Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0221 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 21, 1995 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE �r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Carol Whitlock Members Absent: One Vacancy Staff Present: Ray Diaz Dick Folkers Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monrae Phil Drell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: � Consideration of the February 7, 1995 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the February 7 , 1995 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Beaty abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent February 9, 1995 city council actions . VI . PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BOB SPIEGEL Chairperson Jonathan presented Planning Commission Resolution No. 1678 to Bob Spiegel in appreciation of his service on the planning commission and wished him luck in his future endeavors . VII . CONSENT CALENDAR None. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS �rf A. Case No. CUP 95-2 - CHURCHILL MANAGEMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and Negative Declara�ion of Environmental Impact for a 6,OOO �square foot restaurant with 1350 square foot outdoor dining patio and full liquor license within an existing commercial building, and development of an 88 space parking lot located at the northeast corner of E1 Paseo and Highway 74 . Mr. Drell stated that the subject site was the former location of the Fidelity Federal Bank on the corner of Highway 74 and E1 Paseo, which still housed a chiropractor' s office. The developer was the owner/developer of the E1 Paseo Collection buildings north and south and was proposing to purchase this building and provide a restaurant. The building was part of the original complex that included E1 Paseo Collection North, and the stores on Highway 111 beginning at Carl ' s Jr. and extending down to Tony Roma ' s and included Palomino' s . As a 6, 000 square foot office building/bank it was originally allocated four spaces per �► 1,000, or 24 parking spaces in that lot. In reality, he felt the success of the restaurants in that center consumed the surplus spaces, so it was apparent that a significant amount of new parking would have to be developed. During the dinner hour the shortage was not as severe because the retail stores were closed. He stated that there were sufficient surplus spaces and sharing spaces with the center to the east. At lunch time it was quite crowded and both California Pizza Kitchen and Palomino' s had very successful lunch businesses . Directly north of the proposed site was the last vacant piece of area. It was currently controlled by a long term lease which also controlled Baker' s Square. The developer/ applicant was proposing that the vacant area be developed into a parking lot to serve the new restaurant and potentially the entire area. The developer was requesting assistance from the redevelopment agency to accomplish that goal . The details were still in a formative stage. The issues before the planning commission were: 1) is the bank building an appropriate location for a restaurant; and 2 ) was the vacant area proposed for parking appropriate for a parking lot. Mr. Drell said that how those things were accomplished were not necessarily the responsibility of the commission. The bank building was designed as such that it �, 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 �r would have to be a retail store, restaurant or an office use. The architectural design in its present form made it unsuitable for retail without major renovations . As the entry and gateway to E1 Paseo, staff 's opinion was that offices on first floors on El Paseo were inappropriate and as the gateway to E1 Paseo they should have a high profile retail or restaurant type of use consistent with the overall character of E1 Paseo. It was staff ' s belief that a restaurant was an appropriate use of that building and was the most efficient and logical use to the building. The vacant parcel was rectangular in shape and he had looked at possibilities for independent development of that parcel at the request of the controller of the lease numbers of times to see what could be done with it. It could accommodate a limited degree of development, but it was questionable whether it would be economically feasible. It was a difficult site to develop independently of the rest of the center. Based on the demand on parking for the rest of that area, the developer prepared a conceptual plan of what a parking lot could look like on that site and included part of the existing parking lot and drive-thru teller area of the existing bank. He was proposing that the lot be valet served to maximize the parking capacity. There were up to 22 stacked spaces which could only be served in a valet sort of �•• system. If the developer received any sort of city assistance, then the lot would have to be open to the general public and could not be reserved for any specific business in the area. It was being proposed that while it would be operated in association with the proposed restaurant, it would not be restricted in terms of usage to any particular tenant. To clarify the numbers in the staff report, he explained that in determining the proper size and the requirements for the restaurant, he stated that a 6 , 000 square foot restaurant per the ordinance required 75 parking spaces . He said the patio was a fairly enclosed patio that was much more suitable in that given the ultimate success of the restaurant, they had to assume the patio could be highly utilized because of its design, and while they often did not assign parking to patios, he assigned a ratio of 10/1,000, or 14 spaces, which meant a total demand of 89 spaces . He totaled the existing usage of the bank and chiropractor' s office. The bank had eight employees and four or five customers, the chiropractor had three employees and typically three customers . An approximate current demand was 18 . That left an effective requirement of 71 new parking spaces . The lot as proposed would have 88 spaces, so there would be a surplus of 17 spaces, which could address the current shortage generated by principally Palomino' s . He felt that �" 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 part of Palomino' s fundamental problem was that there was not .�ii necessarily a parking shortage, but their entrance faced an area where there was no parking and the bulk was on the other side of the lot. Based on those conclusions, staff was recommending that a conditional use permit be approved allowing the conversion of the 6 ,000 square foot building into a restaurant use with a condition amended that a minimum 71 space parking lot be developed to address the demand of the restaurant. How the developer accomplished that was their task and if they didn' t accomplish it, they could not open. Commissioner Whitlock asked for clarification that the parking proposal they were looking at showed that the plan could park 88 vehicles on the lot; Mr. Drell concurred and explained that the public works department had contracted for a parking design consultant who was doing the engineering on the lot. They were also looking at the cul-de-sac that looked like a street in front of Palomino, which was still a public right-of-way, to determine how to maximize parking on that street and making it into a parking lot. On the east side of Baker' s Square there was a spot of vacant land which could be developed into more parking and he was looking at the entrance to that whole area off of Highway 111, which was ' awkward, in order to improve access . With this as the � impetus, he hoped circulation and parking could be maximized to utilize all available space for the benefit of everyone. Commissioner Whitlock asked who prepared the parking plan. Mr. Drell replied the applicant. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the city' s traffic engineers had looked at the plan or rendered an opinion. Mr. Drell replied that they had because they hired an engineer who specialized in parking lot design and they were preparing a definitive design. Commissioner Whitlock asked when the commission could see something from them. Mr. Folkers said within six weeks . Chairperson Jonathan noted that condition no. 6 was being amended to provide construction of a minimum of a 71 new space parking lot instead of 76 . Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that would be subject to approval of a valet management plan and asked if that plan would carry through no matter who the owner of the property was or the operator of the restaurant was as a condition of the use. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan felt that 71 spaces worked fine, but they were all double parked and when there was no valet service operating during the day, there would be less than 71 spaces available. Mr. Drell concurred, but noted that the condition could be expanded to include 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 •.. that the valet system had to be in place during the lunch and dinner time hours at a minimum. To achieve the 71 space requirement, they would need a valet system. Chairperson Jonathan noted that this would be a public parking lot, but staff was asking in the condition of approval that a specific business provide the valet service. Mr. Drell said that was correct, and how the applicant achieved the condition was up to him. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. FRED FERN, a Palm Desert resident, stated that he was trying to take the number one entrance to E1 Paseo and do something special, which was important for E1 Paseo and the whole city. He wanted to put in another world class restaurant on E1 Paseo. He said they had found it difficult to get pedestrians to walk to the stores in the first block of El Paseo. As they came out of California Pizza Kitchen they went east. To get customers to go west was a problem they were working on. That was one of the main reasons they entered into escrow with the Fidelity Federal Bank Building and they were negotiating closely with several of the finest �• restaurant chains in the country. If all went well, they would put one into that site. They felt it was critical for the success of their stores in the first block to have a destination tenant which would bring ' people to the street at this corner. As part of the design, they intended to open a walkway between the new restaurant and the existing building to entice the customers to come from the back of the lots to the front on E1 Paseo. Although the Palomino had been very successful, only occasionally did it appear that their customers walked to E1 Paseo. He felt they ate and then left. It was their goal to put in a restaurant they believed to be a successful restaurant, but to design it in a way to bring people onto E1 Paseo. He understood the concerns about parking and it had taken a lot of time and effort and he talked to a number of people to negotiate it to make it happen. There was no doubt that the parking lot behind the California Pizza Kitchen during lunch and dinner hours was very busy during the season. He stated that he had with him several tenants from E1 Paseo Collection North who would attest that their object was to get customers there. There were also letters from six other tenants . In addition to the letters, these tenants would prefer to have a restaurant � 5 . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2I, 1995 � � and the foot traffic that went with it even if it meant � tighter parking during lunch and dinner hours or to leave the bank as a bank use or convert it to retail . It was critical to the success of these stores . He felt that building was poorly designed for a retail use. It was too deep and would be hard to do something productive there. He wanted to point out that they were exploring a number of alternatives to increase the available parking in the whole area. The parking plan before the commission was designed by the International Parking Design Corporation to evaluate the situation and give their best option. He emphasized that he was not requesting a variance to the parking code, simply approval conditioned upon them finding a way to meet the number of parking spaces needed to make that happen. He was trying to eliminate a problem. He agreed that it would be ideal to have more spaces than they could ever use, but it was his opinion that parking spaces alone would not bring in customers . He spoke to one of his tenants who told him they created a real successful parking plan in Palm Springs, now they just needed customers . It was his intention to exceed the city' s code requirements . He believed this was the highest and best use for the piece of property and a bank or similar 3 use was not appropriate for the entrance to E1 Paseo and �„� was critical to the stores in that first block. He was � trying to do what was right for his tenants and the reputation of E1 Paseo, of the City of Palm Desert, and he was sincere in what he said. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. ALISA GOLDBERG, a tenant in the second block on E1 Paseo, stated that she believed in the project and that having a restaurant on that corner would bring more foot traffic to E1 Paseo. That would be the best use for that particular building because as it stood, there was no use for that building and was in favor of a use that would bring in more foot traffic to her and her fellow tenants . MR. JOHN KATMER, a Palm Springs resident, stated that he owned and operated the Children' s Shop on E1 Paseo and they had been operating a children' s business for 22 or 23 years . He also operated Robert Ltd. Menswear in Palm Springs and operated that personally for 23 years and it had been in his family 41 years on Palm Canyon Drive. � 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 � He understood that there were parking requirements, but when he sat on the Palm Springs Downtown Parking Committee, if you tried to go strictly by the book, the same thing would happen. The parking problem was cured, but there were no customers and no stores . His wife had mostly operated this store until they closed their other one, but he had always felt the commission had done a good job in planning. He felt there was more parking there than they knew what to do with. He was saying that as a merchant. He had been on that street f or over 20 years and where they were located was two doors east of Mondi 's, so he was not in �hat first block. That parking lot did peak between 12 : 00 p.m. and 3 : 00 p.m. , that was during prime time during weekends and holidays . He said that during prime time the lot was never over 50$ filled in the parking lot located going east between Newhaven Dance Studio and Tony Roma ' s. That was a walk of 200 yards . What he was trying to say was that marketing a city or building was a business . They could not provide for a 100$ of the customers that walked through the door. They could not provide for the two months during certain hours that peaked and have a balanced budget. An anchor that sat at the corner so that the merchants in that block survived and could do � well was needed. He asked that the commission give that a lot of consideration. The developer of the project was offering to meet the requirements, but it took more than that to balance development. He felt that each of the commissioners should look at the sight. There was nothing attractive about it. At Baker' s Square and Palomino' s, if a parking lot was developed in that area the visual impact was a tremendous selling tool, even to the businesses that were set back. He asked that the commission take into consideration what had happened in other cities and what they felt about the situation. Adequate parking did not assure a vibrant business . MR. DANNY FREEMAN, owner of a men' s and women' s store on E1 Paseo, stated that he was a tenant of Mr. Fern and Mr. Fletcher. He said he had been in business for almost five years . He noticed more customers coming to E1 Paseo that never had before since the opening of California Pizza Kitchen and Daily Grill and it had brought in a tremendous amount of people to the street. He said he might be prejudiced, but he felt that E1 Paseo as a retail environment was now a premiere retail environment and was growing better by the day. When Mr. Fern mentioned the meeting, he said he jumped because be �r 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 believed that if he felt that by bringing in an r.�/ experienced, wonderful restaurant to the corner of that street that would do nothing but enhance his business, and his friends ' businesses around him. It would continue to bring many more people to the street who would purchase merchandise in his store and in other stores and would assist in the positive development of El Paseo. He had been waiting for a decision to be made because one month, the month of August, was like one year' s work any where else in Southern California. If in August of 1995 there was a power restaurant on the corner location, he knew his business would improve and believed that other merchants would speak in accord with him. He stated that he would greatly appreciate the commission voting to bring this conclusion about as soon as possible. MR. STEVEN DELATEUR stated that the was representing the Stanley B. Rose Company that owned the building that housed the Palomino Restaurant and the Palomino Restaurant . He stated that he had written objections and a declaration from Jeff Martin who would also be speaking which he would distribute to commission when he was done. He agreed that the gateway to E1 Paseo was a successful part of town and one that Palm Desert should �„rl be proud of . His goal was to keep it that way. What they felt needed to be taken into account was not only the number of parking spaces, but how the traffic flow was going to work. There was a cul-de-sac that would have to be redesigned; there were several potential entrances into the dirt lot; there were two parallel rights-of-way between California Pizza Kitchen and the Palomino with an island between it, and then it progressed into a large common area behind the Palomino building. The traffic flow through there during the peak hours of the Palomino business, which started later than the California Pizza Kitchen, could be quite congested. Just having more parking spaces might not fully address that concern. Having a valet there could improve it and it would more fully utilize the available space. But he felt it was like mixing apples and oranges to have a public parking lot and provide a valet service. He asked if they would be free valet services or if it would be like a more typical one. He asked who would control the valet and if it would be the same valet for all the restaurants in the area, because Palomino had its own valet and there could be a dueling valet situation. One of the things he felt was b 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 �• important to keep the area growing like it had been was to keep the experience of going there a pleasant one. They might think in terms of gross numbers if they went way out to Tony Roma' s there was plenty of parking around there, but some people might not be able to walk that distance especially on a hot day, and parking 300 yards away might be enough to dissuade them. With the congestion aspects and the parking space concerns, they would ask that the planning commission take its time before voting on this . He wanted to see whatever designs were being proposed; what kind of valet service was being proposed and the scheduled hours; who would control the valet; if it would be paid for by the tenants of the association and who would pay/absorb the cost of developing the lot and if it would be passed back to the tenants of the association; and maintenance of the lot was also an issue. At this preliminary stage he felt the most prudent course of action was to take a look at some of these issues before voting on it. Chairperson Jonathan said that Mr. Delateur's concerns were more with regard of the design of the parking lot, traffic f low, etc . , as opposed to the actual use of that existing building as a restaurant. He asked if that was correct. Mr. � Delateur replied that yes, that was their primary concern-- they recognized that the building could only be used for several different kinds of uses . One of the possible ways to ameliorate the parking might be to cut down the size of the restaurant or to have other kinds of parking arrangements; maybe valet parking in the front where some of the cars could be shuffled behind Club 74 to take some of the pressure off. He was concerned that overall this could "kill the bloom off the rose" that was the gateway to E1 Paseo. He felt that if the development was successful, the success could create a stigma and a mess to get into the area. He did not want the area overdeveloped with restaurants . He said that if all the restaurants were successful, there could be a carry over effect--if one restaurant happened to be extra busy one night, it could benefit the other restaurants . They were more primarily concerned that the parking situation not be made any worse than it was during the peak hours . MR. JEFF MARTIN, a Palm Desert resident, stated that he was the qeneral manager of the Palomino Restaurant in Palm Desert. He said that he had been in the restaurant industry for about 15 years and with Restaurants Unlimited, the parent company of Palomino, for the past nine years . He has worked in Seattle, San Francisco, �. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 � Honolulu, and Los Angeles before relocating to Palm � Desert to take charge of Palomino. He had been in Palm Desert since August of 1994 . He said his points as to why he would be opposed to the restaurant would be more in dealing with what the status quo was now, as outlined by Mr. Delateur. Palomino' s current lunch was declining up to 40� with their lunch counts, which he believed was a primary result of the congestion or over-congestion of parking in the area. It had been his experience over the years in working in the restaurant industry that parking was often the discerning factor when guests made the decision of where to dine. He had dealt with this in other cities in the past. His second point was his personal observations of his guests as they walked into the door at lunch and there was a lot of mumbling under their breath, sweat on their brows and complaints, and one out of every four guests stopped them and said they had been driving around for 20 minutes trying to find a place to park. A lot of the clientele coming to Palomino were not willing to walk--there might be a large expanse of parking behind Tony Roma' s, but most of their guests were not willing to make that hike. Most of the guests were not casual diners, but were dressed up. He believed that would impact their decision to dine at their restaurant at lunch. His third point was rj that most of the good parking in the common area was consumed by casual diners early. He felt that casual diners tended to dine earlier at lunch. Their rush was typically between 12 : 30 and 1 : 00 at which point all of the prime parking in close proximity to their entrance had been consumed. Through personal observation on many occasions he noticed employees of various restaurants, most specifically California Pizza Kitchen, took up the first ten spots of the building every day. His fourth point was that the valet issue, whether the solution was one common valet for those spaces or a second valet which would lead to a dueling valet effect. They took great pains to hand select a valet with which they thought would deliver their operational standards to their guests to create a positive first impression as they came to the restaurant. They spent many hours, time, and money on continuing to train that valet service and they had been pleased with the work they have done. He was concerned that if they went to one common valet, it would take away his ability to deliver their operational standards to their guests and putting that in the hands of a common valet. Due to these r factors he was opposed to another operator resulting in �� � 10 � Mzrru�rEs PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 �r the inability for them to conduct business because of parking availabilities . Commissioner Whitlock asked if he had considered providing valet parking at lunch. Mr. Martin said that he had been told that it would not be allowed for them due to the amount of common space and because of it being a daytime business with all of the retailers and traffic on E1 Paseo. They could not section off part of the lot during the daytime. He said that if it were allowed, they would consider it. Commissioner Whitlock asked if they had considered having another entry on the other side like a back door. Mr. Martin replied that it was a consideration, but he had not considered it because of the large constraints with the way the building was laid out and it would be walking into their prep kitchen area. There might be possibilities there, but he was not sure at this point. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Mr. Martin was describing a parking problem and they were talking about building 71 or 76 new parking spaces within an easy walk to his facility. He asked why he wasn't welcoming this with open arms instead of objecting to it; he felt it would be a solution to his problem. Mr. Martin felt that if it was just a parking lot `•. and not a new restaurant, he would be very happy. He felt the number of spaces being allocated were not enough for a restaurant of that size in addition to theirs . He felt it would impact their business and guest parking. Chairperson Jonathan asked him if he felt the restaurant would not only use up the 71 new spaces, and the 18 that were available elsewhere, but actually impinge on the spaces that Palomino' s clientele was currently utilizing; Mr. Martin concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if a parking plan could be put together to his satisfaction, instead of having spaces taken away from them and they were to actually gain spaces, if that were to be done, if he would be in favor of it. Mr. Martin replied yes and stated that he was not in opposition to the growth of E1 Paseo and truly believed that growth would be beneficial to them all as long as it was controlled. Commissioner Fernandez asked for clarification that Palomino' s was 40� down in business; Mr. Martin replied yes, at lunch in counts, but not in net sales . MR. DAVID FLETCHER, a resident of Palm Desert, stated they tried to reach Mr. Rose, but he was not willing to meet with him before the meeting. He had also spoken to Mr. Carl Karcher of Carl ' s Jr. He pointed out that they �' 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 ; were not asking for a variance from city codes . A � parking problem where there were not enough parking spaces for stores and restaurants at Palomino' s, or their new restaurant or existing stores was not good for anyone, and part of what they were trying to do was find a way to get as many parking spaces as possible in that area and exceed code as much as possible. He talked about trying to have a common valet and those were technicalities that could be worked out as they figured out how the parking plan would be laid out. He also pointed out that the walk from Tony Roma' s at the far back of what was common parking that services all of the businesses was far shorter than a lot of the walks to the mall . Although it would be ideal to have 400 parking spaces at the front door, it was not physically possible to do that. They currently had 40 or 50 parking spaces across the street and that weekend the lot behind Daily Grill and Club 74 was a third vacant and they would try to get as many employees into that lot as possible. They tried to require their tenants to have their employees park either in a remote part of the parking lot or across the street behind Daily Grill . He had asked them to contact him if they ever saw California Pizza Kitchen' s employees or any other y employees parking in the lots and had never received a ri phone call from Palomino' s asking him to talk to one of his tenants . When they purchased the E1 Paseo Collection North buildings, they were given the responsibility of managing that parking lot in any disputes that might come up between the different owners that shared that lot. He was the one who worked out a valet arrangement with the Palomino when they first came in on where their valets could or could not park in conjunction with public works . He liked T & R Valet and had no problem with them. It had not been worked out as to whether they would use them for this lot. He stated that he would like to see valet service for Palomino' s at lunch and he was sorry their front door faced west instead of east. If they wanted to explore valet service at lunch, he would be willing to see what could be done. Mr. Delateur readdressed the commission and stated that Mr. Rose had been a very prominent business citizen in Palm Desert for a number of years . He did not know why that reference was made about him not being willing to meet. He had met with Mr. Fletcher but he was out of � � � 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 +�.► town so could not attend the planning commission meeting. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked the commission for comments . Commissioner Beaty said the only objection was traffic flow which the city said they recognized and had already hired someone to take a look at and the developer/applicant was willing to meet the requirement for parking which he felt was more than needed. He did not see a problem if everyone cooperated and they looked at the parking issue. He liked the concept of a magnet that would draw people to that location, and was in favor. Commissioner Fernandez agreed with Commissioner Beaty that they should solve their own problems with the parking situation and as for the employee parking, they should park in remote areas that would make it easier for customers to use the front parking spaces . He was in favor of the restaurant proposal . Commissioner Whitlock stated that she could not add anything new and felt that a restaurant would be a great anchor on � this corner. She was interested in the parking lot and seeing what staff would come up with, although not to the extent of cantinuing this item. She stated that she would approve the conditional use permit and negative declaration, but would like to see what was finally resolved with the parking and asked if they would have an opportunity ta see the landscaping. Mr. Drell said that it could be conditioned that the design could come back to the commission. Commissioner Whitlock said she would like to do that. Mr. Drell said that the commission might also want to add a condition relative to requiring the restaurant employees to park either in designated areas around Tony Roma ' s or in the other lot. Chairperson Jonathan said he thought that was done for California Pizza Kitchen also; Mr. Drell concurred, but noted that it depended upon enforcement and they would work at enforcing it better now that they had been informed about it. He felt Mr. Fern would address that. Commissioner Whitlock said that she was sorry that Palomino' s was seeing a 40$ decline in lunch business . She didn't see that decline because she had to wait for a table. On the parking situation she was sorry that he had clientele that didn 't like walking, but she had parked behind the Daily Grill and had also used the valet service. Most of the people she knew did that also. She felt they had excellent food and the �... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 E S } addition of another good restaurant would only enhance their � business and felt that the parking situation could be worked out. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he did not have any objection to the restaurant use. If he were the operator of the Palomino he would have the same concerns . He did, however, feel that this could be beneficial and if the situation was worked out right, this could be an opportunity for the Palomino to gain parking spaces instead of losing them. He felt the solution was to ask staff to involve Mr. Delateur and Mr. Martin in the planning process for the design of the parking lot, including the traffic flow and the working plan for the operation of the parking lot and valet service. By doing that this could be a positive for E1 Paseo, the merchants, community and existing restaurant uses . He was in favor of the suggestion that the condition be amended to require the approval of the planning commission for the parking lot design and working documents so that everyone would have an opportunity to tell the commission if they still had objections . As a final safety valve, he noted that California Pizza Kitchen came in under a conditional use permit which required their employees to park on the south side behind the Daily Grill . California Pizza Kitchen ; operates pursuant to the conditional use permit, as will the � new restaurant, and anyone was free to come to the planning commission and say that there was a condition not being met. If it went as far as total non-compliance, the permit could be revoked. Mr. Drell felt that Mr. Fern would allow employees of Palomino to park in the lot behind Daily Grill also. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she would move for approval with the amendment to the conditions including the parking lot and traffic circulation plan returning to the commission, including the landscape plan. Commissioner Beaty asked if this would be as a courtesy or prior to approval . Commissioner Whitlock replied as a courtesy. 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 Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1fi82 , approving CUP 95-2, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . � 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 �•. B. Case No. CUP 95-3 - MR. ENRIQUE MUNOZ, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 1, 000 square foot restaurant with beer and wine license within an existing commercial building on the east side of San Pablo Avenue between Alessandro Drive and San Gorgonio Way, 44-820 San Pablo Avenue. Mr. Drell stated that the proposed restaurant started out as a bakery/take out for mexican food and revolved into a sit down type restaurant and the bakery was discontinued. The applicant applied for a beer and wine license which requires a conditional use permit. He said this particular site had parking in the rear and a number of spaces on the frontage road. Staff recommended approval . Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. EIVRIQUE MUNOZ, owner of Los Dos Amigos at 44-820 San Pablo and a resident of Palm Desert at 44-751 Cabrillo addressed the commission. r... ' Commissioner Fernandez, interpreting for Mr. Munoz, explained that Mr. Munoz was before the commission to open up his restaurant. Commissioner Fernandez asked Mr. Munoz now that he was quitting the bakery business, why he wanted to put in a restaurant. Mr. Munoz replied that the reason he wanted to go into a restaurant was that the profits weren't that great as a bakery and now with the restaurant and selling a few beers, he would be able to make a better profit. Commissioner Whitlock noted that staff referred to 18 parking spaces in the rear. She said she worked in that neighborhood and noted there were no parking stalls and it was an open lot � without organized parking. Mr. Drell said that there were faint stripes that could be seen. He said that as a condition of approval, the commission could require restriping of the lot. Mr. Munoz indicated there were no painted parking staff in the rear lot. The employees and customers parked wherever they wanted. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 Chairperson Jonathan asked if the beer and wine license were a�/ new. Mr. Munoz replied yes, they just obtained the license for beer. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the restaurant operated in the evening. Mr. Munoz replied that they were open from 7 : 00 a.m. to 9 :00 p.m. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Munoz had a mechanism for making sure the customers did not drink too much or bother the neighbors because there were residential uses near there. Mr. Munoz replied that they were going to try to have a limit of three beers . Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Whitlock stated that they had a nice, clean place there and she was delighted that it was doing well . The addition of a beer and wine license would make it better and she would move for approval . Commissioner Beaty concurred; he indicated that he had heard they had good food. He was in favor with the addition of the parking lot restriping. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner � Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1683, approving CUP 95-3, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. ERIC LARSON addressed the commission regarding Fred Waring Drive. He indicated that he had several options that could address traffic and safety concerns . He stated that this item was on the city council agenda on February 23, 1995 . Chairperson Jonathan explained that it was not before the commission at this time, but Mr. Larson was welcome to address the commission and recommended that he also attend the council meeting. Mr. Larson stated that he would attend the city council meeting. i , 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 21, 1995 '�.� X. MISCELLANEOUS A. Election of a Liaison to the Economic Development Advisory Committee Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, electing Chairperson Jonathan as Liaison to the Economic Development Advisory Committee by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. XII . COMMENTS None. XIII . ADJOURNMENT '� Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting to March 7 , 1995 y minute motion. Carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned : 18 p.m. ����t.�i9 • RAMON A. DIAZ , Sec ary ATTEST: SABBY JO THA , Chairperson Palm Dese t Planning Commission /tm � 17