Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0815 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 15, 2000 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER tow 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Members Absent: Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Jeff Winklepleck, Parks & Rec. Planning Manager Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the July 18, 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the July 18, 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 2-0-1 (Chairperson Beaty abstained). Consideration of the August 1 , 2000 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Beaty, approving the August 1 , 2000 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 2-0-1 r.. (Commissioner Finerty abstained). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 i s Nod V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION No meeting. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-22 - NOBLE AND COMPANY, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust a rear property line to accommodate an existing block wall within the Montecito residential development. B. Case No. PMW 00-17 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, EDWARD & ELIZABETH HARSHFIELD Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust a lot line to increase the lot area to accommodate a proposed home within Mountains at Bighorn. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or 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. Mr. Drell stated that it was brought to staff's attention by Regency Estates that there was a significant omission of property owners on the property owners' list used for mailing the legal notices for Public Hearing Item D. Staff's recommendation was to move Item D to the beginning of the agenda and continue the matter to the next meeting, September 5, 2000, after opening the public hearing and taking testimony. Commissioner Finerty requested, due to the amount of correspondence received, that in the interim the applicant meet with 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 .. Regency Estates HOA, Palm Desert Resorter and the city's Project Area 4 Committee. It was noted that the Project Area 4 Committee was meeting on Monday and that this item would be discussed. Mr. Drell recommended that the Item D be moved to the front of the agenda, the public hearing be opened and testimony taken from those that absolutely could not attend on September 5. He also pointed out that this was a recommendation to the City Council and there would be a subsequent hearing and noticing of a hearing before City Council probably at the end of September. He suggested that those present hold their comments until September 5 if they could attend that meeting. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, reordering the Public Hearing items and moving Item D to the beginning. Motion carried 3-0. D. Case Nos. GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-05, TT 29468, TT 29555, DA 00-01 - ABD PALM DESERT 118, LLC, Applicant Request for recommendation of approval to City Council of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a General Plan `W Amendment from Low Density Residential/Industrial to Low Density Residential/Park, a Change of Zone from R-1 12,000 to R-1/Open Space, a Tentative Tract Map for 270 single family lots (8,000 square feet minimum) and one lot for park purposes, a 9 lot Tentative Tract Map for financing purposes and a Development Agreement on 118± acres at the northeast corner of Tamarisk Row Drive and Country Club Drive. Chairperson Beaty noted that the commission was probably going to continue this matter, but would open up the public hearing. Mr. Winklepleck stated that staff would be renoticing the matter. He indicated that there were some additional items that the developer wished to input. He would prefer to give the staff report on September 5 unless someone present wished to speak and could not be here on September 5. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak on this matter. There was no one. The public hearing was left open and Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Uffo 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-05, TT 29468, TT 29555, and DA 00-01 to September 5, 2000 by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. A. Case No. PP/CUP 00-16 - RICHARD J. HECKMAN FOUNDATION, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for the first phase of the Richard J. Heckman International Center for Entrepreneurial Management to be located on 7.8 acres located at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive, 75-150 Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Smith explained that the city acquired some 200 acres at Frank Sinatra on the east side of Cook Street for the future campus of Cal State. The Heckman Foundation working with UC Riverside for the Heckman International Center for Entrepreneurial Management was working on a deal with Cal State to occupy eventually up to 20 acres on the corner, the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra and Cook. Plans and the material sample board were on display. He said the applicants were looking at putting the facility as part of the site at Cook at Frank Sinatra. They were seeking approval tonight of the academic institution including classrooms, lecture halls, administrative offices, and other ancillary facilities. It would be two stories and a total of just under 34,000 square feet. The exterior height would be 32 feet. The height in the zone was limited to 24 feet. The zone provided for an exception through code section 25.24.310. Staff felt the exception was warranted given the increased setbacks and the very low coverage in the range of 8% for the site. The building would be in a campus type setting. He felt parking was more than adequate for code purposes. The code requirement was 201 spaces and there would be about 438 spaces provided. The architecture was quite contemporary and was given conceptual approval by the Architectural Review Commission. They endorsed it heartily and were quite excited about it. They looked forward to continuing to work with the applicant. Mr. Smith pointed out that findings for approval of the precise plan/conditional use were outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. The matter would be referred to the city council as part of the height exception process. Regarding environmental review, in 1999 an EIR was prepared and certified pursuant to Council Resolution 99-34. The EIR analyzed impacts created by the Cal State campus # on 204 acres. This proposed campus within the Cal State campus would not 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 %W create impacts beyond those previously identified and mitigated in the EIR. One of the conditions of approval required that this applicant implement all applicable mitigative measures identified in the EIR. The project was consistent with the EIR, therefore, staff determined that it was previously assessed and no further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the report. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. NORBERTO NARI, the principal of Architram, the designer of the proposed facility, said they read the recommendations of staff and fully agreed and would be working to comply with those requirements. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments and/or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would move for approval due to the following. She agreed that the 32-foot height exception would be warranted given the setbacks and the proposed 8.5% coverage. She thought there were interesting cooling strategies being used and enjoyed reading about that. She also found the architecture appealing and liked the fact that they were using the Desert Willow tree in their landscape palette. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Finerty. She felt it was an excellent project in the perfect location and seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008, approving PP/CUP 00-16, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. Chairperson Beaty stated that looked forward to seeing The Heckman Foundation. He personally knew Mr. Heckman and knew this would be a first class project. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 B. Case Nos. PP/CUP 00-09 and TT 29528 - DESERT WILLOW CONFERENCE CENTER, LLC AND PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicants (Continued from August 1 , 2000) Request for recommendation to City Council for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide approximately 106 acres into 7 lots (TT 29528), approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for the Hilton Conference Center including 250 suites, a 64,250 square foot conference center, parking structure and accessory structures on Lot 2, TT 29528, and a height exception for the conference center building all located on a 16.86 acre site at the northeast end of Desert Willow Drive, 39-000 Desert Willow Drive. Mr. Smith explained that commission received two additional letters after the reports went out. One was from Mr. Sanford and the other was a memo from the Engineering Manager, Joe Gaugush. Mr. Smith noted that this matter was previously before commission on August 1 . At that time there were several outstanding issues involving parking, the pad elevations, the second story balconies with a view to the east, site lighting and noise. From a parking perspective, staff met with the applicant and they felt there was a need to create an offsite parking facility for overflow parking. The city created an additional 200 parking spaces in response to the demand at the clubhouse facility. Those spaces would disappear when the city received the resort hotel proposal in the future. If it was approved they would need to replace those 200 spaces. Staff felt there was a need to have overflow parking available for this facility also, so staff included a condition requiring within a reasonable distance a 300 space overflow lot. Relative to the pad elevation concern, the applicant was asked to take a look at lowering the pad ten feet, five feet or two feet. They had a preliminary response from them at the last meeting. They had since then prepared a more in-depth response as to what would be involved in lowering the pad those various amounts. It included the amount of work that had already been done, what would have to be undone, and what would happen to drainage. Essentially the costs and impacts increased with the greater amount of lowering of the pad. With two feet of lowering, the estimated cost was just under $800,000. At five feet of lowering there was an estimated cost of $1 ,774,000. Lowering the pad ten feet had an estimated cost of about $4,605,000. As Mr. Gaugush's memo indicates, based on the available information he felt these estimates were within the realm of reason. Mr. Smith indicated that Mr. Sonnenblick reminded him that the chart and cost did not include down time for the golf course, so the amount would increase. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Forma, who was doing the photo view analysis for the city, prepared a revised photo view analysis showing the structures lowered five feet. Staff provided colored copies to commission. In staff's opinion, lowering the site for the cost involved did not create a significant enough improvement to warrant the expense. Staff was going to suggest requiring the applicant to plant additional trees in the area east of the buildings and then condition that these trees be maintained at a height not greater than 24 feet because staff didn't want the trees growing to such a height that they become the obstruction instead of the buildings. Staff had an opportunity to review the proposed solution for the balconies facing east. Mr. Smith felt the details would works. Site lighting was brought up at the last meeting. Staff added a condition which required conformance with the city's lighting ordinance. Everyone was required to do that, but that condition was in place. Even though there was about 350 feet of separation, staff placed this project in the category of being adjacent to residential which had a greater limitation on light trespass. This was discussed with the applicant and he was agreeable. Mr. Smith stated that he had a phone call from Barbara Boyer last week expressing concern with respect to outdoor entertainment and fireworks. Staff included a condition limiting outdoor entertainment to noise levels which would not cross the property line tow and limiting fireworks to exclude percussion type fireworks. The findings for approval of the precise plan/conditional use permit were outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the August 15 staff report. This proposal included a provision for a height exception for the conference center building which was 30 feet high versus the 24 foot limit in the PR zone. This also had 36 foot high tower elements. Given the separation and distance from surrounding uses, staff felt the height exception could be supported. Environmentally, there was an EIR prepared in 1994 which was certified pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 99-119. That document assumed a 250-room hotel two stories in height and that was what was being proposed. The project was consistent with that reviewed in the EIR, therefore, it had previously been assessed and no further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended that commission recommend approval of the project to the city council. Mr. Drell stated that there was one additional condition in response to a letter by Reid Sanford relative to construction traffic on the maintenance road running parallel to Taylor behind Montecito. He requested that this road not be used by construction traffic and staff agreed that Desert Willow should try to find a way to internalize the construction traffic by using the main entrance or the entrance on Portola. This would eliminate construction traffic unless it was absolutely necessary, which would require them obtaining an exception from the city. it 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Commissioner Finerty stated for the record that she listened to the tape of the last meeting, read the minutes and reviewed ail the documents and correspondence relative to this case and was prepared to participate. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. ROBERT SONNENBLICK, a principal in the development company proposing the development, pointed out that as seen in the August 15 staff report, there were four issues brought before the commission and one additional one brought up over the phone. He stated that they have endeavored through meetings with staff to address every single one of these issues as well as issues that have been brought before the city council. As a result of these discussions with staff, they agreed to alleviate all of these issues and per the staff report, which he felt addressed these correctly, he believed they had come to satisfactory answers to all the issues. He wanted to point out that the hotel units themselves were 24 feet as was discussed before. One reference was made to a tower which was part of the development which was slightly higher than the 24 feet. The garage was about 19 feet, but there was a part of the tower that was slightly higher than the 24 feet. He felt it was a fairly minor part of the development so he wanted to point out for the record that there was something that was slightly higher than 24. It made up about 5 percent of the whole project. On the back of the staff report as Mr. Smith correctly reported, they had analyzed per the request of the neighbors the idea of lowering the pads either two feet down, five feet down or 10 feet down. Those were new and accurate numbers. They made reference to them at the August 1 meeting. These were the exact quotes from the contractor and as Mr. Smith correctly pointed out, the one thing Mr. Sonnenblick made mention of to the commission was that in order to do this work, holes 10, 11 and 12 had to be closed down and lowered as well. The numbers before the commission did not include the loss of revenue to the city for closing those three holes. He knew there was another course, but when they closed those three holes, they pretty much had to close the whole course for that four-month period. These numbers did not include the loss of revenues to the city. They were just hard construction costs. The other issues were discussed and they agreed per staff's request to an agreement regarding additional parking and they and would do so in writing. The pad elevations were talked about. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 They also provided staff with information on the second floor balconies and adding on the planters so as to protect the privacy of the people whose homes were on the western side of Montecito. He agreed with staff's recommendation to do that. The site lighting they agreed with, especially on the parking garage since the Architectural Review Board asked them to put trellises up and landscaping on those trellises. He said it was very easy for them to add lighting there so as to mitigate the idea of huge lighting all over the place. They could very specifically just light the garage and keep the lighting down to the necessary foot candles so it didn't really appear to people who live in Montecito that this garage was lit up bright white and didn't light up the whole sky. They had done a lighting plan and a drawing was given to staff tonight that would make it so that just the garage was lit and it didn't appear to light up the whole sky up all around it. The last issue dealt with noise. Mr. Sonnenblick said that he lives in Los Angeles and drives out here every 4th of July with his family because Palm Desert had a phenomenal fireworks display that the city puts on and they had no desire to do their own fireworks at the hotel. He said it was just the opposite. With the fireworks display that the city does, they had no `r interest in doing their own and in fact he came out here just to see the city's fireworks. Agreeing not to do fireworks and things like that was not a problem and they were in full agreement with staff's recommendation. On page 1 were the five issues brought up to them per the last meeting and they agreed with staff's recommendation on all five of those issues as they had with previous Architectural Review issues. He asked for any questions or if the public had any issues, he would be happy to come back up and address them. In conclusion he agreed with all of staff's recommendations. Commissioner Finerty stated that from listening to the tape, she appreciated the fact that Mr. Sonnenblick had lowered the height, reduced the number of rooms and changed the colors which she felt made a huge difference and it appeared that the balcony, lighting and noise issues had been resolved. She said that the remaining issues which stood out in her mind were parking and pad elevation. She asked if Mr. Sonnenblick had met with the homeowners recently to get any kind of sense or feeling as to what it was they might be looking for as far as a potential height reduction. Mr. Sonnenblick said that just from these meetings, and he knew that Commissioner Finerty wasn't present on August 1, but he made a tow 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 i 3 comment in the public meeting which he stood by and that was should the city decide it wished to lower the pad 10 feet, they were in full agreement with it. He was not a person standing before the commission blocking any lowering of the pads. It was just the opposite. The agreement they had with the city, unfortunately, was that whatever the cost of lowering the pad which was shown on the back page of the staff report, was the city's dollar, not his. If the city said that in order to get this done that the pad had to be lowered 10 feet, he was not in any way stopping or fighting that. Commissioner Finerty indicated she understood that. Her concern was obviously the cost, but in addition to that they would create an awful lot of construction and as mentioned if they went down five feet or 10 feet they might run into unexpected problems and the costs would rise in addition to the cost of closing the course. She was trying to get a sense of what the homeowners that were effected wanted. She understood that there were nine lots that were effected by six villas. The bottom line for her was that the EIR was approved at the original grade, which was 263 feet to 265 feet at that time, then a height of 24 feet for the villas above that which was approved. Now they knew that the grade had gone up and the elevation had gone up to 275. That put them to 299 instead of 289 which was basically what any perspective buyer would have thought. So she was trying to look at options that might find them some common ground. One of the options that she wanted to ask Mr. Sonnenblick about was if there was a potential to: a) lower the villas; or b) possibly reduce those six villas that would affect the nine lots and reduce them to one story or somehow lower the height from 24 feet down so that they could help to mitigate their views. Obviously there was testimony that they paid extra for those lots and she was trying to see what Mr. Sonnenblick might be amenable to. Mr. Sonnenblick stated for the record that he heard Commissioner Finerty say something that was news to him. He was under the impression and staff stated on the record two weeks ago that the EIR was approved with that elevation being 275, not 263. He had never heard the number 263 she just mentioned. Commissioner Finerty explained that she was assuming, and her assumption might be wrong, but her assumption was that when the EIR was done back in 1994, that it would have been at the original height. i ) 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Mr. Sonnenblick asked if Mr. Drell knew anything about that. Mr. Drell thought it was probably not addressed either way. He thought that there was an assumption that it would be graded and basically there were high points and low points and he didn't believe the issue was specifically addressed at all, although he could be wrong. Commissioner Finerty stated that was the way they arrived at the 10 feet, and she assumed the 10 additional feet occurred after the EIR. Mr. Sonnenblick said that 10 feet was just a number they pulled out of the air. Commissioner Finerty said that she knew it was two to 10 feet. Right now they were hearing any where from 265 to 275 and that was how they got the reductions of two feet, five feet or 10 feet. Mr. Sonnenblick said that the two feet, five feet and 10 feet were literally numbers he pulled out of the air to just do an analysis on. Again, the 263 number Commissioner Finerty was talking about he had ir. never heard before. Mr. Drell stated that as described in the first staff report, varying amounts of fill were added to the pad raising it from two to 10 feet. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Mr. Drell said that two feet was added on the north side up to 10 feet on the south side. By definition EIRs were done prior to projects and what was pointed out by the residents of Montecito was that in the original EIR there was no view analysis that would have looked at the impact of buildings at various heights. Other than the fact that the buildings would be 24 feet and two stories. That was really an issue that now that they had a building and golf course they were examining now. He didn't think that there was an assumption in the EIR that the pad height would stay at 263 since the building pad varied from 263 up to 270 originally. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification. The EIR was done in 1994. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Finerty said that they were assuming then that the fill was added after that with the construction of the golf course. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Finerty said they then approved an additional 24 feet for the buildings and asked if the 24 feet were added onto when the EIR was originally done or after the golf course construction. Mr. Drell stated that he didn't think pad elevations were specifically identified in the EIR. The fine points of the design had not been extended to that detail at that point in time. Commissioner rr. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Finerty asked how much of an increase in height the nine lots would be looking at. Mr. Drell said that measured from the natural grade, two to 10 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked if that two to 10 varied throughout the nine lots. Mr. Drell said yes, the lots that were most northerly were looking at two feet and the lots most southerly were looking at 10 feet. Of the southerly lots that were ten feet, Commissioner Finerty asked if they knew how many of the villas would be effected. Mr. Sonnenblick said that very specifically they were talking about the six on the easterly side. He thought he could answer the question very clearly now that he understood what she was asking. If they were for example to take these six sets of villas and for example make them single story villas as opposed to two story villas, 6 x 8 = 48 and it would change their room count from 250 to 200 and at that point they wouldn't do the project. The biggest problem was that there was really no more land. If they were single-story, there was no place to then add those 50 units back any where on the project and once they got down to 200, the project wouldn't make sense and they wouldn't do it. Commissioner Finerty asked if 24 feet was necessary for two stories. Mr. Sonnenblick said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked if it two stories could be done in anything less than 24 feet. Mr. Scott Beck, a principal with Gin Wong Associates Architects, stated that currently at 24 feet the building already had a very minimal floor to floor and a very short four-foot parapet height to conceal the mechanical units on the roof. Lowering it any more would result in a below standard head room in the units or in exposing the mechanical units, which wouldn't be something they would want to do. Commissioner Finerty asked if 20 feet was totally out of the question. Mr. Beck said they really had to push to get it to 24 and they really sharpened their pencils to get it down to a 24-foot height. Mr. Drell informed commission that their original submittal was 30 feet, but all two story units in the city were at 24 feet and staff would agree that it was 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 two the minimum. Any lower and they would start losing the architecture and would eventually lose the roof structure and end up with a box. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was just trying to examine any potential options for dealing with the pad height elevation issue. Mr. Drell said they examined that and got them down from 30 feet. Mr. Sonnenblick pointed out that in front of commission was a colored visual simulation that showed the views from Montecito of the property and he pointed out one picture which showed the effect of five feet of lowering. He said that they could then imagine the effect of 10 feet, which be felt made very little difference. Commissioner Finerty asked if this visual simulation had been shown to the homeowners in Montecito. Mr. Sonnenblick said he didn't know. Members of the audience said no. Commissioner Finerty thought it would be helpful for the residents to see it. it Mr. Sonnenblick said they would be happy to share them with the homeowners. The commission gave their copies to Mr. Sonnenblick and requested that they be shown to any interested individuals in the audience. Chairperson Beaty asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. There being none, he asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MRS. PAT MITCHELL, 38 Lucerne in Palm Desert, stated that she had two questions. First of all, the notice that was sent out by the city showed a site bordering on the south side of Montecito. That was confusing because they weren't sure what this map picture was of since they weren't talking about the Intrawest Timeshares. Mr. Drell clarified that it was just a locational map that showed the general location of the project. Mr. Smith stated that it included the tentative map that they were also doing in that they specified that the hotel project was on Lot 2 of that tract map. w 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Mrs. Mitchell asked for and received clarification on the location of Lot 2, the convention center and Intrawest. Mr. Smith also explained that three golf holes made up three of the lots. Mrs. Mitchell said that she also had a response to Mr. Sonnenblick. If he was to put one story units on those six lots, she asked if he could put the rest of them on the east side which would have a nicer view, it would have the western view, and on the east side they would block the view by putting in balconies and planters any way, so she asked if they could raise one portion to three stories since that didn't affect any homeowners. Chairperson Beaty noted that Mr. Sonnenblick would respond later and asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. MR. MIKE MITCHELL, 38 Lucerne in Montecito, said that the first item he would like to address concerned the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report which was completed in 1994. Normally an EIR would not specify the contouring or natural elevations of property unless they were going to be raised. He disagreed with the city when they said this was a good EIR. It was not. It did not identify or address the scenic impacts to residents along there because there weren't residents along there at the time. So it needed a supplemental addendum to the EIR. Getting back to the elevations, because an EIR didn't normally say that the elevation was 270 or 266, they assumed--the spirit of the EIR--was that it would be at its natural elevation and for folks to get up and say that this was okay and natural, it wasn't what an EIR was for. It was for assessing environmental impacts. What they had said was against the spirit of the EIR. He said he would like to work with the city and this was his tax dollars as well as everyone elses, and he thought about compromise and felt that they should all compromise. He thought it was silly to take $4.6 million to grade out and lower the pad 10 feet to the original elevation of the desert. He thought that wasn't reasonable so why not just make it one story instead. Sonnenblick said it was a no go, but he personally thought that was a bluff. When they started having these meetings in front of the city council, the Marriott Corporation was here and they stated that they were only 60% occupied. He thought they were over developing in terms of hotels and rooms. He could foresee Marriott or this development putting one 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 another out of business and he thought that the Planning Commission, if they would compromise and do the right thing for the Marriott, the city and for Montecito and lower the project to one story. He didn't think 50 units would make or break this situation. There was a parking problem and a noise problem any way. He asked why they couldn't just build one story there. He felt that was a reasonable compromise. He felt the EIR was inadequate and felt it needed to be addressed further and an addendum made to it and impacts mitigated in terms of visual impacts caused by this project, the scenic values, the noise, buses, headlights at night, tour buses, and none of this was foreseen in 1994 and they should not stand behind a document over six years old that could not foresee this and he resented that they were doing that. MS. COLLEEN ENGER, a resident at 3 Taylor, concurred with Mr. Sanford on the use of that utility road. She was there and had been in her home for over five years and was there when those trucks were rumbling back and forth. She had broken dishes, cracks in the walls and just the vibrations in her house when those large trucks went by were ` w enough to wake the dead besides destroying some of her home. She hoped that they would consider moving the access if they were going to continue doing some building. Also, she was walking the golf courses as they were being built and she was so surprised to all of a sudden see these big berms going up and was really quite shocked to find out that they were going to be putting all of the casitas or any of the timeshares on top of those. That was another issue that she had which was the height of those berms and was opposed to putting in other living areas that could look at them. She hoped that they would consider that and appreciated the commission making that a concern and hoped that would be addressed. MR. GARY FOY, a resident at 44 Lucerne, stated that he probably was very affected by the proposal. He referred to the diagram and asked where the view was taken from. Mr. Drell said it was taken from the first vacant lot. As the road turns south, it was the first vacant lot. Mr. Foy asked if that was from the new section of Montecito or the older one. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Mr. Drell explained that it was the furthest north section that was vacant. It was the first vacant lot on that street that parallels the east side. Mr. Foy said his lot was slightly south of that by the way the diagram was drawn. He said he had gone to extensive expenses to try and provide his own buffer for the back of his lot from the golf course. Now he obviously purchased his lot with the full knowledge that a golf course was there and he was comfortable with a golf course there and he had created some privacy on the back of his lot and he went to considerable expense to do that, but for him to try and gain any further privacy from a two-story building across the fairway, he didn't know if he could get that much sand on the back of his lot. He was concerned that if the original environmental review was predicated on the height of the pad, it was all changed now. During the construction of the golf course there was an additional 10 feet of fill brought in and now they were going to build on top of that and he thought that just exacerbated what the original environmental review was and the homeowners who purchased out there were not thinking that they would have two stories on top of what was essentially a third story. He would agree with one of the other homeowners that said they ought to look at reducing that because he could tell them that the way it was drawn here, these casitas would look down on top of his area. He had been able to buffer the golf course, but couldn't buffer that. He thought it had a material impact on the fair market value on his investment and didn't understand the public policy of giving the land away free and allowing a developer to gain such an economic advantage that was going to negatively effect the homeowners. He said his other concern was that if he had to pay the full market value for his lot and had to adhere to a city lot height either by the engineering or city planning, he asked how it was that this site could import 10 feet of fill and now they were going to build on top of that. He was perplexed that the city would permit that. He would agree with one of the other homeowners that indicated that they were doing the Washington Monument Game here. The developer said that if they couldn't do this they would not be able to have this project go forward. He thought there was enough invested and enough economic gain here that doing a one story height on the eastern side could happen. He said he would probably have to have some independent calculation of the cost to remove the fill dirt. Some of the estimates that were tossed around at the last meeting were "seat of the pants" estimates and until the city really had some independent calculations of 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 what the cost of removal of that fill would be, he didn't feel the commission could make an informed decision as to whether it was a viable cost that they should consider for reducing the pad height. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Sonnenblick would like to make any rebuttal comments. Mr. Sonnenblick stated that they would agree to the utility road limitation during construction. That was new to them, but per the residents' request, there was plenty of access from the main road as opposed to coming in off of Cook with the construction trucks and things like that and on the record, they could agree to that and it would not be a problem. They had also agreed to do the additional landscaping proposed on their east side to mitigate the issues in staff's report. He stated that for all of the units on the east side for the villas that look toward Montecito they had taken away the east views and he wanted Mr. Foy to be comfortable that they had agreed to do that in writing as part of their deal. There was no one standing in one of those villas who looked east who would have the ability to look toward his unit. They put up planters so that they could only look north and south and could not look east. They agreed to do that as part of their deal. A person standing at 5'10" tall would look into a planter looking east. Regarding switching 50 units from their eastern side to the western side, they could do that but when they do that, the new western side units would violate the 24-foot height limitation in the EIR and that would cause them to have to go through a whole new EIR process which they were not willing to do. But'the idea of what they were talking about was okay, but the EIR process would have to start all over again if they were to switch those units across. Someone from the audience spoke up and said that it should be done any way since the elevations had changed. Mr. Sonnenblick stated that staff's report was clear on its position of the EIR. For the record, he said a comment was made about the Marriott Desert Springs Resort only having a 60% occupancy. He stated that was a false number and didn't know where that came from but it wasn't a correct number and he would state that on the record. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Mr. Drell stated that staff would like to respond to some of the comments for the record. For the issue of the EIR and the lack of view analysis, staff acknowledged at the very first meeting that there wasn't an adequate view analysis and that was why they spent $10,000 specifically on a view analysis. They discussed, showed pictures and provided both the public and the commission with numerous, very accurate, illustrative exhibits that depicted the impact of these buildings on view. He further explained that EIRs are instruments to provide decision makers with information. He was confident enough to say that with their view analysis they had provided the commission with adequate information that illustrates the impact on the views from this project on the residents. The issue was not the adequacy of information, the issue was whether those impacts were significant and whether there were mitigation measures which were feasible which would reduce them to a level of insignificance. That was a decision the commission had to make. That was a value judgement that was not hampered by a lack of information. The exhibits were there and staff believed there was adequate evidence in the record to make the determination one way or another that the impacts were not significant or that imposed mitigations measures alleviated their impact. Someone from the audience spoke up and said they couldn't hear.) Mr. Drell repeated his comments. Chairperson Beaty addressed a gentleman in the audience and said that he could see that he was upset and said that in a moment he would close the public hearing. If the gentleman had anything new to add, Chairperson Beaty wanted to hear it. If he was just upset, the commission already had his comments on the record. Mr. Mitchell readdressed the commission and stated that Mr. Sonnenblick was at the meeting before the City Council where members from the Marriott Corporation stated that they were 60% occupied and that was why they were concerned about this project. Why Mr. Sonnenblick would deny that now was beyond him. If he wasn't there, fine. But this was on the record and the commission could go back and check the council record. Chairperson Beaty pointed out that it was irrelevant to the Planning Commission's decision process. Mr. Mitchell disagreed. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 `ow Chairperson Beaty explained that the economics of this was not their decision. The Planning Commission was interested in land use issues. Mr. Mitchell stated that he was just refuting Mr. Sonnenblick's comments when he said he didn't know that. Chairperson Beaty commented that perhaps Mr. Sonnenblick shouldn't have said that and pointed out that it was irrelevant to the commission. Mrs. Mitchell readdressed the commission. She had the photo view analysis copy and asked if that was what the city spent $10,000 on. Mr. Drell concurred. Mrs. Mitchell pointed out that the view was practically taken from her back yard. If they were standing on the ground taking it above the fence, they were looking at buildings that were raised and that was what their problem was. These buildings were higher. The bottom of these buildings were higher than their homes. No matter how many �., planters were put in, people would be able to look straight across because they were lower, especially to second story people. Mr. Drell explained that the higher they were, the line of sight would be above the roofs. Mrs. Mitchell said that they needed to address the first floor people then and she wanted to bring that to the attention of the commission because it was a valid point about privacy. Mr. Drell suggested the addition of a condition that the residents at Montecito have the opportunity to review the landscaping, the berming, the planters of all those balconies when they get details on them and staff would provide any analysis necessary to show that they either work or don't work in terms of line of sight from those properties to hers. Mrs. Mitchell thanked Mr. Drell. Mr. Sonnenblick said that they had agreed per staff's request to increase the landscaping to block off the ground floor units' views of Montecito. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell stated that when the residents of Montecito purchased there, a few of them did prior to the golf course going in and some purchased afterwards. She pointed out that any where there was vacant land people could be sure something would eventually be built and there wouldn't be perfect views of the mountains. When Desert Willow went in some were very happy to have a golf course for their backyard and actually staff at that time was recommending a solid wall on the backyards. Some residents wanted to have wrought iron bars so that they could have the view of the golf course and while the commission was concerned about golf balls entering the backyards, those residents preferred to have the view of the golf course. It was noted that the Desert Willow project was designed for the pad elevations shown. The elevations were dictated by the master plan for drainage, sewer, and water facilities. Since the planning stage, improvements had been installed based on the pad elevations. At this time she didn't think that the developer should be penalized for something that had already been there. With the conditions that the applicant agreed to, she was in favor of the project. Commissioner Finerty stated that she had three main issues. Number one had to do with the lack of parking. They were definitely under parked. She realized it was addressed in condition 7, but condition 7 was contingent upon the applicant and Redevelopment Agency providing a minimum of 300 additional spaces and it was her understanding that they had no such agreement at this time. They didn't know where the overflow lot would be located and they knew it was supposed to be a reasonable distance and didn't know what that distance was. They knew that according to the staff report it needed to be expandable and they didn't know what it could expand to. She said she would feel more comfortable having all the facts regarding the parking and it was alluded to at the last meeting that everyone loses if they are under parked. Number two was a concern with pad height. It was a tough call. She was glad that they had the opportunity to look at the view analysis and it was hard in her mind to look at that little yellow line and the difference that five feet makes and the cost associated with that and try to say that is a good thing to do, knowing that there would be a lot of construction problems that would occur with that. However, she felt they needed to try and work with the homeowners to mitigate any potential loss of view which brought her to the third point. She wanted to see this case continued to discuss the options that they went through tonight. Obviously some information was new to the 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 taw homeowners and she wasn't certain that there had been enough communication between the developer and the homeowners to see if something could be worked out and to also try and determine what the homeowners that were effected wanted. She knew they had a homeowner's association and assumed that they had a board of directors. She felt they should be involved and instead of getting several different letters with individual wish lists, it would be nice to have them all on the same page and at that time meet with the developer and staff and try to move forward. She didn't know if they wanted it lowered two feet, five feet or ten feet. She didn't know what would be amenable to the homeowners that were effected. For that reason she would feel most comfortable in continuing the matter. Chairperson Beaty stated that he felt the concerns had been adequately addressed in the comments and in staff's study. He felt that item seven adequately addressed the parking issue. The visuals they had been presented with showed a series of attractive buildings which did not obstruct the mountains and specifically did not obstruct Mount Jacinto or Mount San Gorgonio which were the two he personally liked to look at. He was in favor of the project and called for a motion. `.. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 2-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, second by Chairperson Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2009, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 00-09 and TT 29528, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 2-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Mr. Drell reminded the audience that this matter would be going to council and they would be receiving notices of a hearing in September. Chairperson Beaty pointed out that there was an appeal process for the ones that were in disagreement with the commission's findings. Mr. Drell requested clarification that the motion included adding the condition that all view issues from first and second stories would be addressed with the consultation of the residents. Commission concurred. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 C. Case No. CUP 93-7 Amendment #2 - KACOON'S OASIS, Applicant Request for approval of amendment to the existing conditional use permit to permit the use of electric or amplified instruments in the restaurant patio. Mr. Smith noted that recently received correspondence was distributed to the commission. One was from the El Paseo Village Homeowners Association, from Desert Tennis Boutique, from Gifts from the Heart, from The Feathered Nest, from Leslie and Jeanette Aikman, and from Johnnie Anderson, Phillip LaRocca and J.C. Delucca. Mr. Smith explained that there was a similar request before the commission in December of 1999. The use of this site for a restaurant dated back to 1993 when they initially approved a conditional use permit for The Sandwich Board. In the December 1999 request, they had two issues. One was lengthening the business hours and the second was to have amplified music at a designated low volume. Commission at that time approved the extended business hours but did not approve the request for amplified music. They did extend by one hour the permitted hours for entertainment. Over the past few months the Sheriff's Department had received noise complaints concerning amplified music. There were several reports from Sgt. Alcorn in the commission packets. Staff had conversation with the applicant urging that she comply with the non-amplified music condition. June 30 the applicant filed this request for electric or amplified instruments on the patio. The commission had a letter from the applicant in their packets where she indicated that there had been no legitimate complaints from residential neighbors and they were being constantly harassed by the police department. Due to the property's proximity to residential development to the west, staff could not support amplified music of any type. The commission received a letter from the El Paseo Homeowners Association confirming that they would prefer not to have amplified music. The record indicated that over the past two years the applicant has routinely violated the condition limiting entertainment to non-amplified music. In addition to not recommending approval of amplified music, staff was also recommending that the commission rescind the approval that allowed outdoor entertainment. Staff felt that if the applicant couldn't live within the conditions, then that was the ultimate choice they decided to take on. Mr. Smith indicated_ that he talked with representatives of the property owner and they advised that they had not taken a position on this actual request. They did take a position on the December 1999 request and a copy of that was provided. In conclusion, staff's recommendation was that they not approve the request to go to 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 fu. amplified entertainment and that the commission amend the conditional use to prohibit all entertainment/music on the patio. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Smith found out what the applicant was allowed as far as musical instruments was concerned, such as a guitar and not a saxophone or trumpet or if there was anything like that in the minutes at that time. Mr. Smith stated that the condition related to just non-amplified music. Commissioner Campbell asked if that included a saxophone. Mr. Smith said that a saxophone was not mentioned either way. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. GINA FULLMAN, the owner of Kacoon's Oasis at the corner of El Paseo and Lupine, stated that staff referred to things that have happened over the past two years, but she has only owned the business less than one year. Some of that might not apply. She stated that music was vital to their operation and it helped to create the very special atmosphere that their patio offered. It also drew people to the shopping center. She felt that El Paseo was probably the finest shopping street in the world. Most people agreed that their restaurant embodied the spirit of El Paseo. Their guests described their ambience as magical and charming. They thoroughly enjoyed their experience at Kacoon's Oasis. As a woman entrepreneur she had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in this operation and in order to create a special kind of place. She was paying taxes in Palm Desert and also was an employer including some of the finest local musicians available. As the commission knew, they had a lot of corporate chain competitors in the restaurant business so they needed to be unique in order to attract customers. She said they would like very much to get along with their neighbors and were more than willing to cooperate in any way. They didn't want loud music and never did. She felt that guests should be able to converse while the music was playing if they chose. As a rule, when she parks in the back lot behind the restaurant, she couldn't even hear the music until she walked in closer. The irony of the whole situation was that almost all portable musical equipment now days was electronic so the amplification came with the package. It wasn't that they desired amplification. It was just that for except for a very limited number of instruments they couldn't have entertainment either way. She stated that the volume could still be controlled and would definitely %MW 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 do that and intended to do that. She agreed to comply with the City of Palm Desert's ordinance that restricted sound to below a level of 65 decibels from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Though they rarely had any music after 10:00 p.m., they would go down to the 55 decibel requirement. So they really had no problem with complying with the law as it stands. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that the commission granted the applicant a conditional use permit for non-amplified music yet there were problems because there was amplified music there. Ms. Fullman said she explained that unless they settled for nothing ever but a guitar, what could they do without being electronic. Amplification was not what they wanted, but the instruments were electronic. Commissioner Campbell noted that the conditional use permit was granted for non-amplified music, so that condition was violated. Ms. Fullman stated that they were well aware of the ordinance regarding the music, yes. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. RIC MANDELBAUM, 350 Velano Way in Palm Desert, stated that he has been a full time resident since 1996 and prior to that he lived in the upper Bel Air area. Upon moving here he felt that El Paseo was a very strong competitor and surpassed what was on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. He thought that one thing that made it such a great area was both the diversity and the high class of the stores and restaurants and the entertainment found there. He knew that Commissioner Campbell was very familiar with El Paseo because she is the head of the El Paseo Business Association. He thought that she would agree that one thing they would all like to do was protect the integrity of the area there. He informed commission that he has spent quite a bit of time at Kacoon's Oasis and he had thoroughly enjoyed the entertainment. He thought that one thing he noticed was when people walk by the front of the restaurant that they were all enchanted by the fact that this was a little oasis where people could really enjoy themselves, whether they stopped in or were just on the street in front listening. However, the 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 tow noise level stopped there. He had spent quite a bit of time walking into the back when he first found out there had been a complaint and he parked his car behind the building and couldn't hear it there. They couldn't even hear it in front of Mario's across the street. There was just no noise level there where they could hear anything. He thought that really what their purpose in this community was, and Palm Desert was one of the few cities out here that was pro business, was to encourage small businesses to really succeed. He said it was a struggle starting any kind of business, especially a restaurant because there was a lot of competition out here. He thought that what Kacoon's Oasis had done was make a valiant effort to really enhance El Paseo and to start a growing business and hire some very talented people, both the musicians and people that worked there. He thought they should do everything possible to encourage businesses like this to continue to succeed and they ought to help them in every possible way. He didn't know if there was ever a decibel test done at the location. He asked if one had been done. Mr. Drell said he was not aware of one being done. rr Mr. Mandelbaum said he would recommend that rather than help put someone out of business, and this being the heat of the summer, that they over the next 60 days since she was only open five nights a week, test it during the next two months, August and September, and see the decibel count there. Mr. Drell didn't think it would need to be tested two months. They would just have to test various areas around the restaurant at various volume levels of amplification to see at what volume of amplification the music was audible off the property. He didn't think it would take more than one test. Mr. Mandelbaum stated that he would then recommend at this time delaying any action tonight until such a test could take place and give Gina a full opportunity to prove, and he hadn't heard any noise and he had listened for it, and see if that was the case. He was sure that Ms. Fullman would be glad to work within the confines of what was an agreeable decibel count. MS. MONIQUE GUIO, an employee at Kacoon's Oasis Restaurant, informed commission that she has worked with Gina since the 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 beginning of January. She was aware of the letters that had been sent to her by Mr. Smith and the Planning Department. She had a few questions. One of the things that Mr. Smith stated was that there were complaints from the residential neighbors. She didn't believe that any of the telephone calls that were received by the Sheriff's Department were indeed received by the neighbors. To her knowledge they were received by the owner of Sweet, Sweet William. Her name is Carol Zollen. She said that ironically Carol stated in her letter of complaint to the commission that she has approached them on numerous occasions to turn the music down and she could vouch for herself as well as the rest of the staff that that was absolutely untrue. She had never spoken to them about anything and had never addressed them in writing. As a matter of fact, Carol's business had been closed since May but she believed that the city continuously got calls throughout the summer because she has friends who live in the nearby area. She thought that Carol lived in Massachusetts and wasn't even a resident of Palm Desert which she thought was very ironic if it was her voice that was being heard. The other neighbors that complained were also Gina's business residential neighbors so it wasn't residential, it was the neighboring businesses. One of the gentlemen owns a store called My Best Friend. She didn't recall when the last time she read that it was legal to post signs in the window of their customers' bounced checks with very derogatory remarks about them. This was the type of attitude this gentleman displays. So he had never been very friendly toward them either. Basically everyone they dealt within their neighboring community including the owners of Indian Outpost and Heddy's Hideaway, the restaurant that also shares their location, he happened to be with them tonight and has supported everything they have done. As a matter of fact, one of the letters in the commission's packet addressed to the Community Planning Department was from Johnnie Andreson. He lives directly across the street. His bedroom window faces their restaurant and he states in his letter that he could not hear their music. As a matter of fact, he was a very frequent patron. She believed that Mr. Smith, in her opinion, was persuaded by some very narrow minded individuals who didn't want to see another small business succeed. Furthermore, the majority of the objections being from the neighboring businesses who didn't even share the same hours of operation when their performers were actually on the patio. If they started at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., these businesses were closed at 6:00 p.m. She asked how that affected their traffic flow. She said 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 they occasionally had an evening event once a month or once every six weeks and asked why they should be able to affect Gina's business so that she couldn't have music every night because it affected their one night, and it didn't. The other thing was that their events if anything enhanced their events because they were attracting more business to the area and more patrons to the center. At night if someone was having an evening event, obviously if there were more cars in the parking lot and most of these people had been dining and enjoying a wonderful experience eating, they were the mood to shop afterward. She didn't think that was a very valid complaint. Unfortunately they had not had an opportunity to speak with the people who were voicing the complaints and Kacoon's Oasis had never taken the position that they would not be cooperative with their neighboring businesses. As a matter of fact, Gina had spent quite a few dollars, which she could prove to them from receipts, in all of their businesses. So it was quite shocking to find out that it was actually them who were making all the phone calls. They had more tables on the patio and that was the reason it was very important that their music was outside versus inside. They only seat 47 people inside and obviously from restaurant statistics as .n well as other statistics from businesses here in the valley as well as throughout California the first year was crucial for a new business. To revoke her conditional use permit or in any way punish her would directly have an adverse effect on her business and may end up forcing her to close her doors. MR. JAMES FRANK, 74-184 Catalina Way, stated that he was a new resident to this area and he entertains over at Gina's. He was brand new in town and thanked Gina for hiring him. Over the last 25 to 30 years he had played amplified music. He played with Chuck Barry and The Kinks and The Small Faces and that was amplified music. He played piano and he needed to bring his piano because it was electric, so it was amplified and he had an amplifier. He kept it on the lowest setting that he could. It was on one. Because of the way the area was, the patrons were very close to him so there was no need for him to get loud at this gig. He said that if the commission would like to come and hear him play, to him it would be a good way to hear what this issue was all about. Hear if it was too loud or not. He knew it wasn't too loud. The atmosphere there, because it draws in people off the street and there was a liveness about the club and he found that pleasing and unique and he thought the commission should consider this 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 issue. All he could say from past experience was that there wasn't loud amplified music there. Most of the tunes were jazzy and kind of ballady and the acts that he has seen there were very low key. MS. TRACY RANDALL, the owner of Gifts from the Heart and The Feathered Nest on El Paseo, thanked the commission in advance for listening to her position regarding the request for amplified music on the common area patio outside Kacoon Oasis. Last December they visited this same subject and since then despite the ruling of the city council that there be no amplified music outside of their unit and that all music on the exterior during the designated evening hours be unamplified. Kacoon Oasis has blatantly and casually ignored the rulings of this city council. She had today submitted three such examples of their violations. This had been a continuous and ongoing daily struggle since the city gave their ruling in December. The effect of this noise pollution had taken a tremendous financial toll on her business. The CD business that she had been able to rely upon to pay her monthly rent had been all but destroyed because her customers weren't given an option to hear her music, finding it impossible to hear over Kacoon Oasis' amplified music. She would imagine that even Kacoon Oasis would find it objectionable if their customers were not given a choice and their business was subjected to the amplified music of her choice. They all worked very hard to create their own individual atmospheres within the square footage that they lease. Approving a request for amplified music in a common area would deny individual store owners the right to control their interior environment. Even with her doors closed, just seven feet away from where they play music, the sound permeates to the point that her customers could not hear themselves speak. The atmosphere of her store was not imposed upon any potential customer unless they decide to step into the interior of her store. However, Kacoon Oasis did not offer choice. Their amplified music was inflicted upon people passing by, their retail neighbors and the residences behind El Paseo without invitation or permission. Building goodwill meant more than putting products in a window. It meant that her customers come to be within an atmosphere of comfort that they have come to expect. Her store offered air space filled with music that she not only sells in the form of CDS but which creates the mood that encourages buying and the enjoyment of the experience of shopping with her. As a business woman concerned with protecting her investment and continuing to build her success on El Paseo, she was concerned at the 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 lack of obligation that Kacoon Oasis feels regarding the mandates of the city council. Although they wanted Kacoon Oasis to succeed, their success could not come at the expense of others. In the past they had made it impossible to work with the spirit of community since they only seemed to have their interests at heart as evidenced by them violating the December 1999 city council mandate as often and casually as they have. As a young business woman, she could not fathom the lack of respect they have shown the city council and their fellow retailers. It seemed as though they had no concern as to the consequences of breaking the rules of their conditional use permit and despite lip service to the contrary they had shown no concern as to the effect of their music on the neighboring businesses. As merchants on El Paseo, they pay three times the normal business license to be located on a prestigious street in an upscale atmosphere. They did this gladly and relied upon the City to protect the integrity of the El Paseo business community by mandating and upholding rules that govern for the best interest of all concerned. With this in mind, she respectfully requested that Kacoon Oasis' application for electric and amplified music not be granted and would even go so far as to suggest that their current tam conditional use permit be revoked as a consequence to their blatant violations of the policy set forth by this council eight months ago. MR. MIKE KOOBA, a resident of 73-484 Shadow Mountain Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he has lived here for 15 years in the El Paseo Village Condominiums. He had seen the neighborhood change over the years and was very happy and pleased with the changes. But he wanted to reiterate that there were ten restaurants with patios within a block of his house. At the present time some of them occasionally had some music. He was not disgruntled about them entertaining, but he felt that any kind of permit to one subjected the others to inquire and request one for themselves. In this instance, he didn't see the point in Palm Desert of ten restaurants having outside amplified music. They do have concerts at The Garden on El Paseo on a regular basis. He was aware of that sound and it didn't bother him. Of course, his neighbors might feel otherwise. He was present speaking for himself. But his neighbors did put together a letter and said they were against having amplified music. He didn't know if they just reiterated that it wasn't about Kacoon, it was about the ten restaurants. If the commission wanted him to name them, he could. tow 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 F MR. BRANDON WOOD addressed the commission and said he was a food and beverage facility consultant throughout the Coachella Valley, Los Angeles and Las Vegas. His business includes and primarily involves consulting food and beverage facilities particularly with respect to methods of increasing and enhancing business and business traffic in this case. He said he would reiterate what Ric Mandelbaum said earlier about how much noise was too much noise and what levels of noise were allowed by the city. He said that Kacoon has worked very hard in the past few years to develop a viable food and beverage destination for the city of Palm Desert and for the Coachella Valley. A large portion of Kacoon's business was obviously due to the element of live entertainment for the city of Palm Desert, the El Paseo shopping district, as well as the center they were located in and the other businesses that have complained about this music. He stated that Kacoon's Oasis had become a well-known destination throughout the valley and enjoyed patrons from Palm Springs to Indian Wells as well as many transient vacationers. Today's age of technology and advances had afforded them all a very interesting and alternative method of doing business and different businesses and careers and many alternative methods of creating music and entertainment. Denying amplified music for this facility was a very limiting restriction. He believed the issue at hand was to amplify or not to amplify, a rather effective method to reach a measurable and acceptable method of noise or music in this case. He believed that the city has in fact determined an ordinance that determined acceptable decibel levels for particular times of operations of the day or night. He suspected that the nature of Kacoon's music, and he had heard it a few times, likely did not violate the allowable levels allowed by the city. By their comments earlier, they really didn't know what those levels were at this point. However, he offered as a resolution that the city measure the levels of the music at Kacoon's Oasis on any given evening to determine in fact levels present and then if a violation exists to those levels, require Kacoon's Oasis to reduce the levels to comply based on technical data. He noted there were several letters before the commission with complaints as to music levels. Certainly they were sensitive to their comments and requests and they were eager to work with any and all potential market places and looked forward to working with the city Planning Staff to negotiate and strictly comply with the acceptable levels of Kacoon's music. He therefore encouraged the commission to approve the application for amplified i 4 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 music, whether it be electronic or not, provided future levels did not exceed allowable levels currently set forth by the city. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant wished to offer rebuttal comments. Ms. Fullman said she just wanted to point out that Tracy testified that her store was not open when they have their music. She was thinking about last year before they had their alcohol license and they were playing out in the patio in the daytime and she could understand why that would bother her, but they weren't doing that any more and she was closed at night when their music was happening, so it really shouldn't be a problem. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments and/or action. Commissioner Finerty said that she wholeheartedly concurred with the staff report. Quite frankly she was very disappointed that Kacoon's blatantly violated the approval given to them last year. It didn't seem to her that it was taw an issue of decibels. The issue was the condition was non-amplified music, period. The commission had a list of letters they received from businesses in the area and from homeowner's associations and it was very clear that there was a problem with the type of amplified music. It was not fair to subject all of these other businesses and the homeowner's associations to this type of music and to be a disturbance to them. She agreed with the gentleman that asked what would happen if every restaurant wanted amplified music. It would be chaotic. El Paseo has a certain ambience to it and her suggestion was that if the applicant desired amplified music, then she invited the applicant to relocate to another area because the use of amplified music was not conducive with conducting business in the area, nor was it conducive with all the residents in the area or the overall ambience of El Paseo. Having said that, she was prepared to move with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Campbell stated that she also has a business on El Paseo and she was pro business. She didn't like to say anything against any business, but as a Planning Commissioner, she played another role. They granted a conditional use permit for non-amplified music. It was violated. Again, she agreed that if all the other restaurants that had patios violated a CUP to have amplified music, it would be as Commissioner Finerty stated, chaotic. She 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 was against granting a permit for amplified music and concurred with staff's recommendation to revoke the present conditional use permit condition. Chairperson Beaty said he was in agreement with his fellow commissioners. He was somewhat even further confused because they had an applicant who has violated the conditional use permit and is now requesting permission to continue the violation even though it had been objected to, opposed to and complained about as evidenced by a memorandum from the Sheriff's Department. Not only was he in agreement with his fellow commissioners to deny the current application, he wanted to ask staff what had been or what would be done if continued violations occur. He said that perhaps that was a question for after the action was taken. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, second by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010, denying CUP 93-7 Amendment #2. Motion carried 3-0. Chairperson Beaty said that his question to staff was, if the applicant continues to violate her conditional use permit, what would happen. Mr. Drell explained that basically they were revoking a portion of the conditional use permit, which was the portion dealing with live entertainment. The next step would be revoking the entire conditional use permit which was to operate as a restaurant. An alternative would be to enforce the condition through a court injunction. Upon questioning by Chairperson Beaty, Mr. Drell further explained that there were two ways to come into conformance in any violation. Either stop the behavior or get the approval modified to make the behavior legal. That was what they were choosing to do. They were requesting reconsideration of the previous denial which occurred back in December. They had a process that allowed people to request amendments to previous decisions and that was what they had done. Again, and counsel could add to this, but the next step was to revoke the entire conditional use permit so that they couldn't do business, period, or they could selectively through court action force the compliance with a specific condition. Mr. Hargreaves concurred that any violation of city codes could be addressed through code j enforcement either civilly or criminally. There could be fines or court orders. Generally speaking they could employ a progressive discipline where they send 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 ir.. them a letter calling their attention to it threatening action. If they continue then they would actually cite them and fine them. If they continued, the conditional use permit could be revoked and/or bring civil action with contempt kinds of penalties or criminal action. Commissioner Campbell wanted to clarify that at this time they were just talking about revoking permission for outside music. Mr. Hargreaves concurred that that was all they were talking about at this time. Mr. Drell said the question was what if they continued to ignore these actions and those were the remedies. Again, there were various actions that could be pursued with the courts. Chairperson Beaty said that he had no opposition to live music. He was very upset that they have an applicant who has apparently flagrantly ignored conditions of the conditional use permit and that upset him. It upset him even further that the city apparently did not do anything about it. Mr. Drell said they notified the applicant of the violation. The applicant felt that live music was necessary so Mr. Drell informed her that she would have to live with the existing ruling or request that the ruling be changed. That was the process they were going through now. They said they couldn't live with that ruling and wanted it to be reconsidered. That was what they asked for. Chairperson Beaty stated that he wasn't opposed to live music. Mr. Smith clarified that the staff recommendation was to revoke the too entertainment on the patio. Commissioner Finerty concurred and stated that it was her understanding that there could be live entertainment inside, but that because the rules were not followed, there would be no entertainment of any kind outside. Mr. Drell said that as long as all three commissioners understood that, that was the action. Mr. Hargreaves stated that was what was reflected in the resolution from staff. Commissioner Campbell concurred and Chairperson Beaty noted that was the resolution adopted by commission that passed 3-0. Mr. Drell informed the applicant and audience that decisions of the Planning Commission were appealable to the City Council. Mr. Wood spoke from the audience and requested clarification on the action. Mr. Drell explained that the ruling was that there would be no more outdoor entertainment whatsoever. Commissioner Finerty said that was correct. Chairperson Beaty pointed out that they could have live entertainment inside the restaurant. Mr. Wood said amplified or otherwise. tow 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Mr. Drell said yes, as long as it didn't violate city noise levels. E. Case Nos. ZOA 00-05, ZOA 00-07, ZOA 00-08 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation of approval to City Council of three zoning ordinance amendments: 1 ) Chapter 25.16.030(J) as it relates to rental and leasing of single-family dwellings for less than 30 days; 2) Chapter 25.16.090 as it relates to stealth installation of telecommunication towers; and 3) Chapter 25.16.090(A) and adding ° as it relates to setbacks for garages and carports in the R-1 District. Mr. Smith explained that there were three separate proposed code amendments. All three were recommended by Zoning Ordinance Review. Relative to leasing of single family dwellings in the R-1 district, the code was currently silent. Anyone wishing to rent or lease for less than 30 days would have to come through a conditional use permit process so that the neighbors would be aware of what was going on. Item two was relative to the telecommunication towers. A revised Exhibit B was distributed to commission which highlighted some language changes that he came up with in communication with Commissioner Finerty today. He thought it made the issue clearer for them and he suggested that if the commission acted on this that they make those changes. Basically what they would be doing was encouraging clustering of these tower elements if they were in a stealth mode (i.e., that they look like palm trees). They were also lowering the maximum height from 85 feet to 65 feet. Item three of this amendment was relative to setbacks for garages and carports in the R-1 district. As indicated, in many of the older communities of the city they did not have full two-car garages. It was the stated goal of the city to provide covered parking in the residential district. In order to encourage rehabilitation of older dwellings and make them consistent with current codes, they would be lessening the burden by reducing the proposed setback effectively on carport structures to 20 feet from the curb rather than the current 32 feet. Side-in carports would have 16 feet and that came out of some other language elsewhere in the code where if they had a side-in situation they could go closer to the street. Approval under this would go through Architectural Review Commission and would be subject to a notice being sent to the 300-foot radius area and taking into account the opinion of nearby property owners and property owner associations. With that, staff 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 recommended that commission recommend approval of the proposals to city council with the changes noted in the Exhibit B to the communication tower and antenna ordinance. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposals. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Finerty said that she had one item for the commission to consider. The current ordinance for the wireless communication tower allowed them to go into open space. Recognizing the fact that there isn't much property currently in Palm Desert zoned open space, she wondered if the other commissioners would consider not allowing these towers in open space as she believed that it was inconsistent with the concept of open space. Mr. Drell asked why Commissioner Finerty felt this was not consistent with open space. Commissioner Finerty said that if they were going to clutter open space with wireless communication towers, she felt they would be negating the whole concept of open space and it seemed to her that in the ordinance there were several other areas that were zoned to allow these that made much greater r.. sense than interfering with open space. She could also assure them that when this was discussed at the Landscape Committee several months ago, this was their basic feeling as well. Commissioner Campbell noted that open space would have trees and shrubs. Mr. Drell asked if he could read the uses currently allowed in the open space zone. Under conditional uses, and all monopole type towers were conditional uses, cemeteries, communication towers, educational research institutions, private recreational facilities, recreational oriented restaurants, governmental public facilities, parks, playgrounds, and lots of physical improvements were already permitted through a conditional use process. He said that the discretion was still in the commission's hands as to whether or not the waiver was granted and whether it was appropriate. Commissioner Finerty said she understood that and was referencing section 25.104.030 Permitted commercial communication towers item B. It said that commercial communication towers and antennas may be approved in any of the following zoned districts: C-1 general commercial, PC planned commercial, SI service industrial, P public institutional, OS open space, PI planned industrial. She felt that five of those were definitely appropriately zoned districts but that open space was inconsistent with this type of product. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Chairperson Beaty asked if each individual case would come before the commission for approval. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Finerty said they could, but the whole reason they asked for this ordinance to be reviewed was to try and make it a little clearer to the applicants so that they knew what the city was looking for and that would make it very clear that they could be 65 feet tall, they had to create a cluster effect, etc. Chairperson Beaty asked for any other comments. Mr. Drell felt the result of it wasn't to create a cluster effect. The result would be more widely dispersed towers. The original goal when they didn't know they would be stealth would be to have fewer taller facilities. Once they reduced the height of the facilities, clustering wasn't the result. The result would be since the range of each tower was less, to have more dispersed facilities, not clusters. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that they weren't clustering the monopoles, they were clustering a monopole with live trees. Mr. Drell concurred and said that open spaces were places where live trees were most likely to exist. In golf courses and parks were probably the greatest opportunities to put them where there is lots of vegetation. Open space was one of those examples where they would have other trees. Since the whole premise was for these things to look like other trees, they were , probably more compatible to parks and open space than to areas with buildings. He said he wasn't sure why that would be less potentially desirable than the other zones. Commissioner Finerty said that it was because in the other areas it would be hidden away better. Chairperson Beaty said that he could see Commissioner Finerty's point and somewhat agreed, but since the requests would still come to the commission on an individual basis he wouldn't have a problem judging them individually so he would be prepared to go with staff's findings. Commissioner Campbell asked if that was a motion. He concurred. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 2-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Chairperson Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 , recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 00-05, ZOA 00-07, and ZOA 00-08. Motion carried 2-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). Mr. Drell noted that by handling the three different amendments simultaneously, he wanted clarification as to Commissioner Finerty's position 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 on the other two items. Commissioner Finerty stated that she wasn't opposed to the other two amendments. CHAIRPERSON BEATY CALLED FOR A THREE MINUTE RECESS AT 9:12 P.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AND AT 9:15 P.M. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Presentation by Westfield Shopping Town Palm Desert of proposed remodel plans. Opportunity for Planning Commission comments. Mr. Drell explained that basically this project was before the commission about a year ago and the commission approved a plan. At that time a lot of the specific architectural details had not yet been resolved and therefore it was requested that when they got those that they come back for review. He stated that the plan before the commission was consistent with the approval that was granted before and some of the most contentious items, which included the 70-foot theater, was no longer part of the proposal. There was an issue of what the theater would be and they would be coming back once `. that was resolved. In fundamental respects, this plan was consistent in its scope and basically the commission was now seeing the specific design details. The result would be to forward the commission's comments and recommendation to council who would also be reviewing these plans. Mr. Drell noted that originally TrizecHahn had proposed stacked stadium seating which was about 66 feet high. The applicant was no longer proposing to put stacked theaters on top of each other. They might put some parking under the theaters, but the height would probably now be less than 50 feet. In any case, those design details for the theater and the whole theater deal had not yet been worked out. Therefore, they were not showing the commission that now. If and when the actual architecture for the theaters did come to them, then it would be brought back. Commissioner Finerty asked if they were waiting for that to come back to them before anything would proceed. Mr. Drell said no. They would proceed with other aspects of the plan and the city wanted them to do improvements on the rest of the mall as soon as they could. Commissioner Finerty stated that she had been asked to inquire about the bus shelter. Mr. Drell said that basically the applicant met with Sunline and Councilman Kelly today and they were proceeding with the design for a bus transfer station. Commissioner Finerty asked who would actually paid for this. Mr. Drell said that the transfer station was work that was being done by 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 the applicant and for the actual bus shelter it was his understanding that it was a condition of the project. MR. DAVE HOLKEN, Vice President of Development for Westfield Corporation, Incorporated, at 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, addressed the commission and said that they were providing the design in concert and cooperation with Sunline and the City, but the actual construction itself would be produced either by the City or Sunline, much as it was he supposed for the transfer facility that was previously proposed for the northerly sector of the site. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was what was already approved. Mr. Drell agreed that the applicant in the agreement was to set aside real estate. His understanding was the improvement was to construct structures all along Plaza Way and create turnouts. Typically the requirement for bus stops was put on the applicant, but he would have to review the agreement. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would appreciate it if he would do that. Mr. Holken thanked the commission for the opportunity to present the design for the exterior building as well as site expansion/renovation for Westfield Shopping Town Palm Desert. They were actually celebrating their one year anniversary of ownership of the Palm Desert Town Center this week. He felt they had come a long way. In the last 365 days they had taken a few steps back in terms of rethinking the expansion plan for Palm Desert and he thought the product they had to present to the commission today was substantially improved from where they thought it was originally to where it is today. With that, he wanted to introduce his development team, as well as operating team for the Westfield Shopping Town Palm Desert. He introduced John Healy, the Development Director, who would be responsible for the implementation of the project and working on a day to day basis with city staff to resolve any few remaining issues. Also present was Larry Moline, the Landscape Architect. As was jokingly said at the July 25 Architectural Review Committee meeting, Larry messed it up the first time some 25 years ago so they brought him back to fix it. Also present was the Vice President of Design, Steve Dumas and then Rachel Stoffer the Project Designer, both from Los Angeles. And then Bob Waller, their General Manager for the Westfield Shopping Town Palm Desert and Robert Pantinella, their Operations Manager. They were all present tonight ' excited about the project and were ready to address any concerns or 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 f.w comments the commission might have. He noted that they met in a joint session between Planning Commission, Council and the Architectural Review Committee July 13 and then on July 25 met for conceptual design approval with the Architectural Review Committee. They were very pleased in terms of the level of dialogue that went on at the ARC meeting and he thought that the material that the commission saw tonight and that was included in the commission packets had been revised to reflect the comments from ARC. He said he would provide a brief overview of the expansion renovation plan for Palm Desert and then he would invite Steve Dumas to provide an architectural presentation. He pointed out the location of the proposed parking facilities, which would be all single levels, as well as the mall, enclosed mall and shop related changes that would take place. He said that Robinson's May was proposing a 54,000 square foot expansion at the second level of the store which was the connection to grade to the southerly Highway 1 1 1 part of the center. Upon the implementation of that and the vacation of the existing Robinson's May south, the Sear's Department Store would actually move into that particular location. They were showing a 50,000 square foot expansion of the J.C. Penney's store that would either be over one level or 30,000 over two. The Macy's main store along Highway 1 1 1 would by and large remain the same and then the Macy's Home was proposing a 22,000 square foot expansion and that was currently permitted through the City of Palm Desert. They were just waiting for them to give them an indication as to when they would start construction. He said that with respect to the enclosed mall, they would do a number of things. The first and absolute foremost was to implement a remodel of the existing common area. They had some design material for the commission to see, but it wasn't part of their proposed presentation although they could make it part of it. It included expanding the sky lighting within the center to let more natural light in and they would actually modify a large percentage of the ceilings and bulkheads in the common area, increase the lighting, replace the handrails and all the flooring, and overall he felt that would serve to complement the re-merchandising of the center very smartly. At the same time in the existing open or amphitheater area they were constructing a three level building component. There was a lower level connection that today they have designated as storage because they haven't found too many tenants that want to sit in a hole, but at grade and connecting to the parking area and Highway 111 would be the new 25,000 square foot Barnes 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 and Noble store and that was a deal they haven't made a formal announcement to the press about, but they were in tough lease negotiations right there. At the top of that was a 20,000 square foot component that was intended to be terraced dining, possibly two restaurants at that upper level that would overlook Highway 1 1 1 and the view of the mountains to the south. There also would be a large terrace and with that they would be looking at remodeling the food court in its entirety, removing the ice rink from the lower level, closing that in with shops, remodeling the food court and filling in the holes and then as part of that introducing the new access to the Resort Theaters, whether it be the existing facility or what they hoped would be an expanded facility which was somewhat detailed in the plans. They would also introduce a large retail component as well as the Westfield play land. The parking structure was originally a long and extended parking structure which pretty much ran the full length of the side of the center between the residential area and the shopping center itself. This was a lower parking area than the south side which connected to the second level. In there they were anticipating the addition of two single level parking structures to help them meet the parking needs and parking ratio of the site. In conjunction with that they would be introducing a rework of the southerly parking lot to improve the overall circulation through the parking area as well as increase the total parking count. They had used that as a tool or means to justify the relandscaping of that portion of the site that sits between the south face and Highway 1 1 1 . They were very excited about that and it would give them an opportunity to really reach out and touch the street, bring some of the desert scape into the project and hopefully take the project into this millennium. He introduced Steve Dumas, who would describe the architectural material. MR. STEVE DUMAS said that when they bought the property they thought it had a dated look and was a little threadbare in a sense. Leasing was having problems and all the energy had moved to El Paseo. That was where people were going to dinner and to shop and that was where leasing tenants wanted to be. They wanted to bring that kind of ambience and that kind of feeling back to Palm Desert Town Center. Then they evaluated the Hahn proposal. They felt it was a little over done and not the ambience of El Paseo, but something grander and bigger and more like Las Vegas. It was sort of a theme park kind of a feel and they didn't feel that was appropriate for here. This was a more 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 tow sophisticated client. He said that they briefly looked at a sort of Spanish architecture, desert architecture in terms of Moroccan, and again they rejected that, feeling it was too themed and was more amusement park or theme park than Palm Desert or the Coachella Valley. What he wanted to do was present what they had come up with. For inspiration they used the great modern architecture that had been developed for the desert, Palm Springs and Palm Desert, the Kaufman House and the work of Paul Frank. They wanted to look at that, but humanize it as well. They wanted to introduce natural materials to bring in the kind of feeling of desert colors and also modern shapes instead of theme park shapes to fit the architecture of the city. In terms of remodeling they were looking at two aspects. They were looking at sort of theming two environments. One was the oasis and the other was the sort of arid landscape. They were playing two landscape themes against each other and they would do that inside the interior as well. The courts would be one theme and the main mall areas would be another. They were hoping at the entries to bring in the character of the inside out to the three entry locations between the department stores and would bring in natural materials, stone, trellis elements, landscaping, nice paving, seating areas, outdoor seating for restaurants, and try to capture the El Paseo feel. They were proposing to create a restaurant terrace that would overlook the city, overlook the mountains and it would have trellis elements, umbrellas and that ambience and would have a nice glow at night from Highway 1 1 1 and they thought it would be a sort of rich complement to El Paseo. The other element they were adding to the exterior was the parking structure. They originally thought they needed a two-level deck in the back and had since reduced that to a single level deck. They were proposing a sculpted form to make it a sort of step above a typical parking garage. It would have sculpted precast panels with some color to them. They were also proposing at the stair elements some stone or precast stone elements. In addition they were adding some roof shade canopies at the entry ways and at the stair tower, entry ways to the department store entries, as well as the mall entries. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be any type of coverage on the upper level, or any trellises. Mr. Dumas said that they would just provide coverage at the entries and no trellises. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Mr. Drell said that was what they were proposing. Mr. Dumas indicated that there would be some landscaping on the parking garages as well to soften them. Basically what they were trying to do was give new energy to the center and give it a fresh vitality and he thought this would go a long way and the interior would radically change from the way it is now and people would be excited to come back to the mall. MR. LARRY MOLINE, the landscape architect, addressed the commission. He said that they would be installing more shade. He thought they really failed the first time in that regard. The parking lot would have trees every 45 feet through the lot and that was one tree every five cars. He knew that was a little bit beyond the requirement of one tree per every three cars, but he thought these trees should become 35 feet in diameter, so they were really getting quite a bit of coverage for that lot and that really only left about one parking stall that wouldn't have coverage when the trees reached maturity. The shade trees they were talking about were Chilean Mesquites and he understood that they would have to be pruned twice. He said they had Virginia Live Oaks on the frontage as well as Pines and they had done well. They were planning on bringing the Live Oaks into the parking lot and creating shade with those, but it was their understanding that in the Spring there was a real problem with aphids and that caused sapping onto parked cars. The Chilean Mesquite was felt to be the best evergreen shade tree they could use, so they had no problem with pruning them twice a year and providing root barriers at the curb for those trees. The deciduous combination was the Chinese Pistache which would give them great fall color and at the entry points they had date palms. Those would be at entry points on Highway 1 1 1 , Monterey and on Town Center Way. Another change was they added more shade trees by reducing the amount of date palms they had at the entry points. They would have a fairly broad planting of them at the main entrance on Highway 1 1 1 to provide a view corridor into the restaurant area and allow views of the south side of the structure. The entrance aisles would be desert landscaping as well as the street frontage. The turf was being removed and the Pines and Oaks would remain. The Palo Verdes there now didn't look well but where they had good ones they would probably leave them in the desert scape and only remove those that had failed. He felt the plant variety would provide a very rich 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 err palette used in an open manor like Desert Willow where they got to see the ground plain and the individual plants that have a dynamic impact. He thought this would give the center a much more regional feel. The planning code talked about diversity. They actually would have three trees that were shade trees and the palm trees as a composition in the parking lot. The third tree was the Palo Verde which they had in some tightly planted islands which actually abutted the areas with the palm trees and closed off those open spaces. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would like Mr. Moline to look at four trees in the parking lot of President's Plaza East that were planted a year and a half ago and she couldn't recall what type they were, but she said they were just planted there to try them in the desert and they grow beautifully, give lots of shade and nothing happened to them in the heat and in the winter they were just gorgeous. Mr. Drell said staff didn't know what type of tree they were either. They were a substitution that staff had yet to identify or find a source for. They were being called Rosewood, but when they looked at them staff didn't believe they were Rosewood because Rosewood was a very slow growing hard wood. It wasn't the tropical Rosewood. Chairperson Beaty expressed surprise that the city arborist didn't know what kind they were. Mr. Drell said that staff would try and identify them again. Commissioner Campbell suggested calling Jerry Clark, the city's previous arborist. Mr. Drell noted that the trees did immediately take off and they were apparently still doing well. Commissioner Campbell agreed that they grew rapidly and they gave wonderful shade. Everyone wanted to try and park under those. The other types of trees in the parking lot were very stringy. Mr. Drell said that some of them were Oaks, but staff would revisit that see if they could identify them. Commissioner Campbell also indicated that they were a beautiful green color. Mr. Drell concurred and said they were very shiny. Commissioner Campbell said they were also a very clean tree. MS. RACHEL STOFFER, the Project Designer, addressed the commission to discuss signage. She referred to page S-1 of a booklet given to commission in their packets. She said that the two existing signs at the entries would be taken down and replaced with new monument signs. All the other perimeter locations would also have new monument signs. There would be a total of seven that they were proposing. They were proposing to have two different heights of signs. Some would be nine feet and the other six feet. She said that the design was like taking a piece of their architecture and having a natural r� 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 i stone look with their logo. It would be internally illuminated. The sign would have frosted glass and there would be a soft light to add a little extra to the monument sign than just having a plaque on a board. She showed the design of the six-foot high sign and explained that it would just basically take the same type of element but put in a slightly different fashion. She stated that all the building signs would be removed so they wouldn't have any of the large plaques on any of the entry ways. They hadn't designed it yet, but planned to do some kind of small ballard height sign marking the entry. It would be a tiny plaque so that customers would know that was the entry into the mall itself to distinguish it from the department store entries. By Barnes and Noble there would be some signage for the two tenants on top. They would basically have reverse channel letters lit from behind. The existing Marie Calendar's sign would be relocated and revamped up a little bit. If they added another tenant in that area, there might just be a tenant name on top of their awning. She informed commission that they were in the process of getting a design packet together. Mr. Drell requested that when they designed their facade that they make sure it could accept reverse channel letters without an external raceway and make sure there was access. "r Ms. Stoffer concurred and explained that they wouldn't actually be in back of the building, they would be sitting on top of the canopy and they had done that before. Mr. Holken readdressed the commission. He said that this was not only the opportunity for them to gain the commission's comments, their insights, and input to the project, but was also an opportunity for them to ask a favor of this commission, as well as the council and staff, etc. When they looked at this renovation plan being proposed for Palm Desert, they were really starting the pace for the project over the next 20-25 years. As they looked at a project, they not only looked at it as to what they could do to it today, but what they would do to it five years from now and what they would do ten years from now. The planning components or new expansion components seen today, in particular the parking structures, would be designed so that a further expansion of the shopping center could occur without having to tear out 9/10 of the new improvements put in place. A lot of that went into their thinking. When the commission looked at the project from 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Highway 1 1 1 , he thought they were introducing some very exciting, very stylish architecture to approximately 20% of the facade that faced Highway 1 1 1 . They have Robinson's May, Macy's and would have the Sear's store, and the J.C. Penney's, three of which were planning to expand their stores. Their assumption today was, and as they continued to discuss those expansions with the department stores, was that they would do something dynamic and substantial to the exterior of their buildings. They would continue to push that. He respectfully requested that staff and the commission and council continue to push wherever they possibly could to get their best foot forward right along with the mall's. They weren't suggesting that the department stores' architecture should match theirs, but that they blend in. He thought there was a lot to be said for their individualism, but there was an appropriate design above and beyond where they were at today. Honestly, with Robinson's May, with Sear's and with J.C. Penney's, there was an immediate opportunity to get a bigger, better statement for the Westfield Shopping Town Palm Desert. He thought perhaps the biggest fish for them to fry was maybe Macy's, but he thought that opportunity was out there somewhere. He said that would close his comments and asked for any comments. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Holken alluded to terrace dining restaurants overlooking Highway 1 1 1 and asked what his definition was of a restaurant. Mr. Holken said that a restaurant comes in a variety of packages. They currently had Marie Calendar's and they also had a deal with a new tenant, Onami which would be introduced. It wouldn't be at that upper level, but they would like to go after a white linens tablecloth type operation. Then again, they also wanted to hold themselves closer to a family style approach to dining as well because they were purely a family environment and they needed to maintain that. Commissioner Finerty noted that he mentioned competing with El Paseo to a certain extent so she assumed that there would be sit down restaurants where you enter, are seated and handed a menu and servers bring the food to the table, as opposed to any type of fast food. Mr. Holken replied that he wouldn't say as opposed to, but it could very well be a combination of the two. He clearly didn't see a McDonald's 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 i or Carl's or somethingto that extent at that upper level. The really PP Y Y needed a nice statement for their Highway 1 1 1 frontage and for the entire project. Fast food operations for them were traditionally located within food courts so that they had the critical mass and could feed off one another for their offerings to the public. Commissioner Finerty asked if they had considered the Claim Jumper chain at all. Mr. Holken said absolutely. He thought that would be a fantastic use. Commissioner Finerty agreed. Chairperson Beaty said that one of the interesting things about the center had always been that as they drive past on Highway 1 1 1 , they really didn't get a feeling for what was inside. From Highway 111 it only looked like a few department stores. People just didn't have a clue to what was actually there and asked if that was good or bad from the developer's perspective. He asked if they were going to try and change that. He said it was appealing as a quiet desert environment, but he didn't think it drew in the person who was looking for a large shopping center. Mr. Holken thought that was right. The Palm Desert Town Center was living on its reputation and dying on its reputation at the same time. It's presence from Highway 1 1 1 or from any adjacent street, be it Town Center or Monterey was very poor. They wanted to improve upon that quality and thought there was a lot of visual stimulation that could be created and believed with the relandscaping program they wanted to get aggressive with it but at the same time wanted to make sure they established certain corridors that could be looked into from Highway 1 1 1 to the project so that they got a sense of something else other than just a low profile office structure being there. That was one of the elements they were attempting to work on. Commissioner Campbell thought that all the different textures on the buildings and the new facade would make it stand out more, in addition to the landscaping. Right now all they could see was a gray parking lot. She noted that Mr. Holken talked about the other department stores and asked him if he would have input into what kind of facade they would use or if he would go ahead and leave that to the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Drell 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 tam thought their problem was that Macy's would not be expanding so they would still have their existing facade. They were expanding on the back, but that was adjacent to the parking structure and wouldn't be seen. The existing Robinson's May would become a Sear's and the degree to which Sear's proposed changes to the existing facade was discretionary to a certain degree on their part. Typically when a new store moves into an old store they can't legally be compelled to do anything but put up a new sign. He said that the new Robinson's May expansion would be no problem. There they were building a new building and the city has control and he assumed that they were rational people and would want to get on board. The two most significant areas were the existing Macy's facade and the existing Robinson's May facade that was facing south and the Penney's facade in areas where they wouldn't necessarily be doing any remodeling. Hopefully they were dealing with rational retailers. Image was everything in retailing and they had an opportunity to upgrade their image here. If they wanted to survive, they would have to. Mr. Holken concurred with Mr. Drell. They all needed to be on the sales path to make sure they are doing anything and everything possible to `,,, put their best foot forward not only in terms of the interior, but the exterior. They would be singing that song perhaps louder than anyone else, but they had their limitations just as he knew the city had their limitations, but he thought there was strength in numbers. That was simply what they were asking for. Commissioner Campbell asked about the theater expansion. She asked how they could proceed with the renovation if they didn't know what would be happening with the theaters. She asked if that area was by itself and they could work around it. Mr. Holken said he thought that was what they intended to do. The one thing they didn't want to do was hold the project hostage for lack of any one player. The theater industry as a whole had gone through a very dynamic and scary cycle over the last five years. The big question with the theater providers or theater companies today was liquidity--who is, who hasn't and who doesn't. They were very cautious in terms of how they move into markets. They did have an existing Resort Theater here that had a significant presence in the desert communities. It wanted to make sure that it could maintain that presence and as such was investigating all of its options. One of those %1W 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 options might be to not expand the Palm Desert facility. They were doing all they could to get them back to the table and encourage them to expand. He thought it was an important component but at the same time it had to be done right. It had to make sense economically. Commissioner Campbell asked if he thought they might pull out and not have a theater there. Mr. Holken didn't believe they would pull out. They had a significant existing investment there. it wasn't state of the art and needed to be state of the art in order for them to be recognized, but at the same time they couldn't afford to pull out from the standpoint that they couldn't afford to give up the location to potentially someone else. While he wasn't saying they were going to make a deal or that they weren't going to leave, they were doing all they could to keep them there because he felt it was an important component to the project. But it was also important that they move forward. And they were doing all they could to put this project on track for mid February or the first of March 2001 to start. Chairperson Beaty said that in the past they had been accused of not being the Planning Commission, but the "Parking Commission" and he was just handed a note by the city's Traffic Engineer regarding parking. He didn't expect an answer tonight, but wanted to bring it up. He asked what the net gain, if any, in parking was being achieved. How many spaces were being lost from the expansion and from structure remodeling and how many they were gaining. He asked what the bottom line was. He asked if Mr. Holken was comfortable with the parking and pointed out that it was in the mall's best interest to provide plenty of parking. Mr. Holken said they were very comfortable with the 4.5 parking ratio which was where they were at today. They had been playing some games in terms of trying to build more parking stalls at grade at a significantly lesser cost than structured parking stalls. To a large extent he thought they had been successful at that. They had been able to transfer approximately 180 stalls off the deck and were putting them on grade and weren't playing any games with stall size or configuration to try and make better sense of the utilization of the site itself. Overall they were very comfortable with the 4.5. They knew they had a tremendous surplus in parking today, which was primarily that northerly 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 sector of the site and as they went forward, they needed to look at better ways from an operational standpoint as to how to make better utilization of that parking out there so that their customers had the preferred parking, which was within a 150- to 200-foot radius of the perimeter of the building. That was an element they continued to work on. Chairperson Beaty informed Mr. Holken that this would be an item that the commission would be very interested in when he came back to them with the final numbers. He thanked everyone for their presentation and asked for any other commission comments or questions. Mr. Drell asked if the commission wished to make any general statements to the council or endorse the direction or specifics or not. Commissioner Finerty asked if this was coming back to the commission with a staff report. Mr. Drell said no. Basically the commission was looking at it. Commissioner Finerty noted that staff usually came back and said there should be "x" amount of parking spaces. Mr. Drell said that the commission had already approved a plan with a certain ratio of parking spaces to building and this plan was still within those parameters. They talked about maintaining the existing ratio and actually functionally improving it since there would be a greater proportion of the spaces from the parking structure within proximity of the building than currently exists. The physical parameters of the improvements were approved and those continued to be consistent. What they didn't have were the architectural details which they usually have with the full package. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would just be moved onto the city council now. Mr. Drell concurred. He noted that normally this all came in at once. The design details were shown with the physical details and at the time due to the various limitations and constraints on TrizecHahn when they went through and their desire to get it done in that period of time, they were separated. It just took a year to see the details because of what happened. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) ii.. 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 3 F. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) G. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: 12- PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 3 50