Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0419 ���—� MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ., . TUESDAY - APRIL 19, 2005 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tschopp called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Dave Tschopp, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson � Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the April 5, 2005 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the April 5, 2005 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Commissioner Campbell abstained). � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent April 14, 2005 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. . VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 03-21 - NEWPORT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., FOR PRES MONTEREY 10 BUSINESS CENTRE, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a precise plan to construct 16 light industrial buildings with a combined floor area of 174,550 square feet on a 10.21-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Dinah Shore Drive and Leilani Way. �; Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 05-02 - MEI JUN WANG, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a massage establishment in a 2,000 square foot office suite located at 43-875 Washington Street, Suite E. � 2 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 ;� Mr. Stendell outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan congratulated Mr. Stendell on his recent marriage. Regarding parking, Commissioner Jonathan said that normally 13,000 square feet would require 52 spaces, so this one must have a history of special exceptions because even after a 15% reduction,they were still below the normal. Mr. Stendell agreed and explained that this building was built under the County prior to annexation. ThaYs how they ended up with 39. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it was legally non-conforming. He asked how large the medical suite was approximately. Mr. Stendell replied 800 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan said that might require another couple of spaces under normal calculations. So maybe the normal requirement is 53-54, and there's 39. He understood the survey that was done, but asked if Mr. Stendell was comfortable that parking would not turn into a problem with this particular use. He understood they would need to allow something there. Given the code requirement of 53-54 and they were at 39, he asked Mr. Stendell if he was comfortable that they weren't adding to or creating a �, problem. Mr. Stendell replied that he was fairly comfortable since they were seeing a realistic study of what is happening out there based on seven out of eight being actively used. If there were several unoccupied spaces, he might feel differently. With the number of times he visited and the numbers he was actually seeing, he was fairly comfortable with the use going in there. Chairperson Tschopp o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. CHARLIE WANG, 43-875 Washington Street in Palm Desert, stated that he was speaking for his sister since she couldn't speak very well. Mr. Drell asked if the Commission had any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked Mr. Wang if they were comfortable with all the conditions of approval. Mr. Wang said so far, yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many cars they expect the business to draw at any one time. "�"` 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � � :� � Mr. Wang said two to three cars. There would be on average seven or eight customers a day. They would have one or two staff. It would mostly be by appointment only. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would be seven or eight at one time. Mr. Wang said no, they didn't have the room to take that many people. Basically, one or two clients at a time. They didn't have the staff or the room for eight at one time. The average would be one or two at the same time. Commissioner Jonathan concluded that typically at any one time there would be four cars: a couple of employees and a couple of clients. Mr. Wang said that was right. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or , OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being none, the public hearing was � closed and Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comment. .,,,�i Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Jonathan commented that he was concerned about the parking issue, but given staff's comfort level and the testimony of the applicant, he was persuaded that they weren't making a bad situation worse and would support the motion. Chairperson Tschopp called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2330, approving Case No. CUP 05-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. VAR 05-01 - SUZANNE LOPEZ, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow a reduction of the required minimum front yard setback from five feet to zero feet for construction of a front entry vestibule addition and review ; � � � � 4 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � of the design of a previously approved garage (Case No. VAR 04-01) for a single family home located at 45-807 Portola Avenue. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings and conditions as stated in the resolution. Commissioner Finerty noted that the ARC minutes stated that the garage and the colors were approved and Mr. Urbina stated that the colors for the garage and the vestibule had been approved. She asked what those colors were. Mr. Urbina said it would be a "sun-kissed peach," the middle the existing terra cotta color, and the new color would be a peachy-cream color with a turquoise accent color for the trim. Commissioner Finerty requested that he display the elevation and tell her each color for the garage, the building surrounding the garage, and the vestibule. Mr. Urbina stated that the stucco walls would be painted the peachy color, the trim over the garage doors and over the side doors would be the turquoise accent color. Commissioner Finerty asked what the garage would be made out of. Mr. �,,,,, Urbina said it would be a sliding wood garage door. Mr. Drell thought that the applicant could better answer the questions. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. DR. SUZANNE LOPEZ, 45-807 Portola, came forward. She said the garage would be wood and it would be turquoise washed to match the wood trim on the fascia of the house, so it would contrast. The front of it would be wood, the gate would be the turquoise, so all the wood would be washed with the turquoise. Commissioner Finerty asked how bright the turquoise was going to be. Dr. Lopez said it matched the existing color and showed the Commission a photo. She thought it would be a couple of shades lighter as a wash. Mr. Drell indicated that it was a transparent stain of some sort. �.'r' 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � � � � She said yes, it is opaque and would be a wash. It wouldn't be transparent, it would be opaque. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that it wouldn't be as bright as it is now. She answered no. It wouldn't be as bright as the fence, it would be the same color as the paint across the top of the fascia. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was correct that the fence was being removed. Dr. Lopez said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that everything they could see in the picture that was bright fuscia was going to be removed. Dr. Lopez said the garage would be there. The whole front of the � garage, so that would all be gone. „�i Commissioner Finerty indicated that there would be nothing that would be bright turquoise such as the existing turquoise fronting on Portola. Dr. Lopez said just the fascia across the top of the house and then the wood across the front of the garage would be an opaque, lighter turquoise. Commissioner Finerty asked if the vestibule was the creamy peach color. She said yes, and it would be two shades lighter than the main house. Commissioner Finerty noted that there is an existing fence. She asked if it was also going to be the same turquoise color. Dr. Lopez said the fence going up there would be a stone fence. It's a used concrete fence. She wasn't sure which picture she was looking at. When she saw the picture, she said it is an existing wood fence on � � :� '� , .� 6 `�'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � the right-hand side that goes to the backyard and it would remain the same. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was going to remain the same bright turquoise color. Dr. Lopez said yes. She questioned them discussing the colors of the house and said she was kind of confused. Mr. Drell asked if that was an example of what the other wood would look like. Dr. Lopez said no, it was going to be a wash on the wood that would be turquoise. It's a completely different kind of wood. That's painted and this would be a stain that would be on the wood; a turquoise stain like a southwestern stain. Commissioner Finerty said she was just having trouble trying to imagine what � it would look like and her concern was that the current bright turquoise was not appropriate in the neighborhood or to be viewed from a major arterial. That was why she was questioning it. Mr. Drell said what they would probably need to see was an actual material sample of the wash on the wood. Commissioner Finerty said yes, and that's generally what they would ask. Mr. Drell said that usually paint is paint, but washes on wood can be intense or very subtle, so they probably want to see exactly how it looks. Additionally, Commissioner Finerty asked if Dr. Lopez would object to the existing fence that would be remain being painted the same color as the garage door. Dr. Lopez said it couldn't be because the garage door was not going to be painted, it was going to be painted and the existing fence was painted with a "poop brown" and was painted a turquoise over that, so it's painted. The door for the garage is wood that will be stained, not painted. Commissioner Finerty understood, but said nevertheless, it was going to have a color and the applicant was telling them the color would be lighter. So �""' 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 .:� � if they take a sample of that color to Home Depot or Lowe's to their paint department they could whip up some paint that would be very similar in color to paint that existing fence so they could see uniformity going across. Dr. Lopez said she could, but didn't know that was what she was here at this meeting for; she thought it was for a variance permit for the wall, so she was kind of confused. She said she went through several hours and several meetings with architectural review and wasn't aware that was what was happening here. She could do it, it wasn't a problem, but she was confused. Mr. Drell explained that the Planning Commission also has some input in architectural issues. Dr. Lopez said she would be happy to do it; she didn't know that's what they would be talking about. Commissioner Finerty asked when she would be able to have the proposed =� color of the garage door and the proposed color for the fence. ,,,� Dr. Lopez said she still had to do structural drawings and get building permits before she was even going to get to paint. She could probably do that before hand and asked when she would like it. Mr. Drell said as soon as possible. Dr. Lopez said it would probably take a week or two because she's traveling right now and the only time she has to go was on the weekends. She asked if it could be sent Federal Express. Mr. Drell indicated there were various ways the Commission could deal with this. They could bring it back as a Miscellaneous item at the next meeting. If the Commission was so disposed, they could act on the variance with the condition that they get the chance to view the color of the trim. At least the applicant would be moving down the field a little bit. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was agreeable. � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19. 2005 � Dr. Lopez said that was fine. Her other question to Commissioner Finerty was, as she drives around on major arteries in Palm Desert, there's many commercial buildings that are much more intense, bright colors on major arteries. She was wondering what her concern was on the brightness of the colors on major arteries since they could be seen all throughout Palm Desert. . Commissioner Finerty said that was a very valid question. She believed the Staples building had been repainted, the building at Monterey and Fred Waring had been repainted, and it looked like Bash's was now under going repainting and it was all because they raised those issues that the colors are not appropriate and do stick out and that they also look for more earth tones rather than something that is so bright. So there were issues. Dr. Lopez said she just didn't know. Commissioner Finerty confirmed that there have been other circumstances where they've brought the.particular colors to the Commission and to staff � and said they need to be toned down a bit. Dr. Lopez said okay, it was just a question. Chairperson Tschopp asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. There were none. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the aPplication. There being none, the public hearing was closed and he asked for any other questions for staff. Commissioner Jonathan said one of the drawings showed two existing palm trees that were to remain, but they were inside the garage. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. There would be an atrium-like opening toward the rear of the garage, which is the art studio portion. The applicant chose to preserve the existing palm trees which were located behind the carport. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it would be an open roof section. Mr. Urbina concurred. In terms of process here, Commissioner Jonathan indicated that they were being asked to approve a variance with regard to the minimum front yard setback. He guessed that was it. He asked if that setback was somehow linked; his concern was if the Commission approved a setback and then they '�" 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � didn't get what was shown on the plans built. He didn't want to grant a setback and then this plan didn't get built at all. In his mind the two were linked. They were granting a setback to facilitate this design. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan didn't see that linkage in the conditions. Mr. Drell said that Condition No. 1 would cover that. The exhibits on file include all the exhibits they were seeing. Commissioner Jonathan said that if it doesn't happen, and Condition No. 2 addresses that, he asked if the variance went away. Is the variance rescinded if the construction doesn't take place? Mr. Drell said yes, or if the applicant submits a plan for construction that is different than the ones on file. He said Condition No. 1 is the broiler plate condition. They could make it more explicit to say that the exhibits on file are referring to the elevations of the building and not just the site plan, but the elevations of the building, the materials, etc., and . specifically refer to this exhibit. Commissioner Jonathan said he was okay with the wording, but he was looking at Condition No. 2. The condition says said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. It was noted that referred to the variance itself. Mr. Drell said that staff's perception of this variance includes ;,,� both the setback and the improvements being constructed. Commissioner Jonathan said it does in his mind, but the request and the staff report didn't address it really, it talked about reviewing the design of the previously approved garage, but they were way beyond that. Mr. Drell said that it includes, in addition to the variance the requirement of the previous variance, that when she actually wanted to actually design the garage, the Commission wanted to review that as well. So they have two things going on. He thought there should have been finro variance cases shown because they are following up and finishing the process of the previous variance, which is the garage design. Or they could say that the whole thing has been superseded by one case, but in reality that's what is happening. They were finishing up the design decision of the first variance for the garage and then doing this variance which finishes up the design of the rest of the house. Commissioner Jonathan said that as long as the variance is contingent on construction of the approved project as approved, that was fine. Regarding the windows on the garage, Commissioner Campbell said that architectural review wanted to change them and put in smaller windows. She � � � 10 ""� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � � � asked if the windows on the plans were the smaller windows or if they would be changed. Mr. Urbina said that the elevations they were seeing were the ones the architectural review commission saw, so the smaller windows were : not reflected in the elevations. These horizontal windows would be replaced by smaller windows. Commissioner Campbell thought the proposed windows looked very nice and she had to question it. If it was going to be an art studio, they would need the light. Mr. Drell said they would be consistent with southwestern architecture. There would be numerous windows, but they would be individual. They'd probably be the same height, but that long window would be broken up with spaces in between. Part of that had to do with being consistent with the Santa Fe style. There would be three or four smaller windows with breaks between them. It was their feeling that if they go with a very distinctive style, they want to have the details consistent with that style. Commissioner Campbell said that was fine, but she personally liked the proposed windows better. Mr. Drell said the windows would be more similar to the ones in front, but more of them and closer together. It was a design judgement. ; � Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the arch would be removed and there ;� would be a front yard landscaping and irrigation plan. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Action: Commissioner Jonathan said that personally, he liked what was being shown. Unless it was a really significant issue, he tried not to get into the business of ARC, so with their decisions about windows, colors and so forth, he didn't see anything egregious that he personally would take exception to. So he was prepared to move for approval. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He liked the Santa Fe look and thought the color, the fence to the right that is the current color that might or might not change, did concem him as it pertained to the rest of the building. He would prefer to have that fence area done so that it would match the rest of the building. But other than that, he thought the variance worked, the building looked great, and he would second that motion. Commissioner Campbell concurred, except she would like to see the fence painted with a washed turquoise instead of the really bright color. Otherwise, � .P 11 "� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � she thought they did an excellent job and that it would be quite an improvement to the existing home. But she would like to see the fence a different color to match the other parts of the house in turquoise. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was in favor of the variance; however, she would like to see a sample brought back for the garage and vestibule and additionally, a sample of paint for that fence on the right-hand side (as they were viewing it) that would match the sample of the garage. Chairperson Tschopp noted that there was a motion and a second on the floor. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would modify his motion to address the fence issue. He thought that made sense to make it consistent to staff's satisfaction. He really preferred, and he understood where Commissioner Finerty was coming from, but he preferred that the business of the Planning Commission not get involved in paint samples and so forth unless there was an egregious situation, which in his mind there wasn't. So he would amend �, his motion to the extent of bringing the fence color up to be consistent with the rest of the project. And he thought there was an understanding that there's a contingency factor here that the variance is being allowed on the basis of the construction of the project as approved. So with that he offered the amended motion. Commissioner Lopez seconded the amended motion. Commissioner Finerty said she would be voting no because they wouldn't know if it was egregious or not. She didn't know if Commissioner Jonathan had a chance to review the proposed colors, but she thought they were pretty bright. Commissioner Campbell suggested having it under Miscellaneous at the next meeting in two weeks. Chairperson Tschopp noted that wasn't the motion on the table. Commissioner Jonathan said that if Commission wanted to bring it to Miscellaneous that was fine, but his motion wasn't contingent upon that. He thought they would be giving approval, so Miscellaneous would then just be an informational item. Commissioner Finerty questioned if it was informational, if they would have any authority to say no, it isn't acceptable, � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 :� � .r� or yes, that they love it. Mr. Drell said that depended on the motion. He would be requesting of the applicant when she comes back with her final working drawings at architectural commission that they see that washed color, because wash can be all sorts of different intensity shades. His understanding of wash was that they see some of the brown of the wood in the background and it was a fairly subtle, low intensity shade. Mr. Joy said a semi-transparent stain. Mr. Drell agreed. They either achieve that by buying that or taking a latex and watering it down significantly. So he would be requiring that they have that sample before she gets a permit. It can vary and they want to know exactly what the intent is. But based on the current motion, that would still leave the decision to the architectural commission. Commissioner Jonathan noted that ARC only gave preliminary approval, so he thought part of their final approval would be the final approval of the colors in the sample board. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan thought it was their domain and he personally didn't have an issue with anything they have approved and had confidence in what they will approve, so he was okay with the Planning Commission not hearing anything more � about the colors. � Chairperson Tschopp commented that the house itself will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and would help it look a lot better. Given that ARC will be looking at final approval, they can take notice of the remarks and comments by the Planning Commission and he believed that the applicant was also in agreement. He asked for any other comments. There being none, he called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff and adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2331, approving Case No. VAR 05-01, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). :� � � 13 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Oral Update on Outdoor Music and Valet Parking at Augusta Restaurant. Mr. Drell said there were finro issues. He asked if there was a representative from Augusta Restaurant present to come forward. (There was no response.) He said his first reaction to the discussion of the finro issues was, these are the regulations and they had to find a way for Ms. Roberge to comply. He was directed to see if they could work out some middle ground or compromise that would allow both the City's interest and the property owner's interest to go forward. He thought the issue of the valet parking was very different than the issue of the music and noise. Part of the fundamental purpose of how they regulate is to protect the general health and safety, protect the general public from the individual decisions of a particular property owner. In the case of the valet parking, the impact of any decision they might make �,,, in terms of how to regulate valet parking was pretty much confined to the person who makes the choice to go to that restaurant. There's a voluntary decision that people make to go to a restaurant, whether they have good food or bad food, good service or bad service, and if someone doesn't like the services provided by a certain store, you don't go there. What staff learned from the Code people about how the valet is working, is that the lot is being utilized 100%. The lot is full. They have had valet situations where for whatever reasons people avoid the valet, they have an empty lot and everyone parks out on the street where the offstreet parking that was designed for the project wasn't being used. That wasn't the case here. The offstreet parking is being used. So in terms of the way the valet is operating, is it impacting people who are not making a choice to go to that restaurant? He would say no since the cars that end up out on the street end up on the street anyway when the lot is full. The existence of the one-way connection between the front and the back does create some confusion if they have both self-parkers and valet people operating simultaneously. It could be managed. The applicant would rather not have to manage it and thaYs why she's made it for the most part �"`` 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � exclusively valet. To quote his oid boss, he used to say"where's the guy with the gun?" meaning who's forcing them to go to that restaurant? That's one issue. The noise or music issue is a different one. People being disturbed didn't have a choice. It's not a voluntary decision they are making to listen to the music or not listen to the music; therefore, the burden on both the applicant and the City to solve the problem is a little greater since the people being disturbed aren't being given the choice to participate in the music or not. The applicant was proposing, although she had not yet given him the plan, but it turns out her band has had experience with this problem before and there are temporary acoustical barriers and blankets that can be erected. They use them at rock concerts and other situations. He was expecting to get that proposal. He hadn't received it yet, but she said she was going to be submitting it. So at least as an experiment, Ms. Roberge was willing to try acoustical buffering. He told her to tell him so that he could arrange for the Code people to be out there to monitor the music at that time to see if it does �§ bring her down below into the noise standard. In terms of the noise issue, short of a significant amendment to the noise ordinance he saw no way other than noise mitigation to solve that problem, unless they created some special zone around EI Paseo. There was discussion with some Council people and there's a certain ambivalence about discouraging successful businesses that have flourished because of certain things. So staff was open for discussion and some direction that in the Commission's mind whether they would entertain an amendment to the valet permit allowing in essence exclusive use of that small lot for valet as the applicant was requesting. Or the position he originally took with her was these are the rules, obey them. The second would be to give her a little more time on the music for her to respond with a mitigation test and see if that works. Commissioner Campbell stated that she's never had a problem with valet parking and seeks out valet parking because they were there for a purpose , and also the community they live in, they have to think about the age group 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � of the people that don't want to walk and it's available to them right in front of the restaurant. Ms. Roberge built another special parking lot, so for the younger generation, if they are able to walk, they can park their cars over there and walk to the restaurant. But she agreed with Mr. Drell, you go to a restaurant because you like the food and if you don't like the service or anything else that goes with it, don't go there. As far as the noise, they should wait for the barriers. Chairperson Tschopp said that the reason there are codes, the reason they have Planning Commissions that plan for adequate parking, is so that not just the people who use that establishment, but other people who use other establishments on the street are not negatively impacted. And when they say that basically they are going to special condition this place, they're pretty much saying they're going to impact everyone else and thaYs fine. He was opposed to that because if people can't park their cars on her property, they will park other places. And that seemed to go counter to the Planning Commission's job and what code is all about. �,,,,,,, He didn't buy the argument that if they don't like the services, they aren't getting good service, they don't like the food, they will go some place else. And if they don't like the valet parking, go some place else and they'll still have a successful business. If they applied that to every business in town, they wouldn't need to have codes about parking because if they couldn't find parking,they'd go some place else. Maybe La Quinta or Rancho Mirage. The reason they have parking codes is again, not just for that business, but all the ones around it. It also bothered him that valet parking is an implied payment for parking. They can put up all kinds of signs that say it's free, but your car is being held hostage, you need to tip the young person. We made them build a parking lot down the street that is very convenient for young people to park cars and run back to park more cars leaving the close in convenient parking for those of them that like to park their own cars. So he wasn't in favor of that. If another restaurant opens up across the street or if other restaurants open up or other businesses stay open up at night and they need street parking, we've precluded them from having it because we've allowed this person to have special rights that we don't grant to other businesses. So he wasn't for it because he didn't think it was keeping the spirit of providing adequate parking for our customers free of charge. That was his personal opinion. �""' 16 MINUTES & PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 Commissioner Finerty concurred with Chairperson Tschopp. We have our ordinance and our ordinance needs to be applied to everyone. If the ordinance is inappropriate, then the ordinance needs to be changed. When she visited on a Saturday night at 6:00 p.m., there weren't many people in the lot and there were a lot of parking places in the lot, but they weren't allowed to park in the lot. She thought there needed to be a time frame set with regard to compliance with valet, the way our ordinance reads, and there needed to be a time frame of when they would have an idea of how these sound barriers that she is proposing may work. With the issues that are ongoing, it would be helpful to have it done as soon as possible. She thought that Ms. Roberge said she was amenable to having some of the parking open for valet. She asked if there was something that had gone on since then. Mr. Drell said that when Code did their monitoring, it was their impression that there were some spaces open for self parking. What they had observed subsequent to that is that the lots, the entrance from Larrea and the entrance from Portola, have been blocked off. Her request is to use it exclusively for valet. Obviously, the City had the ability to enforce what we � required and say no, but that was her preference. Commissioner Finerty � noted that she didn't state that when she came to speak to the Planning Commission last time. She asked when that happened. Mr. Drell said it happened when he talked to Ms. Roberge subsequent to that and that had been the evidence of what she has been doing. Commissioner Finerty thought maybe if they looked at the times the lot's full, maybe it's later. Mr. Drell said yes, they did their monitoring. Since the purpose of the monitoring was initially to do it for the noise, they did it at 9:00 p.m., 10:00 p.m., 11:00 p.m. Eventually the lot does fill. He went over there at lunch time and there wasn't any valet, but it was full. It was the Commission's pleasure. He asked if there was any consideration of what Ms. Roberge wants. If not, then it goes back to what he told her originally that this is what the ordinance directs them to do and it might very well end up at Council and whether the ordinance gets amended, we'll find out. Commissioner Finerty asked if the valet personnel can run to the other lot, and the other lot has been provided, what is the harm in asking them to use that other lot? Mr. Drell said the valet would charge her a whole lot more. Unfortunately, the other lot wasn't set up as a valet lot, it was set up as an � employee lot. � 17 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � Chairperson Tschopp pointed out that valet parking is a money making anomaly for a business. It does not cost the restaurant owner anything when they get into the books. It is very profitable for a restaurant owner. Mr. Drell said he wasn't arguing either way, he was saying this is what the position was. He was told to explore alternative solutions. If the pleasure of the Commission was simply enforcing the regulation, which was his initial position, that's the way they would proceed. When this project came before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Jonathan said one of the reasons that he approved it was because the applicant was required to provide the additional parking to the south on Portola. He was disappointed that the applicant has flagrantly disobeyed the requirements of the conditions of approval in spite of repeated wamings and citations by the City. When she came before them and when this matter was last before them, they said explore options, alternatives, parking management plans and come back. Let's figure something out. And what he was hearing is that the applicant has come back and said "I'm not willing to do anything." And that was disappointing. To him the solution was so �;�,,,, obvious. They have the south lot. It's not used at all in the evenings. IYs a perfect lot for valet parking. The City's valet parking ordinance says that the most convenient spot shall remain open for those that don't want to use valet parking; therefore, the lot adjacent to the restaurant should not be for valet parking. It should be for non-valet parking. The one to the south is conducive, it's ideal for the valet parking. If they didn't have that, they'd be in a quandary. But they have it, so the solution presents itself clearly in his mind and it's a simple solution to implement. With regard to the parking issue, he'd say hey, there's a violation of the conditions. What we would suggest, or require, is that the south lot be utilized for valet and that the lot directly adjacent to the restaurant be completely available and unobstructed for general customer parking. He thought they needed to stand firm and make that a requirement. With regard to the noise, he thought it did contribute to the restaurant's success. He knew there was some objection in the neighborhood, but it wasn't overwhelming, and again, he was disappointed that those sound walls hadn't been put in place and tested already. He thought that's what they were going to do, but he was willing to give that some more time, too, � 18 MINUTES � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 because he thought there was some compromise and solution out there for that as well. So he was willing to give the noise situation some more time, but he'd want that test to be implemented within 30 days and hear the results and see if they could make it work. So on those two issues, that's where he'd be coming from. Commissioner Lopez said he happened to be there Saturday night. First of all, on the noise and loudness of the band, it is loud and it gets louder as the night goes on. He was sitting there about 8:00 p.m. And it is a talented group of musicians and it is very good, but he noticed as the evening went on that they got louder and louder. The setup they've got was really not conducive to people listening to the music and the people who want to enjoy dancing are behind the band. So it was a really weird setup and there's no need to have the music that loud because you're dancing right next to the band and actually right behind it. But he did think there was a need to review what suggestions Ms. Roberge might have regarding bringing in some type of an acoustic shield or solutions regarding the sound. � Regarding parking, he also believed that the ordinances are there and we established those ordinances and established conditions of approval on all projects and if they find it necessary to enforce noncompliance, then he thought they needed to do that. His concern would be logistically how it would work there. He'd be very concerned about mixing self parking and valet parking on one driveway, especially from 11:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. for people who have been in there enjoying themselves and attempting to navigate through that area along with valet parkers and he wasn't sure that would work. But he thought there was a lot more to it then just evaluating the lots themselves, but logistically how that would work. He thought that needed to be part of the plan. Commissioner Finerty said that if the entrances on Larrea and Portola weren't blocked off, because people could go in there to park, there wouldn't be a nightmare trying to navigate out of that one entrance. Mr. Drell said they would obviously have to clearly designate whichever way it is and which direction the one-way driveway is if they were going to keep it open. Right now valets use it in both directions since when they are using it they are the only ones moving vehicles. So the way the valet works, he assumed when you drive up, the valet takes the car. He asked Commissioner Campbell if 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � she used the valet. She said yes. He asked if she knew if the valet parker took the car out onto Prickly Pear around to Larrea into the lot. Chairperson Tschopp said the valet takes them through the finro buildings to the back. Mr. Drell said then basically the valet pickup is right in front of the door. Chairperson Tschopp and Commissioner Campbell concurred. Chairperson Tschopp said he would almost hazard to say that the problem with the parking is that the valet parking doesn't work on this piece of property because they can't enter the business and they have it blocked off on Larrea and Portola and if they come into the front of the building, they can't get to the parking lot because it's valet only. So the parking works fine there if they get rid of the restrictions on the valet. Commissioner Campbell asked why he said that the valet parkers keep the car hostage. Chairperson Tschopp said that essentially, when you turn a car over to someone in a valet lot, they have no liability. If something happens to your car, and so forth, you can't go after them with any success. Secondly, when you pick the car up you aren't required to tip, but if you like your car you probably want to in order to keep it safe the next time you come to this ;,,,,,,, establishment, potentially. Commissioner Campbell noted that other places like the McCallum have the valet parker and they tell customers it's $5.00 for valet parking. You give them $5.00 first and then go ahead and tip them. But in some places they tell you how much it is for valet parking. Most of the places don't have that. If you want to tip, you tip. Chairperson Tschopp said that in that case you're paying $5.00 up front and if you don't want to tip, you don't have to. Commissioner Campbell noted that was in some places, not everywhere. But this establishment, she starts at 5:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m. or even later and a lot of the businesses over there are already closed. So there is ample parking on the street for people to park. Chairperson Tschopp said they were hoping that's not always the case and that other businesses will stay open later and that perhaps other restaurants open. And if they give special consideration to one place so they are using public parking exclusively, then they preclude others from perhaps having convenient parking and thaYs a problem. Commissioner Jonathan thought the discussion back and forth was exactly the reason they need a parking management plan that provides both valet and non-valet parking. There are people who like valet and people who don't. What we have here is a situation that doesn't offer that choice and our �"" 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 ordinance demands that choice and that's where the problem is. They weren't telling people they shouldn't use valet, but right now the people don't have a choice. If you go to Roy's, they don't have valet; people have to self park there. That's up to the restaurant, but if they are going to offer valet, they can't offer it exclusively, there has to be a choice and that's what our ordinance demands. Commissioner Campbell said that was why she suggested last time that they have the valet take the car in the back. You would pull in there, make a right and there are parking areas right there and also the exit on Prickly Pear. That would be available parking and that's why she had that suggestion last time. Mr. Drell said that is the approved permit. It allows them to reserve one of those spaces in the front for the valet. There weren't that many. Those spaces would be occupied by 5:30 p.m. and the rest of the night they would be full. Regardless of how it is managed, a very successful restaurant has a full parking lot and this site is fortunate in that it has a full block and has a lot of street parking. He said the valet is also using the Post Office parking ,� lot. For some reason logistically for the valet, and he should talk to the valet and find out why, but it's easier for them to cross Portola and go back and ,,,� forth. Again, if a person is insistent on self parking, more than likely they would be parking on the street no matter what because that little parking lot would get full of self parkers very quickly, unless they're there at 7:00 p.m. He said he was looking for a motion. If the decision is to simply enforce the existing permit which requires that at least half of the front lot be available for self parkers, plus all the spaces in front with the exception of one, and then iYs up to the valet to figure out how they were going to use. He didn't think staff wouldn't object to them using the Post Office lot unless the Post Office does, and there's the remote lot. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the Zoning Ordinance allows up to half the lot to be used for valet. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was okay with what Mr. Drell suggested and perhaps add that alternatively, all of the south lot can be designated for valet leaving the restaurant lot completely open to self parking. Either way. Mr. Joy pointed out that valet parking wasn't in the Zoning Ordinance, it's a different part of the Municipal Code. Mr. Drell agreed. Commissioner Jonathan said he would be okay with that and he'd be okay with a 30-day extension allowing a study of noise abatement measures in place. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � Chairperson Tschopp questioned if a motion was necessary. Mr. Drell said he wanted some consensus in terms of the direction to go. If not, he could come back and report. He said he could discuss with the City Attorney how to go about enforcing the ordinance and what actions are appropriate. Commissioner Jonathan said he would make a motion for Mr. Drell to suggest that to Ms. Roberge as a resolution to this matter and if it doesn't happen, then they could have a discussion with the City Attorney. He hoped there was some way they as a Planning Commission can expect enforcement of conditions they impose on applicants. He certainly hoped they didn't come to that. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan asking staff to discuss with Augusta Restaurant compliance with regard to the parking ordinance. The Municipal Code allows up to 50% use of the lot for valet parking and no more. As an alternative, the entire lot could be used for self parking while the southern lot can be used for valet parking. With regard to the noise excess, �, which is a violation of a condition, they would allow another 30 days to test alternatives onsite and come back with recommendations. Chairperson Tschopp asked if that was his motion. Commissioner Jonathan said yes. Commissioner Campbell said they really didn't need a motion. Mr. Drell said he would like a motion. He'd like some specific majority direction from the Commission. Commissioner Campbell said she would go ahead and just enforce the ordinance and then staff could go ahead and decide which lot has to be used and so forth. Mr. Drell thought the way the system works is if there is a documented violation of the ordinance, Code Department issues an abatement notice. He believed that abatement notice could be appealed to the City Council. And that was probably what would happen. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he still wanted a motion from the Commission so he has a sense of the majority. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. "�' 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � Chairperson Tschopp noted there was a motion and a second and asked if there was any other discussion. There was none and he called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell indicated there would be a meeting on April 20. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that they talked about the wall on Fred Waring. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE � Commissioner Finerty stated that the meeting was informational. ,,,� XI. COMMENTS Mr. Drell noted that due to the delays with the Palm Desert Country Club project due to the lawsuit filed by the opposing organization, that delayed the project four or five months past the beginning of the year. Therefore, some of their financing evaporated. They had now, at least temporarily, constructed financing with the existing owner of the course. Staff kind of helped that along by filing an abatement notice against the owner of the course, Mr. Cho, to say either participate in implementing the program/the project, or resume maintenance of the property. Commissioner Lopez noted that the golf course was closed. Mr. Drell concurred. He said they went to court against him and there was a settlement conference where basically, pending some other investors coming forward, Mr. Cho agreed to bankroll the improved rehab of the course. They have R.D. Horton, one of the higher end, high quality housing developers, committed to building the housing. So they've submitted grading plans and they're completing their irrigation plans, so the project is now proceeding. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19 2005 � They are hiring security to secure the golf course which had become kind of a free-for-all kind of an unsupervised public park, so they've proceeded to try and get control of that. So the project is moving forward. XI1. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. r__-,_"```--T� . __ ___ lla.._� PHILIP DREL , Secretary ATTEST: 5 ����� __.� ^ � ��___.�_.--�----�''� C-s DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � 24