Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0719 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - JULY 19, 2005 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tschopp called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Dave Tschopp, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty r.. Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Staff Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the June 21, 2005 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Tschopp, approving the June 21, 2005 meeting minutes. Motion carried 2-0-1-2 (Commissioner Lopez absent, Commissioners Campbell and Jonathan �.. abstained). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent June 23, July 7 and July 14, 2005 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. .,,. A. Case No. PP 05-01 - GARY CARDIFF/CARDIFF LIMOUSINE AND TRANSPORTATION, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to construct a parking lot for buses and employees, a fuel dispensing island with above ground fuel tanks, and future (Phase II) construction of a 3,322 square foot building with three bays for cleaning and washing vehicles. Project site is adjacent to Cardiff Limousine and Transportation's existing offices and vehicle storage and repair facility at 75-255 Sheryl Avenue. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report. He also stated that he received a call from the adjacent property owner to the north who was proposing to develop offices on the vacant property to the north. He was concerned about where the employees for the expansion would park. Mr. Urbina explained that the personal vehicles would be parked where the buses and vans would be parked during the work day. That property owner was concerned that there were already too many people parked on the street in this industrial area. 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 That is how it was proposed to be addressed. Mr. Urbina recommended approval of Case No. PP 05-01, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this would have access to the existing Cardiff facility. Mr. Urbina said yes. There would be a 24-foot wide opening. He confirmed it would remain open during business hours. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the Fire Marshal has a requirement for dead-ends greater than 150 feet to provide adequate circulation. He asked if that had been considered. Mr. Urbina replied yes and indicated this would be the secondary access. In addition, the Fire Marshal also requested a second fire hydrant which would be in close proximity to the fuel storage tanks. Regarding the elevations showing the building from Sheryl, Commissioner Jonathan asked if the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) addressed that particular view. In terms of what was visible, that side looked a bit on the plain side. He asked if that was specifically addressed. Mr. Urbina stated that since the building was going to be located over 120 feet back from Sheryl `. Avenue and since on Sheryl Avenue for the first eight feet they would see an eight-foot high stucco wall with blue fluted block and since this is an industrial area, ARC gave preliminary approval as submitted. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he recalled if they specifically addressed that issue, the view from Sheryl. Mr. Urbina said no. Regarding the road to the back, Chairperson Tschopp asked if it was owned by the Coachella Valley Water District and if the chain-link fence was also owned by them. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. Along the southerly property line there's an existing chain-link fence with barbed wire. On the other side was an unpaved access road to the Coachella Valley Water District sanitation property. Chairperson Tschopp asked if that was a restricted access road for CVWD's use only. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. That road was only depressed from the proposed finished grade of this site. There would be no access from this site to that road. Chairperson Tschopp asked if he could ever envision that being a public access in the future for any purpose. Mr. Urbina said no. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19. 2005 Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. GARY CARDIFF, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He described the project and what would be seen from Sheryl, noting that the blue strip would be included, which was similar to his other building. He also described the access and circulation. As a follow up, Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was room to plant some trees that over time would go up that wall. Mr. Cardiff showed where trees were planned. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were trees that over time would get taller. Mr. Cardiff concurred. Chairperson Tschopp asked how he planned to handle the logistics of having r j employees drive in, move a van or bus out, and then park their cars and get back in the van or bus. He noted that it was a little more than most employees would do to park their cars and asked if they would end up parking on the streets. Mr. Cardiff explained that the biggest problem was with buses and what they were doing was leaving a couple of parking spaces empty at all times for employees that get their paperwork, get their vehicle, and pull into the lot before they move a bus. Also, they've actually got the spacing as tight as they could to fit vehicles. They were going to adjust the spacing on the new property to make it a little easier for the ingress and egress of the vehicles. So there would be plenty of room to pull out and move vehicles the way they had it set up. In fact, they were actually going to set it up for three or four spaces if they wanted. Some of the buses were gone for weeks at a time. He has one bus gone for two months at a time right now. A lot of times the big stuff wouldn't be there. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19 2005 Chairperson Tschopp asked for confirmation that Mr. Cardiff didn't anticipate any problems with employees parking on the property. Mr. Cardiff replied no and said it was one of the reasons they were building this. It was one of his main reasons for wanting this here. Commissioner Jonathan noted that some of Mr. Cardiff's employees park on Sheryl almost down to Cook Street, so when it was this hot, they would be motivated to park in the lot. Mr. Cardiff agreed. He said they didn't like the walk. There were no other Commission comments and Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. SAM ESPOSITO, 75-165 Sheryl Avenue in Palm Desert, informed Commission that he was speaking on behalf of the owner of that property next door. Initially they were opposed to the project. Some of their concerns had been addressed. It seemed they had considered these items. One thing they were concerned about was the traffic. They have a warehouse there and a showroom. They do interior design. They have a lot of people from the public coming in. Concern number one was the traffic problem. Number two were the fuel tanks. They were concerned they would be against the wall on their side and that would create not only a safety hazard as far as fumes, but also because they have people coming in and out, radios and cell phones. It was a safety concern. The other item would be the car wash. He believed it would be on their side, so the height, activity and noise were concerns. The block wall would help a lot, but their concern would be the chain-link fence on top. He thought it would be nice if they could paint it, put slats in it, and try to cut down on some of the noise and activity that would be non-conducive to their business. Those were the main concerns. He thought they were well- founded and important, so he wanted to present them. Commissioner Jonathan asked which business he was referring to. �" 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19. 2005 4 Mr. Esposito said it was called Art in Nature by Beatrice. They have been there over a year. He said it was a very nice showroom, high quality with a lot of customers and the heavy traffic load created a problem for parking. With the activity, the concern was a negative impact on their clientele because of that increased activity. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that Mr. Esposito's trucks are currently parked on Sheryl, Melanie, Caroline Court and asked if his business had inadequate parking for his needs. Mr. Esposito said he couldn't answer that, he would have to defer it. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Esposito was concerned about traffic, so he was trying to see who was creating the traffic impact. He said he has an office near there, so he sees the trucks all over those three streets. He had been meaning to ask staff about it, because it is a huge, significant use. They are parking really far from the business and asked him to think about it because it wasn't just one person who creates an impact on traffic and parking, it's usually a combination of several businesses. Mr. Esposito said he understood. MR. MAURICE NORIEGA, on behalf of Beatrice Cordero, Art in Nature, addressed the Commission. He said that in regards to the parking, the trucks sometimes do park on the street because they are in and out. They also park on the premises as well. They have eight parking spaces at the front of the building, plus four more inside the building, and the yard is used for parking. He said the parking is definitely a problem on Sheryl already. They have 15 employees. They have a car wash down the street and other businesses across the street and it is a difficult problem. They also have another problem at the intersection of Cook Street and Sheryl. There is no light there, stop sign or anything. It is already becoming very dangerous to go in and out of Sheryl. If they were going to add more traffic to it, he thought it should be reconsidered. He asked if an environmental impact report was done for this project. He noted that staff was exempting this project per Section 15.332 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19 2005 Class 32 infill development projects. He thought it was interesting to see that Class 32 consists of structures as infill development, meaning the conditions described in the section. On "D," it also said that approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality, which he thought all applied to this facility. Another concern was the chain-link fence. Mr. Nodega said he believed he currently has an eight-foot high block wall fence and chain-link on top of that. If they were going to have buses parked next to that fence, he didn't think it was high enough. There were going to be problems with fumes escaping from those buses. They do have employees that work out in the yard and they have people coming to their showroom during business hours. Sometimes their employees would stay later depending on their needs. So that was definitely a concern. And he didn't think anyone would be happy to know they were getting a gas tank next to their building. He said if someone could answer the question as to why this was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, he would like to hear a response. He thanked them. There was no one else wishing to speak regarding the project. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the applicant had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Cardiff readdressed the Commission. He noted that the project engineer was also present who was in charge of the fuel tank, who could also answer some of the environmental issues. Regarding the fuel tank, he pointed out that this is an industrial area. Several other entities in the industrial area have fuel tanks, one of them being the City of Palm Desert's Yard, which has two medium sized fuel tanks 200 feet from the back of a condominium complex. Avis has a medium sized fuel tank within 50 feet of an office building. The fuel tank is above ground, it wasn't below ground. That was why they did that; there were no environmental issues in that there is a concrete basin around it. It is to code. It would be a dual side tank, which was also to code. %NW 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 .ri Regarding the fence, the fence next to his property is a six-foot high block wall with another two feet of chain-link and barbed wire on top of that. What they did with their eight-foot block wall coming back is it was brought back to match up with the six-foot wall and chain-link to make it even across. On the other side they brought it back eight- feet to the current fence where his current property is located. On both sides the wall was kept consistent with what is already there. A problem with traffic was mentioned. One of the reasons for the yard is to cut down on the traffic on the street and keep their equipment and employees on property. They actually have a house rule/ employee rule. And he actually saw a new employee leave the property that day the wrong way and he got called back. They don't allow any employee to leave their yard and make a left to Sheryl because it is a busy street and to make a left onto Cook, they really couldn't do it. So all their equipment and employees always go right and use the Merle light for safety. He offered to have his engineer speak if there were any questions regarding the hazards of the fuel station. He said that was the whole reason they were in the industrial area and they put it on the opposite side from the Art in Nature's side of the property to keep it as far away as possible. He thought that covered everything. Chairperson Tschopp noted that there was also a concern about the noise from the truck wash. Mr. Cardiff explained that this was the second phase, probably two years away, but the way it would be set up is there is a block wall and the entrance to that would be facing his own property totally facing away from the Art in Nature property. There would be walls on all three sides of the building with two bays for backing in and doing the washing of the buses inside the building, not outside. Using the displayed map he showed where the water recovery equipment would go and any additional storage they might need. So they had two bays plus storage and the water recovery. They set it up to keep any noise away from the property line. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 Chairperson Tschopp asked if there would be any increase in traffic. Mr. Cardiff's feeling was that it would cut back on the street traffic because everything that was his would stay on his property. But again, the speaker for Art in Nature said he only has eight spaces and 15 employees, plus he didn't know how many vehicles were parked on the street. Mr. Cardiff said he himself keeps all of his equipment off the street. Once in a great while they've had to move stuff, but then it was pulled right back onto their property. It wasn't left on the street. There was also a TV station. Most of their employees were on property. The people next to him also parked out on the street, as well as the car wash down the street, etc. So that was one of the main reasons for this request, to mitigate it and keep it on property. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the Commission would like to hear from the fuel engineer. (They didn't.) Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was a suggestion that the aluminum slats be placed within the chain-link fence. He asked if there was any reason not to do that. Mr. Cardiff said no, but he would have thought that if they didn't like the view they would have done it already because they look right onto his property from where they are. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he misunderstood--he thought they were taking the wall up from six feet to eight feet. Mr. Cardiff said that basically their six-foot wall goes all the way back and on top of that is two feet of chain-link and then they have a lower wall that is about four feet tall. So he was bringing his eight-foot wall all the way down, running it inside their four-foot wall back to a trash enclosure which he believed was five feet. Using the display map, he pointed out the location of their six-foot wall, said his eight-foot wall comes back and steps down to six feet by their trash enclosure, and then to make it consistent added chain-link to an eight-foot height. %NW 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 woo Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that they were creating an eight-foot wall. Mr. Cardiff said yes, back to where their five and six-foot walls were and they matched it with the height and chain-link, same as theirs, so there was consistency. Instead of 41 feet of eight-foot wall and then they go in to match their height instead of bringing eight-feet right up to their chain-link. There were no other questions. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell felt the applicant had done everything in his power to be a good neighbor and keep the traffic away from the street. When Art in Nature located there, Cardiff was already there. Also, Architectural Review approved the buildings and she moved for approval of the project. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Her one concern had to do with the chain- link fence and if for some reason there was opposition by Art in Nature and Cardiff was only trying to match the chain-link fence, perhaps there could be some agreement where it would be all eight-foot block wall. Commissioner Jonathan was in agreement. He thought the proposed application would actually enhance the neighborhood and relieve the area of some of the problems that have been discussed tonight. He also thought the use was appropriate for not only the service industrial zoning, but for that particular area. He was in favor. Regarding the chain-link versus the eight- foot block wall, he thought the applicant did a great job and if there was going to be an agreement to enhance it further, he would not object, but he didn't see a need to make it a condition. He thought it was fine the way it was and if they agreed to enhance it, that was fine, too. Chairperson Tschopp concurred. He noted that there was a motion and asked for a second. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2340, approving PP 05-01, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. PP 05-10 - SRW INVESTMENTS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to allow a two- story, four unit apartment complex within the R-3, S.O. zone at 73-692 Santa Rosa Way. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. CHRIS MILLS, the architect for the project, addressed the Commission. He said he was present to answer any questions and to `r let the Commission know that staff was extremely helpful in helping to get them to this point. He thanked them. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Finerty thought it enhanced the area and moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Commissioner Jonathan commented that anything new on Santa Rosa Way would be an improvement to the neighborhood. That was an area in need of some assistance and this goes way beyond the minimum. He thought it was a wonderful project and commended the applicant and the architect for proposing it. Chairperson Tschopp concurred and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. �.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2341, approving PP 05-10, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. PP 05-11 - PREST/VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,813 square foot Jack in the Box restaurant (with drive thru) located at the northwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street (vacant land north of ARCO) at 36-555 Cook Street. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. SAM SPINELLO, 75-600 Mary Lane in Indian Wells, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He said his architect, Mr. Dave Prest of Vuksic Prest, was present to answer any questions about the project. He noted that in moving through their architectural review application, they processed it as Fountainhead Spinello Limited Partnership. Tonight it was Prest Vuksic as the applicant. They were their contacts. It was just a technicality. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Action: Commissioner Finerty stated that she was very pleased with the architecture for a fast food restaurant. She said she would move for approval and she liked staffs suggestion that there be a total of six trees on the north drive-up lane. Commissioner Jonathan seconded the motion and said he's seen custom homes that didn't look as good. He thought it was wonderful and that there 12 °1� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19 2005 had been a very good compliance with what they have in mind for fast food restaurants in the freeway overlay zone and that they did a good job. Commissioner Campbell concurred. She thought the architecture was excellent and didn't think anyone could complain about Palm Desert not having a drive-thru restaurant. Chairperson Tschopp agreed with his fellow commissioners. He asked who could be opposed to something that Commissioner Finerty voted approval on that had a drive-thru. He called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2342, approving PP 05-11, subject to conditions. D. Case No. PP 05-03 and TPM 33736 - PALM DESERT ASSOCIATES, Applicant a.. Request for approval of a precise plan of design for 11 buildings totaling 64,707 square feet and a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 4.97-acre parcel into 11 lots located at 73- 800 Dinah Shore Drive. Commissioner Jonathan advised that he would be abstaining from the discussion and voting on this matter and left the room. Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of Case Nos. PP 05-03 and TPM 33736, subject to conditions. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. THOMAS GILMER, 701 S. Parker, Suite 100 in Orange, California, addressed the Commission. He said that during the process of architectural review and the other Planning Department meetings they've had, they finally came to the conclusion that the widening of Dinah Shore was one of the important things here, so 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 they went ahead and modified their plan in such a way to create the deceleration lane across the entire width of their property. That particular issue, which had not been brought up previously, they were willing to acquiesce to and that would be incorporated into their site plan. Chairperson Tschopp asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Action: Commissioner Finerty thought it looked like a nice development, it was one story, and moved for approval. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion, noting that she preferred the colors on the palette versus the ones on paper. Chairperson Tschopp thought it would be a nice addition to that area and called for the vote. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Commissioner Lopez absent, Commissioner Jonathan abstained.) It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2343, approving PP 05-03 and TPM 33736, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Commissioner Lopez absent, Commissioner Jonathan abstained). COMMISSIONER JONATHAN REJOINED THE MEETING. E. Case No. PP/CUP 05-08 - DELGADOIRODRIGUEZ, Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit to raze the existing restaurant/retail buildings and construct a two-story resta u ra nt/reta i[/office complex with parking adjustment on property located at 73-703 Highway 111. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report in detail. He noted that the proposed project was scheduled to go before the Retail Committee in early August. In addition, given the positive impacts seen with this project, staff wanted to 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 encourage the Redevelopment Agency to get involved in the process to see if that Agency's participation couldn't reduce somewhat the second story office required to create the revenue stream that the applicant indicated would be necessary to make this project viable. To allow the applicant to go before the Retail Committee and the opportunity for substantive discussions with the Redevelopment Agency to see if there was any opportunity for participation, staff recommended that the matter be continued to August 16, 2005. Commissioner Campbell asked when Pete Carlson's had parking lots sales, if he had a license or conditional use permit to have them. Mr. Smith clarified that they were temporary use permits. Commissioner Campbell asked how many spaces he usually used. Mr. Smith didn't know, but guessed three or four. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was usually a truck for golf putting and he had it for the whole day or weekend. Mr. Smith indicated that the maximum was ten days per year. Commissioner Campbell asked if the permit was for the whole day when it was there. Mr. Smith said he was entitled to ask for the entire day, yes. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RON LIBERMAN, 38-757 Lobelia Circle in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He said the applicants were also present. He felt that the project was enhancing the area by removing the existing buildings and preparing a new building with the interpretation of this colonial Spanish design. They were providing for development that would be replacing existing uses. The existing Las Casuelas Cafe, Monsoon Restaurant, and then a few of the existing retail users. There was a mix of types of uses or tenants. No one would know until this was developed, built and leased out who those tenants would be, but they were making an assumption that there would be a mix of mainly retail. The retail could end up being two-story. It could either be retail first floor and second floor. There could be a tenant that wants a mezzanine that has a two-story with a mezzanine showroom. They just weren't sure yet how that would work. As far as the impact that was referred to as additional office space, that was an �— 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19. 2005 i woo assumption. They weren't sure if that would be office or retail or something else. At this point they were also proposing a center courtyard. A very attractive open air center courtyard. He believed that some of the square footages that were quoted tonight and in the staff report really referred to gross square footages and some of those square footages included the patio. The real usable space was considerably less than what's been indicated. As far as the overall usage of the buildable area, it has already been reduced by 1,000 square feet in architectural review. They obviously accommodated their requirements for landscaping in the frontage on Highway 111, so they've actually already accommodated and given up about 1,000 square feet for that. As far as the overall project net, meaning usable space or actually usable space without wall thickness, without lobbies and so forth it was closer to 18,000 square feet. Also, he believed that logically they believed as folks come to the City to use this property or this new development, it would not really change the way they view it in real life. There's going to be 'Y' amount of customers using the restaurant for lunch. They know that during peak season it would probably be used a bit more than off season. They knew that logically speaking, and they specialize in restaurant design all over the country, that folks that visit restaurants usually come an average of three in a car. Every seat in the restaurant, and it would be nice if it could be 100%, but obviously there were deuces sitting at four tops and so forth. So when they really started to look at the logic, and he shared all of this with the Planning folks, he just didn't see the impact on the parking as what's been mentioned. There would be a bit more square footage to the project, to the new development, but as far as the impact, they were talking probably about an hour or hour and a half during the lunch period during the peak season. And if there was an impact, it would only be during that period and they didn't believe on a logical level that it would really impact the parking to a significant level. He has used that parking lot for years and he has never had a problem, even in peak season. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 They did a report, and he said he didn't know if they were interested, but they color-coded it and showed a considerable amount of open parking spaces during that April date where when they looked at the overall 423 and 60-odd in the front spaces, it might change during peak times and during peak season where there are considerable amounts of vacant parking. MR. RAY RODRIGUEZ, 39-417 Palace Drive addressed the Commission. He said he wanted to address the parking comments and thanked Mr. Smith and Mr. Drell for their work on this project. He thought they had improved it. He said they were in agreement in general with the staff evaluation and direction, with one exception. He didn't believe the staff had correctly waived the impact of having a rental car agency on property. It was a very incompatible use for that area and one which they inherited as owners of the property. To give a brief history, another incompatible use was the Domino's Pizza onsite that they inherited. Knowing the owner, they gave him a two-year window to find a more appropriate spot because there were multiple vehicles coming in at different speeds and there was not a lot of what he considered professional management supervision onsite. They tended to be younger kids, and they were doing their best, but they were younger kids. So they were able to find a more appropriate site on Deep Canyon and Highway 111. Again, their inclination is to improve their neighborhood rather than clutter it up or make it worse. They felt that this project would dramatically improve the neighborhood, not just visually and economically, but they felt adamantly that having a rental car agency onsite, which has confirmed to him and to the staff that on a typical day they would process 40 to 50 vehicles. They didn't see large trucks coming in dropping off these vehicles. They were there. They were allowed 20. There had been issues with them in the past. He said it's fairly commonly held that they use more than 20 and they've admitted it. They have admitted it to staff. He felt that perhaps that hasn't been properly weighed and that would be the only place where they see a real difference with the staff recommendation. Living there and seeing it every day, having all their neighbors like Pete Carlson, Edith Morre, "� 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 t WWI J. Russell Salon and even the small proprietors like Tony Belmaggio, the beauty boys across the parking lot. He doubted the Commission would see anyone present in opposition to this and they knew all about it. This is their neighborhood and those were their neighbors. They certainly weren't trying to detract or negatively impact the area. Their intention, and he believed what they would achieve through the project is actually to eliminate some of the parking issue there and greatly enhance the area. MR. JOAQUIN DELGADO, 42 Clancy Lane South in Rancho Mirage, addressed the Commission. He agreed with Mr. Rodriguez. He just wanted to add one thing. The staff report was well thought out and very thorough and he thought it had many good points, but one thing to him that didn't quite make 100% good sense was they only got credit for two parking spaces once Enterprise Rent A Car left. Only two out of a whole day of 40 to 50. He couldn't imagine that there were only two in the full day. Maybe there were one or two days, perhaps, but on an unusual day there could be more. As Mr. Rodriguez pointed out, Enterprise is permitted contractually with them to have 20 parking spaces there and he believed they usually do almost the entire time they are open, including the lunch time. So he would like for them to really look at that hard and strong to see if two really gave them sufficient credit and he didn't think after they admitted to having 40 to 50 that they only get two credits for the lunch period between 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. or so. He thanked them. Mr. Liberman had more items he said were shared with Planning. He said they highlighted the fact that the existing restaurants were approximately the same size as the new project. Obviously Monsoon was not changing in size or seating capacity. The patio is a bit larger, but obviously there was a bit more seating and a lot of open space in the patio in the courtyard. He said that obviously patios are not used all year round, so there are some variations. The restaurant kitchen is considerably larger. What they deal with right now isn't adequate. Back of the house services and their office space is considerably larger, so when they look at the actual public space, it pretty much held to what was there now. The restaurant 18 will MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 would never be 100% seated and he thought they had to acknowledge that. The dinner period was not really in question because the office space or retail space may or may not be used at that period. He noted they talked about the peak season and the employees parking off premises during the peak season and during the lunch period where it's impacted. For the large group of office or retail tenants, he assumed their customers would be parking in one place and using the different facilities. So they could walk down the street and do various other visits to other tenants. So it wasn't that this development would be bringing that particular car to the parking lot. They would be using that whole President's Plaza area for other uses. They also talked about the folks working there, or the employees of the restaurant, and a lot of those folks right now ride bikes or take buses to work, or drive two or three to a car, so he just wanted to share a few of these things that they felt was important as far as why they think logically the project, including the additional square footage, was not going to impact the parking lot dramatically. He thanked them. Commissioner Jonathan said he has complained for years that Palm Desert is the unwanted stepchild. Palm Springs has a beautiful facility, Rancho Mirage, and La Quinta. He said Palm Desert gets great food, great service and great company, but the facility has been lacking. Having said all that, the applicants were in business to be in business. They knew that having inadequate parking was not pleasant for their customers, so they've thought this through. He wanted to ask them an honest question and asked for an honest answer. In their heart of hearts, he asked what they thought would be the result of this new facility, if it goes through, on the parking situation as they have evaluated that issue in terms of their own business. Mr. Rodriguez said he felt very comfortable speaking to that. In his heart of hearts, the primary parking impact that this project would have is as it has been designed. It will be during the evening. They would take a parking lot that is empty and would be able to significantly alter that. This is designed for evening use. Was he %NNW 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 saying that nobody would ever look for a parking spot on a busy day in March? It happens, but he didn't think they were creating anything more than what they had now. He honestly thought they were opening it up. Additionally, having the employees park off premise during peak times, it was amazing how much space they take up. He really thought they would have a positive impact and that's exactly the spirit they designed this in. So he hoped that answered that. Commissioner Jonathan thanked him. Mr. Delgado also looked at it long and hard and in his heart of hearts believed by eliminating Enterprise Rent A Car, he felt minimum they could be losing 20 spaces during lunch and that was his honest and wholehearted feeling. And with the employees, 14, that would be off premise as well, with this project he felt they had addressed the parking sufficiently. He thanked them. Mr. Rodriguez had one last comment, which had been alluded to. He said the guy who manages Casuelas Cafe is known to be a pretty big ./ mouth and he could guarantee that all his neighbors have known for many years of these plans. And he guaranteed that they all knew about this meeting tonight and he would let their silence speak as support for this because if there was concern in their neighborhood that this would negatively impact them, they were the ones who live there and whose livelihood depends on this area. They all know his neighbor retailers. If they had concern over this, they would be here. He had spoken to most of them on this specifically and directly and he knew they received the notice because a couple of them called him and asked if they should come down in support and he said maybe not; not yet. He thanked them. Chairperson Tschopp understood that it doesn't include Monsoon Restaurant. He asked if there was a reason for that. The rendition given to them was so beautiful he wanted to know if there was a way to incorporate that into this. Mr. Rodriguez said they have from a facade standpoint. They have re- facaded Monsoon's to match the new architecture. The reason they 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 *.r were not rebuilding is because that would put them out of business. They would have to close while they tore down the building to rebuild it. Neither he nor his partner felt comfortable putting someone out of business. They have an active lease there and they were doing their best to make them match the new architecture. They looked at it as potentially a project for another day. Chairperson Tschopp thanked him. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that this was an application he really looked at long and hard, and maybe this was a night of firsts. In his mind, they were going from 10,000 to 22,000 square feet. That in and of itself would create additional parking demand. There were definitely offsets. He thought the rental car business was very important and to some extent the Domino's. The net effect was that there would be some impact on parking, but Mr. Smith said it himself. He thought it was important to weigh the positive impacts against the impacts on other businesses, which was paraphrased if not a direct quote. So he actually tried to do that. In his mind this is a situation, because it would be such an enhancement to the city to that particular area aesthetically and economically, in his mind the positives of this application far outweighed the negatives. He thought there would be a modest negative impact on the parking, but thought there was a possibility of dealing with that impact through other channels and he wouldn't even want to hold this application up. He thought that if the City wanted to look at improving the overall situation, which is not just this applicant's problem, that whole area has created a parking shortage and he guessed that was kind of a good thing. Business is good and people are here, but if RDA and the Parking Authority wanted to look at this and maybe even purchase some property there and create additional parking there, that was something they could look at a later time. But he didn't see that that was a reason to postpone this project. The bottom line was he looked at the positives that this will bring to the city and the community in that particular area and weighed that against the '"" 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19. 2005 ..ri potential negative impacts and in his mind the positives far outweighed the negatives and he was prepared to move for approval at the appropriate time. Commissioner Finerty concurred. The architecture was awesome and she would hate to be in the way of preventing such a great revitalization that this area really needed. She was also persuaded by Mr. Rodriguez's statements about Enterprise Rent A Car. It did seem that credit should be given for more than just two spaces if they do process 40 to 50 rental cars a day. She knew also that his statement about the silence of the fellow businesses spoke volumes. If there was an overall concern, because everyone here would be impacted, yes, they would be here and they weren't. She thought because of those two issues combined with the wonderful architecture, she was persuaded to move forward. Commissioner Campbell agreed. She didn't think a developer should be penalized for improving his property. Also, as retailers they want their parking lots to be full. Their customers do come in and say, oh, there's no place to park. But yesterday she had someone come from out of town walking on El Paseo and say, I thought this was the Rodeo Drive of the Desert and asked where everyone was. So people who do come to the desert, even the tourists, want to see busy parking lots and somewhere they can't find a parking place close by. She thought they were very spoiled right now by giving their customers a parking place right in front. If anybody wanted to go to a certain place, they should park and walk. She agreed with Mr. Rodriguez that people can park somewhere and stay put and go to the other locations and what an improvement in that area this would be. Also, everyone was talking about the car rental business, but there was also the nail place. They have five employees and five customers, so there were ten people there and people waiting. So she was in agreement with her fellow commissioners for approval. Chairperson Tschopp said there was absolutely no doubt that this would be a significant improvement to the area and he would love to see it happen. He would like to see it happen tomorrow. But he still had some questions over the parking. And that was his only concern. He would love to see this happen. It would be a great addition to the area. His concerns had to do with parking. He thought that City staff had been very liberal and very optimistic in trying to count the cars. He also thought the applicants have done their 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 best and shown their willingness to work to get the parking, the shuttle and so forth. But even in the very best of times, the optimism that staff has and the liberal count they made, the applicant's willingness to use a shuttle and being creative and freeing up some parking spaces wasn't going to be enough. This is a very popular restaurant. This is a very well known, frequented restaurant. It will be more successful once they improve it. That success would breed more people going to it. They were adding a significant number of seats. More people would go to it not just at night, but also during the day. Right now they have an area there that is truly over parked and they were pushing the limit at times. If he is a retailer anywhere in the vicinity, once they do this beautiful project, he would stay open later and get some of that business they would draw in there at night that they haven't gotten so far. He thought it would create a worse problem for parking, but he wanted to see the project go forward. He asked his fellow commissioners to give some thought to the staffs recommendation to ask the applicant to meet with staff again, to meet with the RDA, to sit down and see if they could come up with w.. a way to make this happen and happen in a fairly relatively quick period of time. But see if there's a way the City and applicant can come together and come up with a true way to take care of the parking problem over there and make this happen. So he wasn't opposed to the project. He was opposed to the parking and would like to see them continue it so they could take time to look at the parking and try to come up with a real, viable solution so that this successful restaurant that would only be more successful and generate more business for the entire area will have a positive impact as opposed to a negative impact. Commissioner Finerty asked if the applicant had any concern with Planning Commission postponing their decision until they have had a chance to meet with the Retail Committee and RDA. Mr. Rodriguez said obviously, as had been voiced by a few of the Commissioners, they would like to expedite this. They had the opportunity to enjoy four meetings with architecture review based on some planter suggestions they made and they acquiesced to those. Four times through that let them know that they may or may not be successful the first time through, but certainly they would like to 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 t j expedite it. They had their financing lined up. As Commission knew, that landscape is changing rapidly right now. They have had it lined up for quite a while. He knew that staff would like them to go through RDA. He said they could call it a little bit of a philosophical purest, because that's what the Director called him, but he thought public funds were for things like the YMCA and for people who couldn't do for themselves and for areas that cannot carry the ball to the end zone. They have that ability. They were willing to make the investment. They were willing to take the risk. He says leave those public funds to those that need a helping hand and he would very much like to see this expedited. Commissioner Jonathan understood where the applicant was coming from and shared Chairman Tschopp's concerns and tried to make that clear at the beginning, that he too has those concerns, but he was trying to do the balancing act and looking at the positives versus the potential negatives. He thought the solution might enable them to have their cake and eat it too. rr% Action: He said the motion he would make would be to approve the project before them, but at the same time to make a recommendation to the City to work not only with the applicant, but all the surrounding businesses. He thought this was a bigger issue than just the application before them. They aren't the only ones that have an impact on the situation and, therefore, he didn't believe the burden of solving the problem, an already existing problem, should be placed on this one applicant. His suggestion was to let this go forward because it is such a positive for the city, but at the same time also make a recommendation and request that the City look at this issue, work with all the property owners, RDA and the Parking Authority to create a comprehensive solution for President's Plaza. That would be the motion. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. She appreciated Mr. Rodriguez's statement about wanting to do it on their own and admired that. Chairperson Tschopp again said that he wasn't in favor of moving forward at this time. However, it is a beautiful project and he thanked them for bringing it to them. He believed strongly that everyone would be better a 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 r..r served if everyone could sit down with staff, with RDA, and hammer out something sooner rather than later. He would vote no because he would like to see them continue this for 30 days and have them come back and that would be sufficient time in his mind for this to move forward. Commissioner Finerty noted that they didn't have a resolution of approval. Mr. Smith said that was correct. He asked if this was a direction to come up with a resolution of approval. That's the way he was viewing it. Commissioner Finerty said they could do that in the 30 days. Commissioner Jonathan said his concern is they have been here before and if they just continued it, it had a way of being continued and continued again and readdressing issues and new issues pop up. He was right, that would give them some time to find out, but he didn't really want to revisit the issue just because they didn't have a written resolution. If they needed to direct staff to prepare a written resolution, that was fine, but his hope was that if they approve this, they just ministerially approve the wording at the next meeting. Mr. Smith asked if it included the condition requiring the shuttle. Commissioner Jonathan said yes, absolutely. Mr. Smith said there were probably others, but he didn't have it in front of him at the moment. Commissioner Finerty thought that if staff was directed to prepare a resolution, they would have time to review the conditions and if there was something that was lacking, they could add it at that time. Mr. Hargreaves also suggested that they reopen the public hearing if in fact they were going to continue it. Commissioner Jonathan said he was trying not to continue it. The only question is they don't have the wording for the resolution of approval. Mr. Hargreaves said that unless they wanted to sit there and draft it, they didn't have the final action they were prepared to take which meant they were going to have to come back at a future date and take that final action. The problem was if they closed the public hearing at this point, if anything changed or if there were any comments with respect to the conditions of approval, it made it really awkward. Commissioner Jonathan said that if they needed to keep the public hearing open, then he would amend his motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution and have it ready for the next meeting, which was the first meeting in August. He would keep the public hearing open until then. He would also suggest, %M" 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 ri because this has happened before when they were ready to take action, that staff be ready with alternative resolutions in the future in the event they disagree with the staff recommendation,they would be able to move forward rather than postponing action. Commissioner Finerty asked Commissioner Jonathan if there was any problem with having the resolution of approval at the second meeting in August, thereby giving the applicant that 30-day window to meet with the Retail Committee and the Redevelopment Agency just in case there is anything they might want to put into it. Commissioner Jonathan said it was up to them, but he personally has gone through the process, the applicant has gone through the process including four meetings with ARC, and he was just trying to move it along and avoid rehashing and re-meeting and all of that and sending them to additional committees which then created additional input at their next meeting and so forth. Commissioner Finerty thought the applicant had a strong signal that they are in favor. Because they don't have the resolution for approval, perhaps it would be better to put it off. She asked if two weeks in August would make that much of a difference to the applicant, because that's what they were looking at. Mr. Rodriguez appreciated their enthusiasm for the project and if it was two weeks, it'll be two weeks. They could live with that. They were obviously hoping for approval at this evening, but if it was in two weeks they understood that and would be back in two weeks. Commissioner Finerty clarified that if they could wait until the second meeting in August, they would have had the opportunity to meet with the Retail Committee. Mr. Rodriguez said it was his understanding that the Retail Committee would meet August 1. He asked if the Planning Commission's meeting was after that. Commissioner Finerty thought it was the 2nd. Chairperson Tschopp stated that the meeting dates in August were the 2nd and 16th. Commissioner Finerty explained that they would have to have a staff report and they receive their packets the Friday before, so they would have to have it before. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 So her question to him was if it was an inconvenience for him to have to wait until the August 16 meeting to approve the project. Mr. Rodriguez said given the question, it was a huge inconvenience, yes. Is it something they would work within the spirit of wanting to work with their fair city? Sure, they live here and love this place. If this is what it was going to take. They want unanimous approval. If this was what it would take to make the project appear more acceptable to the Chair or any other reservations they might have, they wanted to do the best thing they could here. Commissioner Finerty noted that was the two-week delay she was originally talking about, from August 2 to August 16. Mr. Rodriguez concurred. In case the public hearing didn't get continued, Mr. Smith noted for the record that there was one letter of objection that inadvertently was left out of their packets. It was from a Michael Vanno, signed Papas and Vanno, who expressed concerned about congestion in the parking lot and he felt it was mostly provided by Enterprise Rent A Car and he's had issues with Code Compliance. Chairperson Tschopp noted that there was a motion and a second on the floor. Commissioner Jonathan revised it to continue the matter to the first meeting in August to give staff an opportunity to prepare a resolution of approval. He asked if the Commission wanted him to revise that to the second meeting in August. They concurred. Commissioner Jonathan did that. Commissioner Campbell wanted to make sure that the resolution of approval took place at the second meeting, on the 16th, and not have a continuance after that because of something else that comes up. The decision would be made at that time and that they were all in favor of that. Commissioner Jonathan strongly agreed. Commissioner Finerty seconded the amended motion. Chairperson Tschopp stated that the public hearing was open. Mr. Smith concurred and said that would allow the Commission the opportunity to modify conditions if necessary. %B-- 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, directing staff to prepare a resolution of approval and continuing Case No. PP 05-08 to August 16, 2005. Motion carried 3-1 (Chairperson Tschopp voted no). F. Case No. ZOA 05-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation to the City Council of an amendment to the Municipal Code as it relates to expiration of application approvals on phased projects. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZOA 05-01 to the City Council. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2344, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 05-01. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Oral Status Report on Outdoor Music at Augusta Restaurant Mr. Smith advised that Code Compliance ran some numbers on Saturday, June 18. The numbers they recorded before 10:00 p.m. were in compliance and at 10:00 p.m. the band went inside. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19 2005 Chairperson Tschopp asked if they played inside or if they just went inside. Mr. Smith said he wasn't there, but gathered they played inside. He noted that the restauranteur was present. At that point in time they were not in violation. Chairperson Tschopp said it was his understanding that they were running tests to see if they could continue music later. He thought the applicant was asking to play beyond the time frame situated, but it was too loud. So staff was saying that the test was inclusive after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Smith indicated that the standard changes at 10:00 p.m. When they took the readings at 9:53 p.m. and 9:38 p.m., they were in compliance. There was nothing to measure after 10:00 p.m. because the band went inside. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was something the band was going to continue to do after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Smith said he hadn't been involved in the process, so he gathered in the summer, yes, but the applicant was present. Commissioner Finerty asked if the decibel reading before 10:00 p.m. was 65 and then was 55 after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Chairperson Tschopp said it was his understanding that the applicant wanted to continue the music playing beyond 10:00 p.m. and part of the test would then be to get a reading and see if there were ways to get a lower reading to keep them in compliance to be able to keep the music playing later than 10:00 p.m. So what they had right now was inconclusive. Mr. Smith said they had the actual decibel readings. At 9:38 p.m. they came in at 62.37. Chairperson Tschopp understood that, but after 10:00 p.m. the code changes. Mr. Smith concurred that if the band played at the same level, it would not be in compliance. But there were no measurements taken because they weren't playing outside. Commissioner Finerty thought that it was reasonable to assume that a few minutes before and a few minutes after 10:00 p.m. would be basically the same with the ambient noise and it wasn't enough to offset the 10 decibels less required after 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Tschopp asked if Ms. Roberge would like to comment. MS. DENISE ROBERGE addressed the Commission. She stated that the band was outside until 11:30 p.m. as it was every Saturday night, so it did not go inside. She didn't know where they got that from. And they did put up all the sound barriers. They invested over $8,000 in barriers behind the band. And if they went to the back of the `" 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 restaurant, they could not hear that. So she didn't know what more she could do for them or what more she needed to say. She didn't mind them doing their tests, but she did want them to be accurate. Chairperson Tschopp asked if Mr. Smith had the right date. Mr. Smith read from the report, "As requested, I took sound measurements in the vicinity of the Augusta Restaurant Saturday, June 18." Chairperson Tschopp asked Ms. Roberge if that was the date they were still playing until 11:30 p.m. Ms. Roberge said that if there was a band earlier, there was a band until 11:30 p.m. She thought June 18 was their last night. Chairperson Tschopp asked when the band would start up again. Ms. Roberge said probably October 1. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the idea was still to have the band play later than 10:00 p.m. Ms. Roberge said they have always had a permit to play until 11:30 p.m. What she didn't understand is that she came down here tonight and they've got all the wrong information. How could this happen? Chairperson Tschopp agreed and said that's what they were trying to find out. Mr. Smith said his only conclusion was that the band went on a break and the Code officer assumed they left. He asked if they go on a break at 10:00 P.M. Ms. Roberge said they do have breaks, but she wasn't sure what time they went on break. Commissioner Finerty thought that staff needed to have a chat with the person who conducted the survey. Chairperson Tschopp asked for and received confirmation that the band would resume October 1. 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 Commissioner Campbell thought they should just forget about the whole thing. Ms. Roberge has spent so much money in putting all the barriers in and it's a commercial area. People who live around there know what's going on. This has been chaos all these months they have been working on it and after this report tonight, she could see they weren't going to come to a conclusion whatsoever with the correct answers they want. Chairperson Tschopp asked them to correct him if he was wrong, but this was brought up by a complaint on the noise, so this is a Code violation. Mr. Smith said that assuming the same noise levels after 10:00 p.m., there would be a noise violation, yes. Chairperson Tschopp noted that Ms. Roberge said she has approval until 11:30 p.m. Ms. Roberge confirmed that she does have approval until 11:30 p.m. Chairperson Tschopp asked for clarification. Mr. Smith explained that the conditional use permit to have music does not negate the overall city noise ordinance. Commissioner Campbell commented that Council approved it until 11:30 p.m. a long time ago. Commissioner Finerty said that it seemed to her that if they have a noise ordinance, they either need to abide by it for everybody or get rid of it. She appreciated what the applicant has done with regard to the sound barriers and it was a lot of money to have spent, unfortunately they didn't know how big of an impact they would have made. They didn't have a measurement prior to the sound barriers, so they couldn't see if it was reduced from 70 to 62 and they didn't have the reading after 10:00 p.m. It seemed to her that a better job needed to be done before they could move forward one way or another. Mr. Smith concurred. If the band was going to take up again in October, they should start looking at it at that point. Ms. Roberge asked if this belonged in Planning, or if it belonged in Code Enforcement. Mr. Smith said he wasn't sure how it came up here in the first place. Ms. Roberge said she had the same issue with the parking problem and when she went to appeal it, was told it shouldn't have been here 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 in the first place. She was getting really uncomfortable coming in front of them and when she didn't like what they did, she was told it shouldn't be here in the first place which she then couldn't appeal to City Council. So she wasn't sure what was happening here, but the run around was going to stop. And they needed to decide whether she should be in front of them or not. Commissioner Jonathan thought this matter was brought before them because of a potential violation of the conditions of approval. And he thought there had been chaos and he thought it had been because of the violent disregard for the rules they all live by, so he concurred with staffs recommendation. He suggested they take a look again when the band restarts and see what the decibel level was before 10:00 p.m., see what it was after 10:00 p.m., and go from there. Ms. Roberge asked Commissioner Jonathan to repeat for her what he just said about violent disregard. Commissioner Jonathan said no. Ms. Roberge asked whoever was taking the minutes to repeat for her what Commissioner Jonathan just said. Ms. Monroe explained that the comments weren't being written down (verbatim). Ms. Roberge asked if they could please hear it again. Ms. Monroe indicated that the tape could be reviewed during a brief recess. Commissioner Jonathan said he'd rather not. He made his recommendation and his suggestion. Ms. Roberge said she has a right to hear what was just said because she didn't have a violent disregard. Mr. Hargreaves stated that there was no right to listen to the recording during the meeting. Ms. Roberge was welcome to have a copy of the recording once the meeting was over. j 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 Ms. Roberge thanked him. Chairperson Tschopp said there were two issues. They needed to resolve the issue of having approval until 11:30 p.m. He was very vague on that and thought she had a very good point. They needed to get it resolved as quickly as possible to get that resolved. The other thing was, he thought it was very unfortunate and he apologized on behalf of the Commission and the City, that it wasn't properly tested when it should have been. He understood the problem it created and the delay and apologized for that. He thought if the code does state 10:00 p.m. and if they do have a problem that there isn't really isn't a window to allow it until 11:30 p.m., then they need to retest it and get it done and have it taken care of. Ms. Roberge said she has done everything she has been requested to do from the last meeting here with Phil Drell. Chairperson Tschopp said that they haven't gotten anything new and it was the City's fault they did not get the information they asked for and for that he r..► apologized. What he was asking for, for himself, was a written staff report clarifying the difference between the 10:00 p.m. code and the 11:30 p.m. approval she has. Mr. Smith said he could clarify that aspect of it now. In the report it says, "City Municipal Code and the permit for Augusta's require that sound levels at the property line not exceed 65 decibels until 10:00 p.m. and not exceed 55 decibels until 11:30 p.m. No outdoor music is allowed after 11:30 p.m." Chairperson Tschopp noted that it still required the decrease in decibels after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty said that was what the City Council approved when they extended the music until 11:30 p.m. Mr. Smith said that is what he read in the report, yes. Commissioner Finerty assumed it was before them because a complaint came in about the noise and a complaint came in about the valet. Because they have the conditional use permit, Planning Commission got it dumped at their door. But the bottom line is if the City Council was going to allow this to continue if the decibel reading is over 55 from 10:00 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. And if that was ultimately the Planning Commission's decision. Probably not. It would probably end up at Council's door. They could do their due diligence and get their report, but that's where it was headed. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 Ms. Roberge said she didn't mind going to Council. But when she comes here and is told that it shouldn't have been here in the first place, and because they voted on it and it shouldn't have been here, she couldn't then appeal to City Council. Mr. Hargreaves explained that the reason the appeal was not allowed at that time is because the Planning Commission didn't take any action other than to request that Code Enforcement look into it. There wasn't any action by the Planning Commission that could be appealed to the Council. What could happen in this case, if it comes back before the Planning Commission based on evidence that there is repeated code violations, it could come back to the Planning Commission basically on a hearing to revoke the conditional use permit. That would be the logical next step. And if the Planning Commission took action to revoke the conditional use permit, that could be appealed to the City Council. Another avenue she could take if she didn't like the noise standards is to approach the City Council and ask that they revisit the noise standards and maybe change the ordinance levels and that was another possibility. Ms. Roberge understood what he was saying agreed with him. This was her third or fourth time coming down here and she didn't mind talking to and listening to what he had to say, but she wasn't interested in listening to Sabby Jonathan abuse her while she's here, either, and getting nowhere, where she couldn't appeal it because it was going back to Code Enforcement and then she had to come back here. She needed for them to give her directions of what she needed to do to clear up these issues because at this point it is harassment. Commissioner Jonathan thought it was time to move this forward. Commissioner Finerty asked staff to have a chat with the gentleman who conducted the sound study and try to make sense of that and have that report back to them at their August 16 meeting and from there, probably move forward with resuming the sound study, check the decibel ratings sometime in October between 10:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. and see where they're at. And if the Planning Commission decides to take an action, as the City Attorney said, Ms. Roberge would have something to appeal to Council. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19. 2005 Ms. Roberge said she wouldn't be here in August. It was just another way to make her come back here and deal with this, and then they were in her season. Commissioner Finerty said they needed to determine if it falls under the conditional use permit, and the ordinance clearly states that it's 55 decibels after 10:00 p.m., and if that is being exceeded. Ms. Roberge said they didn't know that. Commissioner Finerty explained that was why she was suggesting this. Ms. Roberge said they should let Code Enforcement prove that to them and then when they have it, bring her back. But don't make her come here without all the facts. That's all she was asking. Commissioner Finerty thought that's what she thought she said. Ms. Roberge said no, they were going to do something in August and ... she isn't in town in August. Commissioner Finerty didn't think that in August it would require her attendance. Ms. Roberge stated that she was not willing to have a discussion go on about her restaurant with this Planning Commission without her being present. Commissioner Finerty suggested that staff have a chat with the sound study person and when they meet in October, direct staff to have Code Enforcement go out in October and perform another sound study and at that time they would review what happened on June 18, the mystery surrounding it, along with the current data of the noise in October. But they as a Planning Commission needed to get to the bottom of what did occur on June 18. She hoped Ms. Roberge understood. Ms. Roberge said she was telling them that the band was there all night. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 Commissioner Finerty understood. They have another report, the Commission wasn't there, and they needed to get clarification about what happened so they have it in a report form in front of them. Additionally, if there is a violation of the decibel reading, they needed to have that factual. They needed to have exactly what it was at what time and what date. And if there isn't, there isn't. But they need their facts first before they can do anything. Ms. Roberge agreed. They should have had their facts before they called her down here tonight. She was sorry, she didn't come here with the intention of getting "pissed" at them again, but somehow they bring it out in her. Chairperson Tschopp said the Commission was as disappointed as she is that the study wasn't done properly on June 18. Again, he apologized. Ms. Roberge accepted his apology. Chairperson Tschopp said it wasn't making anybody's job any easier and wasn't moving them forward, so he apologized and said it was unfortunate. They couldn't go back in time and since the band isn't playing until October 1, there isn't anything they could do in the meantime. So the idea is, come October 1 they will have a sound test done and then truly work with staff. And if they have to agendize it, whatever they needed to do to move it forward for her, he was all in favor of that. And if that was to agendize it so that they could move it to the Council, he agreed 100% and that's what he would like to do and he would direct staff to do that. Ms. Roberge agreed and thanked him. Mr. Smith wanted to make sure he was clear. If the survey that would be done October showed a violation, either before 10:00 p.m. or after 10:00 p.m., he asked if Commission wanted staff to notice that and proceed with a revocation hearing or if they just wanted staff to come in with the results first. Commissioner Finerty wanted to see the results first. She wanted to know the noise levels before the sound barriers went up and after the sound barriers went up. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 Ms. Roberge said they had that information the last time she was here. There was a chart and everything. Mr. Smith said that if there were previous studies, they would get them. Commissioner Finerty said she would like to see the difference the sound barriers made. Chairperson Tschopp said that in October they should have the new readings, the old readings, they would have it as a discussion item that night to discuss it and then look at what the solution or alternatives would be. Ms. Roberge asked if it was possible to have a decision at that time because she needed to get out of this Planning Commission. So if they didn't like what she was doing, they could vote it down and she could go to Council. Chairperson Tschopp indicated that was what Mr. Smith was saying. But he didn't think anyone was really comfortable pursuing it until they've looked at r.. all the facts. Ms. Roberge asked them to look where they were leaving her. She has been dealing with this. Chairperson Tschopp agreed and he was trying to move it along. Commissioner Jonathan had a suggestion. He didn't think they needed to have the tail wagging the dog. He thought they had made their decision and it accommodated all parties and he thought they needed to move forward. Ms. Roberge asked what their decision was; to wait until October? She agreed with that. Commissioner Finerty said they should have it as a discussion item because based on what they find is what would give them direction as to how to proceed. They couldn't proceed blindly. Commissioner Jonathan agreed they should have the test and then talk about it. Chairperson Tschopp said they would have a discussion item the first meeting possible after the readings are in and staff can prepare an adequate 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19, 2005 report. At that meeting they would decide what to do and hopefully move very aggressively at the next meeting, if necessary. Commissioner Finerty thought it might be the second meeting in October. Commission concurred. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell indicated the next meeting would be July 20, 2005. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was canceled. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was canceled. XI. COMMENTS Mr. Smith informed Commission that the August 2, 2005 meeting would be canceled due to a lack of agenda items. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Tschopp, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The eeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. STEPHEN R. SMITH, Acting Secretaryy ATTEST: AVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairper n Palm Desert Planning Commission a 38