Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0621 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 21, 1994 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sabby Jonathan Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Jeff Winklepleck Bob Hargreaves Phil Drell Steve Smith IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the May 17, 1994 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the May 17, 1994 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz stated there were no pertinent May 26 or June 9, 1994 city council items affecting planning commission decisions . VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A 1 . MR. ANDRE DUBBS, 1706 Sandpiper, asked for a postponement of the item regarding the auto mall until 90% of the Sandpiper residents were present to express their opinion. Chairperson Spiegel indicated that the auto mall proposal was on the agenda and would be discussed at r,�, that time. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 2 . MS. ROSANNA RADOLPH, 41-355 Carlotta, stated that she ..r was present to speak on item #H, the adult entertainment establishments . Chairperson Spiegel noted that item would be discussed later in the meeting. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case Nos . GPA 94-1, C/Z 94-1, and PP 94-3 - GREGORY SPREEN, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement Amendment/Change of Zone, Precise Plan to permit development of automobile dealerships on 12 .2 acres at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and El Paseo. Mr. Drell stated that staff was recommending a continuance for at least one month on the basis that the site plan and architecture were reviewed at the last architectural commission meeting and they found both to be unacceptable and, therefore, the plans before the commission would ultimately not be the plans over which the planning commission would make a decision. In general, the site was at the corner of El Paseo and Highway 111 currently zoned through a development agreement for 80,000 square feet of office and 20, 000 square feet of restaurant use. The city' s goal in that zoning was to create a feasible commercial development with minimum impacts on the Sandpiper community. That was four or five years ago and there had been no interest in developing the site as an office use. Within the last year the city received an inquiry from a local new car dealer about developing the site for auto sales . At the time the city was in the process of amending the development agreement with the owner of the property relative to use of the property and potential involvement of the Redevelopment Agency in this development; that included potential provision for Redevelopment Agency involvement in the development of 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 `•• the site as an auto center. The original dealer staff talked to was unable to move his existing dealership at which time Mr. Spreen proposed a Saturn dealership and development of the property. He explained that staffs approach to this type of development was no different than in reviewing any commercial development at this site. The requirements would be a project that would meet all the same standards in terms of appearance as any commercial development in the city. A car dealership was a building and a parking lot, just like any other commercial activity. The only difference was that the building was a bit smaller than is typical on a site this large and the parking lot was full of brand new cars . Staff ' s goal in evaluating whether the use was compatible and met the requirement of having a minimum impact on Sandpiper was that it had to be demonstrated that auto dealerships generated less traffic and fewer trips than the previously existing office/restaurant designation. A traffic study was provided to the commission that was an update of the Environmental Impact Report traffic study that was done on the approved project. The conclusion of the traffic engineer was that auto dealerships generated fewer trips than the proposed 100,000 square feet of commercial/restaurant development. Mr. Drell stated that staff emphasized five minimum requirements of development. No access from the project to Painters Path. In some of the plans there was something that looked like an access to Painters Path which was a gated emergency access, and the fire marshall determined that was not necessary. Any buffer, berm/wall system on Painters Path would be continuous with no break. Painters Path would be completed with 35 feet of landscaping and an alternative for an 8 foot wall with a 5 foot high berm. Lighting controls would have to meet the city' s standard parking lot lighting requirement with no spillover of more than a tenth of a footcandle. Car dealerships usually liked to produce daylight in their display areas which could be an area of contention. Staff had not received a lighting plan, which was another reason for the continuance because lighting was such an integral part of the project. All service repair would occur within a soundproof enclosed building. There would be no audible paging system. There was some discussion of having a limited audible paging system; he felt all paging should be done via beepers . All perimeter streets and landscaping improvements would be completed prior to anything happening on the site. All the mitigation in terms of the perimeter would have to be complete before any of the dealerships were developed. In one of the letters from a Sandpiper resident there was a seventh concern, which should be added, that on the north IWIP 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 side of Sandpiper no parking would be permitted to avoid any possibility of employee or customer parking. The current plan was reviewed by the architectural commission and rejected. They felt that the architecture was fairly typical of dealerships anywhere. They wanted to see the only dealerships in Palm Desert make a more unique architectural attempt. The proposed plan conformed to the prototype building pattern with only minor modifications from what Saturn requires . Staff has run across this before with national companies and ultimately if the company wants this site, they will acquiesce to a unique effort. Also, there had been nothing submitted in detail relative to the display of cars in the front. The architectural commission was looking for something other than the typical line up of cars . They were looking for an exclusive, highlighted display with a limited number of vehicles in a landscaped area with trees and something between 10-20 cars, not 50 or 60 cars on display. The architectural commission would be reviewing this plan in the coming weeks when new designs were submitted and hopefully the commission would have a new plan to review in a month. Staff received a number of letters; in general they ranged from letters of concern relative to a guarantee or assurance that the conditions relative to lighting and noise, the berm and traffic were all implemented in the project. One letter from Peter Matheson emphasized that the r/ conditions were enforced; a letter from Thomas Brown who expressed opposition regardless of the design; a letter from Northern Trust Bank in opposition; a letter from R.J. Van Dyke also fundamentally in opposition; a letter from a management company, Harold Barnes, representing Sandpiper owners in circles 5-10 expressing opposition; and a fax from Daphne Triphon expressing concern that if approved the conditions including the parking condition should be strictly implemented. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he assumed RDA' s involvement would involve use of RDA funds and he wondered why that was necessary for a location on E1 Paseo and Highway Ill across the street from the Town Center Mall . Mr. Drell indicated that the reason or justification for RDA involvement was that car dealerships (and this was something that had to be demonstrated) can only afford to pay a certain amount for land. One thing mentioned in the letters submitted was that dealerships were usually located in the outskirts of the city; that was not because of a desirability to be out in the middle of nowhere, it was because they need a lot of land and land that is less expensive. The price the RDA could acquire the property for was relatively inexpensive 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 �.. compared to other property on Highway 111, but it was still somewhat more than what an auto dealership could afford to pay. One of the requirements of the process of assisting any development was there had to be an analysis that proves that- -a financial proforma that shows that this use can afford x amount of land and if they have to pay y, it could not feasibly happen. What would happen would be RDA would buy the land for x amount of money, they would do the improvements, and sell the developer the finished site. Since there was no deal yet, he could not tell the commission exact details . The major assistance from RDA would not be in the land cost, but in the improvement costs of installing the perimeter landscaping, berm and outside improvements . Commissioner Jonathan interpreted that to mean that market conditions were such that the deal did not pencil out for the dealership and somewhere there had been an evaluation made that it would be a desirable addition to the City of Palm Desert and therefore justified the use of RDA funds . Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Spiegel stated that as he understood it, when a vehicle was leased there was no tax revenue that comes to the city; Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Spiegel asked if the city could receive a percentage of revenue of what was not coming to the city because of vehicle leasing. Mr. Drell indicated he could ask Mr. Spreen who owned a Saturn dealership in Loma Linda to tell us what percentage of his business was leasing. Chairperson Spiegel indicated that in the past, when the architectural commission had not approved a project and it came to the planning commission, the planning commission continued the item. He felt it was a waste of a lot of peoples ' time to bring something before the planning commission that had not already been approved by the architectural review commission. Mr. Diaz stated that what had happened was staff was under some time constraints regarding redevelopment agency executing agreements on this land and advertising for the public hearing before commission and review by the architectural commission. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public hearing and asked the developer to address the commission. MR. DOUG SIMMONS addressed the commission and indicated that part of this project was his "brain child" and part had to do with Greg Spreen and his desire to come into this community. Some of the early conversations that led to this project were that Palm Desert did not have 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 sales tax revenue from car dealerships at this point "W other than the auto on the mall facility and that it might be an idea to look at bringing in car dealerships into the community. He explained that Greg Spreen and his architect were not able to attend the meeting because after the architectural review there was work to be done on the project and the level of detail, and questions that came from architectural commission led to wanting to do some more work and bringing a more finalized form to the planning commission. He said that General Motors with the Saturn dealership has had their way in most areas that they have developed dealerships in and they had obviously not had the experience of coming to Palm Desert where it was less likely that they would steam roll through with a plan that was more of a "cookie cutter" nature. Although this plan has had some work, the architect designed and did some fine tuning on dealerships like this before and his understanding of what the requirements were here were less than adequate to move forward. He said there was a willingness with the architect to go ahead and redo the plan with the developer; Mr. Spreen felt that Palm Desert and this location was right for him. There were some good reasons this site was a sensitive one and could use some tender loving care because of traffic generation and WAO basically that the use itself generated a lot less night time activity than restaurants . Mr. Simmons felt that car dealerships would be a good use of the site. He stated he understood the concerns of the Sandpiper residents and he indicated they had done a fair bit of work in talking to the residents . That was where the list of concerns came from and there had been no resistance from the developer in mitigating those concerns . He said the developer was more than willing to listen and if there was an opportunity to hear more feedback, it would give them more of an opportunity to make the plan right. Mr. Spreen had a track record of doing a good job in the car business and their family had been in the business for 40 years in California. Mr. Simmons felt it would be a good addition to the City of Palm Desert in terms of business . He said this was a well founded, properly thought out concept. He asked for any questions and noted that Mr. Spreen would have liked to have been at the meeting and their feeling was that they would like to have another run at it and get as much feedback as possible to do it the right way. 6 .ur MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 'r Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. JOE VIRGIL, 710 Sandpiper, stated that regarding the parking of the employees vehicles on Painters Path, in order to keep those people from parking on Painters Path the City of Palm Desert would have to pass some different rules and regulations regarding parking. He said he knew about that because he was a board member for Indian Creek Villas and they have people up there that park in the parking zones/lanes and in the no sweep zone. They call the sheriff and are told there isn't anything they can do about it--they can ticket the cars, but they don' t have to pay the ticket, plus the fact that Palm Desert did not tow vehicles . He said he was being told something that was just not going to happen because Palm Desert would not move those vehicles . They have people that work for auto dealerships that were very irresponsible and if they were irresponsible enough to park on that street, they were irresponsible enough not to pay those tickets . If they go to the courts, 90% of the time the judge would throw it out. MR. CHARLES GUNTER, a resident of 1602 Sandpiper with a rental unit at 606 Sandpiper, stated that he has lived in Palm Desert since 1979 and he has owned a Sandpiper unit since that time. They have also always known that sooner or later the parcel under consideration would be developed and he sympathized with the landowner because he has been trying to develop it for some time. However, he felt that his interests were less than those who live in Palm Desert. He noticed the development of the Town Center and the Marshall ' s Center and was under the impression that the city' s general plan provided for development of that parcel with the kind of development that was considered--office space and commercial . He felt development of an auto dealership was entirely incompatible with the image the city was trying to convey to the general public of Palm Desert. Palm Desert has beautiful commercial developments, E1 Paseo and this was a western pass into Palm Desert and it seemed to him that an auto dealership or auto mall is entirely incompatible with Palm Desert ' s image. There were several automobile malls in other cities, principally in Cathedral City and they were trying to promote the one in Indio. He felt that if Mr. Spreen wanted to come to the Coachella Valley, that he would be better served going to an already developed mall than ... 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 coming into an area where the kind of situation he wants to develop is not compatible to the general area. MRS. JOANNE STAGE, a resident of Sandpiper, stated that her husband had the Sandpiper sales office and she was an interior designer. She said she spoke to Mr. Drell some time ago regarding Painters Path and Edgehill . She had done a number of homes in that area and felt it was very dangerous driving. She had nearly been hit several times by people coming across from the Wherehouse and TGI Fridays and across E1 Paseo. She felt there was no proper yield or stops and at Painters Path at Edgehill there was nothing to slow traffic down. She said she talked to Mr. Drell about this four years ago. There were oleanders that were needed for privacy, and yet it was a dangerous thing and that was her concern. As far as the beauty was concerned, as mentioned by Mr. Gunter, E1 Paseo has a lovely image and it should have, and the city wanted it to be the Rodeo Drive, but at their end of E1 Paseo people didn't even know it was E1 Paseo to enter it from Highway 111 unless they entered it from the other end or from Highway 74 . The sign was placed way back from where it should be, there was no beautiful planting, no ambience and nothing to denote beauty. They didn't want to stand before the commission always •r► fighting them; they knew the land owner needed to have his land sold and they knew the city needed revenue and they wanted to be reasonable too, but they wanted the commission to remember the beauty. She also felt that it was threatening to have a youth center on Edgehill and people "zipping" a million miles around that area where it was very wet and they skid and slip and the sound alone was threatening. MR. ANDRE DUBBS stated that he hand delivered a letter to Mr. Drell which was not mentioned. Mr. Drell said that he could mention all the letters, but noted that Mr. Dubbs ' letter was included in the packet to the planning commission. Mr. Dubbs felt that his letter was totally different from anything that had been mentioned. He basically said that exclusive properties and auto malls do not mix. They were creating a hodge podge development that was not good for Sandpiper, the city of Palm Desert, or E1 Paseo and everyone seemed to think this was the Rodeo Drive of Palm Desert. 8 �Ir MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 "r Mr. Drell offered to read the letter, but assured Mr. Dubbs the commission had his letter. Mr. Dubbs said that was not necessary, he had just reiterated a portion of that letter. Mr. Diaz stated for the record that all letters that were sent to the department or to the commission are part of the packets and a part of the public record as long as they came before the public hearing and that had always been the case in Palm Desert. MR. MEL GOLDMAN, 1011 Sandpiper, stated that he has had 40 years of experience in the automobile business; 30 some years with General Motors and 10 some years operating a dealership. He agreed with Mr. Gunter that to establish an automobile dealership at the entrance of E1 Paseo would be a detriment to the city and El Paseo and regardless what they would say, once a dealership was under construction, and he had worked from one coast to the other and his entire years were with General Motors, once the dealer got there they would have a hard time controlling where the employees parked, a hard time controlling the used car department, and it would be a detriment to the city of Palm Desert. He stated that he understood that the original plans were for an office building and restaurants and he understood why there shouldn' t be a restaurant there, but an office building would not require night time parking or the traffic that a dealership would. He was adamantly against starting a dealership in this location. Chairperson Spiegel asked if the applicant wished to address the commission in rebuttal; he indicated no. Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Whitlock asked if this matter could be continued for a longer period of time per the request of the Sandpiper resident. Mr. Diaz stated that because of different requirements of state law, he would like to have the developer' s representative indicate that they do not have an objection to continuing this matter for longer than staff requested. Mr. Drell noted there were still some time restraints and one of the deadlines would be passed, unavoidably, but there were additional deadlines being created. He thought to continue this until October or November would run up against more deadlines . 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Commissioner Whitlock asked what deadline. Mr. Drell said u,r the property was under option that the redevelopment agency had the ability to purchase the property at a certain price and at certain times and that option had a life and the price could change and they would lose control of it. The developer could then market to whomever he wanted. Mr. Diaz requested a five minute recess; commission concurred. The time was 7 :40 p.m. Chairperson Spiegel reconvened the meeting at 7 :46 p.m. and noted that he had asked for comments from the commission on the proposed auto park. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he had a few problems and concerns : 1) he did not see that it made sense to have RDA participation in this project; 2) it looked like it might be a nice auto park but the location was absolutely wrong; 3) they might have some control over a Saturn Dealership, but they did not have control over the other two sites and it would not have to be a high-end auto dealership or a new auto dealership. Once there was zoning a dealership was a dealership. His concerns also included used car sales, auto servicing and everything involved there. For those reasons he would be opposed to this particular project. Now Commissioner Whitlock concurred and stated that a dealership on this particular corner would be totally incompatible with the Sandpiper development and as heard from the public testimony, not a very good entry way to E1 Paseo. She was opposed to this location for an auto dealership. Commissioner Beaty stated that he did not feel as strongly about this and if done properly, this could be appropriate, but it was not ready to consider at this time without a final plan. Chairperson Spiegel agreed with Commissioner Jonathan about why redevelopment funds should be spent on developing an auto park and did not feel it was appropriate when looking at the fact that the tax revenue coming to the city was questionable because of the amount of cars being leased today. He had been told that the city would not receive any funds for leased cars . Also, he would not like Highway 111 in Palm Desert to become the Harbor Boulevard of cars and he felt that if the door of opportunity was opened to one automobile agency on Highway 111, that was a possibility. That was his personal feeling. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 �... Mr. Diaz stated that because this decision could be appealed and staff would be responding to the reasons of denial, he wanted the commission to know that in terms of used car dealerships in Palm Desert, used car dealerships were not allowed unless they were connected with a new car dealership. As far as redevelopment expenditures were concerned, that was not a land use or planning issue. He stated that they adjourned to allow staff to sit down and look at how much extension of time could be granted, but obviously commission was not interested. He said the motion would be to instruct staff to prepare a resolution of denial, but staff did have the information for continuance if the commission desired. Chairperson Spiegel noted that the developer could appeal the decision to city council and they would make the final decision. Mr. Diaz stated that was correct. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, instructing staff by minute motion to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Beaty voted no) . Mr. Diaz noted that the action was finaled unless appealed to low the city council and the resolution would be before the commission on July 5, 1994 and the appeal could be made 15 days after that. B. Continued Case Nos . GPA 93-4, C/Z 93-4, PP 93-6 and TT 27882, - ROBERT L. MAYER TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map for a residential condominium project on 31 acres and a general plan amendment and change of zone from medium density residential (PR-7) to PC-2 (district commercial) on 9 . 1 acres with a precise plan of design allowing for up to 86,220 square feet of neighborhood shopping center at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith stated that the plan was before the commission on May 17 at which time it was continued. Some of the issues at that time were that the architectural elements had not been approved by the architectural commission, the lot sizes were 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 an issue, the question of the necessity of another wd neighborhood commercial center in the north sphere was an issue, and the number of satellite pads around the perimeter of the commercial parcel was also an issue. In the interim the applicant had been before the architectural commission at which point he received preliminary approval of the architecture on the dwelling units and he received conceptual approval on the elevations for the commercial center. The commission received sets of both plans in their packets . Dealing with the commercial center first, the building area had been reduced and it was now at 86,220 square feet with parking at 442 car spaces plus 12 golf cart spaces for a total of 454 spaces which gave them a ratio of 5 .25 per 1,000 square feet gross . He stated that it was likely that not all of that area would be leasable and the ordinance referred to gross leasable area. The 454 parking spaces would support a net center at 82,545 square feet; there was a difference of 4 . 3%--typically this was a reasonable amount of non-leasable area over the total . In comparison, the Lucky center across the street has 438 parking spaces with an overall ratio of 4 . 75%; the recently approved Ralph' s center at Country Club and Cook has a ratio of 5 . 67 per 1,000 which was over the two phases . Also the Trader Joe' s center at Fred Waring and Town Center Way came in at 6 . 0 per 1,000 . The next issue was the single family element of the proposal . On May 17 the commission was requested to approve 143 single family lots, many of which were below 5500 square feet in lot area. At this time the plan had been revised and the applicant was proposing 136 lots; minimum lot width was now 60 feet versus the 55 feet in the previous proposal . There was an increase in lot area. As well, the residential developer chose to revise the map further and the plan now called for a private, gated residential community with private streets . This further increased the size of the lots for computation purposes . Density had decreased to 4 . 8 dwelling units per acre and the property was zoned for up to seven dwelling units per acre. The commercial site plan was revised somewhat in that the building was elongated to face Country Club Drive; formerly around the perimeter of the site there were six satellite pads--there were now five and the one deleted was taken out of the area at the northwest corner of the site with parking added to the area. That had two effects : 1) it reduced the number of satellite pads and got them 61 parking spaces which experience showed them that when placed behind or beside buildings, those were the last parking spaces to be used. Across the street in back of the Lucky' s center 72 of the spaces were located to the rear of the building. It was something that staff tried to avoid, me 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 low but it had come about as a result of the redesign. Regarding the residential revised plan, there were minimum lot areas of 5857 square feet; previously there were many below 5500 square feet. Staff recommended approval of the revised plan and the resolutions accordingly. Chairperson Spiegel noted that on page 3, it indicated that it had not been approved by the architectural review commission and he asked for clarification. Mr. Smith noted that the residential portion was given preliminary approval a week ago today; the commercial portion was given conceptual approval in that the elevation facing Country Club Drive was accurate, the elevation facing Monterey was not in that it reflected the former site plan, but staff had a general feel of what the architecture would be and architectural commission was quite comfortable with it. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TIM BARTLETT, Baxley Properties, stated that he would re-introduce his group and they would be speaking specifically on some of the concerns from the last meeting. Mr. David Paynter in association with Scott Thayer of Albertson' s were present to answer questions on the commercial center; Mr. Steven Sandberg was present as developer of the residential portion and in 1993 was awarded as Riverside County' s most successful developer. Mr. Bartlett stated that they listened to commission' s concerns at the last meeting and made modifications, received architectural approval, and also received approval from the economic development advisory committee. He said he would turn the meeting over to Ed Sloman who would address the specific changes made to the site plan, then Mr. Paynter with the commercial . MR. ED SLOMAN, KWC Engineers 1269 West Pomona Road in Corona, stated he was representing both developers . He noted that staff gave an overview and he would target some areas . As indicated, they went from 143 units to 136 ; Commissioner Whitlock had expressed concern regarding lot widths and they tried to "loosen up" those areas along Monterey and the units that backed up to the commercial areas and widened the lots to a minimum of 60 feet. On the tentative map some units went up 75 feet. The developer heard the concerns from the commission at the last meeting and has gone to a planned unit development that would be gated so there would not be 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 any cut through traffic into the residential area from people going to the commercial portion. They heard the concerns about the large volumes along Monterey and Country Club and in working the public works engineers, they are dedicating additional rights of way over and above the city' s approved master plan to add an additional third lane of traffic for the community at a later date. Additionally, the developer has self- imposed a minimum 25 foot setback from the wall to further distance the units from Monterey and create better aesthetics and harmony for the units . Also, the developer hired Mr. Gregory to come up with some landscape treatments and there were some recessed areas along the property lines to create some additional areas for trees to cut down on noise that would come up and spill over from the Monterey area. He noted that 67% of the units had an average of 6446 square feet; 33% of the units averaged 8119 square feet. At the tentative map stage they could still make revisions of lot lines if the commission so required it. He felt this generally summed up what had been done for the single family area. Regarding the commercial area, the area had been reduced by 3600 square feet and they were dedicating additional rights of way along Country Club to accommodate future traffic. Comparing Lucky' s to Albertson' s, if taken �+ from the Lucky' s property line to the front of the Lucky' s building there was 200 feet from the property line to the front of the building. In this instance the developer looked at the parking in the front and they further enhanced the setback from the property line to the front of the building in excess of 260 feet. When looking at parking stalls at Lucky' s, they had nine stalls deep with 24 foot wide drive aisles; this one had 15 stalls deep with 30 foot drive aisles, so they increased the frontage and parking that was actually in front of the center. Additionally, the Lucky' s center traversed from Monterey across the frontage to Sagewood; this project stopped about two thirds of the way along the Lucky' s center, so their center was compact. He noted that the developer at his own expense was installing a signal that would benefit and enhance the traffic circulation both for the Lucky's center and the Albertson' s center. Also, they received a letter dated December 13, 1993 from Edison and those 66 KV lines would cost the developer $250,000 to underground. The streetscape and aesthetics would be enhanced by the total development of the site. There had been some concern with the golf cart parking, so there would be 12 14 "Op MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 stalls for golf cart parking with plug in electrical facilities for those residents who desired to drive to the facility. He felt that summarized the changes . Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Sloman indicated that the developer would be paying for installation of the light signal without benefit; he said he thought that one of the conditions was that the cost of that signal would be credited toward TUMF fees, signalization fees, or some other fees . Mr. Sloman said that they were doing some upgrades at the corner of Monterey and Country Club which were necessary, but additionally they would be installing a $125,000 signal at that main entry of the joint single family/commercial development from which the Carver center would benefit from. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the project would be credited for that cost against other fees . Mr. Diaz noted that this was normal and the city did the same thing with Embassy Suites . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was not objecting to it, but just asking for clarification. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the configuration of the parking lot layout was such that getting out of parking spaces along side the driveway in front of Albertson' s going into that thoroughfare; he asked if Mr. Sloman would lose any parking spaces if he were to reconfigure those parking spaces in a "V" conf iguration so that cars would not pull out of spaces into the thoroughfare in front of Albertson' s . Mr. Sloman noted that Commissioner Jonathan was referring to shops one and two adjacent on the east and west side of Albertson' s . Albertson' s had a clear drive for the full frontage along Albertson' s and demonstrated that on the map. Commissioner Jonathan stated that it was inevitable that people would park along that drive even when they were told not to and with the parking spaces backing into the thoroughfare, what could happen would be cars trying to get by and cars backing into the traffic. He said that if the parking spots were reconfigured into a "V" configuration instead of aligned directly as they were, would the developer would lose any parking spaces . Mr. Sloman deferred the question to Mr. Paynter and Mr. Thayer, explaining that the layout and direction was an Albertson' s requirement. He pointed out that the requirement the city has instilled in terms of commercial development was that the drive aisles be 24 ' -25 ' in width. For purposes of planning, the front aisle and the aisle paralleling Country Club, as well as between pad 1 and shop 1 along Monterey, they had insured those were low 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 30 feet in width and they exceeded the city' s minimum requirement on those. From an engineering and planning aspect, he felt that if the commission wanted the aisles to be one way or to increase the landscape planter so that one would not back out into the on-coming traffic that could be done, but he felt that with 30 feet there was enough room for two cars to go either way. He said they would not lose any parking. MR. DAVE PAYNTER, Paynter Willsey Properties, stated that he was present to speak to the retail commercial only. He felt that Mr. Sloman gave a good over view, in addition to the extensive presentation in May, so he would be brief . He said that one key difference between their proposal and the Lucky's center was that the Lucky drive aisles were one way. Their layout allowed two way drive aisles and it was a typical Albertson' s criteria and was successful in their numerous centers . He said they were opposed to one way traffic . With regard to the parking in front of the project, as mentioned by Mr. Sloman, the Lucky' s center had approximately 200 feet from the front of the building to the street and their project had 260 feet plus . The standard criteria for Albertson' s was they looked for about 200 feet from their front door to comfortably park their customers and have them within a reasonable walking distance, as well as some additional spillover past that. He felt this had a comfortable amount of parking without congestion. Also, because of the nature of the intersection and the traffic in this area, there were no left turns into the project from Monterey with exception of the back portion of the project, so commission would see left turn movements in that area. Because of the car activity, the rear parking would be used and as a result of commission comments at the last presentation, they reduced the project intensity and deleted the pad that was in that area. This pad and the parking for the future building, particularly if it was used as a restaurant, would utilize that parking and could be utilized as employee parking. He noted that at the last meeting they were directed back to the architectural commission to obtain their review and approval prior to coming back to commission. They did that and received their conceptual approval of the building elevations . He felt they had designed an attractive project. He also noted that they had been before the economic development committee and received a 4-1 vote in support of the project after extensive dialogue before that 16 wo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 r► group. Another question mentioned by staff was the need for a commercial use at this corner. He felt in the initial design of the project the question was what to do with the 40 acres and what was the best use for it. It was determined early on that because of the traffic and the noise generated at the intersection, residential all the way to the corner was a problem and not the best use. They looked at alternatives for the corner such as office use, and there was no demand for office use right now, but there was demand for retail commercial . In working with Albertson' s, Albertson' s did an extensive economic study and brought in folks to do identification of the trade area, to assess how competitors were doing and he noted that the Lucky' s across the street did particularly well . From that they came up with a sales estimate. Building a 50,000 square foot grocery store was a substantial investment and like any well run organization, they had criteria on returns on investment, so before they made a commitment to spend the kinds of dollars involved, they did a sales estimate to insure that the returns would be there. This location showed that the sales were there. With regard to the marketing of the out-parcels and in-line shops, they had a minimal amount of in-line shops that they "OW would be leasing. This was a neighborhood center and they would not be attracting regional commercial types of tenants that would want to be along Highway 111 or the Town Center. This location was not that type of trade area and was designed to serve the neighborhood and immediate area. They were also concerned with the marketplace and the demand for retail space in terms of the small shops and they had done some research on that. He pointed out that it was not their intention to steal tenants from the Lucky' s center or Ralph' s center. They felt there was a demand for more shops . Mr. Bartlett stated that one question that came up was if another shopping center was needed and was the community currently served by the number of markets as well as future needs . He said they did some population projections and based on the current population projections for the next 20 years, it was conceivable that an additional four markets would be needed to serve that community alone; two in the next decade. To consider the neighborhood and the amount of growth that has occurred in the last ten years, the population has been doubled and was expected to double in the next nine years . At this site, there was interest expressed by r.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 three markets; Albertson's was obviously successful . „No One of the issues that came up at the economic development advisory committee was how this would affect existing markets . He believed that the effect on the Lucky' s market would be a 12%-18% basis negatively. He did not think that was a major market share and believed that once their circulation was improved by this signal and the traffic circulation improved, the Lucky' s center would actually benefit. The Ralph' s center, although it appeared substantially vacant, he spoke to the leasing agent, Jerry Lynch, and he confirmed that 70% of the in- line space was currently leased. About 74% of the center, Ralph' s, Payless and Morton' s, made up about 74% of the first phase of 109,000 square feet. The balance of the center was in-line space, approximately 35% . He said that in comparison their center was 15% in-line space. He felt the in-line spaces were typically tougher to lease from an initial basis and were mostly "Mom and Pop" types of companies like dry cleaners, video shops, and that type of use. He felt there was a demand from a retail stand point. He said they have not begun an extensive marketing effort regarding the pads and locations in dealing with commercial real estate; he had generated interest from three separate restaurants, a financial institution, as well as some other smaller types of tenants . The restaurants they were looking for primarily on this site are family type dining; the Lucky' s across the street due to lack of parking and congestion had generated a lot of fast food type tenants where people go for take out food. They were looking at full family type dining and one of the restaurants they were in serious negotiations with would serve breakfast, lunch and dinner. The lunch atmosphere was beneficial for the close proximity to Eisenhower, the breakfast was a great need in that area, and with the exception of Morton' s there was not a lot of family type dining. The interest in the retail development from tenants was there. He stated he would like the opportunity to readdress the commission in rebuttal . Chairperson Spiegel asked if the commission had any questions for the development team. Commissioner Whitlock thanked the applicant for addressing all of her concerns . She felt they had done a nice job. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . IWO 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 MR. SANFORD SKLAR, Suncrest Country Club resident, asked the city to follow the master plan; it was derived with much thought and now the commission was being asked to change it. He thought that when they went through this last year with regard to the Wal-Mart project being denied by planning commission and city council, it was because of the zone being changed. He stated there were existing commercial sites available at Ralph' s, Lucky' s, and Pavilions that were empty and asked if they would be looking at a bunch of empty stores again. With regard to the site, he heard there would be three restaurants . At the previous discussion on the auto mall, he heard the semblance of some horror stories about restaurants and night time traffic. He questioned the entry into the residential area; was the entry into the residential area to be shared by the entry to the commercial area along Country Club Drive. Also, in the write up the current description of the residential area was now condos; previously it was a build onsite to suit the tenant residential . He questioned this change. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone else wished to speak regarding this item. There was no one and Chairperson Spiegel asked the applicant for rebuttal . Mr. Dave Paynter stated that the entrance into the residential area, which would be signalized, would be shared between the retail project and the residential project. As was mentioned earlier, it would provide a significant benefit to the Lucky project across the street which had some access issues and the signalized entrance would line up with the entrance at that location to the Lucky center. He said his parents have had a home in Suncrest for ten years and he felt they would share concerns about the Wal-Mart project that was 40 acres and abutted right to the Suncrest project, but their project was 20% retail and eight acres versus the 40 acres and provided a significant residential buffer between the retail and the Suncrest project. He said that the Lucky' s center was very busy and the demand and need was there. Mr. Sloman stated that in working with the staff and acknowledging that there was essentially a nine hole golf course community with mobile home parks adjacent to them in the county and working very closely and after many meetings with Mr. Befeld, the owner of Suncrest, the developer directed him to interface with the Country aw 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Club to the north and east face against his driving .� course. Again, they were allowed up to seven units for the density, but were only requesting 4 . 18 units at the second highest traffic intersection in the Desert and with the additional improvements public works asked the developer to do additional dedication. They did not have 280 residential units on that corner subjected to the traffic. They tried to moderate that and he thanked Commissioner Whitlock for her comments . He felt they had a good interface project with the surrounding neighbors . Chairperson Spiegel noted that the question was that the homes were originally single family homes and were now being addressed as condominiums . Mr. Sloman said that was correct. He noted that a year ago there was some concern by Sagewood that there was a lot of traffic and commercial people used the cut-through and there was a movement to install a gate. Commissioner Whitlock asked if Mr. Sloman was going to build single family homes behind that gate. Mr. Sloman replied that it was single family in the nature of the product that had been presented to the architectural commission. Commissioner Whitlock felt that would address the question of single family homes versus condominiums . The fact that they added a gate to enclose the community, behind that gate they were still continuing with 136 lots that they would build single family homes on. Mr. Sloman stated that the would be sold with condominium lots because there were private streets and there would be a homeowners association. Mr. Diaz explained that it would be no different than Suncrest. MR. SCOTT THAYER, real estate management for Albertson' s, 1180 West Lambert in Brea, stated that regarding the parking lot design, the preference was to go with 60 degree parking, then 90 degree and the last preference would be single drive aisles . Their studies showed that customers preferred the 60 degree parking design for ease of movement. Also, they have limited their liability because there are less accidents . He stated that he wanted to clear up one statement; it was said that the drive aisles were 30 feet in width and he wanted to clarify that the main drive aisles were 30 feet and included the perimeter of the property, in front of the store and the rest met city code. Mr. Bartlett noted that they were asking for a change in the general plan. When the city incorporated this property 20 years ago, it was zoned residential . At 20 .r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 that time Monterey Avenue dead-ended into Country Club. The city did not know that Monterey would become a major artery and now feeds Palm Desert centrally and connects to Highway 74 and becomes the major artery for the whole desert. With the traffic conditions imposed on this corner, with the lack of commercial property zoning in that area, they felt this was a nice time to make the change. He said there had been comments that there were additional areas in the north sphere, but with the projects shown, there would probably be two more markets in that area once the homes were developed. Commissioner Jonathan asked where the trash receptacles were located. Mr. Bartlett said that had not been addressed at this time and they would meet the requirements . Commissioner Jonathan said he would like a condition that the trash receptacles not be located in sight of Monterey or Country Club. He noted there was some very visible trash that got overfilled, particularly by the Kenny Rogers Broasted Chicken located right on Country Club. Also there was a lot of trash by Lucky' s and even though that was on the side, it was very visible from Monterey. Mr. Paynter said they were willing to work with the commission and staff and unsightly receptacles would be a detriment to their project that they would not want. Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony. Chairperson Spiegel noted that a couple of people wrote to the planning department and said they were in favor of the project, but asked that it be feasible to walk across Country Club and Monterey. He asked if staff would have a don't walk sign at Country Club and Monterey. Mr. Folkers indicated there would be a sign. Chairperson Spiegel asked for commission comments . Commissioner Jonathan reported to the commission that while he was absent at the first meeting, he reviewed the minutes and listened to the tape and felt qualified to participate in discussion and would vote on this matter. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she felt this was a very realistic development for this corner. The presentation with the neighborhood center on the corner buffered with the residential and the fact that they received numerous comments low 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 from the residents of Suncrest, which was a far cry from a .� few months ago when this corner was reviewed with a Wal-Mart proposal and there was a full house capacity present. She felt the applicants did their homework, met with the surrounding neighborhoods and commended them for that. She stated that she was pleased with the elimination of the commercial pad, the increase in the lot sizes and felt the applicants addressed all of her concerns . She said that she was in favor of the project and in favor of the project moving forward. Commissioner Beaty concurred and congratulated the applicant on a nice compromise for that site. He felt development was needed to help with traffic on that corner, felt that this project was well done and hoped it proceeded. Commissioner Jonathan said that he had many of the same concerns as did Commissioner Whitlock in the original hearing and many of those had been addressed. In general he had no problem with commercial right on the corner and felt it was very appropriate and provided a nice buffer to the residential uses . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he did have a problem with the lot sizes and he preferred minimum lot sizes of 10, 000 square feet, but had acquiesced to developments over 8, 000 square feet. His understanding was that lot sizes over 8,000 square feet still accommodated 108 units in that section. He felt that it would be very difficult for a developer to sell 5,000 square foot lots for $200, 000 . He said he was concerned that 5,000 square foot homes would attract more than a senior community. He stated that his concern was not so much density, because if the applicant wanted 140 units, they could put up a condominium, or have two story structures in the center, it was not the density but the lot sizes . If doing freestanding homes, his preference was to see 8,000 square foot lot sizes . He felt this was an opportunity for the city to step in and elevate the quality of that intersection; not to a C level at this point, but to a C level forever because this development would be the first of many that would impact that intersection. Those impacts would be felt from developments all the way up and down Monterey and from Monterey to the freeway; this was the opportunity to deal with it. The applicant had done a nice job, but the city needed to go in and do something like Wal-Mart had intended by putting in $2 million to improve the intersection. He felt it needed to be taken care of and suggested this would be a good use for the funds . He said that the Albertson' s elevations as seen from Country Club was very bland. Trees made everything look 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 better, but unless a guarantee was given by Ron Gregory that the trees would end up looking like they do in his drawing, then some additional pyramid type roofs as shown on the west end of the buildings needed to be interspersed to provide more interest and depth as well as break up the monotony. He said he did not know if it was possible, but there was a concern raised at the last meeting about linking the commercial with the residential . They would not know who might come along years from now with a different commission saying that the residential portion would not work out. He asked for discussion that when he finished his points . The final item of concern was the placement of the trash receptacles and he wanted to see that placed as a condition of approval that they be located out of sight from Country Club and Monterey. Commissioner Whitlock stated she thought they were approving an entire project, that the commercial and residential was one development. Mr. Diaz concurred and indicated that staff wanted some continuity and would not in the future be importing their own opposition in terms of what would be next door. Commissioner Whitlock asked if that was Commissioner Jonathan' s point--to make sure the project was being approved as one project. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and noted that something different would require the applicant to come to the city for a change of zone. Mr. Diaz concurred. Mr. Sloman stated that the tract map was a two phase tract map; phase one was the residential portion and phase two was the commercial . The residential map had to record prior to the commercial and the precise plan before the commission was a joint precise plan. Commissioner Whitlock noted that even though the residential came first, she wanted to know about the landscaping and improvements, the signalization and landscape improvements around the whole corner; was that possible to come at the same time as the residential so that there was a buffer and some screening while that construction was taking place. Mr. Smith replied that the public works department advised him that they would be endeavoring to complete the street improvements in one phase. As a result, the landscaping would follow in one phase. Chairperson Spiegel stated that other members of the commission were not in favor of a regional shopping center on the corner because they did not want the type of traffic it would bring into Palm Desert and what it would do to the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 quality of life in Palm Desert. He commended the developer �■�' of the homes for increasing the size, but agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that they might want to take another look and see if it might make sense to cut down on the number of single family homes and increase the lot sizes . He said he liked Albertson' s, but did not shop at it here because he lived in Palm Desert and it was too far away. His only problem was the traffic on Country Club and Monterey. It would be at least five years before Cook Street would go all the way to the freeway and has the ability to go under the freeway, which meant that Monterey, without any development, would continue to grow in traffic. Right now there were times in the day where they had to wait for two and sometimes three signals to go across . The additional lane would help, but now they were adding the walk/don't walk which would prohibit cars from turning right and would be an impossible intersection. He liked the development, but did not like it at this point because of the amount of traffic and there was nothing they could do about that. Mr. Folkers stated that they were doing something about it. The city is requesting an SB 300 grant to do some work there and they were also working at two interchanges . Right now the time table for Cook Street in spite of the environmental delays, they were talking about trying to do some work on the north side of the freeway this fall . If the environmental situation worsened, then it would be next spring; in the worst case situation for Cook Street and I-10 it would be under construction the summer of 1995 and would be completed in two years with an on and off ramp. They were in the process of approving a contract to do the Cook Street Extension on Thursday night and that would get the piece close to the railroad right of way. He said the Mr. Diaz was instrumental in convincing the U. S. Fish and Wildlife and others of the necessity for moving forward with the interchange at Monterey. They did not have to go through the same environmental delays as Cook and as a result that project had been environmentally cleared and according to the county would probably be under construction late this winter and that would be a year and a half ' s worth of work. They were hopeful if everything worked out it would be done in two years . Chairperson Spiegel said that was better news . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion died on a 2-2 vote (Chairperson Spiegel and Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . too 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Commissioner Jonathan stated that the only reason he was opposed was because he wanted the minimum lot sizes to be 8,000 square feet and the elevations and trash receptacles were the remaining issues and he did not feel they were a problem. He suggested giving the applicant the opportunity to accept the 8,000 square feet or ask for a continuance. With the 8,000 square feet, he would be prepared to move for approval . Chairperson Spiegel said that his opposition was strictly the traffic at Country Club and Monterey. Chairperson Spiegel reopened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the 8,000 square foot lot issue. Mr. Sloman noted that this property had been zoned PR-7 and acknowledging Suncrest Country Club with the mobile home units on them on 3,000 square foot lots and there was a land use compatibility situation here. He stated that he understood Commissioner Jonathan' s concern. He felt that they took Commissioner Whitlock' s comments from before and they went to a condominium approach and expanded the units to get the setbacks . He said they had a private street, condominium that had a single family house. He used Vista del Montanas on Hovley Lane as an example of the concept. He noted that he was the engineer on that 15 years ago. Commissioner Whitlock felt Mr. Sloman was confusing people with the term condominium. As she understood it, they were building a single family detached home. Mr. Sloman indicated that the purchaser would own the home and the lot and own fee ownership ( 1/136th) of the rest of the remaining area, which included the streets with a homeowners association. It was a planned unit development. Commissioner Jonathan said he knew there were things as a developer that they needed to make this pencil out, but their job was to do the best thing for the interest of the city and the residents of the city. Zoning when it was laid on a map was a conceptual plan. Zoning did not guarantee a right to develop something. When he personally looked at the proposal, regardless of what it said on a piece of paper, what he saw as an option for the developer was to either ask for a continuance, accept 8,000 square foot lots, or take a 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 chance with a denial and appeal to the city council . All of those were options were acceptable. Mr. Diaz stated there was another alternative and that was that the commission could approve the project subject to the tentative map being amended to develop 8,000 square foot lots, then the applicant could appeal that particular decision to council since it had to go to them anyway. Chairperson Spiegel noted that it could go to the council with a 2-2 vote. Mr. Diaz stated that a general plan amendment/zone change recommendation required a three vote. Mr. Folkers stated that he wanted to add some further amplification on the intersection. Palm Desert was the lead agency and they have applied for an SB 300 grant. They were working with Rancho Mirage to improve the various legs at the intersection. There were some problems with power poles, but it was their intention to try and get the maximum capacity on all approaches at that intersection as well as working with the developer to enhance the available funds . Chairperson Spiegel asked how many lanes maximum he was talking about. Mr. Folkers replied that basically, the ultimate would be two left turns, three through and one right turn on all approaches--six approach lanes . Chairperson Spiegel asked when the ultimate plan would happen. Mr. Folkers said they were working with Rancho Mirage and there were some problems with utilities; if they could get those taken care of and the poles underground right in the immediate intersection they could probably get everything--there were some very expensive costs involved with the undergrounding. It could be that there would be some widening on the approach with some free flow right turns to take the right turns around the utility poles at the intersection until the ultimate could be built; until the utilities could be undergrounded, at which time they would have all the approach lanes . Chairperson Spiegel said that if they could go with the ultimate six lanes, that would make the intersection better. Mr. Folkers stated that was their plan. Chairperson Spiegel said that assuming Albertson' s opened one year or a year and a half from now, when they opened, how many lanes on Country Club and on Monterey would be opened. Dick Folkers replied on the south leg he could assure him of one additional northbound lane, a right turn lane; on the east leg probably all six lanes, although some might be closed off; southbound and eastbound, that was still to be determined but he would say at least one more lane in the form of a free flow right turn. That was the minimum. 26 MW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Mr. Sloman reiterated that the developer of the project would be dedicating additional right of way on the north side of Country Club to provide a continuous right turn lane northbound on Monterey, for the three continuous lanes straight through and two left turn lanes, plus the median. Additionally on the northbound lane on Monterey they would provide two northbound lanes plus one continuous lane for turning into the commercial and/or residential gated community and then be feathered back into the two lanes as it heads back into the county jurisdiction adjacent to Suncrest. He noted that the city council would only have one meeting in July and one meeting August. If necessary, they would take a continuance; unfortunately the planning commission did not have the ability to waive costs and they had some heavy hits in terms of those improvements on Country Club and the developer acknowledged what the public works department requested because it was over and above the city' s approved master plan; they were giving it to them because they knew it needed to be there. If there was some relief that could be given to those improvements, or additional relief over and above what small amount of TUMF fees that would be credited. He was talking about two signals--the one at Country Club that had to be partially improved and upgraded as well as installing a signal in the middle of the Lucky' s center on Monterey. He said that Edison was requiring a cost of $250,000 for the lines that the developers would have to absorb. They would also have to provide detention for all the stormwater runoff for both projects because the master plan line that Wal-Mart was proposing to build isn' t built and there was no money in the city funds . They have an acre and a half of open space drainage that was lost property, so it was not 40 acres of property, but 40 acres less donating a CVWD lot and a detention basin. He understood what Commissioner Jonathan and Chairperson Spiegel were saying, but that was where they were at. Mr. Paynter asked if they could get a continuance to the end of the public hearing items and come back to the commission. They wanted to get this resolved tonight and ideally have some type of approval to move forward and they would be willing to consult and come back to the commission. rr 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Action: ■rr Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing this item to the end of the public hearing items, item #H. Carried 4-0 . Mr. Befeld asked to address the commission. Chairperson Spiegel said that Mr. Befeld would have that opportunity when the item was discussed at the end of the other public hearing items . C. Case No. PM 27979, I.W. FIVE, Applicant Request for approval of the subdivision of an industrial complex into two parcels southeast of Cook Street and St. James Place. Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions setforth. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. There was no one present. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony. Commissioner Whitlock asked for the purpose of the lot split. Commissioner Jonathan replied that it was probably for sale or financing purposes . Mr. Diaz concurred. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1647 , approving PM 27979, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . D. Case No. CUP 94-4 - ST. MARGARET'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a three phase school rr/ 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 project including operation of a school in an existing building (2200 square feet) , placement of three temporary modular classrooms (2900 square feet) , construction of a 10,400 square foot classroom building, and a 3600 square foot multi-purpose building at 47-535 Highway 74 in the P, S .P. , and R-1 S.P. zones . Mr. Winklepleck explained that this was a three phase project with the first phase being operation of kindergarten and first grade in classrooms currently being used for Sunday School . There would be up to 16 students per class for a total of 32 in phase 1 . Phase 2 would consist of placement of three temporary modular units toward the middle of the project. It would increase the size of the school by approximately 2900 square feet and were proposed to be placed on site within two years . With the addition it would increase the students from kindergarten through the sixth grade which would allow up to 140 total students . Phase 3 was the ultimate completion of the school and would include construction of a 10,400 square foot classroom building and 3600 square foot multipurpose room. The maximum student enrollment would remain at 140 and the temporary modular buildings placed in phase 2 would be removed at that time. The ultimate completion was projected to be within five years . He said it was typical not to recommend approval on a building without elevations, but staff felt comfortable with the architecture of the school and the fact that no comments had been received in opposition and the architectural commission would review it when it was submitted. Appropriate landscaping would be located to screen the buildings which were approximately 140 feet from Highway 74 . Staff recommended approval . Chairperson Spiegel asked for clarification; he said there was no problem with phases 1 or 2, but there was with three but it was five years down the road. Mr. Winklepleck noted that typically with a project there were elevations; in this case the church was looking for some approvals as a package and considering what they currently have on site, staff felt it could be left up to the architectural commission to insure a quality product. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 MR. JOHN CURTIS, with Kicak & Associates, the engineers for the project, said he was also on the St. Margaret' s school board and vestry. He felt staff very adequately presented the project and stated that he had already hired their school administrator, their teacher and they had 18 applications to join the school . If everything was approved and they could move forward according to their schedule, they planned to open the school in September. He said he would be happy to answer any questions . Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MS. SHARON STONE, a resident at Haystack and Highway 74, said that with this increased student body that would be across the street, what was the city planning to do in terms of traffic control . That was a very busy street with a speed limit of 55 mph and it would be difficult for people who were dropping their children off not to get hit from behind from someone racing up the street. Her other question was with that many students across the street, what type of noise abatement was being looked at--it would be quite noisy and since the church was built, there had been increased activity there, not just on weekends when church services were held, but for all the activities of the church and with the obvious influx of more children, it would be very noisy compared to now. Mr. Folkers stated that they recently talked to Caltrans about proceeding with a traffic signal here. Staff has approached them a few times and even though this location meets the minimum warrants for signalization, on their particular list, they were funded by certain criteria and this has always been at the lower end. They were going to proceed with the city being the lead agency as far as drawing up the plans with the hope that Caltrans would be able to participate. Chairperson Spiegel asked if the school would help move this up in priority. Mr. Folkers said it may or may not. They were going to give it another try and they would be getting the services of an engineer to do the necessary signal design. Mr. Winklepleck stated that for the noise, they located the playground between the existing church office the classrooms . 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 It could be conditioned that some sort of noise barrier, either a wall, landscaping or a combination thereof be used to mitigate that noise since the playground was the most intense noise area in the project. He said he understood the concerns of the neighbors, but that was something he believed could be handled with the noise barrier. Mr. Curtis said they would want the noise abated in both directions--from the highway to the school and the school to the adjoining neighborhood and they had already thought in their planning that at least a soft noise barrier would be necessary and may come to the point that a hard barrier in terms of a wall might be necessary. They did not have any problem with that and were well aware that if a signal went in at the main intersection there, that they would be participating in the funding. They would be in favor. He said that he had no problem with the conditions as listed. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Curtis if he would have a problem with an additional requirement to work with staff to provide some type of noise barrier. Mr. Curtis replied that he did not think so, but that low was usually predicated by a study to determine what was necessary. Commissioner Jonathan did not feel a study was necessary, but felt that something reasonable such as trees and berming; a reasonable mitigation against a potential noise impact. He did not think it would be that much of a problem since there was a natural noise barrier which was the noise from Highway 74 and the distance between the playground to the closest residential property. Mr. Curtis said he would be happy to work with staff on that issue. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the condition would probably have to be attached to phase 2 , since that was when the maximum number of students would be enrolled. Chairperson Spiegel closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Jonathan felt the project was wonderful and he had confidence in their ability to continue the good work. With the addition of the condition for the applicant to work 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 with staff in phase 2 to accomplish a reasonable noise barrier, he would move for approval . Chairperson Spiegel noted that he attended services at St. Margaret' s and the city attorney determined it was acceptable for him to vote on this matter. He stated that he was in favor. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1648, approving CUP 94-4, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . E. Case No. CUP 84-9 Amendment - VALLEY CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLY, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the existing conditional use permit for the Valley Christian Assembly to allow expansion of the existing main assembly area from 2782 square feet to 3971 square feet and to expand the existing parking lot from 59 spaces to 116 spaces for the existing church facility in the R-3 zoned property located west of Portola between Fred Waring Drive and Santa Rosa Way. Mr. Smith reviewed the background of the case and explained that there would not be any exterior modifications at this time to the existing buildings . Interior modification would result in the main assembly area increasing by 1189 square feet. In order to accommodate the additional parishioners that would be able to attend, they were looking at expanding their parking lot from 59 spaces to 116 ; also, they were looking for some access on Santa Rosa Way where they acquired the additional property for the parking lot expansion. Parking would conform to the ordinance requirement for the number of spaces . Staff had some concern about the driveway access onto the residential street (i .e. Santa Rosa and the recently completed development on the south side of Santa Rosa) . To mitigate that concern condition #8 was placed in 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 the resolution that the access driveways onto Santa Rosa and Portola would be closed for the most part; they would be open for regular Sunday service and other events at the church with large attendance. The matter was before architectural review commission; they had some concerns with the level of the drawings and they gave some direction to the applicant as to what they were looking for in the parking lot as well as the fencing. Those matters would be addressed through that process . Staff recommended approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a reason other than economics for providing for chain link fencing as opposed to concrete block walls . Mr. Smith replied that it may have been an economic consideration when they proposed it; that was an issue with the architectural review commission and they were headed toward a masonry slump stone wall concept for all of the exposed situations . On the west side of the property there was a letter in the packet that the church would be acquiring that property to expand the parking lot in the future so it was likely that the city would go along with chain link in that instance so that it could be knocked down and the parking lot expanded. The ultimate perimeter would be closed with a masonry wall . The chain link would be a temporary situation. On the east side of the residence at the corner of Santa Rosa and Portola and the north side, the residence would remain and they would use it for office purposes . It was not visible and wasn' t deemed a detriment. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LARRY McMACKEN, 74-596 Yucca Tree, stated that he was present to represent the applicant and he was willing to answer any questions . Regarding the chain link issue, the properties where the chain link was located would be owned by the church. It was on their own property and the fence adjacent to the streets would be block walls . Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she had no problem with the request. Chairperson Spiegel concurred. env 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Action: vw,1 Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1649, approving CUP 84-9 Amendment, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . Mr. Diaz suggested that the next two items be opened for public hearing at the same time, simultaneously. Commission concurred. Chairperson Spiegel noted that CUP 94-5 was received one day earlier than CUP 94-6 . F. Case No. CUP 94-5 - KENYON AND BRADLEY C. JONES, KBJ INC. , Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2763 square foot restaurant in the C-1 general commercial zone on the north side of Highway 111 125 feet east of San Luis Rey known as 73-850 Highway 111 . rr G. Case No. CUP 94-6 - GERARDO VALENCIA, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 1480 square foot restaurant in the C-1 general commercial zone on the north side of Highway 111 225 feet east of San Luis Rey known as 73-850 Highway 111, Suite G. Mr. Smith stated that the property was in the recently completed commercial center immediately east of 7-11 and Chief Auto. At this time the center was totally vacant. The center to the east was also done by the Metsovas family and had been in business successfully for the last couple of years with tenants ranging from SubKing to Kinko' s to several other businesses. The application by KBJ Inc. wished to locate in the westerly most unit in the new building with a Koo Koo Roo restaurant. It would be a 2763 square foot restaurant. The proposal by Mr. Valencia was to locate in the easterly most unit of the new building with a 1480 square foot Fiesta Mexicana Restaurant. 34 a.rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 ... Mr. Smith explained that the Koo Koo Roo restaurant was an expanding chain that served American style food and they were looking for a use that would provide eat-in dining for 76 patrons and take-out food. There was no alcohol involved and their requested hours were from 10 : 00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. The Fiesta Mexicana restaurant would be authentic fast mexican food. They have existed in Coachella four years and the restaurant was looking at a 510 square foot dining area as well as take out. This restaurant was to be licensed by ABC and its hours of operation were requested to be from 8 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. There were two issues that impacted both applications relative to parking. Since Friday, June 3, staff has conducted parking counts in the lots and the frontage road. A synopsis of that count was included in the packet. It concluded that if the city were to approve the Fiesta Mexicana in the easterly end of the new building, it would be immediately adjacent to the existing SubKing restaurant which was in the west end of the older building. Right now the parking situation in the area was such that it was the only place that was quite congested. It also applied to the spaces on the street. He stated that he conducted most of %WW the counts during the lunch hours between 11 : 00 a.m. and 1 : 30 p.m. They do a good business . Given the time of year there might be concern with the parking, but because of the uses the counts would not swell during the season. He felt they attract a clientele that was here most of the year, so the parking count should be fairly reflective of what would be occurring during the winter months . The second issue was that as part of the adoption of the TUMF regulations, if a center exceeds 25% of its area with restaurant uses, then there were substantial additional TUMF fees due to be paid. The center developer already paid these fees for a commercial center. If he were to have the two restaurants go in to the one building, he would exceed the 25% threshold and additional TUMF fees would be required. Given the parking assessment, staff was not comfortable with putting the Fiesta Mexicana restaurant in Suite G, at the easterly end of the new building. Staff did not have a problem with that restaurant locating in the center, but it should be located in a vacant unit at the east end of the older center. That way the parking could be spread out and hopefully accommodate both restaurants as well as not impacting in the existing SubKing situation. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Chairperson Spiegel asked staff if this had been discussed ■/ with the developer; Mr. Smith replied yes, with the developer, but not with Mr. Valencia. Mr. Smith continued his report and indicated that commission received a copy of a letter from Mr. and Mrs . Clarey and Mr. and Mrs . King. On page 2 dated June 17 they protested the approval of these CUP' s and they described problems with the garbage containers for the businesses as well there were no existing noise barriers/ buffers between the commercial and adjacent residential properties . Additional traffic, parking and servicing of the restaurants would directly impact their homes . He said the homes were located on San Jacinto to the north of the property. They also expressed concern that they did not want another liquor license established next to their neighborhood. They were requesting that a substantial noise barrier buffer be included in the consideration of approval of the pending CUPs . Commissioner Whitlock asked Mr. Smith to clarify where the liquor licenses were located; Mr. Smith noted that the mexican restaurant was requesting a license and that was the only one in the whole center. Mr. Smith stated that staff was recommending approval of the Koo Koo Roo as requested subject to conditions and recommending approval of the Fiesta Mexicana subject to it being relocated to one of the vacant spaces at the easterly end of the older Metsovas commercial development and subject to the conditions . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he understood that the two centers were actually owned by two different developers and they were related, but could the restriction staff was suggesting be placed. Mr. Smith indicated that in discussing this with Mr. Steve Metsovas, he understood that it could be accomplished. Chairperson Spiegel felt the new center was very attractive, but his question was the parking problem. He said he was there at 12 : 45 p.m. and he saw people parking in the new development because there wasn't enough room around SubKing and asked if the parking adequately met the city' s parking for a restaurant this size with the capacity. Mr. Smith stated that time would allow them to assess this more fully should they proceed. It was staff ' s feeling that generally they would still be below the 25% threshold over the two centers . The numbers were included in one of the reports . In the past there has not been a problem as long as that 25% 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 .r.. threshold was not crossed. Both centers were parked at the required standard for the general commercial zone and there was street parking available. Essentially the whole development had 132 parking spaces available to it and that did not include the parking on Alessandro on the north side of the buildings because it would be strictly limited to employee or owner parking with access to the buildings from the rear. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. BRAD JONES, a La Quinta resident, stated he was present to represent the Koo Koo Restaurant and concurred with the staff report and was present to answer any questions . MR. GERRY VALENCIA, a La Quinta resident, stated that he has operated an authentic mexican restaurant which Palm Desert did not have and he would like to bring one to Palm Desert. He said that his concern was that staff wanted him to move. He felt that restaurants depended on location and visibility. He believed the location he chose was the best for his business . He noticed in the parking lot report that all the counts were done at lunch time. Even though he served lunch, his main business was breakfast, afternoon and evening. He felt there wouldn't be much problem in the parking lot during those hours . He pointed out that the street in the back was not considered as being available and he went and saw at least 12 or 14 spaces available and there was a street that accessed the shopping center, so it was not so bad to park in the back and his employees would park in the back and walk to the restaurant. Commissioner Whitlock asked what Mr. Valencia ' s hours of operation would be; Mr. Valencia said he mentioned to staff that his basic hours would be 8 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. , but he would actually like from 7 : 00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. because he served breakfast in the morning. He said that he was going to bring that up with staff at a later date. Chairperson Spiegel said that now was the time to request those hours . Mr. Valencia said he would like 7 : 00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Valencia presently served liquor in his restaurant; Mr. Valencia replied that they only served beer and wine and that was the only alcoholic beverages he intended to sell . 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Mr. Valencia asked the commission to not require him to wo relocate because of the poor visibility of that other location. When exiting Highway 111 on the ramp a person would have to look right away to the right to see him. That was probably why those spaces were vacant. He said that if he was asked to relocate there, he would have to reconsider locating in the center because he had to protect his investment. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. CHARLES CLAREY, 44-855 San Jacinto, stated that he dropped off some correspondence to the commission today and apologized that it was not done earlier. He said the neighborhood did not want to stifle the economic growth of the community and they were pleased that the center was doing so well and he has had many conversations with the developer and he was working with them. However, one concern was parking. Alessandro because it was close to Portola and Highway 111 was getting heavy amounts of traffic during the day and now also in the evening. He felt a negative element had been attracted due to the fact that within one block there were two 24 hour convenience stores so traffic at r/ all hours of the night and day were going up and down Alessandro, which was where they resided. He wanted to see some type of buffer zone. He said they were concerned about the consumption of alcohol; they already had Ruth' s Chris on the corner, as well as an AM/PM and 7-11 where they were allowed to purchase it there although they did not consume it there. He said that because of the vacant lots adjacent to their homes people consumed their alcohol there and this was what he was talking about when the said the "wrong element" . He said there was a public access from Alessandro in between these newly developed areas and he felt that most of the traffic, especially the mexican restaurant right on the corner, would use that access and increase the volume of traffic on the street. He said he would not like any more parking on Alessandro because the businesses from 9 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. would effect none of the home owners, but three of the establishments within one block were 24 hours : Kinko' s, 7-11 and AM/PM. In addition, many of the businesses there in the previously developed units operated until 8 :00 p.m. or 9 : 00 p.m. and the employees used Alessandro for coming and going and they did not have a buffer to keep the 38 low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 .... noise or traffic down. He said that speeding had been an issue also and he had met with Mr. Folkers about this . They talked to the police and he felt that right now their comment was that if they were not there to see it, there was nothing they could do. He said that as the center got more tenants, the worse it would be for the neighborhood because there was no buffer there. The garbage dumping for two stalls with two dumpsters each occurred around 5 : 30 a.m. and the new units would have a similar amount so eight or ten dumps would be made and he would appreciate some help with that. He said that hours of operation concerned them because with the restaurants closing at 10 : 00 p.m. or 11 : 00 p.m. , at 11 : 00 p.m. when the employees finished cleanup and went home it would create excess noise at a late hour. He said the neighbors were trying to reclaim the neighborhood and not be inundated by the commercial activities . He asked the commission to work with them to create a buffer either through landscaping or anything would be appreciated. He said that due to the size of the building sound was literally reflected off of it. He indicated that a petition was going through three or four blocks and he wanted to submit it at a later time that expressed concern about their `"" neighborhood bordering the commercial entity. He said there was approximately 100% consent among the neighborhood. Commissioner Whitlock asked if Mr. Clarey resided in one of the homes adjacent to the parking lot or vacant lot. Mr. Clarey replied yes, he and his wife resided directly adjacent to that lot and he mentioned in 1977 a conditional use permit was granted to make that a parking lot. The owners, Mr. and Mrs . Sonelli, agreed to it but the lot grade was quite a bit above where their home was, so he had a five and a half or six foot block wall that was just a retaining wall because walking around to stand in that parking lot, the wall became three feet two inches high and afforded them no privacy. He spoke to Mr. Folkers about that and he was concerned that with the new businesses going in, there would be a lot more people using this parking lot and the fact that the grade went down like it did, if someone just stood on Alessandro, they could look right into his back yard. He was concerned about that parking lot. The owner of the lot had asked him to ask the commission for instruction as to what he can do. It is private property and he could probably do what he wanted, but he was not aware there was a problem. He said he 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 would like that lot cordoned off or chained off. Any help ,me would be appreciated. Commissioner Beaty asked Mr. Clarey if he was asking the city to build him a wall or buy him some landscaping. Mr. Clarey replied no, what they were asking that if the current expansion goes on, then they saw no way to keep the employees and patrons out of their "backyard" . He felt that should be considered when giving a permit to these types of uses because it negatively effected them and the neighborhood with noise and traffic. He said it would be wonderful if they had an eight foot block wall all the way around their neighborhood, but in reality, that was not going to happen and he was asking for options and if there were none, they have said their piece. Mr. Folkers informed commission that last week he met with Mr. Clarey and Mrs . King. He noted that commission had a copy of the letter that was sent to him on the first of June. Copies of that letter were sent to the sheriff ' s department and other departments effected by the contents in the letter. He talked with the director of code compliance with regard to the parking lots . They had a situation where the people went into the parking lots and used them as restrooms; there were trees on the lots used as housing and some other problems . There were noise problems . A few years ago a barricade was placed on San Jacinto and Mr. Clarey asked that to be modified and moved further south, which they were in the process of doing. There was a whole series of things brought up. When they talked, Mr. Clarey was talking about the city building him a wall . Mr. Folkers felt this would always be a problem as long as there was residential areas adjacent to commercial . There was a concern about the parking on Alessandro and he felt the city could probably accommodate him with putting restrictions on parking in the evening so that there weren' t people parking there late at night along there. No parking signs from 8 :00 p.m. to 7 : 00 a.m. could probably be installed. He was afraid that as far as trying to reduce the amount of traffic going through there, there were traffic controls that could be put in that might be possible to effect the speed, but they would not eliminate the traffic or the noise, especially with more commercial activities taking place. It would be a tough situation and would take the involvement of all the city staff to solve these problems . The appropriate departments had been given copies of Mr. Clarey' s letter and were proceeding to get an action plan together. ..r 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Mr. Clarey thanked Mr. Folkers for mentioning that and he did not want to go into too much detail because he felt the scope of the conversation should remain on whether or not these restaurants should be approved. Chairperson Spiegel said that they were really talking about the restaurants uses, the development was there on the Highway 111 corridor which was going to be a commercial corridor in the city, so the question was whether the restaurants were appropriate. He agreed that 5 : 30 a.m. trash pickup was too early and he would ask staff at the appropriate time to look into that matter. Mr. Folkers already addressed the no parking in the evening situation and that should satisfy that problem. Mr. Clarey said that he was under the impression that Mr. Folkers thought that was a negative idea, but he must have been mistaken. Mr. Folkers stated that he indicated he would look into all the issues and give them to the appropriate people. He couldn' t give Mr. Clarey answers at that time because other departments were involved over which he had no control . He said they would be doing an investigation into the request for a three-way stop at Alessandro and San Jacinto and they were in the process of doing that. MR. STEVE METSOVAS, developer of the center, said he wanted to comment on the alcohol consumption. Being that the mexican restaurant would be the type of restaurant that served alcohol inside, he did not feel it would attract the type of clientele that would actually carry the bottles outside and go into the back lots to drink. As far as 7-11 and AM/PM, he couldn't control their customers . He said he has found bottles in the back of his building and he throws them away. As far as the trash being picked up at 5 : 30 a.m. he has talked to Waste Management several time about that because some of the residents have complained and they wouldn' t give him any feedback. Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Whitlock stated that she had no problem with either restaurant, but she did have a problem with the staff recommendation given the applicant' s concern about being on that corner of the building and the exposure he needs . She 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 did not want to be the one to tell him he couldn't be in that mo location; the center would lose a tenant and there would be a lose of a business . Commissioner Jonathan suggested that since they were looking at the center as one unit for the parking requirement that the commission stick with that; that meant they should not try and control where the tenant was locating. He did not have a problem with that and concurred with Commissioner Whitlock. Chairperson Spiegel felt each restaurant should be considered separately. Commissioner Whitlock noted that if the commission did that, staff was recommending that the mexican restaurant relocate and the applicant said he was not willing to relocate. Chairperson Spiegel said that since there were two different problems and two different cases, he felt they should be looked at one at a time in the order they were received by the city. Mr. Smith explained that the development of the properties required mutual access easements from one to the other and relative to the use of the driveway access from Alessandro. For those purposes the properties were connected. Commissioner Jonathan noted that allowed the commission to .r look at the center as one property and the calculation of what was allowable as restaurant area was based on the combination of the two properties . That was how they came up with a total of 26,725 square feet and they would come under the 25% allowable for restaurants . On that basis if they were combined and looked at as one project, then the commission could justify putting the two restaurants in the new part of the development. Also, if a new restaurant came into the older part, then commission would tell them it pushed them over the 25% allowable range and created a new problem. They would have control that way and using that rationale, additional restaurant use in either portion of the unified development would push it over the 25% limit. He would concur with Commissioner Whitlock and would not have a problem with the project. The other problems that were addressed by surrounding residents, Mr. Clarey in particular, he sympathized with, but he did not feel they were created by these particular two applications . He felt what Chairperson Spiegel said was correct--this was a commercial corridor and that created a certain type of problem for the surrounding residential . He noted that staff was working on it and if they did not work on it to the satisfaction of the residents, 42 wo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 NOW the commission should continue hearing about it to see what could be done. Mr. Diaz suggested that at the next meeting the commission should review the Palm Village Specific Plan where they specifically address the issue of the properties on the north side of Alessandro. He said that it was a brilliant plan, but like most brilliant plans execution and money for that execution was a different issue. He stated that staff would bring that to them at the next meeting. He felt it was a matter of interpretation of the plan. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that the additional two requirements be placed on the Fiesta Mexicana, which was that liquor be limited to beer and wine only and that the hours of operation be 7 : 00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. Chairperson Spiegel asked if Commissioner Jonathan felt that 7 : 00 a.m. would be a problem for the residents on Alessandro since the employees would probably arrive at 6 : 00 a.m. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was normal for restaurants for breakfast business and if it became a problem under the conditional use permit process they would hear about it. Chairperson Spiegel noted that if the restaurant was approved and it became a problem to the residents on Alessandro, they could bring it up to the commission and say it was not working out and it could be readdressed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1650, approving CUP 94-5, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1651, approving CUP 94-6, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . aw 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 H. Case No. ZOA 94-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to add "Adult Entertainment Establishments" as a permitted use in the Service Industrial District. Mr. Smith explained that in 1984 the city council, pursuant to the direction of the city attorney' s office, updated the city' s regulations as they applied to adult entertainment establishments in that the city was required to provide for adult entertainment uses somewhere in the city. Chairperson Spiegel asked if this was mandatory. Mr. Smith replied that the city attorney could better address that aspect. The adult entertainment ordinance provides that these types of uses are permitted in the service industrial zone. The intent of the item before commission was to recommend to the council that they amend the zoning ordinance to bring it into consistency with the remainder of the municipal code. Staff was recommending in favor of the amendment and City Attorney Hargreaves could address the issue of why. Mr. Hargreaves explained that the United States Supreme Court determined that adult entertainment was a protected expression under the First Amendment and that cities were required to allow that type of expression unless they had a good reason not too and any type of regulation imposed on that type of expression must be directed at the secondary effect rather than the content of the expression itself. There had been a decent amount of litigation in the courts regarding exactly what cities could and could not do; it was on-going and there was a lot of gray area out there. The general understanding now was that a city had to provide locations where they were permitted. There could not be a situation where through discretion in the ordinance the locations were not accessible. It had to be a straight forward process to meet certain conditions to open an establishment. Several years ago the Palm Desert Ordinance was updated and it regulated to some extent these establishments and it was written into that ordinance that these establishments would be permitted in the Service Industrial zone. If someone came to Palm Desert and wanted to put in one of these uses in the Service Industrial zone, they had the right to put it there. What happened was that the zoning ordinance did not get amended at the same time so there was an anomaly in the city code, but by amending the zoning ordinance to include this as a permitted use, they 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 """ were not changing the law, it was already a permitted use in the Service Industrial zone. They were in the process of amending the ordinance regarding adult entertainment again to clarify it and make it more impervious to judicial review. As case law developed ordinances were modified to a certain extent to insure an ordinance was not open to attack. He said they would be going through that exercise in the next month or so. Chairperson Spiegel asked if this was related to the situation with the Paradise establishment. Mr. Hargreaves indicated that particular matter was in litigation and he preferred not to comment at this time. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. ROBERT STONICK, 41-965 Hemingway Court in Palm Desert, stated that the explanation was not clear and seemed to be a make work situation. Since 1984 , ten years, what was the purpose of changing it now--just to get the record straight or was there someone interested in coming into the area. Mr. Diaz stated that the reason for correcting it now was based on recent Supreme Court decisions both at state and federal levels dealing with adult entertainment. That was why the present ordinance and codes were being brought up to date. Mr. Stonick noted that the decision was made in 1984 . Mr. Diaz stated he was talking about decisions made by both of those judicial bodies since 1984 . Mr. Stonick asked if anyone had been trying to get into the area with the adult entertainment activities . Mr. Diaz replied that there were no applications at the present time, although the city was currently in litigation regarding a place that could be deemed adult entertainment. Mr. Stonick said that the particular area the city was talking about, the service industry bounded by Cook and Hovley had considerable residential area around it and weaved inside of it. He asked if there were any restrictions or limitations if anything did come in as taw 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 to how close they could be to the residences, the high school and grade schools . Mr. Diaz replied yes, and they were not limiting it to the service industrial area that was presently zoned in the city; they were limiting other service industrial areas that would be near the railroad tracks . Within 500 feet of R-1, R-2, R- 3, PR, PC, or within 500 feet of any C-1 zones in the city no adult entertainment establishment could be established. Mr. Stonick felt that 500 feet was not enough when talking about an industry that promotes crime. He felt that staff played the issue down when referring to a bookstore. They were opening up that area to the possibility of other types of entertainment, which was undesirable. He did not know if this could be delayed or if it was possible to work around it and consider alternatives . Mr. Diaz stated that the problem was that if there was no ordinance limiting it, then there was an effect of almost no limitation at all . Secondly, as indicated by the city attorney, there had to be a practical way of allowing it; if they made it so that it could not go in, the courts would say there was no ordinance at all and it meant they were back to +� where they were before. The best example of this was the case of the City of Los Angeles where their original ordinance limited adult entertainment to the end of the LAX freeway and about six feet under the Pacific Ocean. The court said no, that they had to be somewhat reasonable. Unfortunately when trying to bring an ordinance like this current, there was a great deal of fear out there, but there had not been a great deal of applications or people asking to come into Palm Desert. Chairperson Spiegel asked if the city could go beyond the 500 feet. Mr. Hargreaves replied that the courts had not clearly established what the dispersion requirements would be; generally speaking there had to be some locations within the zones to allow them. It was a question of within the particular zone, there had to be a few places in that zone where it could be done, or the city would be in trouble. There was no requirement as to how many feet. Mr. Stonick asked what kind of trouble the city would be in--would they be audited by the federal government for this requirement. 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 "r Mr. Hargreaves explained that when someone comes into the city and leases space somewhere that was an inappropriate spot and goes to the city and says they want to do it there, and you tell them that under the ordinance they can' t, you end up getting in litigation and the court determines that the ordinance is invalid, the business they established would be stuck there. That was the problem. If there isn't an ordinance that meets constitutional requirements, then you have no ordinance and no control . Mr. Stonick said that Ordinance No. 371 says that it severely limits the location of these businesses . That means you can locate those businesses within the service industrial district, but it severely limits them. He asked how that happened and for a demonstration. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the adult entertainment ordinance, chapter 5 . 88 has a dispersion requirement in it--you can't locate within 500 feet of R-1, R-2 , R-3, PR, PC, PI zones, within 500 feet of C-1 or within 500 feet of any personal legal property that had a church, public building, schools, or within 500 feet of other adult entertainment establishments, or within 500 feet of business involving on premises sale of liquor. Mr. Stonick stated that the city did have within its ordinance restrictions and it severely restricted them from going any place within the area that they wanted. Mr. Hargreaves said that was correct, there were severely restricted. He explained that the dispersion ordinance was already in the adult entertainment ordinance and it controls where these uses can be placed; the problem was there was an adult entertainment ordinance that said they could locate businesses in the service industrial zone but 500 feet from churches and schools . In the zoning ordinance the service industrial part did not include adult establishments as a permitted use, so there was an anomaly in the city codes--one point said they could be permitted and another one said no. They were amending the zoning ordinance to conform with the adult entertainment ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan stated that they were just tying up a loose end; they have an ordinance in the code but the zone failed to be consistent with it. That was all it was . 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Commissioner Beaty said that no one there was trying to promote or invite adult entertainment, but they were trying to make it so that someone could not cause the city problems . Mr. Hargreaves stated that they were making the restrictions in place more enforceable. MS. ROSANNA RADOLPH, a resident of Primrose located off Cook and Hovley, stated that she was within a mile of that area under discussion. She asked if the commission was aware that there were 60 children that lived on their street alone in Primrose, which was 39 homes . Then there was the Sandcastle development with 20-30 children and then the Vista del Montanas, which was directly across the Cook and Hovley area that was zoned for this . The bus stop for the middle school was at the corner of Cook and Hovley. She said that she had a problem with kids getting off the bus and walking, many by themselves, along a mile and a half to get to their homes in an area where there might be people who go into places to get sexually excited and then walk out. She had a real problem with that. She did not think this was an appropriate area. The other problem was that the high school established a two mile walking distance, so there was no bus service in their area. They have high school kids who do walk to summer school every day and they cut through this area and she felt it was an incredibly dangerous thing for the city. She knew it was a Supreme Court ruling, but sometimes maybe common sense had to be used to protect the children. She stated that it was inviting trouble to have the high school, middle school and new Hovley school and that again was within walking distance. It would be inviting problems to have any type of adult entertainment of that sort in the area. She hoped the commission would really consider this because she worked a lot with the schools and they had so many problem children, they did not need to invite anything like this to it. Mr. Diaz clarified that the city was not "inviting" adult entertainment establishments at all . What the city was doing was making the present legal requirements to control adult entertainment establishments stronger. In the specific areas identified there would not be any adult entertainment establishments permitted within 500 feet of the streets because across those streets were residential uses . There might be spots inside the service industrial area. If he said there were no areas within the service industrial area 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 'e' that would allow this, he would be testifying against the city' s own ordinance and the city would lose. The purpose of the ordinance was to control . They would not be able to locate near any streets or schools . However, no legislation or ordinance on the city' s part or state' s part can possibly substitute for family direction and family values . The ordinance before the commission was the strictest. If challenged they would be able to defend it, but he did not know if it would withstand that challenge. He felt confident it would or they would not be there. He said that right now if they did not amend the code, an establishment could be located not only within the service industrial zone, but possibly within any commercial zone in the city. They were trying to limit it. He stated that this was the zone that they would want that type of business to develop in if it developed at all . It would not be impossible, but difficult to locate an establishment in this zone. There might be some industrial zoning established at a later date that would be along the railroad tracks, but it would be difficult. Chairperson Spiegel asked if it would be correct to say that there are no applicants for this type of business in this zone; Mr. Diaz replied yes . Ms . Radolph said that one thing they tried to promote with their children was that this was not the most appropriate type of behavior, but unfortunately people that frequent those establishments didn' t find it inappropriate to approach children and flash or ask them to come up to their cars where they are sitting there without clothes on. She said they do that do adults and she had that done to her. She did not want something like this going on. She stated that there was a mini mart down the road where a lot of children ride their bikes to and they were faced with the situation where they wanted their children to be independent and let them grow up, but by the same token if they know something like that is right around the street corner from 15 and 16 year olds, she would be worried about them riding their bikes around there. She did not think that in Palm Desert she should have to worry about that kind of thing. She felt it had been proven over and over again that it was a danger. She noted that she was very involved in the Washington Charter School and one reason was that they were willing to take the "bull by the horns" and start changing the bureaucracy and changing the things that didn' t make sense. She felt it was time for the cities and citizens to take back their 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 cities and start saying no, this type of thing would not be in it--it was too dangerous for our children and families . Commissioner Jonathan stated that this was a sensitive issue and unfortunately one that evoked a great deal of misinformation. He said that he has children and he was as concerned about this issue as anyone, but there was no indication or proof that adult entertainment was a direct link to child pornography or someone sitting in their car flashing. Furthermore, there was a linkage in Ms . Radolph' s statement to the mini mart and he happened to know the owner/operator who was also a family person and they were not having any kinds of problems . He also wanted to make clear that the law gives adults the right to be entertained in the way they choose, whether we like that law or not. What' s going on here was the city was trying to control where that type of entertainment could take place within the city. They had to provide a zoning for it. If they didn't pick service industrial, what were the other choices : neighborhood commercial, office professional, residential--out of those choices where would they want it. This was the most logical and what the municipal code already contains, they were just tying up a loose end and making it stronger. To make their limitations stronger so that they could control where this kind of activity could take place. MR. DON BARRY, a resident of the Sandcastle development, asked if the ordinances for zoning were specific in that they had to specifically draw out the types of businesses that could locate in a specific zone. Commissioner Jonathan replied yes, they listed the permitted uses . Chairperson Spiegel noted that was why they had to make an exception for the church with a school . Mr. Barry asked if the zoning ordinance could be left mute in that instance when it was already drawn out in the city ordinances . Mr. Diaz said that was why this issue was before the commission. He indicated that the ordinance the city has had since 1984 and what they were trying to do was clarify it and take care of the paper work. In 1984 they said it was allowed in the service industrial zone, but they did not mention it in the service industrial zone. It apparently had done a good job because he had not seen a great many adult entertainment establishments coming into the city--they were 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 r..► not out there. As indicated by the city attorney, by putting in that service industrial zone they have identified a zone it could go into. As indicated by Commissioner Jonathan, there wasn' t any other zone for it to go into. What they had was the same ordinance, they were just saying in the zoning ordinance what the adult entertainment ordinance says . The only place they can locate in is the service industrial zone. The ordinance that has served the city since 1984 fairly well and would continue to serve them. Now it could not be challenged. Mr. Barry said that the original ordinance was written in 1984 . During that time the residential areas had grown up around the service industrial areas that weren't there or populated. It might have made since at that time and they probably did not have much opposition at that time for putting these types of businesses in this service industrial zone. He said that if they brought this back up today, that might change significantly. He would certainly come forward and people he knew would also come forward to object to it being placed in those areas . He did not want to see it appear in the zoning ordinance, he wanted to see the original ordinance revisited and perhaps some other zoning arranged where these businesses might establish themselves . It was not an issue of they shouldn' t be allowed somewhere, but he was contending that the city had grown substantially and the makeup of the industrial areas had changed significantly and it probably was no longer appropriate to say that a 1984 judgement applied just as well today as it did in 1984 . He wanted that considered and instead of adopting and "cleaning up a loose end" they really needed to go back and revisit the other end of the issue and see if it still made sense and was appropriate. It may have served until today as the proper place for these businesses, but he did not think that would continue into the future. Chairperson Spiegel suggested that Mr. Barry look at the zoning ordinance for the city and come up with a recommendation, because there was residential, commercial, and different types of commercial--office buildings versus theaters and grocery stores and malls and the industrial zone. That was basically how it was broken down. He suggested that Mr. Barry go to the planning department and they would get him a copy to take home and if he had some recommendations, he could come back and give it to them. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Mr. Barry said he would be happy to and thanked the commission for listening. Commissioner Jonathan commented that just because something was zoned one way did not give an applicant the right to go there. They have had applications that involved selling of liquor that they determined was too close to a school along Alessandro and it was denied. It was a permitted use in the zone along Highway 111, but residents objected and the commission determined that it was inappropriate and it was defeated. There were many pockets within in the service industrial zone that were too close to residential, bus stops, schools and so forth and they would have a basis for denying those applications . The danger they ran into was if there wasn' t a potential zoning, someone could say they wanted it next to the Palm Desert High School and the courts would say that because the city did not provide a place where they could do it, then they could do it anywhere they wanted. That was the situation they were trying to avoid. MR. LARRY MCMACKEN, 74-596 Yucca Tree, stated that it sounded to him that the 500 feet was a minimum and suggested 1000 feet. He asked if that could be put into the ordinance now instead of 500 feet. He felt that 500 feet was not a large enough radius . Mr. Diaz stated that if they said 1000 feet, they could not do it. If 1000 feet was measured from all of the service industrial area and the uses in there, they would in effect be saying that the use was not allowed. Mr. McMacken stated that 500 feet was five residential lots and that wasn't putting any one out in the sticks . It was not enough. He suggested that the commission go for 1000 feet. Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for comments from commission. Chairperson Spiegel noted this was already on the books and the city was just tying up a loose end. It had been there since 1984 . As suggested by Commissioner Jonathan, if they applied to the city they would have to come before the commission for approval at an open hearing. 52 J MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 i.. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1652, recommending to city council approval of ZOA 94-2 . Carried 4-0 . B. Continued Case Nos . GPA 93-4, C/Z 93-4, PP 93-6 and TT 27882, - ROBERT L. MAYER TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map for a residential condominium project on 31 acres and a general plan amendment and change of zone from medium density residential (PR-7 ) to PC-2 (district commercial) on 9 . 1 acres with a precise plan of design allowing for up to 86,220 square feet of neighborhood shopping center at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey tow Avenue. Chairperson Spiegel reopened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ED SLOMAN, KWC Engineers, stated that there was a lot of discussion. As indicated by Mr. Folkers there would be a project coming forward that would address the intersection. Again, Mr. Mayer, the consultants and the two developers felt that with the additional rights of way that wouldn 't be gotten from the south side of Country Club and what they would be giving on the north side, as well as the improvements that would improve that intersection immediately, they would like to be underway in six or seven months to start that process . They discussed with Mr. Gaugush that those improvements for Monterey and Country Club would all go in simultaneously as one project. Secondly, the developer would like to move the project forward. He said he had a question directed to Commissioner Jonathan; at the last meeting they had good dialogue with Commissioner Whitlock who was concerned with the image and impression along Monterey and Country Club. They felt they widened the lots out and made some adjustments and lost lots . 53 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 There was a concern at this point with going to 8000 square foot lots . He stated he wanted to correct the record that Mr. Befeld' s lots in Suncrest Country Club were approximately 4800 square feet. Their concern was they widened those lots and went to a gated community to create their own community quality of life. For that reason they came up with the current proposal . He asked if it was possible to take the 6991 average square footage and create the image along the exterior boundaries along Monterey and Country Club facades and give them a condition that they could average 7500 square feet in the project, but they would still lose units . They did not have a layout and a computer to go through it, but they would lose 10-15 units . That was what they were looking at if the commission all agreed that Chairperson Spiegel ' s traffic issue was addressed by Mr. Folkers and this project and after the very good dialogue between staff, the architectural commission, EDC, etc. , to arrive where they were today, they felt they have come far enough that they did not want to have to come back because the council would not have a meeting for six weeks and they were then getting into August and September. They would have to readdress this issue at the council again, but they wanted the commission ' s support. He felt the commission appeared to be in support of the project as a total . He said he would like to look to Commissioner Jonathan knowing that they had addressed Commissioner Whitlock' s concerns from the last meeting. He stated they would like to go forward. He asked if there was a way they could go with a 7500 square foot average, not minimum. He said that the alternative was to condition the project at 8, 000 square feet and they would discuss it with the city council . He felt they had a good project. He said he wanted to leave it in Commissioner Jonathan's hands because he seemed to be the one that was concerned, because he was the closest one impacted, but asked him to keep in mind the project' s location and the surrounding uses . Commissioner Jonathan noted that he was just one vote and he was no more closely impacted than anyone else, which was why he was able to vote on this . His response was that he stood firm by the 8,000 square feet minimum. He was personally coming down from the 10, 000 square feet that he felt should be the minimum for the city. The reason he was so sensitive to this issue was to maintain the quality of life for existing and future residents of this city. There were three 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 .... things he felt had the greatest potential negative impact on that quality of life: parking--when you couldn't find a space; traffic, because it wears you down; and being in a crowded place-that was like Los Angeles to him. What brought many residents here was getting away from that and he did not want to be responsible for creating that type of negative environment here. He used the word crowded, not density because he recognized that the area had the right to develop more units . Looking at the Desert Springs Marriott, there was a decision made to build one structure and leave the feeling of openness to avoid the crowded feeling. That was why he said if they needed more units, they could find a different way to design it. They had done this on other projects through a combination of condominiums and free standing units . He was not trying to tie them to a single vision that he might or might not have, he was just saying that the way the project was, those lot sizes created a crowded feeling in his mind. That was why he would stand firm with the 8, 000 square foot lots . Mr. Sloman said he heard Commissioner Whitlock and the architectural commission say the same thing, that they wanted to see more space between the units . That was how they ended up with the design today. He said that if they directed them to have 7500 square foot averages, they would lose lots, but they would become wider and have more space. He felt the project was well designed and asked for the 7500 square foot averages . At the same time if the commission as a unit wanted 8, 000, he felt they had addressed the commercial and he felt there was support for the commercial and residential . He said they would accept a condition that they would have an average of 7500 square foot lots . If commission said that was not acceptable then they would accept as a condition 8, 000 square foot lots . Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. MR. GERHARD BEFELD, owner of Suncrest Country Club, stated that he wanted the commission to have accurate information on Suncrest. Suncrest has average lot sizes of 4500 square feet, but because of the golf course and common areas the density was three units per acre. If the commission chose to go with the kind of modified plan, he would request that not only on Monterey and Country Club but also on their borders that they do the modified lot procedure referred to by Mr. Sloman. .r 55 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Action: Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would move to approve the project with the following conditions : 1) minimum lot sizes of 8, 000 square feet; 2 ) modify the Albertson' s elevations as discussed before to the satisfaction of staff; 3) to add a condition that the trash bins be located in a suitable location to the satisfaction of staff, out of sight from Country Club and Monterey. Chairperson Spiegel stated that he would also like to add: 4) that the minimum additional lane that Mr. Folkers described earlier be in place prior to the opening of the Albertson' s market and that they go forward with the maximum as he described. The motion was seconded by Chairperson Spiegel . The motion died on a 2- 2 vote (Commissioners Beaty and Whitlock voted no) . Commissioner Beaty asked if Chairperson Spiegel was comfortable with Mr. Folkers comments about the intersection since the concern he originally voiced was about traffic. Chairperson Spiegel said that was correct and he felt the applicant had gone a long way from where they were at the last meeting and going up to an average of 7500 square feet was great because the city didn't have an ordinance saying that it had to be 8,000 . He noted that they were building within city codes and they were changing the rules . He agreed that originally the houses were too close together and they had given them additional space. They might find that they can't sell the houses with the kind of space they' re giving them and they might want to increase the space later. At this point they were doing what the city allows . Commissioner Beaty said he would like to make a motion that they approve the projects with the conditions except for the 8, 000 square foot minimum. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1653, recommending approval of GPA 93-4, C/Z 93-4, and PP 93-6 to city council subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . �■rr 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1654 , recommending approval of revised TT 27882 to city council subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . Mr. Smith asked for a clarification on the condition of the lot sizes. Commissioner Beaty stated that the condition was an average of 7500 square feet, not a minimum, and there was no stipulation as to where those lots had to be--if they had to put them around every perimeter it would not work and Mr. Befeld' s lots did not meet that requirement. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Determination of Use for Service Industrial Zone Mr. Diaz explained that this was a determination of use request to determine that an entertainment use/restaurant was an allowable use in the service industrial zone with approval of a conditional use permit. Mr. Diaz recommended approval of this request and explained that the reason he was discussing this with the city attorney was that this would have to be "shaken out" with the adult entertainment ordinance. This meant that the Cook Street Music Art Song Commissary could apply for a conditional use permit under the service industrial zone. Commissioner Beaty asked where they were proposing the Commissary. Mr. Diaz said he did not have the address . Chairperson Spiegel asked the applicant to come forward and address the commission. MR. ROBERT WOLFE, 73-471 Foxtail in Ironwood. stated he had lived in Palm Desert for ten years . He said that this would be adult entertainment of a good kind--it would be designated a retail food facility because there would be some food offered as part of a fixed price ticket offered to the general public or a member who would subscribe to this Bach through Beethoven type entertainment. It was envisioned that a maximum of 50 people would enjoy this type of live entertainment. The center piece would be a grand piano, although there 57 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 would be an opportunity for other local artists and some from outside the valley to offer entertainment to those people who appreciated that type of entertainment. The concept would be that it would operate Thursday, Friday, Saturday evenings when all the other Cook Street type businesses were closed and on Sunday afternoon. He said that because they did not have any approvals they had not committed themselves to a space, but they had looked at a commercial space on Corporate Way and in that space there were five spaces at 2,000 square feet each; three of those were occupied. The space had a total of 42 parking spaces as part of the land owned by the landlord and in addition, there seemed to be ample parking on 42nd Avenue and on Corporate Way and on-street parking. They were very concerned about parking, but understood that the other tenants conducted a 9 :00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. business . He did not envision that parking would be a problem, but they were not prepared to commit to a space. Mr. Diaz stated that what staff was asking for was a minute motion that would allow them to apply for a conditional use permit with a public hearing after they get a location and the conditional use permit was a four to six week process . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, determining by minute motion that an entertainment/ restaurant use is allowable in the Service Industrial zone with approval of a conditional use permit. Carried 4-0 . B. Discussion of Establishing Minimum Lot Sizes in Residential Zones Mr. Diaz suggested continuing this item to the next meeting. Mr. Ed Kibby spoke up from the audience and requested that the item be discussed. Commission concurred. Mr. Diaz explained that in the R-1 zone in the city right now ( in the Palm Desert Country Club area it was R-1 6 ,000) , as far as the planned residential development areas, there was criteria established as part of two story housing and their criteria was based on distances, rather than minimum lot sizes . That was what they had, minimum building separations on the sides of buildings, single story ten feet two story 30 feet between the two story elements . What they were talking about was yards; single story single family detached comply 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 "Imp with either R-1 8, 000 or R-1 10,000 standards as far as setbacks and distances between buildings . Commissioner Jonathan asked if R-1 had an 8,000 square foot minimum. Mr. Diaz replied no, not any more. He said they would have to establish a new zone unless they wanted to create 5, 000-6, 000 legal nonconforming lots in the Palm Desert Country Club area. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they came in under the county. Mr. Diaz explained that did not matter. What ended up happening was that if a person' s home was destroyed and they had a 6,000 square foot lot and the city did not have a 6, 000 square foot minimum, they would not be able to rebuild. They would have to create the 6 , 000 square foot lot. As far as minimum lot sizes were concerned, he felt it was the distance between the structures and the design that made the difference. If they established minimum lot sizes what would happen in the PR zone was they probably would not create single family residential lots . They would create separate units similar to what they have on the development build off Hovley, Vista del Montanas . Those were single family detached homes without lots and everything else was common areas . If they said that all single family detached homes had to be on a minimum lot, they might limit themselves . As seen today, they could make certain requirements of design and distances between lots . He noted that one of the staff went to a "creating a better world" kind of conference and one of the things being advocated there besides different colors for awnings down commercial streets to make them bright and people welcome, was differentiating on front yard setbacks and not have canyon type of effects and other things . With all due respect to Mr. Kibby, Mr. Diaz felt this was something that commission should discuss at another meeting when they had more time. Mr. Folkers stated that he and Paul Shillcock attended that meeting and the city manager asked that they put together a session where a consultant would come down and speak to the planning commission, city council, architectural review, and any of the bodies that the city felt might be interested for a two or three hour session to get an opportunity to see this type of style and taking the garages and putting them in the rear, rather than having them on the front or side, in addition to providing front porches . Chairperson Spiegel felt that was a point well taken and noted that they were destroying Beverly Hills with mansions that were taking up the entire lot. He felt that should be a consideration. Mr. Diaz noted that there was a court case 59 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 that came down regarding a different community where the people successfully argued against a house that was too big because it did not fit. Action: Commission instructed staff to place this item on the next agenda for discussion. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Diaz stated that the only item before the EDAC was the recommendation of the Mayer project to the planning commission and EDAC recommended approval . He said the big discussion now was alternative energy and that was continued. XII . COMMENTS Chairperson Spiegel said he had two quick comments . He said he saw the sign that was going into the Desert Crossing project and he felt it was too big, they had tombstones at the entrances that were red, white and blue. Mr. Diaz stated that those signs were what was submitted and they were rejected by the architectural commission. The applicant appealed the decision to the city council and council did not approve them. Chairperson Spiegel said he read in the paper that Marshall ' s was moving. Mr. Diaz noted that there was a condition, and he spoke to the leasing agent, that Desert Crossing would relocate other tenants to that center. To complicate things, apparently the 111 Town Center was changing management and the original lease for Marshall ' s, Marshall ' s was willing to back off from that lease but the new leasing agent/management was trying to hold up Marshall ' s . Apparently there were about ten tenants that were willing to locate in the old Marshall ' s . Chairperson Spiegel asked why it didn't come to the commission for review. Mr. Diaz said that the signs proposed by Desert Crossing were within code. The signs the commission approved were approved for height variances . The 60 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1994 �.. reason the Desert Crossing was having problems getting their signs approved had nothing to do with code, it was to do with the aesthetics . Mr. Diaz felt that the biggest problem with the Target sign was the red target. XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Spiegel, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. ;Ie4ca—ry 4- 0 . The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 19 p RAMON A. DIAZ, ATTEST: Q ROBERT A. SPIE rperson Palm Desert Planni g Commission /tm ... 61 �Ii