . Alessandro traffic would separate the project from the residents, as well as the deep parking lot and two additional commercial buildings in the back." He said they could take that statement to mean that there would be no parking there. He said this was a year later and they knew they were going to park in that parking lot. There was no public hearing on that parking lot. It was all combined together and the lease was drawn up even before the Planning Commission meeting. It was misrepresented and the people in the neighborhood never had a chance to oppose that parking lot being used at night. He said this was from the lawyer. He felt that wasn't right and now they wanted to push more parking in there. He said there was supposed to be a 36 foot variance between commercial property use and residential property. He read in the Palma Village Plan that this was supposed to be R-1 and no office professional space and no two story buildings on that side of Alessandro and there was. If the community would have known that there was going to be nighttime parking there they never would have approved this project. The same thing that was going on tonight has happened five or six times. No one could reach a decision or come to any agreement. What happened on a contingency was that they would go ahead and pass these things and then that became the action of Council and they were swept under the rug every single time. It was standard procedure. He said he wasn't opposed to the community having Ruth's Chris there but there was no due process in this and he has gotten to the point where he has no choice on this. There was something going on here that needed taking care of and he talked to the owners of Ace Hardware today, Larry, and he assured Mr. Winner that he was going to pull his use of Ace Hardware's parking lot until this issue was solved. He said he didn't want to get in the middle of this problem. The problem was even if they did that there was no management of that lot. There never has been. That was his home there and he felt like there was no due process or any place for him to go to deal with this. He has been doing this for seven years and in seven years they haven't worked this out. It always went back to the same thing again. It was never his intention to sell his property in the first place. He wanted the parking lot closed at night. The first time it was brought up was in a meeting with Phil Drell and Dick Oliphant and the meeting was about the valet parkers 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 low smoking pot and drinking, changing their clothes in the parking lot right up against the wall and then putting up the signs for valet parking and parking customers' cars. He got that on video tape. After that Ray Diaz brought it up. It was never his intention to do that. He said that part of the year he couldn't go into his backyard because there was smoke from the restaurant at certain times of the year and he had to close up his house during the most beautiful time of the year and he couldn't sit out there. It continued. He had a petition with 21 signatures of people who don't want the expansion. He said he didn't know where else to go. He has been before Planning Commission, City Council and he has done everything within due process that he felt he could do. It just continued. - He said he didn't know about the management of this lot. He was thinking that perhaps Westec could manage the lot and keep control over what is going on over there. The way things were going he didn't know who else would do it unless they were going to hire someone else to manage all of it. As for the cars being taken out of there at 9:30 p.m., that has never happened. He would know. As far as the valets yelling, they yelled all the time. They were in a hurry. They were burning around the parking lot parking cars in and out constantly. In Phil Drell's own words it was the most successful restaurant in California, if not the United States. The old sound study would never have passed this use and that was in Bricken's sound study report. He was an ex-councilmember and a friend of Phil Drell's and he thought that was about as impartial and Mr. Drell could get. If Commission read the report, the guy didn't even know the difference between east and west. He said he would hope that the Planning Commission would not allow any more parking in there until they could actually sit down and talk about this. He submitted the petition with the 21 signatures. He said that as far as the Ace Hardware parking lot, he didn't think that was going to be an issue any more because as far as he knew he was told by Larry that he didn't have a contract with Ruth's Chris on this parking lot so he didn't know what that was all about because he talked with him today and he was told that Larry would pull the use of that lot until this was taken care of because he didn't want to be in the middle of this. MR. GARY TRYON, 74-047 San Marino Circle, stated that he was before the Commission several times last spring to talk to them and to .. City Council about the flagrant and habitual violations of the conditional 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 use permit for the restaurant and the valet use permit. He was told in July that they would have a meeting and go through the complaint process again. Nothing ever happened. He didn't think there should be any vote on expanding the parking lot until the issues of the violations that are going on right now were taken care of and something was resolved about them. Listening to Mr. Oliphant was like listening to Mother Goose when he said they were moving the cars out of the northeast lot at 9:30 p.m. every night. Mr. Tryon said that did not happen. The cars were there until they go back to the customer-- sometimes at 11 :00 p.m. or 1 1:30 p.m. at night. The valets did yell at each other and it was to be expected because they were young kids. They were also hot rodding and Sunday night he went into the parking lot with a video camera because the valets were parking against the wall again. There was just an endless list of.violations of the conditions of the existing permits. When the owners of the lot and the owners of the valet service took it upon themselves to start using the Ace Hardware lot last February, they brought a criminal element into their neighborhood that was intolerable. Mr. Winner described a little bit of it. There has been armed car jackings and car break ins, burglaries and thefts. Mr. Winner's truck has been broken into three times, Mr. Tryon's has been broken into. He stated that he honestly believed that these violations of the conditions needed to be resolved before there was any more discussion on expanding the parking. He thanked the Commission. MRS. KATHLEEN KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo, stated that she spoke with the Commission last April about their concerns and she told them that their property was not directly effected by this, however, they have some very serious,concerns. They seriously questioned the wisdom of allowing a public street, Alessandro, to be used as an extension of a parking lot, driveway or private business. That was what was happening here. This street was being used as an extension of the parking lot and a driveway. She called their attention to the Core Specific Plan where on page 8 there was a quote that said, "It is poor planning to require pedestrians to cross a 60 foot right-of-way to get from a parking lot to a destination." That was right in the Core Commercial Plan. She asked the Commission again to do the mathematics on the number of times Alessandro is crossed in an evening, reminding them that it takes four crossings for every car that 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 is parked. That multiplied by the number of spaces by the number of times there is a turnover in that restaurant and they have people crossing Alessandro against east and west traffic as well as arriving and departing traffic from the restaurant. It was a zoo out there. She told Commission this last April. She and her husband walked d vMrto the area and watched it. Now if the cars go down to Ace, which they did when they run out of places, it was a further distance so they have to go faster. These guys really try to do a good job and they liked to service their customers very quickly and they run and drive like maniacs going down that street. It was out of that driveway, they fly down Alessandro, run back and that goes on back and forth. The lot has already been used without permission and she told the Commission that it creates a traffic hazard. Alessandro was dark at night because there were no street lights on Alessandro. There were no sidewalks in this proposed area. The only place there were sidewalks were at the new O.P. buildings. There were no crosswalks and she felt the City was setting themselves up. There was no way legally to get across that street--there was no crosswalk, no sidewalk, no street lights and they have valets moving cars up and down the street and in and out of those lots. That led her to ask the next question. When they set up risk like this, what were the safeguards for the city? Have they asked for proof of liability insurance from the owners of the building, the operators of the businesses, the owners of the parking lots, the valets? How much liability did they have? How much was enough? It is a very popular restaurant and she felt it was in the wrong place. She also told the Commission that they fully understand the dilemmas they face in decisions and the challenges of the Core Commercial development. They have lived there for over 30 years. They have been effected by the growth of the_ city of Palm Desert, however, they still love their home as do most other people in the neighborhood. She would agree that there are some houses that should be bulldozed. The two gentlemen that just spoke, their homes weren't among those. She was concerned about the preservation of these old neighborhoods. Also, in the Core Plan it said they should be able to coexist and prosper. As a resident there they were willing to coexist with office professional or a business that does business from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. so that when people come home to enjoy the quiet enjoyment of their homes they could. Not with a business that starts business at 5:00 p.m. They were concerned about the preservation of these old neighborhoods and 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 she has been watching it happen all over the city and felt they could coexist. On San Marino Circle there was a little house that was a dump, but the gentleman across the street bought it, he was working on it and it was going to be a charming little cottage. That was the kind of homes that were in that particular area. To them it was abundantly clear that this was just the wrong place for this restaurant. It was very popular, it was very busy and created a lot of traffic, but it was in the wrong place. It was just too much for this corner. She urged denial and assumed that Commission wouldn't be making any decisions tonight, but they might even go so far as to recommend pulling the conditional use permit. This was the wrong place for this kind of activity. Palm Desert has done a lot of things right, there was a lot of planning that has gone on in the city that has been right and good, but there have been mistakes and she felt the Commission had to agree that there have been mistakes and this was one of them. She said she hoped Commission would seriously consider their decisions here tonight and thanked them for listening and considering their input. Mr. Oliphant readdressed Commission. He said he thought they probably understood now why he started his conversation by saying this was a "catch 22" situation. He wanted to respond to some of the comments made by the homeowners. He recalled that this corner used to be a major hazard in the city of Palm Desert. There was a frontage road that exited onto Portola immediately at the turnoff from Highway 1 1 1 on a right-hand turn. Also, there was a median that had been constructed in the center of Portola that came out far enough that if someone drove a long wheel based car like a Cadillac they couldn't make that turn without the rear wheel bouncing over the curb. The buildings that sat,: on that corner were old and included the former Southern California Edison Company and a long time real estate company. Adjoining that was a nursery. The City approached.Mr. Lizza and himself and asked them, because they were building high-profile buildings in the city of Palm Desert (and he has been doing that for 36 years), and asked the two of them if they would consider building a superblock at the corner of Portola and Highway 1 1 1 . They wanted them to buy everything on both sides of Alessandro all the way down to the lumber yard and build brand new buildings there. They tried to buy that property and worked with the City on it but no one was willing to sell, so the City came in and condemned the properties to make that 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 property available. It turned out to be an extremely expensive proposition abandoning the frontage road. It took over a year to negotiate with Caltrans on the widening of the highway. The end result was that the highway came closer to the building by almost 15 feet than it was designed originally in that right hand turn lai te. The Alessandro Street, because it is a superblock and the property is on both sides of the street, the building on one side and the parking on the other. When Mr. Winner mentioned that he found they owned sixty-six and two thirds percent of the land on the other side of the street, the reason for that was because the majority of the parking for their building was on the north side of Alessandro. It was designed that way and that was the way the City and themselves approached it. This was promoted as a superblock from day one. It was called the Oliphant Lizza Superblock and is stilled referred to as that. Because of the extreme expense in building that facility it was necessary for them to get a high profile tenant in there. They were assisted by the City again in looking for a good tenant and they attracted Ruth's Chris. Everyone was bidding for Ruth's Chris up and down the valley, but they got assistance in getting Ruth's Chris here because they are high profile and will pay a very high rent. He said they are in a high profile position. Portola and Highway 1 1 1 happened to be one of the key corners in the whole desert and certainly in Palm Desert. This was a franchise in those days and their study showed that this was a key location for them to be. That was why they built there. On the north side of Alessandro, there was a commercial building which housed a gardening business that sat right next to where Ace Hardware is, then there were a series of old houses. There were also houses that fronted onto San Marino Circle. They tried to build all the houses, including Mr. Tryon's and Mr. Winner's ,homes. They were not willing to sell then and they were not willing to sell today. They have never been willing to sell. The result was that he came to the City and suggested that since they condemned the rest of the properties here that they condemn those two houses as well so that they could complete the parking lot. They were informed that the City did not condemn residences and they were not able to acquire those two houses. They were then required to generate substantial mitigation. There were a lot of old wooden fences back there, there was power to the houses, they tore all that out and cleaned it up, put in high block walls, underground service, underground service on their houses, and electrical service panels to accommodate the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 approvals of the City as part of the mitigation they had to go through. They did all of that and were able to get Ruth's Chris in and it became a very successful restaurant. It was exactly what their studies said it would be. It pleased Oliphant & Lizza, it pleased the City and pleased everyone except the people who happened to be a notch out of the parking lot that they could never acquire. The residents chose to live in that parking lot. They chose to have the cars park right beside them. There was nothing he could do about that today. The cars were there. They satisfied every requirement the City asked of them. They attempted to meet every requirement that has been laid down before them and he knew there was a conflict between those residences and this business. This was not the only place in Palm Desert where there was that kind of a conflict, it just happened to be more noticeable here because both Mr. Tryon and Mr. Winner came to the City on a regular. basis and Mr. Oliphant didn't think the City had that kind of visitation from any other residents. Mr. Oliphant said he didn't know the answer but if they drove Ruth's Chris away, they would essentially break that building. He didn't know if that was what the City was after or not. It was certainly not what he was after or Mr. Lizza: They were going to try and negotiate something with Ruth's Chris when they come here in November and they would make every effort to keep them as a major tenant for them and a major business for the city of Palm Desert. They were a major contributor financially to the community, a major employer, and they were on a high profile corner. He thought that everyone was proud of what they did with that intersection especially if they had been here long enough to know what it was like in the past. They have tried to do everything first class and it was a catch 22 situation. He knew it was a tough decision from the Commission's standpoint because they have the interests of the residents on one hand and the interests of businesses on the other and they had to carefully evaluate both of them. He said that if they send another message to Ruth's Chris that the City isn't 100% behind them they would leave Palm Desert and that building. He didn't know how they would take care of that building from that point on unless they find another Ruth's Chris and they would be right back with the same problem. There was over $1 million of tenant improvements in the Ruth's Chris building and it was not something that was easy to walk away from. He asked for any questions. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing would remain open and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would move for continuance to December 15. Mr. Drell asked for clarification that the motion was per staff's recommendation. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would second the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to continue CUP 91-9 Amendment to December 15, 1998 pending City Council direction concerning disposition of adjacent residential properties and authorizing the temporary use of the Ace Hardware lot and other valet management changes per staff's recommendation. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. PP/CUP 98-16 - AMERICAN INVESTMENT GROUP/PALM DESERT LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design, parking modification and exception to the height limit for the remodel of building architecture, parking lot, landscape area and new Rite Aid building at Palms to Pines Plaza East, the area between Highway 111 and El Paseo, east of Plaza Way and west of Columbia Center, more particularly described as APN 640-170- 005, 006 and 008. Mr. Smith noted that there was a request before Commission for a continuance on this matter. He asked if the Commission wished him to go through the report tonight or to wait until the matter returned. Commissioner Jonathan said he could wait. Commissioner Finerty agreed. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. No one wished to speak and Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. Action: 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 Oki It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing PP/CUP 98-16 to October 20, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. ZOA 98-5 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendment to the sign ordinance - noncommercial signs. Mr. Smith recalled that on August 4, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on amendments to the sign ordinance to create a separate noncommercial sign section. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft as presented. That matter was submitted to City Council on September 10. A copy of the council minutes of that meeting was attached to the staff report given to Commission. Basically the council felt there were too many categories and that it was too convoluted. The council referred the matter back to staff and Planning Commission with the direction that the ordinance be amended to prohibit noncommercial signs in the public right-of- way and to require removal within seven days of an election. They ran this revised amendment past Zoning Ordinance Review Committee at its meeting of September 17 and they agreed that the first version of the ordinance would have afforded greater regulatory control but noted that council should be comfortable with whatever ordinance it adopts. The modified ordinance still contained what Mr. Smith described as 15 housekeeping sections which would allow them to create the noncommercial sign section. Section 16 would then delete the existing political sign regulations. Section 17 would create a new title called Temporary Noncommercial Sign Regulation which would prohibit noncommercial signs in the public right-of-way and require their removal within seven days. Mr. Smith noted this was not a noticed public hearing in that the matter was a public hearing in August. This was a referral by Council to this commission pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.82.060. Staff's recommendation was for Planning Commission to recommend approval of this version of the ordinance to the Council. He asked for any questions. Action: 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 98-5 as modified by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. REQUEST BY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS: WELL 5675 AND PALM DESERT WATER RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 10 (WRP10) SEWER FORCE MAIN. Mr. Drell explained that these projects were part of CVWD's obligation to provide the city with needed water and facilities. He recommended that Commission make the finding that the projects are in conformity with.the City's General Plan. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, determining by minute motion that Well 5675 and Palm Desert Water Reclamation Plan No. 10 (WRP10) Sewer Force Main are in compliance with the Palm Desert General Plan. Motion carried 5-0. C. AN ORAL REPORT WILL BE GIVEN BY PHIL DRELL REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE LANDSCAPING AT THE DESERT CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER. Mr. Drell explained that the city has with Desert Crossing, as with all new major projects, a landscape maintenance agreement. Unfortunately, this project was landscaped using a particular tree which everyone at the time thought was wonderful, which the City thought was wonderful, which the city planted in the civic center parking lot and throughout the park, which has turned out not to be wonderful. In certain situations where it has been grown in a completely open area and has the opportunity for its roots to spread out unimpeded it might be okay, but not in a confined parking well. Another thing the city required was a root guard which was to protect the integrity of the curb around the tree well and the way they were installed prevented any expansion of roots. As the City and everyone else have found in this situation, the only thing that keeps those trees vertical are the posts, no matter how old 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 the trees get. If the supports ever weaken or the ties break, the trees fall right over. There were probably 100-200 of those trees in the Desert Crossing parking lot. They also put a cloth over the soil to keep any weeds from growing which also tends to hold in the heat. They were in discussions with the manager of Desert Crossing to figure out if there was any way to save those trees. They had an applicant who did all of these things and spent extra money to do all sorts of things they thought were good and it turned out not to be good. They were negotiating and talking about how to fix this and now there was a new manager over there. They were initiating discussions and trying to find an equitable way to solve this problem. Chairperson Campbell asked about the trellises that were supposed to be installed in the middle of the parking lot for shade. Mr. Drell said those trellises were not included in the final plan. Hopefully people would reexamine how they design centers like that. There were a lot of spaces in them that they have found were not that successful. The good news was that the domes which were looking kind of shabby were fixed, which was a relatively easy fix compared to tearing out all the trees and planting new ones which was probably what they were going to have to do and was what the City had to do. It's a problem that they were all aware of. It was such a monumental error that it would take a little longer to fix. Chairperson Campbell asked if they could ask them to add more wells. Mr. Drell said the other problem was that the wells were too small. They actually convinced Toys R Us to physically expand the size of their wells instead of replacing trees over and over. They tore out curbing and widened the tree wells. Again, at the time they built it they complied with the city's ordinance. There were plenty of tree wells out there. That wasn't the problem. The problem was the trees that were planted were recommended to them to plant and that turned out to be wrong and the wells are.too small and they shouldn't have put in the weed cloth or root guards. He was now trying to convince people that if we ever get a tree that grows and shades and that cracks a curb, that would be great. The issue was not only heat generated on the asphalt which discourages the tree growth, it was apparently a matter of oxygen. Roots don't like to go where there isn't any oxygen. Heat, no oxygen and no water occurred in these small tree wells and they were trying to grow a big tree to shade a big parking lot in a very small box. The only way to improve it was to make the tree wells larger, tear out the root guards and the weed cloth and put in a tree that isn't going to fall over. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 taw Commissioner Jonathan asked if the shading ordinance was inadequate at this point and needed modification. Mr. Drell said it was being modified and all the new projects coming before the Commission were being required to put in larger tree wells. They were no longer letting them plant those mesquites. They were no longer requiring the root guards and no one is putting in the weed cloth any more. A lot of things were designed for ease of maintenance which turned out not to be good for the trees. They were working on it. Chairperson Campbell said the new in-house arborist could show them how to plant the trees. Mr. Drell said that there was also a new draft landscape parking lot ordinance, but they have already been enforcing it. Commissioner Beaty asked if the City was liable if a tree went down and injured someone. Mr. Drell said he wouldn't comment on that. Mr. Hargreaves said it would be tough to establish liability since the City didn't plant the trees. Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Jonathan thanked Mr. Drell for the report. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (September 29 and October 6, 1998) Commissioner Beaty said there wasn't a meeting on September 29, it was changed to .October 6 because someone was coming in with something special. Commissioner Finerty said that as it turned out that someone special didn't show up, but they did see the proposed artwork for the entrance to the clubhouse. There was some discussion with regard to the country club drive median between Portola and Cook and whether it should be desertscape or something similar to Marriott. There was quite a bit of discussion with regard to the circulation and turn around in the parking lot and she was pleased with that because right now it looks like a maze and she felt something positive would come out of that and then maybe a plan to upgrade the restrooms located on the course. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (September 16, 1998) Commissioner Fernandez indicated he didn't attend the meeting. Mr. Drell said there was a lot of discussion about the walls and various alternatives for walls around Palm Desert Country Club on Hovley and Fred Waring. There were some cost estimates and a kind of a recommendation for walls to be a uniform design to be established either with six foot or eight foot slump block painted walls. They were supposed to come back with some evaluations on the difference in prices between the six foot and eight foot walls and get some specific contractor estimates. Chairperson Campbell asked about the residential walls. Mr. Drell said they were discussing an odd situation because if this had been done in the city they would have required the developer to put in a uniform wall. They were talking about what the city perceives to be a perimeter wall of a development and should have been the obligation of the whole original development shared by all the residents. In every other country club or every other single family development those walls were required to be installed as part of the i whole project. The debate was on how to achieve that look and not to have the single entities any more. That was still being discussed. D. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (September 23, 1998) Chairperson Campbell noted that they considered the political sign ordinance revision. There was also discussion of temporary window signs defining temporary and it was the consensus of the committee that "temporary" should be defined as 30 days. There was also discussion of amendments to parking lot standards relative to implementing new landscape standards for parking lots and Mr. Smith indicated that the ordinance had language that the Architectural Review Committee had the authority to make exceptions to the standards. It was also suggested that trees be reviewed every two years. It was suggested that the term "standard" should be defined as it appears on the landscape maintenance agreement contract form. They also discussed trees growing to a point where they block business identification signage and that there be a guideline to insure that 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 landscaping flourishes. In the future they would discuss sidewalk vending machines. Mr. Smith said they would also take up the issue of landscaping again at the next meeting. Some people wanted the opportunity to read it in depth. XI. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Jonathan suggested that before the Commission cycled into the next year that the Commission should look at the relevancy of the existing committees on the agenda, particularly Desert Willow. He felt it was relevant when it was in the planning stage, but now that the project was reality they might not need to have it on the agenda any longer. Education was part of the planning process and while there might not be a committee yet, they had a situation where a significant part of Palm Desert on the north side was part of the Palm Springs Unified School District and he thought in some informal way that issue was being dealt with and he thought it was a very relevant issue to the Planning Commission. He suggested adding the Commission into the loop on that issue when they look at the relevancy of the committees. Mr. Drell asked if he meant an update. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and said it would be an update and being kept informed as things develop. He felt it was a very odd situation to have a significant part of the developing city be in another school district. Chairperson Campbell asked how often those meetings took place. Mr. Drell explained that there had been an application filed by Kaufman and Broad. Basically the City could not be the applicant. Residents had to be. The problem was it wasn't like a typical annexation where the residents ultimately have the right to choose. In this situation the schools ultimately have the right or the very school system as it is set up with the districts and County Superintendent could basically make up their own minds. Commissioner Beaty said he sat on the committee for nine years for the county and related some of his experiences. He concluded that it was a strange process. Commissioner Jonathan noted that with a lot of these issues it came down to a matter of money. Mr. Drell noted that Palm Springs wants $13 million. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that a parallel process was happening between Desert Sands and Coachella Valley Unified School Districts. He thought that right now it was not happening in any formal way and he wasn't .. implying that they should serve on a committee, just simply receive 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 1998 updates on that issue which he felt was very important. Commissioner Jonathan suggested adding that to the agenda and deleting Desert Willow from the agenda. Commissioner Finerty noted that the hotels would be coming before Planning Commission. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was a good point. 2. Commissioner Finerty asked for the status of the proposed Lucky's. Mr. Drell said it was continued but basically it started with one of the councilmembers who was most likely to vote for it declaring a conflict of interest and having to abstain. There was some controversy on whether he really had to abstain so the applicant requested a continuance and the Council said okay, but they would accept testimony. All the people who were against the project got up to speak before the applicant's presentation, which he felt was a bad way to handle this, and then the Council expressed their opposition but it was continued to October 22. Chairperson Campbell asked about the new owner of the existing Lucky center. Mr. Drell said the new owner showed up and said they could accommodate Lucky's in the existing center. As it turned out they could accommodate them if they wiped out all of the existing tenants and took up most of the parking lot. Basically the Council only heard all of the negative testimony. All the supporters felt they were going to come back and didn't get up to speak. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, to adjourn the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: 24�1 l-2 SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission Am 32