HomeMy WebLinkAbout1121 MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 21, 1995
7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
%NW
I . CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 p.m.
II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance.
III . ROLL CALL
Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson
Sonia Campbell
George Fernandez
Sabby Jonathan
Members Absent: James Ferguson
Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood
Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe
Phil Joy
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Consideration of the November 7, 1995 meeting minutes .
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, approving the November 7, 1995 meeting minutes as
submitted. Carried 4-0 .
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION:
Mr. Drell summarized pertinent November 9 , 1995 city council
action.
VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A
None.
VII . CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the final item under
miscellaneous was a discussion topic for a CVAG request for
comments and since it might be a long meeting, he asked if
the commission would want to put that into a study session
item, or a future meeting so that they could spend the time
that he felt this subject deserved, rather than trying to
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
address it later. He brought this up now in case there was
someone present who would be saved some time. No one from
CVAG was present. Mr. Drell explained that they called and
asked when they might be heard and he said it could be late.
Commissioner Jonathan said they could "play it by ear" and if
Mr. Drell recognized the person, the commission could ask
them then and save them some time.
A. Case No. TT 28287 - COLONY GATEWAY INC. , Applicant
Request for approval of a subdivision of
25 lots into 41 within Bighorn Golf
Club, south of the planned Metate Drive
and the "Cahuilla Hills" area.
Mr. Joy stated that this matter started out as a routine
remapping process within Bighorn, however, a few letters of
concern had been received and he hoped to address them at the
same time. The matter was considered routine in nature
because the map being proposed, though increasing the number
of lots from 25 to 41, had the exact same boundary lines
where the homes would be built and where the street would be
located. The row of lots on the northern boundary of the
tract previously ranged in width from 100-110 ' wide and now
were 65 ' -80 ' wide. One of the critical issues that would
come up was the grade separation between the Bighorn property
and the Cahuilla Hills area to the north. The Cahuilla Hills
area to the north ranged in elevation from 10-15 ' lower than
the Bighorn property to as much as 30 ' above the Bighorn
property. As they were developing Bighorn Golf Club and the
golf fairways, they were trying to get a nice, gentle slope
so that there was a continual even slope all the way down the
hill, so it resulted in some discrepancies because of the
rolling nature of the Cahuilla Hills area. Some properties
would be below the golf club and some would be above it.
There was an existing map on the property for 25 lots . They
were nearly identical in nature to that. Over the last
couple of years staff had been going over all the grading
plans that had been submitted on the property and they came
to the conclusion that the property has been raised one foot
to one foot and a half above the previous map. However, the
controlling factor of the subdivision was the slope between
the roadway (Metate Drive) and the Cahuilla Hills area. The
maximum slope permissible would be 2 to 1 . There were
letters submitted that said 3 to 1 would be requested or 3 to
1 was being recommended. There was also a letter from
Commissioner Jim Ferguson to that effect--that he would like
to see nothing in excess of a 3 to 1 slope and that there was
an existing 1 to 1 situation. The code called for a maximum
allowable slope of 2 to 1, so that was what would be
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
permitted. That was what was on the previous map. Required
sideyard setbacks between the houses, when adding up the
amount of sideyard setback space between the 25 houses and
the required 20 ' separation between those houses or the 41
houses being proposed now, with 14 ' between houses, there
would actually be a greater area at 574 ' of open space
between the houses on the proposed map and only 500 ' of open
space between bigger houses on the existing map, so if the
houses were built out according to the existing map, much
more of the view would be obstructed to the homes in the
Cahuilla Hills area than if the homes were built out under
the proposed map, and there would be a lot more daylight
between the houses because they would be a lot narrower in
size. Staff also received a letter from Ms . Ann Cooper and
she had generalized concerns about previous promises that
were made--he noted there was an existing map on the site and
the one residence that was 30 ' above Bighorn Golf Club was
the one owned by Ms . Cooper. He thought it sat back five
feet from the property line. She was asking for a 200 '
setback from Bighorn. Going back to the PCD zoning which is
in place, that was put in for the Bella Vista project, which
was proposing seven units per acre in this area. Looking at
the same 17 acres, they would be looking at 119 houses versus
the 41 being proposed. He felt this application was well
within previous agreements with the city limiting the number
ti.. of houses within Bighorn to 311 . This proposal would bring
the total number of houses within Bighorn to 303 . They were
still below the 311 and far below the 1100 units that would
have been allowed with the Bella Vista project. The one area
pertaining to landscaping and the type of wall within the
buffer area between the houses, there was some grading going
on at one of the Cahuilla Hills residences to the north of
Bighorn and the resident there was trying to get together
with Bighorn to grade it out right now, but Bighorn would not
be able to grade for a few years or finishing up the grading
in this area and trying to coordinate the landscaping because
in one instance there was about a 20 ' deep gully in between
the two properties and if all graded out, eventually it could
potentially make it a 10 ' gully. Under the Department of
Community Development conditions of approval, condition #7 of
the resolution involved fences and landscaping and was to be
reviewed by staff at a later date; at this time he wanted to
modify the condition to read that instead of staff review, it
would be done by the city' s architectural committee with
adjacent residents to be notified of that meeting. With that
modified condition, he recommended approval of the
application.
Commissioner Campbell asked about the status of the Bella
Vista project; Mr. Joy explained that the Bells Vista project
turned into Bighorn.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the
applicant to address the commission.
MR. CARL CARDINALLI said he was Vice President for Bay
Colony Gateway, Inc. (the owner of Bighorn) and General
Manager for Bighorn. He stated that he appreciated the
work done by staff for the report and making the
presentation, but they would request a continuance of
this matter until a meeting in January.
Commissioner Jonathan asked why the request was being sought.
Mr. Cardinalli stated that they would like an
opportunity to sit down with the homeowners at Bighorn
to discuss in more detail what was being planned and
what they saw as the outcome of that northern perimeter.
He wanted them more involved in the process .
MR. BRIAN HARNICK, an attorney with Romer and Harnick,
stated that he represented Mr. and Mrs . Bernie Thewalt.
Mr. Thewalt was one of the homeowners . They had a brief
meeting with Mr. Cardinalli a short time ago and he was
prepared to set forth his reasons for opposing approval
or in the alternative asking for a continuance so that
they could meet with Mr. Cardinalli and the people at
Bighorn. He did not want to prejudice his obligation to
preserve the record and make remarks, but it might be
appropriate for him to cut this short at this time
because of the continuance request. He noted that there
were many present to voice their opposition, maybe some
in support, but they would be crossing that bridge later
on. He asked if it was appropriate to ask for a
continuance.
Chairperson Beaty stated that the public hearing was open and
anyone that wanted to speak could, but it sounded as if there
was significant concern about the proposal and some more work
needed to be done before the commission spent the time
reviewing the proposal .
Mr. Harnick stated that in the event the planning
commission decided to approve the project, he wanted to
preserve the record for appeal and felt compelled to set
forth the basis for their opposition at this time, even
though it might be an exercise in futility.
Mr. Drell explained that typically when an applicant
requested a continuance, the case was continued.
Mr. Harnick indicated that with that understanding he
would hold off on further comments at this time.
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Commissioner Jonathan stated the commission would make the
commitment that if for any reason the matter was not
continued, Mr. Harnick would be provided an opportunity to
explain his concerns .
Commissioner Jonathan said that in response to the
applicant ' s request, his first inclination was to grant an
extension and continue the matter because there would be an
attempt to reconcile any disagreements between the parties
involved, which was preferable to battling it out at the
commission. He urged those present to consider giving it
more time and coming back to the January meeting to which
this item might be continued.
MR. R.D. HUBBARD, a homeowner at Bighorn, stated that he
wanted to file with the commission some statements from
14 or 15 homeowners who had an investment of over $30
million in the property and wanted to file their
objection with the commission at this time and hoped
they would be able to resolve the problems between now
and the January hearing, but wanted to go on record of
opposing the request.
Chairperson Beaty recommended that Mr. Hubbard give a copy to
the applicant also.
MR. JOSEPH CADY, 71-855 Jaguar Road, representing
himself and his daughter Ann Cooper (49-225 Buckhorn and
71-520 Cahuilla Way) , who sent the letter mentioned by
staff . He stated that both properties were on the
property line. They objected to the project the way it
was now--the density would be too much and he did not
know how the commission could allow the density to be
compressed. They had an awful time with Bighorn and
density when they originally went in. Bighorn agreed to
a 200 ' setback for Cahuilla Hills and he was hoping that
they would adhere to that, which would be the proper
thing for them to do if they were going to fulfill their
promise. They didn' t like the idea of having "row
houses" next to Cahuilla Hills . The desert ambience
atmosphere did not call for row houses . This would be
a row house project in a country club. He did not feel
it was conducive to a country club atmosphere. They
also had a water problem--the drainage would be a
problem because of the higher elevation of the Bighorn
property to the Cahuilla Hills property. They expected
the water drainage to be a problem and should be taken
care of properly. Cahuilla Hills had a rural desert
ambience and they did not want to see a bunch of row
w.r houses stuck next to it that way. He objected to the
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
proposed subdivision in this country club. He hoped the
commission would consider his comments .
Chairperson Beaty thanked Mr. Cady for his comments and urged
him to attend any meetings that were held to try and work
this out.
Mr. Joy noted that there were two meeting dates available in
January, the 2nd and 16th. He asked if the applicant had a
preference. Mr. Cardinalli requested the 16th of January.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, continuing TT 28287 to January 16, 1996 by minute
motion. Carried 4-0 .
B. Case Nos . VAR 95-3 and PM 28291 - KEN STEMMER, Applicant
Request for approval of a variance to
the zoning ordinance to permit the
creation of two (2) 10,890 square foot
lots whereas the existing R-1 13, 000
zoning requires a minimum of 13, 000
square feet per lot, and approval of a a
tentative parcel map for a lot split of
an existing 21,780 square foot lot into
two (2) 10,890 square foot lots located
on the east side of Ramona Avenue, 125
feet north of Alessandro Drive.
Mr. Drell explained that this lot was one lot deep off of
Alessandro adjacent to some older apartments . It was an area
of the original Palma Village subdivision that had lots that
were not very wide, but very deep. In his 15 years here, he
had not seen a single one develop because this neighborhood
was not conducive to estate-type development. What had been
happening was a fair number of subdivision of these lots and
typically when the lot was subdivided, it was developed with
nice houses . This lot was especially unlikely to develop as
an estate lot being right next to Alessandro and the
apartments . In general, when looking at the whole
neighborhood, there was a wide range of lots from 7800 square
feet up to 23,000 . The property to the north of this lot was
granted a variance and lot split and now had two nice houses
on it. This subdivision was probably 30-40 years old and in
the interest of finally getting it built out, this smaller
lot pattern seemed to be more conducive to that and more in
keeping with the housing market in the area. He recommended
approval based on the findings in the report.
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification on
the location of the property.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the
applicant to address the commission. No one answered.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone present wished to speak in
FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one.
MR. BRAD McGEE, the surveyor doing the mapping for Ken
Stemmer, addressed the commission. He said the property
had been sitting vacant for 30-40 years with no one
building and he felt this would help the area.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the lot on De Anza would
have a 20 ' easement and asked if the intent of the easement
was to create a driveway-type access to the rear lot. In his
calculations, that would leave the front lot with a net
usable square footage of 8500 square feet. He asked if that
was consistent with Mr. McGee 's recollection of the numbers .
Mr. McGee said that sounded correct, but even though that was
an easement, it was still a portion of that front lot. Mr.
Drell felt that a portion would also be the driveway for the
front lot. Commissioner Jonathan asked in the surrounding
area if there had been lot splits, and the sizes resulting
from the lot splits - 10,000 square foot lots or 8, 000 square
rr foot lots . Mr. McGee said that to the north, within the last
year or two they built the property to the same similar size
to the one he was working on. There were big lots there,
some at 20,000 square feet and greater, plus some that were
as small as 6, 000-8,000 square feet.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the
commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was
no one and the public testimony was closed.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if this notice was sent to the
neighbors; Mr. Drell replied yes, this was the full 300 '
notice.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she did not see a problem
with the lot division.
Commissioner Fernandez felt that since nothing had been done
in 30-40 years, this would be a positive action.
Chairperson Beaty stated that he drove past the property that
afternoon and felt the request made sense and he would also
be in favor of approval . The rear of the apartment complex
was unsightly and people were driving on this lot and dumping
tow on it. He felt it would improve a blighted area.
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
3
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff.
Carried 4-0 .
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1710,
approving VAR 95-3, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 .
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff .
Carried 4-0 .
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1711,
approving PM 28291, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 .
C. Case No. PP 92-6 Amendment #1 - ANN CANNON/GILA BAR AND
GRILL, Applicant
Request for a recommendation to city
council for approval of an amendment to
the conditions on the operation of
businesses in the Desert Springs
Marketplace; specifically permission to
extend the business hours for Gila Bar
and Grill located at 74-950 Country Club
Drive from 12 : 00 midnight until 2 : 00
a.m.
Mr. Smith stated that condition #11 of the original approval
of the precise plan on Desert Springs Marketplace limited
hours of operation between 6 : 00 a.m. and 12 : 00 a.m. midnight
seven days a week. This condition was contained in both the
planning commission resolution, as well as the council
resolution. He noted that when this went through in 1993,
there was considerable discussion and the city did not know
all of the uses that would be coming in. At that time they
were just dealing with Ralph' s, Payless and Mortons . Those
were the three businesses staff was aware of. Since that
time the center had built out considerably and there were
more businesses, one being Gila Bar and Grill which opened
January 25, 1995 . They were seeking an amendment to the
condition to allow them to stay open until 2 : 00 a.m. This
would allow them to comply with their general 47 ABC license,
as well, they have been requested by many of the customers to
remain open. Staff asked the police department about
activity at this location. On November 20, staff received a
report from the Crime Prevention Officer. At the time staff
wrote the report, he only had it orally, now it was in
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
writing. The Crime Prevention Officer indicated that the
police department had not had any calls for service at this
location. He also asked all personnel concerning the
business and they had not had any problems at the location.
The clientele was described as older, upscale patrons who
have not caused a problem for law enforcement. Staff
notified property owners within 3001 , as well as businesses
within the center. He had not heard from anyone or received
anything in the mail . He explained that this would be a
recommendation to the city council in that council would have
to act on this since they originally acted on the condition.
Staff recommended approval .
Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the
applicant to address the commission.
MS. JACKIE CANNON addressed the commission and explained
that Ann Cannon could not be present due to illness .
She explained that she, Sam Cannon and Ann Cannon were
all partners in Gila Bar and Grill . They have had
numerous requests from their guests who were in the
local neighborhoods to remain open longer. A lot of the
country club residents were guests at their restaurant
and they requested an alternative for late night dining
and entertainment, which was the reason for their
request.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal .
MS. MAVIS NORTHERN, the property manager for Desert
Springs Marketplace, stated that she was representing
the management company, Vista Group, as well as the
owner, Bishop Estate. They endorsed the request and
felt that the location of the premises did not interfere
with any residential complex and felt the applicant had
a good business that was controlled.
Chairperson Beaty closed the public testimony and asked for
comments by commission.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor and noted
that there were not many places open after 10 : 00 p.m. or
11 : 00 P.M.
Commissioner Fernandez said he was also in favor; he lived
in the neighborhood and it was pretty quiet and if the
customers were requesting later hours, he didn' t see a
problem.
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Commissioner Jonathan said that since there was no objection
from surrounding residents and since this was an amendment to r/
a condition of a use permit, if there were problems, there
was a form for dealing with it. He was in favor of the
application.
Chairperson Beaty noted that there was a lot of controversy
when this center originally went it and if there were
problems, the commission would have heard about it . He asked
for a motion.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff .
Carried 4-0 .
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1712 ,
recommending to city council approval of PP 92-6 Amendment
#1 . Carried 4-0 .
D. Case No. CUP 95-12 - SHIN MATSUNAGA, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional '
use permit to allow the operation of
Tokyo Kitchen, a proposed 1924 square
foot Japanese restaurant with beer and
wine license in the existing building
located at 73-540 Highway 111 .
Mr. Smith stated that the location of the proposed use was in
the vacant space between Cucina Pasta, Adriatic and Sunrise
TV on the north side of the frontage road just east of San
Pablo. The space was formerly occupied by a mattress store
and previous to that Chet' s Maytag. The request was for a
conditional use permit and the main concern was typically
parking. The businesses along the frontage road were served
by a fairly wide parking area and driveway which was one-way
westbound. Adjacent to the buildings along the north side of
the frontage road were 28 parking spaces, on the south side
36 parking spaces abutting Highway 111, opposite De Anza by
the Lock Shop and east of that another 11 parking spaces in
front of St. George Place. Those spaces ended at the slip
ramp. In that row of buildings there were ll+ businesses .
They had access from the rear--there was an alley across the
north side of the property and the buildings were set back
approximately 40 feet off the alley. The area between the
alley and backs of the building were paved with asphalt and
in the past it was marked for parking. Spaces had
deteriorated so it was difficult to see them now. The
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
proposal was for a Japanese restaurant. As soon as the
application was received on October 31, 1995 staff began a
parking survey. Staff looked at the parking area in front of
the businesses between the hours of 11 :30 a.m. and 1 :45 p.m.
on weekdays through November 16 . That showed an overall
average of occupied spaces of 38 . 7 out of the 76 total
spaces, or 51% . Breaking it down by area, the area adjacent
to Highway 111 there was a 52 .4% occupancy level; the area
adjacent to the buildings was the highest at 62% on average;
the area in front of St. George Place was 22% occupancy on
average. Driving through there staff noted the same vehicles
parked in the same spots each time. There were 6-8 of them.
In talking to one of the business owners in the area who was
doing his own parking survey, he indicated that as many as 14
cars were parked there on a regular basis . At San Pablo
adjacent to Country Club Liquor, there were four parking
spaces that had a high occupancy level while the spaces at
the east end on De Anza were virtually not used. Legal
notices were circulated to property owners within 300 ' , as
well as to business owners in the block in question. One of
the owners contacted staff. Mr. McWilliams spoke with him
several times and he also submitted a letter of objection on
November 14 . As well, Mr. McWilliams circulated a survey to
the businesses in the area and seven of those surveys were
included in the staff report; one additional one was brought
in later and distributed tonight. The letter spoke for
itself. Staff found in the parking survey a 51% average
level of occupancy with a range from 39 1/2% to just under
66% . If the 11 spaces in front of St. George Place were not
considered, then the occupancy average increased to 55 . 8% .
One comment by Mr. McWilliams was that this was not peak
season and an accurate reflection of the parking situation
could not be taken. Staff asked public works to review
traffic counts on file between the shoulder season and peak
season. They came up with 27 comparisons and did some work.
A report from Joe Gaugush was included in the commission
packets which stated that the expected traffic volume
increase was 16 . 8% . If a similar increase in parking was
assumed, then the number would go up. The parking survey did
not include the dinner or evening hours--staff did look at
the businesses that were open and could be expected to be
open: Cucina Pasta, Adriatic, the proposed Tokyo Kitchen, and
perhaps Randy's Cafe because he has in the past been open in
the evening. The parking requirement for those restaurant
uses came to 48 spaces, plus Country Club Liquor at 2900
square feet and a parking demand of 12 cars, which resulted
in an evening demand of 60 parking spaces . On the frontage
road in front of the businesses there was a total of 65
spaces, not including the 11 in front of St. George Place.
An earlier staff report that was done when approving the
expansion of Cucina Pasta, Adriatic estimated that they could
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
a
have upward toward 35 parking spaces at the rear of the
buildings . It would be reduced somewhat because of the
freezer addition at Cucina Pasta, Adriatic. Specifically
behind the proposed restaurant there was a space of 62 ' x 46 '
plus an area between some trash dumpsters . A rough layout
provided up to ten parking spaces; these would not be "code
legal" and would be smaller than normal, but they would be
functional in a low turnover situation. Looking at it
strictly with 9 ' x 20 ' parking spaces, which would be legal
commercial spaces, there would be six legal spaces back
there. Conversion of a restaurant use in an existing
commercial location was a class 3 categorical exemption for
the purposes of CEQA. In the past staff has found where
restaurants were brought into a commercial center the
businesses around them typically did better. In this case
there were existing restaurants in the form of Adriatic,
Cucina Pasta and Randy' s Cafe. Staff hoped that by adding
another restaurant use, one that was particularly different
from the existing ones, it would add to the synergy and aid
all of the businesses in the area. In conclusion, the
parking survey in staff ' s estimation determined that there
was adequate parking to support the additional use and given
amount of employee/operator parking that takes place out
there, if parking in the future were to become a problem,
they had it within their power to correct the situation by
parking in the rear of the businesses . In the evening hours,
the businesses that were open complied with the ordinance
requirement. At 6 : 15 p.m. tonight, he drove by and 33 of the
76 spaces were occupied, which was 43 . 4% occupancy and 8
spaces occupied in front of the pool hall . Public works
indicated that if commission approved the proposed restaurant
use, they would be required to pay $5, 938 in TUMF fees .
Staff recommended approval of the proposal .
Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. McWilliams referred to
the spaces on the frontage road as not being in compliance
with code and asked if staff had measured those spaces; Mr.
Greenwood stated that he measured several spaces that day and
found a typical width of 9 3/4 feet, which was wider than the
standard.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the
applicant to address the commission.
MR. MILTON CHAMBERS, the architect for the project and
representative for Mr. Matsunaga, complimented staff for
the thoroughness of the parking study. Mr. Chambers
stated that they did not have any problem with the
conditions of approval and agreed that striping the
parking in the rear of the facility and requiring his
employees to park there should help any parking problem
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
in front. Part of his operation he hoped would be a
.. take-out situation which would create less need for long
term parking.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal .
MR. P.G. UNANSON, a resident of the area for the past 11
years, stated that he frequented these businesses many
times in the past 11 years and in all the years he had
been there he had never had a problem parking right in
front of the businesses . He visited the former Alcobar/
Country Club Liquor for various things, Cucina Pasta
often and the other businesses and never had a parking
problem. He said it was not a problem and did not see
the addition of another restaurant creating a problem
and wanted to see another restaurant. He was in favor.
MR. RANDY McWILLIAMS, owner of Randy' s Cafe, stated that
he was all for free enterprise, but wanted the
commission to look at the parking. When he opened his
cafe in 1986 he was subjected to the commission' s
request to a continuance of his parking survey because
he was the only restaurant in that whole block area.
Now with the possible addition of another restaurant, it
... would give them five restaurants along the frontage
road. Mr. Smith was helpful regarding the information
he submitted to staff/the city and the survey he
conducted. There was actually ten businesses that
responded to the survey with opposition--that they would
like to have a continuance of the survey for another
month or month and a half (until January 31, 1996 ) . He
stated that he just returned to the area at the end of
October and opened his restaurant at the first of
November due to the fact that he had a nationally
syndicated TV show and was on the President' s Council
for Physical Fitness and did a lot of charity work, so
he was gone four to five months a year. He approached
the city in May with a letter to Mr. Drell with his
concerns regarding parking. In the past in college he
conducted surveys for the State of California,
Environmental Impact Reports; after college he was a
consultant and opened up 24 restaurants--with 23 still
existing with gross sales of $75 million in 1993/94 . He
felt he knew some about the restaurant industry.
Regarding the staff report in 1991 and the parking at
the rear of the building, he wanted to emphasize that it
was done in 1991 when there were movable trash
dumpsters . Now there were five permanent dumpsters, as
well as two movable ones . Cucina Pasta just added an
addition to the back of the building. His concern was
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
x
regarding access to that alley for fire, trash, and the
parking. They had a lot of deliveries in the rear of
the building. If there was a continuance regarding the
survey for another month and a half, he felt everyone on
the block would be happy; he would be happy and would
welcome Tokyo Kitchen. He frequented Japanese
restaurants quite often and worked with Japanese
athletes and spoke some Japanese, so he had no problem
with the Japanese restaurant opening. He felt that
since his restaurant just reopened, it was not an
accurate count of the parking situation in front of the
businesses there. He requested the commission to
consider that. He asked if anyone had questions.
Chairperson Beaty closed the public testimony and asked for
commission comments .
Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. McWilliams why it was so
important for him to park his car in front of his restaurant;
Mr. McWilliams replied that since he was gone for four-six
months per year, people came into his restaurant to see him.
For seven years he never parked in front of his restaurant.
In the survey he conducted, there were over 16 employee
vehicles parked in the front. When he returned this year,
the Lock Shop was using the rear parking area for decorating
a golf cart for the golf cart parade. In the last week, they
just cleared that area. He parked in the front so that his
clients would know he was back. Cucina Pasta had eight
employee vehicles that parked in the front. When he first
opened his restaurant the Lock Shop had to comply with a
request by the planning commission to park their service
vehicles in the back of his place to free the parking on the
street. At that time he was going to be the only restaurant
there. Now there were five restaurants and he wanted the
commission to consider the same type of request to have the
employees park in the back. Commissioner Campbell felt they
should all park in the back, including the owners . She owned
a business also and did not park in front of her store, the
major thing they wanted was for customers to park there.
People came in specifically to see her also, but if the store
was open, she was there. Mr. McWilliams said that he was
gone quite a bit and people knew his vehicle and they knew he
was back when they saw his vehicle.
Commissioner Jonathan said that part of the reason for having
this process was to get input from neighbors and the process
was showing that there was a parking problem. If there was
a survey of the surrounding neighbors and the surveys
indicated that there were objections, then there was a
problem. On the other hand, he didn't hear anyone saying
that they didn' t want the restaurant and someone would want
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
to occupy that space sometime and there would be additional
�.. parking demands . He stated that he would like to see the
staff to go back with the applicants and neighbors and work
something out. It could be that the owners would have to get
their cars parked in the rear to make the spaces available.
There was a solution and he suggested continuing the matter,
not necessarily to do another survey, but to find a solution
to the parking problem. Mr. Drell stated that his
interpretation of the surveys was that no one said there was
a parking problem and there was nothing that the city could
do to compel the other property owners to comply.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were under a conditional
use permit; Mr. Drell replied that the other restaurants
were, and staff could handle that. He was sure that Cucina
Pasta would comply. Commissioner Jonathan said that perhaps
striping in the rear would provide part of the solution;
maybe RDA needed to purchase the parking lot and stripe it--
there were several alternatives . He had a lot of faith in
staff to work out a solution and provide an opportunity for
that cooperative effort to take place.
Commissioner Campbell noted that staff felt there was not a
parking problem. Chairperson Beaty said that he also had
faith in staff and frequently went by that area and had never
seen a problem--he was in favor of approval now. Mr. Smith
`► noted that the property owner owns three lots, including
Cucina Pasta/Adriatic, Sunrise TV, plus the proposed
restaurant space--condition #7 requires that property owner
to encourage/require the other existing tenants to comply.
There was a conditional use permit for Cucina Pasta/Adriatic,
but the other businesses did not have that so they needed the
cooperation of the property owner to effect that change.
That was what staff sought through condition V . Chairperson
Beaty stated that common sense dictated that if there was a
parking problem that was being caused by the employees, it
would hurt the business and cost them financially. He
thought they would take care of that without any prompting,
but if the condition was already there, that was fine.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval
with condition #7 to have the employees of Tokyo Kitchen park
in the back, including Cucina Pasta/Adriatic . Mr. Smith
indicated that the motion would be with the conditions as
stated.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff.
Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) .
1r.r
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
R
}
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1713, a�
approving CUP 95-12, subject to conditions . Carried 3-1
(Commissioner Jonathan voted no) .
E. Case Nos . C/Z 95-4, PP 95-8, and PMW 95-23 - DR. SURESH
SHAH, Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact,
change of zone from R-3 (multifamily
residential ) to O . P . ( office
professional) , a precise plan of design
for a 16, 768 square foot two story
office building and parcel map waiver to
consolidate three ( 3) lots into one ( 1)
lot on the south side of Fred Waring
Drive, 80 feet west of San Pascual
Avenue.
Mr. Smith noted that the request included a change of zone,
precise plan and parcel map waiver. The property was located
on the south side of Fred Waring Drive 80 feet west of San
Pascual . There was a single family home to the west, a
single story apartment unit to the east on the corner at San
Pascual, across the south side of this property fronting onto
Santa Rosa were single story apartment units also. Across
the street on the north side of Fred Waring Drive were the
offices buildings adjacent to the channel and part of the
civic center complex. The property was zoned R-3 . The
general plan update which was approved last year changed that
to office professional which was consistent with the
secondary plan which had been in effect for some time. The
zone change request to office professional was consistent.
The proposal was for a two story office building with a gross
square footage of about 18,000 square foot, netting out at
16,600 square feet. Building would be two stories with a
maximum of 25 feet in height. The architectural review
commission reviewed the architecture and landscaping and
granted preliminary approval on October 24 . They would also
review the final working drawings . The parcel map waiver
request was to consolidate the three lots . Presently there
were three 86 foot wide lots . They would provide two
driveways--one on each side of the building going around the
back of the building and connecting to parking. There would
be 63 parking spaces; 62 were prescribed for the building
size indicated. Staff recommended approval of the change of
zone, precise plan and parcel map waiver, subject to
conditions . Staff noted that the ordinance and condition #5
specifically limited medical office use to 2200 square feet;
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
beyond that the parking requirement moved up to five spaces
`•• per 1000 square feet. He wanted to insure that the applicant
was aware of that code requirement. For purposes of CEQA,
staff felt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
could be certified. He noted that the whole matter would be
a recommendation to the city council in that the case
involved a change of zone. Staff recommended approval .
Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the past mitigation
measures were required with regard to the possible invasion
of privacy from a second floor of an office professional
building looking into residential property. He asked if that
concern had been addressed. Mr. Smith felt that it had in
that most of the building on the second floor level was not
windows . He deferred to the architect or applicant to
address that more specifically as to how the glass would work
on the south side of the building. Commissioner Jonathan
recalled that some of the solutions included an outside
corridor wall, or using glass block or making the window
higher up. Mr. Drell stated that one of the differences with
this project was that all of the other office buildings were
adjacent to R-1 uses, which limited projects to single story-
-this was adjacent to an R-3 zone which itself allowed two
story apartments . He anticipated that sooner or later when
redevelopment of the existing apartments occurred, they would
probably develop with two story apartments . There was a
different sensitivity there.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the
applicant to address the commission.
MR. NARENDRA PATEL, the architect for the project, said
that they worked closely with staff to come up with the
best solution for this parcel . He placed the building
towards the front of the street as far away as possible
from the multifamily units in the back. The multifamily
units were perpendicular to this building so no one
would be invading their privacy because of the way they
were located now. According to staff, the apartments
were zoned R-3 and could be two story buildings in the
future. Regarding the architecture of the building, it
was contemporary desert architecture that would be
complimentary to the surrounding area, especially the
civic center. In front of the building they were
proposing a nice sculpture that would be part of the art
in public places program. The building had a masonry
veneer on the exterior walls and the second story
stepped back, so the two story height was more toward to
center of the building and less overpowering. Overall
wow it would be a great improvement for this property. The
parking lot was designed to accommodate more than
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
adequate parking spaces . The entrance and exit was
designed to accommodate the Fred Waring high traffic.
Overall it would be a great improvement.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the request was for a change
of zone from R-3 to office professional; he thought the
office professional zoning ordinance prohibited second story
windows with open views to adjacent single story residential
zones . This was a two story office next to a single story
residential use and was a concern. Mr. Drell stated that the
zone was a multifamily zone that permitted two story.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he knew what was permitted,
but there was an existing single story residential adjacent
to this property. Mr. Patel said that the units were
multifamily units, single story. He explained that they were
old, run down units and in the near future would need to have
something done. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he just
wanted clarification because if people were noticed and no
one was present to object, then he might not have a problem,
but had learned over the years to have sensitivity to a
situation where there were two story office buildings being
proposed adjacent to an existing single story private
residence. There was a tremendous potential for invasion of
privacy to an existing residence. They couldn't look at it
from the view point that in ten years it might be a something
else, but they had to deal with the reality of what was there
now. Mr. Patel noted that with the design of the building,
the second story had relatively high windows--not six feet,
but were done sensitively.
DR. SURESH SHAH addressed the commission. He said that
on the west side of the proposed project, there were two
story apartment buildings one house away. They were
nicely done and were consistent with the R-3 zoning.
Beyond that going west there were three lots with run
down homes that would be removed and cleaned up in the
middle part of the block. He felt that Fred Waring was
a busy street and had office professional starting from
Monterey Avenue. It would be a nice site for the city
to have Fred Waring office professional uses . He was
trying to do as much as he could to do a nice looking
building that would be nice for Palm Desert and was
including a $20,000 sculpture in the front of the
building.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the
commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was
no one and the public testimony was closed. Chairperson
Beaty asked for commission comments .
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Commissioner Campbell stated that she was glad that the old
�••� run down home was demolished. It was an eyesore on Fred
Waring. She felt Dr. Shah' s project on Highway 111 was
excellent and would be a nice addition for the city and was
in favor of the project.
Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the residents didn' t
seem to have an objection. His concern about invasion of
privacy would apply whether this was office professional or
residential--they have had single family residential
developments come before them where they had to address the
issue of second story looking into a neighbor' s yard. That
issue existed whether the use was office or residential and
they needed to be sensitive to that as a community. It was
apparently not a problem and he felt the proposed building
would be a wonderful addition to the city and would move for
approval .
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff.
Carried 4-0 .
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1714,
recommending approval of C/Z 95-4 , PP 95-8, and PMW 95-23 to
city council, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 .
F. Case Nos . ZOA 95-2, PP 95-7, and CUP 95-11 - DENISE
ROBERGE, Applicant
Request for a recommendation to city
council for approval of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact,
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit
mixed residential/commercial use in the
C-1, PC and OP commercial zones, precise
plan for the remodel and 6114 square
foot addition including two residential
apartments to an existing 8100 square
foot building, sculpture garden and
conditional use permit for a 2760 square
foot restaurant with liquor license and
1380 square foot outdoor patio on 1 . 8
acres located on the south side of E1
Paseo between Portola Avenue at Prickly
Pear Lane.
Mr. Drell stated the first item he would discuss was the
proposal to amend the zoning ordinance for commercial zones
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
i
to permit second story residential as a conditional use.
This was something that had been brought to the city off and
on and property owners had inquired about it. About six
months ago a property owner on Highway 111 made a proposal to
the city council to initiate such a zoning ordinance
amendment in connection to a proposed office building he
wanted to build on Highway 111 with his own residence above
it. Typically the city liked to process a precise plan that
incorporated specific aspects of the zoning ordinance
amendment with the zoning ordinance amendment so that
planning commission and city council could see what a real
life implementation of that change would result in. Staff
held off processing that amendment until an application was
received. That original applicant, while in the audience,
had not yet made his proposal . The current proposal before
the commission had one. The property was located in the old
Security Pacific Bank building on the corner of E1 Paseo and
Portola, a parking lot on Portola frontage and two vacant
lots in the rear. As described in the request, there were
some minor first floor additions to the existing building.
The addition of a small office on the second floor and two
approximately 1000 square foot apartments in the rear. The
proposed use of the building would be an art gallery/jewelry
store and an associated sculpture garden. The purpose of the
two apartments would be for a caretaker to provide additional
security to the property for all the artwork outdoors and an
apartment for visiting artists that would be displaying art
in the gallery or garden. In terms of the precise plan, it
was a remodel of the Security Pacific Bank building. The
style attempted to create an old world sort of European
artistic impression. Along Prickly Pear there would be a
small 3,000 square foot restaurant and a 32,000 square foot
open sculpture garden to the back. The issues that were
involved in both the remodel, precise plan, residential units
and restaurant involved parking, the location of the
restaurant in terms of how it was sited on the property, the
architectural design and to a great extent the design of the
eight foot wall surrounding the sculpture garden and the
design of the parking lot in the rear. To a certain extent
the decision regarding the zoning ordinance amendment for the
residential units, while somewhat tied to this application,
was not absolutely required in that the applicant indicated
that she could go forward with the project with or without
the residential units . She felt the units were a positive
addition to the project, but not absolutely essential . The
action of the commission would be a decision to approve or
deny the conditional use permit and precise plan and make a
recommendation as to the zoning ordinance amendment with the
implementation of the residential part of the precise plan,
subject to approval by city council of the zoning ordinance
amendment. In terms of reviewing the various aspects of the
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
proposal, starting with the zoning ordinance amendment,
whether or not it was a good idea to start allowing second
story residential uses in commercial zones had to be
determined. Were residential uses and commercial uses in
Palm Desert compatible? Originally zoning came about to
separate obviously incompatible zones like heavy industrial
and residential uses . That grew into this conception that
everything had to be separated and resulted in commuting
problems and situations where during the night commercial
areas were deserted and residential areas were deserted in
the daytime. Traditionally there have been residential
second story uses within retail commercial zones and while
many of them might not choose to live in that environment,
many people did and enjoyed it and provided a convenience to
the proprietor or people working directly in the downtown
area. In terms of compatibility, staff believed in the right
circumstance with the right design that second story
residential uses could be compatible with first floor
commercial uses . Positive impacts, whether this became a
common situation in Palm Desert he was not sure, but by
bringing more people who lived in close proximity to the
commercial areas would ultimately increase the amount of
evening activity which would help a lot of the commercial
businesses extend their working hours . The fact that there
were people on the street who were coming to and from their
residences, looking through their windows, listening for
unusual sounds to a certain degree provided good security in
a commercial zone, which normally had no one watching during
evening hours . Cities of San Diego and Palo Alto have
experimented with these zones and so far had not had a
problem. They actually provided incentives of additional
allowable square footage in their ordinance for commercial
projects to include residences . Staff was recommending that
this be a conditional use to give the city more control .
Also, when reading the ordinance, he saw more likelihood of
a conflict from people moving into these residential units
and then complaining about the commercial use. In the
exhibit for the amendment he tried to word it so that the
commercial use had priority in terms of a land use conflict
in a commercial zone. The design, maintenance and operation
of the residential use had to be compatible with the
commercial use and if there was a dispute or conflict, the
commercial users should address it. If a person lived above
a Chinese restaurant and didn' t like the smell of Chinese
food, it was their responsibility to move elsewhere, not to
limit the odors coming from a restaurant. Staff was
recommending that the planning commission recommend to city
council adoption of the amendment. One of the issues brought
up by the council when they initiated it was whether or not
a limit on occupancy should be placed. That only the
employees or owners of the business should be allowed to live
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
there. While it seemed like a good idea to maximize the
synergy of the two, from a practical point of view it would
restrict the ability to find the right tenant, and if they
couldn't and had to leave it vacant it would be a poor
investment and difficult to finance. Staff believed there
should be no occupancy restriction in terms of place of
employment on the second story units . The architectural
commission granted preliminary approval to the architecture
for both the existing building remodel, the restaurant and
the overall concept. The architectural minutes were included
with the staff report outlining their concern about the
design and location of the restaurant, which included a small
front parking area which was designed one way entering at the
existing curb cut on E1 Paseo and circulating back to Prickly
Pear. It would provide primarily short term parking for the
jewelry store customers . There were apparently many
customers getting sizings and fittings and frequently had to
visit for a very short time. There was a lot of street
parking all around the property, but there was limited
parking in the front. In front of the bank it was a right-
turn lane on El Paseo and there was no parking. For that
reason the applicant felt very convenient access for her
customers was needed. Secondary use of the parking would be
a valet drop-off in the evening hours for the restaurant.
The commission felt in general from an aesthetic design point
of view that parking lots in front on E1 Paseo were not
desirable and they felt all the parking in the back would be
a better aesthetic solution--either with the restaurant
pushed up to the street, or where it was with the area a
landscaped pedestrian courtyard. Of secondary concern to
them was the circulation in the parking lot. There was
circulation to the rear from E1 Paseo which would most likely
be valet. Covered parking was provided as per code. There
was a dead-end parking aisle with internal circulation
through the parking lot that backed onto the street which
wasn't an ideal situation. Architectural commission
recommended that internal circulation be improved and the
dead-end aisle eliminated, which would eliminate parking
spaces . As shown in the project data, in terms of retail
uses including first and second floor, a net area of 9788
feet required for the retail use 39 parking spaces . The
restaurant was 2760 square feet, plus the 1380 square foot
patio. There was a relatively small restaurant and the
restaurant patio faced out to the sculpture garden and would
be fairly high in demand, but outdoor patios at night were
problematical because of weather. Staff was proposing that
the restaurant be counted as half the amount of space in
terms of parking generation, so he was calculating 30 spaces
for the restaurant requirement and 4 spaces for the
apartments, for a total of 73 spaces . The offstreet parking,
including the back parking lot plus the front for the retail,
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
provided 45 spaces . The residential had four spaces . The
%W property was unique in that it controlled an entire block.
By controlling the entire block it had associated with it a
number of curb side spaces . Typically a property of this
size on El Paseo would have six or eight spaces on the
street. By controlling the entire block with no other
associated commercial uses fronting on that street and no
curb cut, they had 22 curb side spaces . On El Paseo almost
everywhere the curb side spaces were filled up first. For
all practical purposes the 22 spaces were available,
especially if they were marked in such a way to regulate that
people park in a reasonable manner and most efficiently, it
could be anticipated that the vast majority of these spaces
would be available to potential customers or guests of the
property. When adding those into the total, there was a
total of 71 spaces being provided. They were close to the
absolute need, the most literal interpretation of the
ordinance, 71 versus 73 . There was probably not a single
restaurant other than L.G. 's Steak House and Kaiser Grill
that met the parking ordinance and that was because most of
the other uses had not been built on the property. Where
there were shared uses between retail and restaurant, the
city would typically grant a reduction in the parking
requirement, at least equal to 20% restaurant use for a
center. In this case the restaurant was a little larger than
20%, but based on the other unique features, jewelry
store/art gallery, for most of that period of time during the
day it would not be an extremely high volume attraction for
parking or traffic. Therefore, with the unique nature of the
use being proposed and the availability of curb side spaces,
staff concluded that there was a reasonable
assumption/conclusion that there will be adequate parking.
To further allay commission' s concern, there would still
exist a large piece of undeveloped area on the property.
Normally commercial properties get built out. If there was
a situation where use was so successful and an evident,
obvious parking problem occurred, he added a condition that
the commission if it determined that parking was not
adequate, that it could call this back and require that the
rear parking area be reconfigured and increased in size to
meet that parking demand or some other proposal that the
applicant might have to add parking, possibly buying other
property in the vicinity. The existence of the sculpture
garden gave the city, if all other efforts failed and there
was a horrendous problem, a solution. The issue of the front
parking lot and the restaurant--although the architectural
commission conveyed the recommendation that it not be
approved as part of the precise plan, staff felt that given
proper design of the landscaping for the ten foot landscape
`.. strip in front, decorative treatment to the paving, and
landscaping in front of the restaurant, that they could come
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
up with something that would be acceptable to staff and the
El Paseo community. The city had lived with a bank on the
corner and a parking lot for a long time. The availability
of the sculpture garden provided the city a long term
alternate solution if there was a problem with this . He did
not believe there would be a problem and was confident that
staff could work with the applicant to come up with an
acceptable design solution that would make it look more like
a landscaped courtyard where cars happen to park as opposed
to a parking lot with landscaping. Lastly of concern to the
ARC was the design of the wall which surrounded the sculpture
garden. Due to security concerns, which the applicant could
explain, the wall was proposed to be an eight foot high wall .
The wall would be solid and would undulate in and out to
create pockets for landscaping and displays of art. The
sidewalk would also move and the overall effect would be an
outward expression of the artistic character of the whole
project. The details were fairly conceptual right now and
the ARC would ultimately see the final design. With those
sort of design details it would hopefully accomplish the
mitigation of what would be a high wall . In terms of the
parking lot in the rear and the circulation, it would require
elimination of at least four parking spaces . Other than
those issues, the project in terms of its parameters complied
with the height and overall design requirements of the C-1
ordinance. The building height was 28 feet and code allowed
30 feet. The existence of the sculpture garden would provide
a unique artistic resource and a focus of interest on the
east side of E1 Paseo, which needed an attraction to
stimulate retail use there. Staff did not want the existing
use of a bank or an office there, which was something that
could theoretically happen. Staff felt this was a very
interesting project and deserved approval .
Commissioner Jonathan requested clarification on the parking
calculations . Staff came up with 71 spaces available, and
the ordinance required 73 . In computing that, staff looked
at spaces around the entire property. Mr. Drell concurred,
but stated that there were actually three or four on El Paseo
up to the driveway and none shown on Portola on the drawing.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if he parked at the corner of
Larrea and Prickly Pear, how he would get to the business at
the corner of E1 Paseo and Portola. Mr. Drell replied that
he would have to walk around the sidewalk to that business .
The applicant indicated that there would be openings through
the wall during business hours through the parking.
Commissioner Jonathan asked how realistic it was in August to
expect a patron to walk all the way around the block to get
to the business and noted that RDA just spent $3 million to
get 1,000 spaces for E1 Paseo parking. Mr. Drell felt that
in August the rear parking and front parking on E1 Paseo
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
would be adequate. His feeling was that someone that wanted
tow to go to the restaurant or jewelry store would not make their
decision whether to go there or not on if the had to walk a
little way to get there. These were very specific
destination uses . The goal on E1 Paseo was not to have
people park right in front of the business, but park
somewhere on E1 Paseo and get out of their cars and walk.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was why staff included
them in the 71 spaces available. Mr. Drell concurred.
Commissioner Jonathan said that when staff looked at the
ordinance requirement of 73 spaces, staff allowed a reduction
of 15% . Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted
that on the case preceding this one, staff indicated the
justification for the maximum allowed 15% reduction was based
on inclusion of an elevator, wide corridor, etc. He asked if
there was that kind of exception here that would justify a
15% reduction. Mr. Drell replied that until the final floor
plans were seen as to how they were laid out, it was hard to
calculate. Staff typically found that it was close enough.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell was aware of any
special circumstances such as stairways, elevators,
exceptionally wide display areas or corridors that would
justify the 15% reduction. Mr. Drell said there would be, in
that there would be stairways up to the residential units and
up to the second story office. The applicant indicated there
would not be an elevator. Commissioner Jonathan asked if
staff had calculated the ordinance requirement for the normal
restaurant use, because one of the things staff also did was
say that the practice had been when the restaurant was under
20% they would use the office parking requirement, which was
less than the restaurant parking requirement, and the
restaurant use at 24% was close enough to 20% to go along
with that calculation. Mr. Drell clarified that the 30
spaces was the straight restaurant rate. Commissioner
Jonathan asked if staff used the full patio and only a 5%
reduction instead of 15%, he asked what the parking deficit
would be instead of 2 spaces . Mr. Drell said that adding
another 600 feet of restaurant, once it went over 3,000 it
was 15/1, 000 which was another 7 spaces for the restaurant,
might be a total of another 10 spaces .
Chairperson Beaty noted that it seemed that everyone had
recommended and agreed that the flow of circulation was not
right in the rear parking area; Mr. Drell concurred that it
was not ideal . Chairperson Beaty asked if it was staff ' s
recommendation that at least another 4 spaces would be lost
from the 71 spaces . Mr. Drell concurred; if the
recommendation was that the lot be redesigned and spaces were
lost, than there would have to be spaces made up from part of
ftw the sculpture garden area. He said it would be an
inconvenience to the patrons of the establishment, and they
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
could curse the city for being stupid, but technically it was
the applicant' s customers that would be inconvenienced. To Wad
her it was a trade off between losing a piece of the
sculpture garden and she could address the commission on that
issue.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the
applicant to address the commission.
MR. JOHN VUKSIC, V + V Architecture, stated that he was
here representing Denise Roberge and the architect of
record. He said he would be working with the building
designer P.G. Unanson in refining the details of the
building. They wanted this to be an outstanding project
and they would work with the city in any way they could
to achieve that. He asked for questions .
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the applicant had been
through architectural review and they indicated the parking
was a problem: there was an inadequate quantity of spaces,
the location itself of the parking lot on El Paseo was
inappropriate, and that the circulation was inadequate. He
noted that the applicant had been through those hearings and
he indicated that they wanted an outstanding project and
would work with the city in any possible and asked what had
been done about the parking problem.
Mr. Vuksic agreed that there was a circulation problem
in the back. He proposed that a loop go around, but at
the bottom of the site plan the loop would involve going
out onto Larrea, which was not a busy street, as opposed
to losing four spaces to achieve the same thing, and
then loop back into the first corridor into the top
section of the lot (to the north) .
Commissioner Jonathan noted that this would improve
circulation and asked how many parking spaces would be lost.
Mr. Vuksic replied only two if they had the break at the top
and not at the bottom. Mr. Drell said that would be for a
one-way circulation and they might lose a little more than
that because nine feet was not an aisle width. They would
need about 12 feet for a one-way aisle. Mr. Vuksic agreed
that it would be four spaces with the way the covered parking
was right now. Mr. Drell asked if the applicant was
proposing to make up the lost parking spaces . Mr. Vuksic
said that they would prefer to go with staff ' s original
suggestion to wait and see how the parking situation was;
they believed there would be ample parking. Mr. Drell
clarified that they would be reducing the retail spaces from
49 to 47 spaces and reconfigure the lot to get the through
circulation. Mr. Vuksic concurred.
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Commissioner Jonathan asked about the parking lot on E1
Paseo. Mr. Vuksic said that area was extremely important to
the owner for her clients that would have a great deal of
valuables that they would be leaving in the shop and she felt
strongly that it would actually deter their business if they
couldn' t have that sort of convenient parking. Commissioner
Jonathan noted that their response to the architectural
review commission' s concern was that they needed it and
wanted it. Mr. Vuksic felt there had been a noble attempt to
make that a very inviting area from a visual and pedestrian
standpoint. This rendering convinced him that the project
would have pedestrian appeal even though there was parking.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the issue of overall quantity
or lack thereof in spaces had been addressed in any way,
possibly in adding spaces somewhere. Mr. Vuksic said they
were reluctant to lose any of the sculpture garden and did
not see another alternative.
Mr. Drell noted that a letter from the E1 Paseo Merchant
Association was received and distributed which said that they
approved in concept the project. He was also informed by the
applicant that they had been before the Palm Desert Property
Owners Association and had also received their preliminary
approval from that architectural committee.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal .
MR. HAROLD McCORMICK, the developer of the building at
73-950 El Paseo, which was at the end of Prickly Pear.
He built that 20 years ago and had the same problem now-
-it was tough then and it still is. The only problem he
had with this situation was the apartments . He did not
believe apartments belonged on E1 Paseo, especially one
with a balcony or patio area overlooking the street.
That was the only objection he had.
Mr. Drell said that the second story unit on E1 Paseo would
be an office and the apartments would be toward the rear.
MR. GREG SWAJIAN said he was the other applicant that
Mr. Drell referred to earlier in his comments who had
been before the city council . He owned property on E1
Paseo that went all the way to the frontage road between
a Touch of Mama' s and Dale Burton' s gallery. He and his
wife were both professionals . He noted that
Commissioner Jonathan' s business was in that building
about ten years ago. He said they investigated by going
down to La Jolla and contacting Palo Alto and Fresno
regarding the mixed use, which was what he was before
the commission to address. He found that the planners
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
5
were excited about the concept. La Jolla now required
residential on the second floor of their mostly retail
stores in the La Jolla area. They stopped at a shopping
center similar to Palms to Pines and except for the
supermarket, above stores like the dry cleaners, the
yogurt store, the camera store, etc. , they found
apartments with fairly big glass views of the
surrounding area. They walked upstairs and down the
hallway between the units and some of the doors were
open and they talked with the residents . They were
excited about the fact that they lived very easily to
where they could buy their food, get their dry cleaning
done, and get their yogurt and that sort of thing. A
lot of them were local business people. More and more
business people were working more hours and a good part
of their business life became part of their social life.
E1 Paseo was a classic example of why he felt a mixed
use was so important. They were excited about it
because they hoped to be before the commission within
six months to a year for a concept of putting a building
on the other end of their parking lot for the mixed use
( i .e. first floor professional, second floor
residential) . Several tenants in his building, doctors
or attorneys, had talked about that concept. They would 1
like to live closer to where they work. Also, it
provided the city an opportunity that the people who
worked there and lived there would use the restaurants
more in the surrounding area versus going out of town.
The policing aspect could also be important. Their
building was on E1 Paseo, they would get there in the
morning and once in a while he would have to clean up
because someone had gone to KFC and decided to cruise
around to a parking lot outside of an office even though
they were on E1 Paseo, and they would find a bags of
trash. None of them wanted that on E1 Paseo, they
wanted it to be the highest quality, both retail and
professional, that they could possibly have and the idea
of policing added more to it. He was excited about the
concept and hoped to be part of the concept . He liked
this project and felt it would put a lot of money into
Palm Desert and created more walking traffic . He hoped
the city supported it.
Chairperson Beaty closed the public testimony and asked for
commission comments .
Commissioner Campbell noted that they were trying to promote
E1 Paseo as an area to shop, the convenience of supermarkets,
the cleaners, and beauty parlor or doctors . She did not see
any problem in having an apartment on the second floor. As
far as the parking on El Paseo, she noted that the Bromley
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Building, Circle K, and the Post Office all had parking in
ftw the front. People in those areas go in for five minutes .
There was no problem for people going in or out.
Commissioner Fernandez stated that he was in favor of this
concept, especially for that side of E1 Paseo.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that the concept was wonderful,
a tremendous addition to E1 Paseo and the City of Palm Desert
in general, but there were problems that needed to be worked
out. The architectural review committee looked at this very
carefully and came up with some very cogent recommendations
and he was in agreement with their conclusions . He had seen
little to no response to their recommendations and felt they
needed to be addressed. There was a parking problem that
could be overcome. There was a lot of space, there was an
existing building, but the other building could be located
wherever was needed to accomplish that. He felt it was
possible to have adequate parking and an adequate sculpture
garden and the aesthetics that were being sought here. He
did not see a need to compromise the city' s standards . He
took exception to staff ' s comment that the applicant
regulated the amount of parking because they were aware of
what their patrons needed. If the commission took that
approach, there would be all sorts of signs, density, and all
�. sorts of things the city would not want. The commission was
there to regulate the development of the city in a way that
they think is appropriate. One thing that cut into Palm
Desert' s aesthetics and quality of life was inadequate
parking. Going to L.A. and trying to visit any establishment
demonstrated that point. They start charging for parking
because it becomes a premium. He did not feel that anyone
wanted Palm Desert to become a Los Angeles and the city had
an opportunity here in a small measure to avoid those kinds
of problems and maintain the city' s parking standards . If
the parking situation was looked at in a realistic way, there
was no way they would count probably half of those street
spots as being relevant to this project. He was not sure why
there should be a 50% reduction to the patio--they either had
seating or didn't have seating. He was not convinced that a
15% reduction was appropriate. As opposed to a parking
requirement of 73 spaces, he calculated that there should be
more like 90 spaces . He felt there was a grossly inadequate
quantity of parking spaces and by the time they fixed the
circulation properly, they would lose more than two spaces,
as much as six, but maybe four. He wasn' t sure that cutting
through two spaces was the proper solution. There was a
quantity problem, circulation problem, and he did not see the
need for putting parking on E1 Paseo. He did not feel that
ftw the applicant would want their project to look like a Circle
K or Post Office. They would want it to look like the other
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
quality projects and they had found a way to put their
parking out of sight, not on E1 Paseo. He felt there were
advantages they needed to consider in having storefronts on
El Paseo as opposed to parking situations . If people were
concerned about valuables, there was valet parking and people
could watch those cars . He did not feel that was an issue.
The architectural review committee came up with specific
recommendations and he stood behind those: they needed more
spaces, better circulation, and they needed to take the E1
Paseo parking lot off of E1 Paseo and get it into the back
where it would not be an eyesore. He felt the wall itself
needed to be looked at very carefully: he liked the idea of
the wall if done properly and he saw some narrative
descriptions that indicated the wall would be done properly
and would actually be a showcase for artwork and landscaping.
He needed to be assured of that. Some of the drawings seemed
to have it undulating, some didn' t. They were in a bit of a
transition going into what the architectural commission
recommended and he wanted some assurance that what they ended
up with was what the narratives described. Those were his
concerns and in terms of a recommendation to the city, as it
exists he was in favor of the project conceptually and wanted
to see it move forward, but before it took the next step
those concerns brought up in October by ARC and that they
were hearing tonight needed to be addressed before it went
the next step to the city council .
Chairperson Beaty stated that he agreed somewhat with
Commissioner Jonathan. He felt staff and the architectural
review commission would agree that there was some question on
the parking issue. He asked for clarification on the
commission' s action. Mr. Drell explained that this was a
precise plan/conditional use permit which could be determined
by the planning commission and was final at this body. The
zoning ordinance amendment was a recommendation to city
council . Therefore, for the residential portion, the
applicant had some time constraints and was willing to go
ahead with the project and put on hold the residential
portion until the council ruled on the zoning ordinance
amendment next month. The other was a decision the
commission was making, unless the decision was appealed or
called up by council . Chairperson Beaty stated that he liked
the concept and residential portion, but agreed that there
was a parking issue that needed to be resolved. Mr. Drell
said that the only way to resolve it was to make the
sculpture garden smaller. Part of the consideration was the
specific use. This was a very specialized use building.
Almost all E1 Paseo businesses did not fit into the typical
parking demand generation; they were typically low volume,
high priced and survived not on hundreds of people passing
through every day, but on 20 people passing through and
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
spending a lot of money. That was why, with the exception of
`r. very popular restaurants, they have never had a parking
problem on E1 Paseo.
Commissioner Jonathan asked why the city just spent $3
million adding parking on El Paseo if there wasn' t a parking
problem. Mr. Drell replied that it was a long story which he
would not get into right now, but that project going into the
center of town would hopefully generate a lot more parking
and activity. The problem on E1 Paseo most merchants would
agree, was not a lack of parking, but a lack of customers .
They could make the enforcement of condition #13 stronger: if
future parking demands for the project as determined by the
planning commission consistently exceed the supply, both
onsite and curbside, to the detriment of the surrounding area
or the residential area, the applicant would be required to
submit plans to the city for approval and construction of
additional onsite parking consistent with those demands or
face revocation of the conditional use permit. They could
shut down the restaurant if there was no solution. Mr.
Rudolph said that could be enforced. Mr. Drell said that if
this condition actually exists, and there were massive
numbers of cars around that property and the parking lot was
full, then he would feel as a planner that he did a good
thing.
rr.r
Chairperson Beaty asked how the applicant would feel if the
commission required at least 73 parking spaces; he did not
see a need for 90 parking spaces . Mr. Drell suggested having
at least 49 spaces in the lot.
Ms . Roberge said that if they eliminated two or four
spaces and had to make them up, then they would have to
take away from the sculpture garden to replace those
spaces, which she didn't want to do.
Chairperson Beaty stated that he felt that Mr. Drell was very
generous with requiring only 73 spaces and asked if 73 spaces
could be accomplished. Mr. Drell said that staff was
recommending 71 spaces . Mr. Drell stated that he was
counting 71 spaces with the existing curb spaces . He asked
if the commission wanted the applicant to maintain the 71
spaces, or the 49 offstreet spaces . Ms . Roberge said that
she could agree to maintain the 71 spaces . Chairperson Beaty
said that would be two less spaces and they would have to
change the circulation. Mr. Drell said they would also
eliminate the dead-end parking aisle. Mr. Vuksic said that
they were trying to retain as much of the sculpture garden as
possible. Ms . Roberge did not want to diminish its size.
Commissioner Jonathan suggested that eliminating the
restaurant building would be a solution. The suggestion by
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
the chair was in the right direction, but he felt it was only
a partial solution to a significant problem. He personally
had a problem and agreed with the recommendation of the ARC
about the parking lot on E1 Paseo, but the proposed solution
did not solve that part of the problem for him. Chairperson
Beaty said he did not have a problem with that one.
Commissioner Jonathan also felt there was a very real
circulation problem and he did not want to deal with
conceptual language: take two spaces away from one area, not
knowing the exact width of the aisles, and they needed to see
something real and that it was going to work. Also, he did
not have a lot of confidence in the 73 space requirement--he
felt it should be more like 90 spaces . He was not convinced
they should count all the spaces along the street simply
because they were along the street and was not convinced they
should allow a 15% reduction, or a 50% reduction for the
patio seating. He did not know whether the number they would
have to provide was 73 or 80-90 spaces . Even if it was 90
spaces, he was not necessarily saying they had to provide 90
and was willing to recognize some special circumstances and
make some accommodations, but he did not want to mislead the
applicant into thinking that if they came up with a new plan
that had 73 spaces, that he personally would be in favor of
it. They needed to see a more comprehensive solution to the
entire problem. Mr. Drell asked if it would help if they
came up with, consistent with condition #13, a possible
scheme for additional parking in the sculpture garden that
would add more parking spaces . Commissioner Jonathan said
that his problem with condition #13 was that they were not
talking about hours of operation, where they just closed the
doors earlier, but if a sculpture garden was built and the
city said they had to tear down some aesthetically beautiful
thing and add six parking spaces, it would not happen. Mr.
Drell said that was what the commission had to decide when
making their decision. He noted that in the Core Commercial
Specific Plan that the purpose of policies in the commercial
areas was to promote successful development--that was the
highest goal . Parking problems as they detract from that was
something they had to deal with, but they didn't discourage
quality, successful development to solve parking problems and
at any point in time they had to weigh the benefits of a
particular design as to what was more important to the street
and community. He personally felt that people on El Paseo
would be thrilled if it came to that point. If determined
that their parking problem was detrimental to other
surrounding businesses, then he would suggest having the
applicant design a "Plan B" to cut the sculpture garden down
and develop more spaces, but it might kill the goose that
created the situation. It was a trade off. He grew up in
Los Angeles and went to a lot of restaurants in Santa Monica
and Westwood and Venice, but if there was a good restaurant
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
or store, he would find a way to get there. The applicant
�+ was saying that the commission could weigh that if the need
arose. The other consideration was that the principal use of
the property was probably 2 spaces per 1000 in terms of
parking generated. Commissioner Jonathan appreciated staff ' s
input. If what staff was suggesting was that E1 Paseo was
unique and required it ' s own unique parking requirement, then
they should do that, but not come to that conclusion here
because there was a project that staff was standing behind.
The architectural commission arrived at a different
conclusion. He felt they had some very fine people on that
committee and they came to a conclusion and he read the
explanations for the conclusions and they carried a lot of
weight. His conclusion was that it was a matter of degrees .
He thought the tradeoff between the aesthetically pleasing
sculpture and an aesthetically non-pleasing parking lot
versus the convenience of close parking offered to patrons
was a compromise of degrees and the problem here was that
they were so short on spaces that they needed to bring that
more into line. If a little of the sculpture garden had to
go, then it was a proper tradeoff. He was not convinced that
was the case, but the main conclusion he came to was the
problems brought up here and previously brought up at ARC
were ones that could be resolved with a little creative
architecture and he felt the applicant had a competent
�+ architect. He did not want a Plan B to go to if there was a
problem, but they could implement Plan B and make it Plan A
and have a continuance where the applicant could go back to
the drawing board, reconsider moving the front lot and
combining it with the rear lot and perhaps gaining some
spaces and find a way to improve circulation and increase the
quantity of parking spaces and meet all the needs. He felt
that was possible.
Ms . Roberge addressed the commission and stated that the
parking in the front was really important to her
business . They did a lot of appraisals and all custom
work and a custom piece involved the customer returning
four or five times before it was completed. It was a
fast trip to see if the size was right, or the width of
the ring was right. In the winter months, it is dark at
4 : 00 p.m. They would not park in the back with their
valuables and run into the store. The other thing was
that the commission was assuming that the parking lot
would not pleasant. She felt they had designed a great
parking spot that didn't look like a parking lot.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was talking about the
rear lot. He had a problem with the front lot location, but
�.. when he was talking about the aesthetics of parking spaces in
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
general versus the sculpture garden, he was referring to the
lack of aesthetics in most parking lots .
Ms . Roberge said there were a lot of plants and far more
plants in that particular lot than most in the city. It
might look vague on the plans, but it wasn't.
Commissioner Jonathan felt Ms . Roberge was inadvertently
abetting his argument to add more parking spaces, because
aesthetically it was pleasing and therefore they wouldn't
detract by reducing the sculpture garden.
Ms . Roberge said she didn' t mean that at all .
Minimizing the sculpture garden to a point where it was
"kind of a sculpture garden" would not be a good
project. The one project she wanted this to emulate was
Finn Gallery in Santa Fe. Ms . Roberge had more land,
but the Santa Fe sculpture garden was incredible and was
a little larger than the proposed one, and she was
already concerned that she didn' t have enough space. To
take anything away from the sculpture garden would not
do the project justice.
Chairperson Beaty asked for clarification that Ms . Roberge
said she had more land.
Ms . Roberge concurred, but they also had more building.
The Santa Fe project only had ten parking spaces .
Commissioner Jonathan suggested eliminating the restaurant,
which would allow for more parking and a larger sculpture
garden.
Ms . Roberge said that the Santa Fe project had ten
parking spaces for the whole gallery. If she had more
than three customers in her store at any one time, that
was a lot for her. They were high ticketed, as would be
the artwork. It was a high end store. If she had ten
customers in the whole retail portion of the building
she would be pleased.
Commissioner Jonathan said that if they were to look at the
strict interpretation of the ordinance, the comparison would
be a requirement of 90 spaces and the project was providing
only 60 . He was not saying they had to build 90 spaces,
because he agreed with Ms . Roberge and staff that there were
unique situations here. There wasn' t high turnover like
other uses, but they were very, very low and he was concerned
that there would be a problem. Whether Ms . Roberge agreed or
not, that was his concern. He was not saying to go out and
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
build 20-30 more spaces, but more were needed, as well as
better circulation.
Ms . Roberge agreed about the circulation and felt they
had solved that issue. She felt they would be fortunate
to have a parking problem at that end of E1 Paseo. She
felt the worse thing that could be done to a city was to
not have a parking problem. She stated that when Mr.
Drell calculated the parking, he used the maximum of 10
spaces per 1,000 for the restaurant; the one approved
across from her current store was at 4 spaces per 1,000
square feet. If the commission was to give her the
benefit of 4 spaces per 1,000, they would have a lot of
extra parking.
Chairperson Beaty said that his opinion was that staff was
very generous with the parking calculation of 73 spaces and
would like to see the applicant come up with 73 spaces and
solve the circulation problem. Then he could recommend
approval . Ms . Roberge felt they had solved the circulation
problem. Chairperson Beaty stated that the ordinance called
for 73 spaces, and staff went to great lengths to justify
allowing 71, but he would like to see a total of 73 spaces .
He asked Ms . Roberge if she could provide 73 spaces and he
had heard no compromise and a lot of questions from
architectural review commission, from Commissioner Jonathan,
and from staff. Ms . Roberge stated that she would provide 73
spaces .
Chairperson Beaty asked for a clarification for modifying the
conditions of approval . Mr. Drell said that the requirement
would be a requirement of 51 onsite spaces . Chairperson
Beaty concurred.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he objected because, 1) he
believed that still put the project short of the necessary
parking requirements for this size of a project; 2 ) the
circulation issue was important enough that the commission
should see it before giving blind approval; 3) a parking lot
on E1 Paseo, no matter how pretty it was done, was not
appropriate and was wrong; and 4 ) they had not addressed the
issue of the wall, which would be the most prominent thing
seen on the project. For the record those were his concerns
and that was why he was objecting to the project.
Mr. Drell said that the final details of the wall would be
going back to the architectural commission. If the
commission wanted to see it, staff could bring it to them.
Commissioner Jonathan said that he personally would like to
continue the matter to allow the commission to actually see
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
i
t
what was being approved and that was the problem he was
having.
Chairperson Beaty felt that Commissioner Jonathan had a valid
point on the circulation issue and asked the applicant if a
continuance of a few weeks would be a problem. Ms . Roberge
said that would be a problem; if they didn't start
construction by mid January at the latest, then they wouldn't
be able to open when the season started and there was no way
she would move her business mid-season. The timing was
critical . She would be happy to bring back a plan showing
the circle-through parking lot, but needed approval so that
they could get started. Chairperson Beaty asked when this
was scheduled to go to council . Mr. Drell said this didn't
have to go to council, unless it was appealed or the council
called it up. Otherwise, the commission' s decision was
final . Commissioner Jonathan asked if the apartment portion
had to go to city council . Mr. Drell agreed; if the
apartment ordinance didn't pass, then the project could not
include the apartments . The zoning ordinance had to be
approved by the city council . If the zoning ordinance didn' t
pass at the council level, the apartments would disappear.
Commissioner Jonathan did not feel the planning commission
should be driven by the convenience of an applicant. They
have never considered economic need to justify any kind of a
project. They were looking at doing what was right for the
community that would effect this community for many years
into the future. There had to be a compromise somewhere--
asking for a two week continuance should not be a problem for
the commission. They weren't the ones who waited until
November to address this issue. That was not the
commission' s problem.
Chairperson Beaty asked if there was a way the commission
could approve the project with a strong recommendation that
council had better see the circulation pattern when they were
reviewing the zoning ordinance amendment. Mr. Drell
explained that the circulation pattern was not something they
would look at unless the decision was appealed or called up.
Chairperson Beaty said he was asking if the commission could
recommend for council to review it. Mr. Drell said that the
circulation would not go to council unless the commission
denied the project and the applicant appealed, or the
commission approved it and someone appealed it, or someone on
city council called it up. He said that if it went to
council, it would go on December 14 . Commissioner Jonathan
asked if staff was saying this project would not go to
council at all if the commission denied it. Mr. Drell said
it would not go to council unless the commission denied it
and the applicant appealed, or if the council called up the
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
project. Commissioner Jonathan noted that part of this
project was dependent on a zoning ordinance amendment which
had to be reviewed by council . Mr. Drell said that if the
zoning ordinance amendment was denied, then those apartment
units would be eliminated. Commissioner Jonathan clarified
that the zoning ordinance amendment was independent of the
application and was something that council would deal with
and if they approved it, this application would be
unaffected. Mr. Drell concurred; if the amendment was
denied, the applicant would have to submit an architectural
redesign of how the building would look without apartments
and they would pick up the four parking spaces . Mr. Rudolph
said that the commission could approve the project subject to
a circulation design acceptable to staff, or the
architectural commission. The question was whether the
commission wanted to see the redesign which would require a
continuance, or if they were confident in staff, they could
carry it out. Mr. Drell suggested the architectural
commission review it in their review of the final plans .
Staff could certify that there were 51 onsite parking spaces
with no dead-end aisles . Chairperson Beaty wanted that added
to the conditions . Commissioner Jonathan stated that the
only problem he had with that was that he felt they were
still approving a project they were not seeing. The
applicant was still being delayed because before they could
tam do anything they had to submit a plan acceptable to staff or
the ARC. Chairperson Beaty said that was already a
condition. Mr. Drell concurred; they still had to go to ARC
for final approval and final approval always had to comply
with all the conditions of the planning commission.
Therefore, when they came in with their final plans, they
would have to comply with the conditions of the resolution.
He noted the ARC was not hesitant to enforce conditions they
recommended. Commissioner Jonathan felt the bottom line was
that they were approving something that they were not seeing
and they were abdicating their responsibility. He wanted to
give approval to the project because he would like to see it
done, but would like to see how the problems would be
resolved before he personally could give approval .
Chairperson Beaty somewhat agreed, but had confidence in the
architectural review commission and staff and was ready for
a motion. Commissioner Jonathan did not feel the concerns
had been resolved. Chairperson Beaty felt the commission
just resolved them, because they would have to provide the
number of spaces and the circulation would have to meet
acceptable traffic patterns and staff would take care of
that. He asked for a motion.
%WW Commissioner Fernandez made a motion to accept the
recommendations of the architectural review commission for
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
9
the applicant to provide 73 spaces, or 51 onsite parking
spaces with circulation acceptable to staff and the
architectural review commission, but with the design to
include the parking lot on E1 Paseo.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff .
Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) .
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1715,
recommending to city council approval of ZOA 95-2, PP 95-7 ,
and CUP 95-11 . Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) .
IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
None.
X. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Presentation by the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments on Project 2020 and Request for Comments
from Planning Commission.
Action:
Planning Commission requested that Project 2020 be continued
to the next meeting as a study session item. The applicant
concurred.
XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE
Commissioner Campbell summarized November 16, 1995 EDAC
items . She said that at the request of the city council,
city staff investigated the possibility of establishing a
data base of available commercial space in Palm Desert
because of the increase in space, both new and old. The
program required a joint effort between the city and real
estate brokers to accumulate and keep current the
information. The cost to the city was estimated at $6,000
per year. Staff reviewed the efforts of other cities; in
most cases the city felt this was beneficial in reducing the
number of vacancies . This included Redwood City, San
Bernardino, West Covina, Carpeteria, and Los Altos . The City
of Los Altos reduced the vacancy factor from 30% to only 3%,
although other cities reported less dramatic results . The
EDAC recommended that staff be instructed to take the request
to city council, asking that such a program be implemented in
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Palm Desert on a one-year trial basis . Regarding the fuel
r.. cell, Mr. Shillcock said the program was moving forward;
contracts with the Air Quality Control Management District
were being reviewed by the city attorney and would be signed
by the end of the year. Funding was guaranteed by the
federal government as soon as they came up with a budget.
The first car was in the city' s golf cart parade on November
5 .
XII . COMMENTS
None.
XIII . ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried
4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 9 :54 p.m.
PHIL DRELL, Acting Secretary
r.. AT ES
r
J ES FE1WAON, Vi a Chairperson
alm Des Plonning Commission
i
tm /
39