Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0702 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 2, 1996 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE vow I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Jim Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Steve Smith IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 18, 1996 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the June 18, 1996 minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent items from the June 27 , 1996 city council meeting. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR None. low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS ow A. Continued Case No. CUP 01-82 Amendment No. 3 - FOUNDATION FOR THE RETARDED OF THE DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to allow Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) to utilize the assembly hall in the main building at 73-255 Country Club Drive on Sundays from 7 : 00 a.m. to 10 :00 a.m. and on Thursday evenings from 7 :00 p.m. until 9 : 00 p.m. , and to permit Calvary Chapel to hold services on Sunday between 11 : 00 a.m. and 12 : 30 p.m. Mr. Smith noted that this matter was before the commission on June 4 at which time it was continued. The concern at that time was the spillover of traffic into the residential area to the south and west. He indicated that the applicant has come up with a two-phased plan. The total plan would see at some time in the future a 20,000 square foot building addition on part of the vacant property at the Foundation for the Retarded. A total of 91 new, additional parking spaces would be provided. Phase 1 of the development would see the creation of 39 new parking spaces . That, coupled with the existing 57 spaces towards the north end of the property, would result in a total of 96 parking spaces on-site, which should be adequate for Alcoholics Anonymous ' use as well as the Calvary Chapel use of the property. Staff was now recommending approval of both uses . In the case of AA they would be limited to a maximum of 96 attendees and the church would have a 100 person limit on it. That was probably negotiable to a higher number if deemed necessary. Other conditions required that the Foundation provide the additional parking within a six month period, by December 31, 1996 . Condition Nos . 1 and 4 for AA indicates 100 attendees . The actual parking came in at 96, so staff was revising that number to 96 . AA only asked for 90, so he felt the 96 limit should not be an impediment. Staff concluded and recommended that the commission approve a resolution permitting Calvary Chapel and a resolution permitting Alcoholics Anonymous to operate, subject to the conditions as amended. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the conditional use permit would be granted based on the additional parking spaces which would not get built until December. He asked if in the 2 No MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 interim they would continue to be allowed. Mr. Smith said staff 's recommendation would be that the city try to live with the situation that has been ongoing for some time. He noted that he contacted the current Sagewood homeowners association representative, Avail Properties, and described the situation to Cam. As well, he faxed a copy of the legal notice originally sent. She indicated that she would present it to their board at their meeting on June 26 and she would get back to him if there was any input. He didn' t receive any input. Commissioner Ferguson recalled that the whole matter came to the commission' s attention because of a single complaint associated with the church and asked if the city has ever received a complaint about Alcoholics Anonymous . Mr. Smith replied no, not specifically. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present and wished to address the commission. MR. RICHARD FARMER, Executive Director of the Foundation for the Retarded, 73-255 Country Club Drive, stated that the proposal before the commission for the additional parking was being reviewed this month by the board of ftm directors and they were now in the process of getting bids . They anticipate moving on this rapidly, rather than taking a long period of time. They hoped to provide parking sometime in August. Their architect was present and he could address that. They were working with the civil engineers trying to get everything ready and he hoped the problem could be resolved in a short period of time. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . He requested that the testimony be directed towards the city' s concern regarding the parking situation. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was glad that the Foundation was able to satisfactorily come up with a situation to accommodate the parking. As he stated at an earlier commission meeting, he felt this was "much ado about nothing" in that the use that was complained of in the area primarily stemmed from Kenny Rogers and overflow parking that may have occurred on one particular Sunday. As a result the city was poised on the brink of shutting down a church and 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 Alcoholics Anonymous . He was glad that Foundation had seen fit to utilize some of its five acres, improve parking spaces which would ease the burden for that entire corner for the property owners for the commercial district, and he was pleased that this was one of those situations where everyone comes out a winner. He thanked the Foundation for their cooperativeness . He said that he would move to adopt the resolution of approval . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he did share staff ' s concerns and appreciated what he felt was a good resolution of the issues. He was glad to see that they could proceed with some good use of that property. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1748, approving CUP 01-82 Amendment No. 3A, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner �f Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1749, approving CUP 01-82 Amendment No. 3B, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . B. Continued Case No. PP/CUP 96-5 - RICK MURO, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for a 17 ,857 gross square foot two story athletic club on the vacant property at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Smith explained that this matter was before commission on June 18 at which time it was continued. Staff re-noticed a broader area of legal notices in light of the consideration at that point in time that they would perhaps allow the applicant to use 38 parking spaces located at the rear of the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 +� Darr Eye Clinic site at the southwest corner of Monterey and Fred Waring. In the two weeks since the matter was here, the project has continued to evolve. Staff indicated that the public works department conducted a traffic study in this time period. They indicated that the impacted streets have an available capacity to handle the anticipated traffic levels . What the study didn't indicate or take into account was that they would see a considerable increase in the amount of traffic on the residential streets to the northwest. The city policy in the past has been that they try to avoid that at all costs . In the case of Mervyn' s and Downey Savings, Joshua Road was closed off; in the case of the office professional use directly to the south of this area the streets were closed off and walls were constructed. This eliminated the intrusion of commercial traffic into the residential area. This project has continued to evolve and last week staff heard that the applicant was looking at having a parking structure for the facility. At 4 :20 p.m. today staff received plans, which were distributed to commission prior to the meeting, which shows a two level parking structure. Mr. Smith stated that he has not had an opportunity to review the plans, although he did discuss the matter yesterday with the architect, Mr. Chambers . Basically as he understood it at that point in time, the lower level �+ parking area would be four to five feet below grade and an upper level a similar distance above grade. They were looking at a total of 116 parking spaces . As well, staff received from Mr. Oliphant a fax last week which describes extra and unusual costs associated with developing a project on this property. Mr. Smith stated that staff was recommending a continuance on this so that staff could look at the plans; as well, staff would like to present it to architectural review which would meet one week from today. Staff ' s recommendation was for a two week continuance so that staff could review the current proposal . Commissioner Ferguson asked what effect continuing this matter again would have on the proposed October 1st termination date of operation for the current athletic facility on Portola and Highway III . He asked when the next meeting was and how long this would delay their ability to pull permits . Mr. Smith said staff ' s suggestion was to continue this hearing to July 16, which was two weeks from tonight. Commissioner Ferguson indicated that he would also ask the applicant to address that. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 MR. RICHARD OLIPHANT, 45-500 Navaho Road in Indian rill Wells, stated that he was one of the three partners that own the leasehold on this lot on the corner of Monterey and Fred Waring. He said that what they were asking from the commission was to consider the use and approve the use subject to the approval of the architectural committee. This had already been through the architectural committee from the standpoint of the building and recommendations were made and the architectural work completed by Mr. Chambers and distributed to each commissioner this evening met the requirements asked of them by architectural review. The only thing that needed to be considered was the landscape and how they handle the elevated garage parking. That they would have to submit to them for recommendations and suggestions . They were asking the commission to make a decision tonight about this use. Approximately five years ago the partnership he was a party to entered into a leasehold arrangement on this lot for the purposes of building a 20,000 square foot professional office. They processed it through the city and received the approvals and started through the plan check process. At that time there were a number of issues that arose relating to traffic and had to do with the necessity of having a right-turn lane from Monterey Avenue and widening Fred Waring to make a right-turn lane onto Acacia. They got stuck in the process . By the time the decision was made as to how they could improve this lot to accommodate those facilities, and the negotiation for additional land which the city gave them for the land they were taking away off the lots there were purchasing behind the apartments, some 16 feet so that they could increase their parking, they lost enough land that their office building was only 16,800 square feet, not 20,000 square feet, so they were not able to accommodate their client. The lot has been vacant ever since and would continue to sit vacant because of the fact that there was a substantial amount of improvement costs . They need a fairly intense use and an office use was not the use, particularly in today' s market, to afford the kinds of costs involved in the lot improvements . Secondly, being a leasehold interest it did not depreciate, so there was no fluctuation in the value of the land. In order for them to make this lot useable so that it can be developed and the necessary turn lanes could be generated, they need a use that can afford it. This was the use they felt had the least impact on the surroundings and could be 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 'M used on this lot. He said that they have been lucky to have a person like Mr. Muro who has about 17 years in this business and has been successful in this business, and his family is in this business . He has also been able to put together the necessary financing to build this building on a leasehold, which in today' s market was almost impossible. This was being handled through the Small Business Administration and Valley Independent Bank. One reason they hadn't been able to get the parking structure to staff earlier was because they had to do economic studies on it and determine if it was economically feasible to do and whether this was something the SBA would include in their loan. They have now gotten positive answers on both of those subjects, so they know it could be financed and falls within the realm of financial possibility. As soon as they had that word they had the architect, Milt Chambers, put together the drawings and get them to the city as rapidly as possible. What they were asking for tonight was some approval of the use so that they could go forward. Time was of the essence and he felt the commission was aware of that fact. The commission had actually given Mr. Muro until February to make progress with this building to get it built. City council saw fit to move that back to October 1 . However, in talking with individual council members, if there was substantial progress and approvals from this level received, they would be willing to reconsider that issue. He felt it was critical to have the commission' s approval so that they could meet the time requirements . They were present to answer any questions . He noted that he has been in the same position that the commission is in now, in looking at plans that were fairly recent, however, the planning commission essentially did not approve the architectural plans . That was done by the architectural committee and this met those criteria given to them by the architectural committee and they would expect any approval from the commission this evening to be subject to that approval . He also sent a letter; he was one of the owners of the Darr Eye Center and they have ample parking spaces over there, which was verified by the city, and they have dedicated 38 spaces over there from 5 : 00 p.m. until 9 :00 p.m. so long as this conditional use permit was in effect, for overflow parking. They have no intention of withdrawing that even with the garage. If it was necessary to have that as overflow, they were still willing to step forward and do that. He asked the 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 commission to issue the conditional use permit subject to the approval of the architectural committee. He also wanted to address the issue of traffic, since it was the issue primarily put before the commission by planning staff. They met with the public works department and kept abreast with them any issues they might have with traffic. They were in charge of traffic and they have no issues with the traffic, on Acacia or the neighborhoods . It was very unlikely that anyone using this facility would be traveling down from Acacia would be traveling down any of the streets going west because they dead-end. The primary use would be on Acacia and there was already a lot of use on Acacia. He thought the count was about 300 cars per day. This business at its maximum capacity, which was 1500 members, and they would not open with that kind of membership, but over a period of a few years would achieve that, the maximum was about 250 cars per day. That did not double the traffic and Acacia was designed to accommodate more traffic. It has some impact but it was not a negative impact. He said the commission could check with the public works department to verify that. The concept of closing streets was not a concept he personally felt was very good. Palm Desert was a very difficult community to get around in now because a lot of streets were one way or blocked. The idea of having all those residents exit to Arboleda or up to Park View and not have any access to Fred Waring he felt would be very strongly opposed by those people living in those neighborhoods . His project was not the ones generating that issue. It was the Street Fair on Saturdays and Sundays and all the traffic that goes over there and parks on those streets . That has nothing to do with them other than the fact that Mr. Muro has, in writing, pledged to allow his parking spaces to be used on Saturdays and Sundays by the Street Fair because on Saturdays and Sundays he has very few students and is open very few hours . He has a tremendous amount of parking available on Saturday and Sunday, which would become available to help accommodate and relieve the load that they currently have going up and down those neighborhood streets . This would become a positive instead of a negative to traffic. He asked the commission to consider that and didn' t feel that blocking streets was a solution to the problem, particularly when they were blocking all three accesses to Fred Waring so that everyone living in this large neighborhood area has to go north or to Arboleda to exit and that would put a tremendous load back onto Monterey 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 �► and Fred Waring, which was what they were trying to help solve here by improving this lot and making the right- turn lane and making the right-turn lane off of Fred Waring. He didn't want to create a solution and then create a problem that uses up that solution. He said that both the builder, the architect and Mr. Muro were present if the commission had any questions . Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DENNIS CHAPEL, 41-170 Carlotta, stated that he was President of the Desert Contractors Association, and he was heavily involved in keeping work local and when there was a project that involves someone committed to this community and committed to using local contractors, they try and support that person. He concurred with Mr. Oliphant that what the commission was doing tonight was approving a conditional use permit for the use of this and they were still going to be subject to the criteria of the planning department and architectural review. They would like to see this approved and would like to see jobs for their people in the construction industry .... and would like to see that corner improved. MR. ROB MILLER, 73-840 Calle Bisque in Palm Desert, stated that he was a proud resident of Palm Desert for 15 years and he was also speaking for Jonathan Flike, same address, and his grandson who has been with him the last three and a half weeks . They were both members of the Fitness Mart and were looking forward to the Pinnacle Athletic Club. He was a land use planner and former vice mayor and councilman in San Jose and retired senior vice president of Kaufman and Broad and he lives in Casablanca. He said that this particular athletic club was unique to the Coachella Valley and to Palm Desert in one important respect--his grandson trains there. He is nine and a half years old. In athletic clubs in Nevada, where his grandson is from, and in California at least to his knowledge, they couldn' t find an athletic club that will train a nine and a half year old. Generally the rule is 18 years old. His grandson trains there with a professional, certified trainer, with an owner who is caring and is confident. His grandson has lost six pounds in three weeks and he will lose some more and has gained lots of muscle. He couldn't go to other gyms that are franchised and get 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 that kind of treatment. This was something that was unique to our area. Chairperson Beaty clarified that no one was questioning the facility or the owner; they were talking about the location of the proposed project. Mr. Miller indicated that he was also impressed with the quality and design. He reviewed the exterior elevations and the quality and cleanliness of the design and the completeness of the facilities, and such. He hoped the commission would give this their best consideration for approval . MR. RICH PRATER, 77-777 Country Club Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he was in favor of the project as a Palm Desert resident and also as a potential employee of this project and in which the age group that this project was targeting could also give the younger generation the opportunity to stay and work in Palm Desert, rather then leaving the valley for other opportunities. MR. DOUG WALL, 43-100 Rutledge Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that as a resident and small business owner in the city, he felt this would be an excellent location and he wanted this commission to approve this project as soon as possible. MR. JUSTIN SILVER, 77-777 Country Club Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he was in favor of the project as a Palm Desert resident and as a potential employee of this project and falling within the targeted age group. He felt a project of this caliber at the proposed location would assist the city, as well as its residents, in a growing field of health, wellness and better living. He implored the planning commission to not let this project pass them by. MR. LOUIS FRANCISCO, a Palm Desert resident, stated that this particular corner was a busy corner. Anyone that goes to Trader Joe's or to the mall knows that. The applicant was not asking to put in a gasoline station. They want to put in a fitness center. During the week it opens at 6 : 00 a.m. On weekends they open at 8 : 00 a.m. He felt the conditional use permit should be considered favorably. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 `r MR. JAY FORGER, 39-506 Palace Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he was a physical therapist with offices in Palm Springs and Indio. Within the last year he began to rent space from Mr. Muro in his current location. The people he is seeing there are not the type of people usually seen in health clubs . Patients that have had strokes, spinal cord injuries, injured workers (they work closely with the Marriott Desert Springs) and they have now been able to provide a central location for these people to come to, which makes them very happy. The location Mr. Muro is currently at is a little difficult to find. For people who have impaired neurological problems, or who may be in a wheelchair or have difficulty getting around, the proposed location would be much easier for his patients to find. It would provide a great service for Palm Desert. MS. SHERRY FALLER, 77-650 Michigan Drive in Palm Desert, stated that as a Palm Desert resident and a 5: 30 p.m. instructor for the Fitness Mart, she would like to speak in favor of this project. The current member traffic created by her traditionally most popular hour was approximately 12 persons during peak season. Therefore, any concerns about overcrowding during this time, even if they doubled their current membership, would be of no consequence. She urged the commission to approve this project. MR. DICK PIERCE, 72-750 Cactus Court, stated that he wanted to speak in favor of this project as a Palm Desert resident. For the rapid population growth in our community he believed a gymnastic facility was planned by these project developers and he felt this was in line with the city's plans for the needs of the community. Approving this project would once again demonstrate the leadership's ability to lead them into the 21st Century. He urged the commission to approve this project. MR. RICHARD LEIMKUHLER, stated that he has been a businessman in Palm Desert for 34 years, and he stated that he drives by this intersection twice a day on his way to the office and back and he was a member of the club now. For him to stop there wouldn't create any additional traffic. He felt this should be approved. MR. MIKE HOMME, 46-300 Desert Lily, stated that he has seven properties within the radius of this property and he was in support of this project. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 MR. ROD MURPHY stated that he would be the builder on this project and he lived at 72-764 Arboleda, which was in the immediate neighborhood. He and his neighbors would like to see something done on that piece of property. It would help them in the condition of their neighborhood and to do something on that piece of property would require a user as they are presenting to commission due to the infrastructure amounts that are needed for the right-hand lane change and the power lines and the parking situation that exists where the only way they would get enough parking would be with a parking structure. He recommended that the commission give the applicant an approval so that they could go forward with drawings in an immediate fashion. MR. PAGE QUILLING, 72-845 Arboleda, 500 yards from that corner, stated that he had some neighbors come to his house and some of them were voicing opposition to the project, mainly because of traffic. He didn't see where the traffic would make a difference to him. They said their kids play in the streets and he has two kids, age three and four months old, and he was not worried about it. What he was worried about was what could go on that piece of property. This was a great facility. He didn't know Mr. Muro but he knew of him. He would much rather see a project like this that was personally owned by someone in the community other than a big corporation coming in there that really wouldn' t care. These people were willing to put in the turn lanes and move electrical lines. Palm Desert was full of pieces of property where they have to exit going one way. People would either go out onto the main drags not to drive through residential neighborhoods because they care about not driving through residential neighborhoods, or they wouldn't. He didn't care what they put on that property, if people were too lazy to go down three blocks and do a U-turn or go up to where Fred Waring hits Highway 111 and go around where they run back into the college, they would do it no matter what was built on that lot. He didn't know what the difference was between how many cars are able to use that piece of property and how many cars they were proposing to use that property, but he doubted that it could be many. He didn't see anyone building anything worthwhile and putting in turn lanes on that corner for 250 cars per day. He heard that 500 cars a day were going to use that. That was trips in and out. He didn't think anyone in the community was going to spend enough money 12 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 low where 100 cars a day would be in that place. He recently spent three months in L.A. and grew up there. They wasted a ton of money all through his childhood; they didn't put in turn lanes or make the builders do it; the city collected the money and now it was gone. There were no turn lanes and no arrows . There is someone willing to put in all of those things and the city should let them. MS. SHARON HOWARD, a resident at the west corner of Glorianna and Adonis, stated that the commission should have several letters before them from the neighbors . Most everyone was concerned about the traffic and almost everything she heard said tonight skirted around that issue. The project looked like a great project. The sports facility was wonderful, but they live there. Most of the people that had spoken did not live on those streets. She has lived there for 16 years and at the time that the offices went in that front Fred Waring between Adonis and Acacia they were concerned about traffic at that time. Someone came up with the idea of posting signs at the exit that permitted traffic only to be by way of Fred Waring. The signs didn't work. It was hard to get people to honor a red light much less a "ow sign that says please don't exit through the neighborhood. She wanted to see the project continued until there could be some definite proposal to control the traffic through their neighborhood. They were all homeowners there and they care about their neighborhood. She asked that the commission continue this issue so that this could be resolved in a more favorable manner to the neighbors . MS. DIANA LA MAR, 43-827 Acacia Drive, owner of one of the two properties directly impacted with the amount of traffic flow into the neighborhood. She stated that she was not opposed to the fitness center. She felt it was a great idea that people were really "gung ho" for it. From one of the reports she read there were supposed to be some changes in the architecture and she would be going to that meeting to see what the building structure would look like. She wasn't pleased with how it looked several weeks ago. She received a copy of the June 18 staff report and she had some problems addressed. The letter dated 6-10-96 from Mr. Richard Folkers to Mr. Steve Smith said that the applicant would pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee at the rate of $5,517 . 60 per 1,000 square feet. If that was projected 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 for the 17,857 square feet, it would cost the applicant �■rl over $98,000 for the mitigation fees . Plus the cost of undergrounding the utilities, which she did at her home. The size and scope of building this building from scratch starting with all the fees, licenses, and construction materials, etc. , she heard was really going to be about $3.4 million. Currently there are 300 cars per day going down Acacia per a 1994 traffic study. The membership being at 1500, with a 30% usage, about 450 cars per day coming in, that would be 900 vehicle trips per day coming in off of Fred Waring or off of Monterey and turning into the building. They have 300 and this would add another 900. She has a friend who recently took three and a half years to sell a condo in Hidden Palms . The reason it took so long was because her condo was closest to Fred Waring, in spite of the setback and a wall . The only person who was able to be happy with the condo was a hearing impaired elderly gentleman. Everyone else objected to the noise. If she has 1200 trips per day for the 1500 membership, she would be severely impacted with not only traffic, but noise. She read some of the flyers that Mr. Muro enclosed with the June 18 staff report and a three year membership costs about $598, which was about $200 per member per year. At 1500 members, he has a projected growth income of $300,000. If that was her she couldn't make it. Not to go through all of the building, all of the planning, spending all of that money, and she realized he has partners, but people have to be paid back, interest had to paid, and the help had to be paid. Mr. Muro seemed to be very aggressive and she could see where he would go for 2500 members . If he wanted to make $1 million per year he would have to have 5,000 members. She herself wouldn't even want to try unless she was at least making $500,000 . With 2500 members to gross $500,000, 60% of that in generated trips would be another 1500 cars per day. They would be up to 1800 trips per day and for a quiet, residential neighborhood she felt it was entirely outrageous . It would devalue her property and she wouldn't be able to sell it or she would have to fence it totally at a great personal expense and she guaranteed that she would do it. She liked the open space and was sure that they could investigate and have someone like the Darr Eye Clinic or the MRI Legal Offices occupy the space on the corner who would generate the same kind of income as the fitness center. There were other locations very close by with lots of parking that could be addressed and moved into 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 �... with a lot less money. Most of the graphs in the July 2nd traffic report were dated 1991 and the last two pages, 746 and 747, have a 1986 date. That was ten years ago. The increase in fitness centers from 1986 to 1996, while she didn't know the figures and the city could check with the various gyms around here, but she was sure they have doubled or tripled since then. People were interested in fitness, but they would also go to another location close by, even on the other side of Highway 111. There were several locations available. She asked the commission to please consider the traffic. If they had to put up a barricade, so be it. At this point in time she would rather seal the street off . MR. TONY LIZZA, a principal in the project and a resident of La Quinta, stated that the subject was location and traffic. He felt that the traffic count at that corner was around 10,000 per day and if the 250 vehicle count was reasonably correct, they were probably adding less than one and a half percent to the traffic on that corner during a 12 hour period. He didn't think that was very much and wanted to bring that to the commission's attention. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . Mr. Smith noted that the commission received letters that were distributed before the meeting. There was a letter in favor from Dale Linda Echols, nine letters in opposition--Dr. Bruce Baumann, Roberta Steleman, Rafael Oliveras, someone on Arboleda, Patrick Misho on Acacia, Robert Ramirez on Acacia, the Schmitzs on Acacia, Lisa Sanders, and Rafael Lopez on Arboleda. Chairperson Beaty noted that there was some development going on at the corner of Portola and Fred Waring right now that might have a similar problem with high costs of utilities and asked who was paying for those improvements . Mr. Greenwood stated that it was a city project. Chairperson Beaty said that it seemed like the laning was a significant problem with the proposed lot and wondered if a similar proposal could be presented so they wouldn't have to have such a high intensity use on this corner. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Greenwood if he stood by the numbers in the traffic study. As he read the report, it said that the site as improved with increased traffic was on the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 cusp between good and excellent in terms of traffic flow. He rr asked if that was accurate. Mr. Greenwood stated that if membership was to be 1500 members and if this site was to generate traffic similar to those previous generators available, this is what they could expect. As the traffic analysis indicated, staff was not all that confident that they have data that represents this site. Commissioner Ferguson asked, in Mr. Greenwood 's opinion, if there was anything more that would be served by a continuance that would allow him to come up with a better prediction of traffic flows. Mr. Greenwood stated that staff would not be able to come up with any additional predictions, this was all the data that was available to them. Mr. Drell indicated that they were attempting to get some data from some of the other local clubs in terms of their attendance patterns . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he thumbed through the letters, both pro and con, and in looking at the traffic flow, and as indicated by the Chairman his primary concern was for the traffic. He felt the facility was wonderful and thought the testimonies to the business enterprise had been wonderful, but they were here on an issue of traffic. Based on his experience and concerns and in discussions with staff and the owner of the property, it seemed highly likely that at a peak hour in the evening people wanting to travel eastbound on Fred Waring would be unable to do so when exiting the property, which would cause them to turn right on Acacia and right on Arboleda and then right again on Monterey and then left on Fred Waring to head eastbound. He felt that was one of staff ' s big concerns . One thing he looked for closely tonight was comments from people who were sent notice within 300 feet of the property as properly re-noticed to include the outer perimeter of the parking structure, to see how many people got off their rear ends and came down here and were worried enough about the traffic. Interestingly enough more people from those two streets spoke in favor of the project then against it. He was talking about Acacia and Arboleda. This didn't take into account the letters they received. There was an intense amount of interest in this site and facility, but as to the narrow issue of traffic and the increased burden on Acacia and Arboleda, according to his notes there was one woman from Adonis, one from Acacia who spoke out against it, and two that lived on Arboleda that were in favor of it. The rest were simply letters . He felt this was a traffic issue and he and Mr. Greenwood have talked at length about the reliability of these studies and nothing would be served by a continuance that would allow staff to provide any additional input as to that site. He realized there were other health club facilities but wasn't sure what 16 ri MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 could be gained there. The problem he had, and it was a question for staff, was that as he understood it they have never prepared findings to support approval or drafted a resolution or entertained conditions for approval in that the first time this came up before it was continued and the staff recommendation was for denial . Mr. Drell said that was correct. The commission if it so chose could by minute motion make some findings and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval with those findings for adoption at the next meeting. Commissioner Ferguson stated that the other question he had was the representation by the property owner that the only issue that remained was the architectural commission review of the plans that were submitted. He asked if that was accurate. Mr. Drell stated that, assuming staff ' s analysis of the parking structure determined that it was an operable parking structure, the project would be providing the required parking requirement for the use as defined by the zoning ordinance. They would be providing in addition to that the excess spaces available across the street. There was a traffic study from the traffic engineer which makes an assessment of the impact on that neighborhood in that they have evaluated all the pertinent issues . The commission has the information and they could make a decision. Commissioner Ferguson said that he wanted to ask ... the property owner or developer about the limitations on the October 1st deadline. As he understood it the applicant had until February of 1997 to relocate the facility. That was changed by council to October 1, 1996 . He believed that the applicant was supposed to submit plans by May 1, 1996 and pull permits by November 1, 1996 . He didn't know what their current construction implementation schedule was or how long it would take them, even if they were to approve it tonight to complete their facility, but asked how a continuance to July 16 would adversely affect their implementation schedule. Mr. Oliphant stated that it would affect it quite a bit because what they could do if they had approval tonight, even though the conditions had to come back to them on the 16th, that would allow them to have the architect to have the drawings scheduled onto the architectural committee' s schedule and to start the project forward. Without an approval this evening and a postponement to the 16th, they couldn't do anything. They were just "dead in the water" for two weeks . They couldn't have the architect spending time and money if they were unsure what the outcome would be. The two weeks became very critical in the critical path of this project. What they needed to do, once they had approval, then %NW 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 they have the opportunity of going back to the council r for reconsideration. They cannot reconsider if there was nothing to reconsider, so once again this particular approval became extremely important. Commissioner Ferguson noted that the council wouldn't meet again until their second meeting in August. Mr. Drell stated that they would have a meeting on July 11th, but the deadline to get on that agenda was today, unless it was deemed an emergency item. Commissioner Ferguson asked if they would be going before council under any scenario; if the commission continued the case for two weeks as opposed to them being approved tonight, it seemed that the October 1, 1996 date was skeptical . He asked if he was wrong about that. Mr. Oliphant agreed that the October 1st date was skeptical . Their only opportunity to make that date go away to another date was for them to take some kind of approval that showed the council that there was movement here and that they should have a reason for reconsideration. If there wasn't a strong reason for reconsideration, the October 1 date was the date. Commission's approval would be the reason for reconsideration. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant has ever asked the "W city for assistance for funding because of the unusual nature of this location. Mr. Oliphant said they had, but without a development on that corner there was no way for them to go to the city and make a request. For example, the undergrounding was being done now by the city on a contract with them so that at the date that they do develop that lot they were indebted to the city for the cost of undergrounding. They did that because they* can't build on the lot until the wires were undergrounded because they go across the center of the lot. The other improvements, Monterey and Fred Waring, there had been no incentive for the city to go forward with that without their project going forward at the same time. There may be some opportunity for some assistance from the city when they do go forward, but at this point in time there was no ability for them to get assistance because they had no project. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant concurred that the costs involved were a significant factor in who could use that lot. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 Mr. Oliphant stated that there were two things that created the unusualness in this lot: one was the unusual offsite costs in order to develop the lot and secondly, the fact that it was a leasehold lot. It 's value never changes and was very difficult to get any kind of financing. This was a unique situation where an owner was going to build his own building so that the Small Business Administration would come in and do the financing or would guarantee it. Chairperson Beaty asked for questions or comments . Commissioner Campbell stated that she would like the architectural review commission to actually look over the plans received today in regards to the parking structure. Also, she didn't know if the architectural review commission ever approved the building. Mr. Drell replied that they didn't, but they suggested some changes to the elevations . Staff didn't receive the plans until this afternoon, but originally the building was all going to be two story with a partial basement. It appeared that the applicant has dropped more space into the basement and had now created just a one story for the portion of the building on the corner. He also created some differences in the elevation. Commissioner Campbell asked if the child care facility was underground or at ground level. Mr. Drell stated that it had been moved to the ground level since the exiting requirements for a child care facility didn't allow for it to be in the basement. The plans were now showing it on the first floor. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would be in favor of having the plans go to the architectural review committee first and would instruct the public works department to come up with a solution to the added traffic through the residential neighborhood and then come back to the commission either July 16 or August 6 with the results . Chairperson Beaty asked if that was motion; Commissioner Campbell replied that it could be. Chairperson Beaty asked for other comments . Commissioner Jonathan asked when the architectural commission meets . Mr. Drell replied next Tuesday. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this would be on their agenda. Mr. Drell replied yes . Commissioner Ferguson noted that they kept talking about having public works look at the traffic. He asked if there was anything for public works to do at this point which they low 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 haven't done already. Mr. Greenwood stated that with the limited data they have available, they painted the most accurate picture that they could. The picture indicated an increase in traffic volume from 300 vehicles per day to 500 vehicles per day, which if that was true would still be excellent traffic conditions for any residential street. So if they considered 500 vehicles per day to be a problem, they would need some definition as to what they wanted staff to pursue. Commissioner Ferguson indicated that the staff report the commission received for this evening stated, "What the traffic study does not address is the appropriateness of putting in a commercial use which will effectively double the existing traffic level on nearby residential streets . " He asked if that was accurate. Mr. Greenwood agreed that it was almost a doubling of traffic on a residential street, but the traffic study identified that even with that doubled volume this was still not a problem. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Smith what he was getting at when he wrote that sentence. Mr. Smith stated that he lives on a similar street that probably sees 200 cars a day and if they doubled the traffic volume, he would notice it "big time" . Commissioner Ferguson noted that there was some discussion about capping certain streets . He asked if that was something that could be studied further if a continuance were granted. He stated that he was trying to understand what would be accomplished by putting this off for two weeks . Mr. Smith stated that capping would have to be addressed by public works, but on past occasions it has been a practice of the city that they don't impose a doubling of traffic onto a residential neighborhood. Allowing staff to review the revised plans would also be one benefit of delaying the case for two weeks . Staff has not reviewed the revised plans because they received them at 4 :20 p.m. this afternoon. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would like to get a feel for the relative impact. Based on the traffic analysis, he asked how staff would categorize the impact relevant to alternate uses of that property, i .e. office professional . Mr. Greenwood said that they did some cursory comparisons and it appeared to be that this use would generate a 10% to 20% higher traffic volume then the office professional use. Mr. Drell stated that because of the visible location and the burden on the site they assumed a more intensive office use such as a medical office and it was about 80% of the traffic volume. A more traditional lower impact office use would be about 60% . He said Commissioner Jonathan was correct in saying that they couldn't compare the traffic of this project to the traffic generated by the dirt since ultimately there 20 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 low was a permitted use of the property and that property would generate impacts and would have similar distribution of trips as this project. Somewhere around 20% would be the increase as a result of this conditional use permit as opposed to a typical permitted or likely permitted office use on this site. He noted as an example that the 210 daily trips on Acacia with a medical building as projected would be closer to 175 or 180 as opposed to 210. That meant an extra 30 or 40 cars per day on Acacia. At peak hour an extra four or five cars at the peak hour at 26%. Commissioner Ferguson stated for the record that he was probably the leading critic of the current site that the Fitness Mart now occupies on Portola and Highway 111 . His thought at the time was that if the applicant could come up with the funding and the location and the building, he would have his blessing, and he does . He was impressed by the plans and thought that within reason he has done all that could be expected of him and what they have asked of him and he wanted this to be in the record so that if the council does review this prior to the commission meeting again, that they would know that his criticism of this has been removed and he gave his compliments to the applicant for the effort put into this . On the other hand he was loathe to undercut low staff and their efforts to evaluate blueprints and plans. His sense was that this was going to wind up going to the council for an extension on the October 1st date in any event, whether they approved it tonight or at a later date. Out of deference to staff and to those citizens on Acacia and Arboleda that might want to come and want to be heard on this, he would be willing to support a continuance. Chairperson Beaty stated that if they approved the case tonight they would make it subject to architectural review approval and that would delay it one week anyway, so they may only be talking about a delay of one week and he would also be in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Fernandez agreed with Commissioner Ferguson that the planning staff should review this and come back on July 16 . Chairperson Beaty also asked staff to take a look at the issue that he raised earlier. If there was some city assistance provided like at the corner of Portola and Fred Waring, if that was possible if that would open it up and give them a few more alternatives uses to consider. Mr. Drell stated that that would be coming from the Redevelopment 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 Agency and Mr. Oliphant was correct when he said that until ri he has an approved project, it was hard to get assistance. Chairperson Beaty noted that there wasn't an approved project at Portola and Fred Waring. Mr. Drell replied that it was a matter of priority. Chairperson Beaty noted that money was being spent there and he understood that it was city money. Mr. Drell stated that there was a particular constriction at Portola and Fred Waring that doesn't exist at Monterey and Fred Waring. The issue was that the Redevelopment Agency didn't want to get into providing financial assistance to a project until the city has made a decision that they want the project to occur at that location. It would give Mr. Oliphant a much stronger hand when he talks with Redevelopment. Chairperson Beaty felt that it appeared that those developments needed to be made no matter what project was built. He asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would go ahead and yield to the indicated majority for a continuance, but he didn't see a need for one. It took a unique combination of factors to result in the development of this parcel and he felt that the applicant has successfully accomplished those requirements . There wasn't an ideal development that wouldn't impact the surrounding residents at all so they had to look at it not in a vacuum, but in its relative impact and eventually that dirt would be developed. When they looked at the balance of the city as a whole, to have that corner undeveloped was a blight that was inappropriate. That was a very visible corner and it would be an addition to the overall city in the grander respect to have that corner developed. The applicant has successfully made that possible with a minimum of adverse impact to the existing residents . They had to look at the impact in its relative terms and relative to other potential uses and the impact was negligible. He was sorry they were going to delay the potential development of that parcel, but since there appeared to be a majority for continuance, he would yield to that. Commissioner Ferguson added that he hoped the owner, developer and the applicant would take notice of the comments tonight and he would like the record to also reflect that the city was holding up the application tonight, not the applicant at this point, notwithstanding the late submission of blueprints, and he hoped that the council, if this became a subject at their next council meeting, recognized the work that has gone into this and recognized that the city has delayed the project, but Chairperson Beaty's comments were 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 '` well taken that before the project could get to architectural review it would be a week. It meant a delay of a week, but it allowed input from a broad base of sectors and they would ultimately move forward with a quality project that everyone would have an opportunity to participate in, including the staff. Chairperson Beaty reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing PP/CUP 96-5 to July 16 , 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. C. Case Nos . C/Z 96-4 and PP 96-6 - REAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from PC(4) Resort Commercial to PC(2) District Commercial and approval of a precise plan of design for a 9200 square foot retail commercial center on the "ow north side of Highway 111 approximately 505 feet east of Deep Canyon Road, located between the new Lucky site and Embassy Suites . Mr. Smith explained that the property was a separate piece of property that was left out of the Lucky development at the northeast corner of Deep Canyon and Highway 111 . It has been a separately held parcel for some time. Basically it was between Embassy Suites and the Lucky site. In actual fact, 15 feet of the Lucky site extends down on the east side of this site. When Lucky's was approved they were conditioned to provide driveway connection points at the southwest corner and at the northwest corner of this parcel . The applicant has come in with a plan that implements those connection points and proposes development of 9200 square feet of retail commercial . At the time the Lucky' s site was rezoned from PC-4 to PC-2, staff attempted to include this parcel . This commission at that time wished to reserve the opportunity to review it at a future date; that date was now. Staff was recommending in favor of the application. Parking complies with the code provisions, architectural commission reviewed this with a few minor modifications . Essentially they were looking for an upgrading on the east elevation of the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 building. Staff received some revised plans today that would be presented to architectural review next week. He felt reasonably confident that they would be acceptable. There would be one new access point created--it would be an emergency access only from Highway 111 . This was required by the fire department and an expansion of an existing center of this type at 9200 square feet of building was a Class 1 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA, hence no further documentation was necessary. Staff was recommending in favor of the change of zone from PC-4 to PC-2 and approval of the precise plan of design as submitted, subject to the conditions contained in the resolution. He noted that this matter would be referred to the city council in that it was a change of zone. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROB SANFORD, with Real Property Associates, stated that he was present to answer any questions . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he wanted to confirm that the applicant hired the same firm so that the architectural appearance would be the same as Lucky' s and everything would be integrated. Mr. Sanford concurred. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. HAROLD HOPP, the President of the Hidden Palms Homeowners Association adjacent to the Lucky Center, stated that they weren't aware that this was on the agenda until they came to the meeting tonight. He wanted to think that was because many of the conditions or all of the conditions that they negotiated with the developers of the Lucky' s Center over a year ago were going to apply to this part of the same center. If so, he could support it. If not, he would like a chance to talk with the developer to see if they could work something out. Commissioner Ferguson asked if he had seen a staff report on this matter. Mr. Hopp replied no, that he was not aware it was before commission until he got here tonight for another matter. Mr. Smith confirmed that the conditions were very similar to the Lucky's approval . The reason that the 24 Wo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 gentleman didn't receive a notification was that the proposal was some 800 feet from Hidden Palms ' southerly boundary and did not fall within the notification area. Mr. Hopp asked what the differences were in the conditions. What might not seem important to someone, might seem very important to them. They spent a lot of time and effort in negotiating restrictions . Chairperson Beaty noted that this would be going before the city council and perhaps between now and then he could get with staff and see if there were any problems . Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Hopp could pick up a copy of the staff report at any time. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan felt that the project as proposed was consistent with what the commission had in mind for the site and would move for approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1750, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 96-4 . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1751, recommending to City Council approval of PP 96-6, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. D. Case No. VAR 96-3 - ROBERT AND JAN LILAC, Applicants Request for approval of a variance to Section 25. 16 . 060 G of the Municipal Code (maximum coverage limit for R-1 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 lots greater than 10,000 square feet and ri less than 15,000 square feet) specifically to increase the maximum allowable coverage from 30% to 37% for a lot on the east side of Olympic Drive, specifically 48-570 Olympic Drive, Lot 151, Tract 13008. Mr. Smith noted that the project was in the Summit. The proposal was for a home which complies with all the required setbacks and the building height limit. As well, the home was approved by the Summit Property Owners Association. The one area of inconsistency with the ordinance was with respect to the building coverage limit. The ordinance describes a maximum coverage of 30%. As designed the lot would be covered just short of 37% . On page 2 of the staff report staff outlined the required findings for approval of variances. In order to grant a variance the commission must affirm each of the four findings . At the time staff wrote the report they had copies of several letters of objection from residents within the Summit. Over the last two days staff had received letters rescinding all of the letters of objection except one. The one remaining objection came from the Hedlunds, who were the property owners immediately to the south. They, through two phone messages which staff provided copies to the commission, indicated this morning that they were still very much opposed to the proposed increase in the coverage limit. The findings for the approval of a variance typically required, specifically items one and two, that physical hardship be shown and generally they were a result of the physical aspect of the property being developed ( i .e. a slope or non-usable area on the lot) . That type of situation would generally enter into the consideration of the commission. In this instance staff was convinced that findings could not be affirmed, hence staff was recommending denial of the variance application. The matter of coverage limit as indicated on page two of the staff report, the proposal in question meets the required setbacks (the 20 feet front, the 20 feet rear, and the 20 feet total side yards) and in fact it could be larger and would still comply with the setback provisions, but it had an inconsistency with the coverage limit. The coverage limit was imposed as part of the original code requirements when the ordinance was adopted in 1973 and if commission felt that they should be considering higher coverages, for whatever reasons, it was something that staff could take consideration of in the ongoing overall ordinance update which they would get to shortly, or commission could direct staff to proceed with a 26 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 .r code amendment that would increase the coverage limit. He was not sure that would be quick enough to serve the purposes of the applicant this evening, but that would give the commission a couple of possible ways of addressing this issue if that was the desire of the commission. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was looking at a memorandum received from Carol Whitlock, the Association Manager of the Summit, that indicates there are a number of residences in the area with well over the 30% maximum allowable. He asked what findings applied there which did not apply to this particular lot. Mr. Smith explained that those approvals took place under a different administration. Mr. Drell stated that the former director, in an attempt to satisfy the desires of individual property owners, was approving adjustments to coverage limits when it was clear that all the adjacent property owners were in agreement. In retrospect, approving variances without the findings meant that granting it for one property owner meant that it had to be granted for all property owners and in essence was amending the code without amending the code. In this case there was still an adjacent property owner who was against the variance even though they themselves received this consideration when they built their lot. The proper course +.. would be, if commission felt that larger coverages were justified, to provide a process other than a variance to approve them and not in essence to look the other way and approve them through a variance which could not be justified. If the commission feels this applicant should proceed based on the precedent set by other lots and therefore had a reasonable expectation that if all concerned were amenable they would get approval, then commission might consider for the same reasons this one could be granted. Unfortunately, there was still an adjacent property owner that was still against it. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he lives near the Summit and he was familiar that many of the homes up there exceed the 30% maximum and it seemed that whether it was under a different regime or not, it happened and it seemed to him that to single out and collectively enforce the ordinance against one of the lone remaining lot owners who doesn't exceed upon that basis upon the sole complaint of an adjacent land owner who themselves exceed it by a good margin, it seemed to be working the hardship in the other direction. Mr. Drell stated that if the commission wanted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval and direct staff to proceed with an ordinance amendment increasing the coverage requirement, staff was prepared to do so. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was not sure that he r would be in favor of changing the ordinance. He thought there was an unauthorized string of exceptions that had been granted and perhaps there was a precedent for the Summit and they needed to look at that situation in a unique way rather than generalizing it for the entire community. He asked if staff was aware of any more renegade exceptions being granted in any other developments in the city. Mr. Drell said that typically there weren't 5,000 square foot homes built on single family lots elsewhere in the city and on smaller lots they could go to 35% . Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff was aware of exceptions made elsewhere. Mr. Drell stated that he had not been aware of it being a common practice in this subdivision and surely not to this extent. They were looking at over a 20% exception. He made this call as the director and he didn't believe there were any exceptions that were necessarily unique with the Summit. The fact that a resident or builder on Santa Rosa might have the same desire to have a little larger house and if they felt that higher coverage was not detrimental to the well being of the community or residents, they should make those same standards available to everyone without having to request a variance. Commissioner Ferguson stated that his concern was the same as Commissioner Jonathan's. The situation happened and there was virtually an entire development where they exceed the maximum. Mr. Drell felt the vast majority of the houses in that development do not exceed the code requirement. Commissioner Ferguson felt that the exception has become the norm there and they were now changing course and saying no more, they would be enforcing the ordinance. The association of the Summit was telling the commission that the architectural control committee believes that the Lilac residence will not only enhance the Summit as a whole, but their immediate neighborhood as well . The only person objecting was a person who took advantage of the very exception they were seeking to preclude the Lilacs from taking advantage of and he believed it was selective enforcement and it was sufficient to support a finding of hardship. Mr. Drell said that the commission could direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval . Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner Ferguson. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 �r.• MR. BOB LILAC addressed the commission and stated that he and his wife Jan live in Washington, D.C. and have owned a condo in Monterey Country Club since 1987 and were part-time residents of Palm Desert. They bought the vacant lot about 18 months ago and started the design process about a year ago. They plan to move here when they are finished with project and their house is completed. The homeowners association approved their project, it was within all setback and height limits . They went and reviewed the design with their immediate neighbors . There were no problems except with the Hedlunds, who were the immediate residents to the south side of their lot. He spoke several times with Mr. and Mrs . Hedlund. Mr. Hedlund was very ill up in Davis, California. Mrs . Hedlund was still expressing her opposition to this and her expression to them initially didn't have anything to do with this variance because neither one knew that they would go through the variance process at that time. Her objection had to do with the view from her back bedroom. It was unfortunate, but they could build a minimum sized house that would be allowed by the homeowners association and they would still completely obliterate the view she has of the mountains from her one back bedroom. Her main view was �► from out front. They didn't think they could change her opposition based on that fact. Her letter of opposition was based on incorrect information. It was information he believed that she thought was correct at that time, but her letter states that she and others have abided by the code and expect future builders to abide by the same code. It turned out that her lot happens to be the largest coverage at 39% of the available lot, but he admitted that there was probably nothing they could do to change her opposition. They went through the city plan check after meeting with the neighbors, all who indicated support except for the Hedlunds, and then they found out that they didn't meet the code, so they went through the variance procedure. They, with their builder' s assistance, went through with the city planning department' s assistance in allowing them access to the microfiche records, and looked through the records. Tax assessor records changed the number just a little bit. It was their understanding that over 50% of the neighbors within the 300 foot radius requirement exceed 30% . That was their understanding, although they weren't able to do all of that research. They basically agreed with the staff report, except for two comments . He felt they could read hardship and configured things 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 a little differently. He obviously did not agree with those two comments or the recommendation for denial, but wanted to thank the planning department for their cooperation in helping them to get access to the information to help in their presentation. A strict and literal interpretation did subject them to standards that were not enforced on adjacent lots . A result of disapproval would result in a costly redesign process . They were told it would mean a three month delay in them being able to get into their home. He felt there was some exceptional, extraordinary circumstances with the lot. It was a long, narrow lot. The home they designed was a Spanish revival mission style home with a courtyard effect. To put in four bedrooms and retain privacy for each individual bedroom they wound up with a lot of hallway space. Over 500 feet of hallway space. They got the design, they squeezed it in to stay within the setbacks, so they wound up with a long, narrow house on a long, narrow lot. The staff report acknowledged that not granting the variance would deprive them of privileges enjoyed by others . They didn't not agree with the staff report conclusion that they could not support the variance because the city has in the past routinely approved plans for homes in excess of the 30% coverage standard. Regarding the neighbors comments as stated, except five homeowners, all the letters contained factually incorrect information. There were four letters signed that were basically a form letter that said that they didn't comply with the CC&R's and they do. All those homes of the five owners except one exceed the 30% code limit. They spoke to all those opposed and made them aware of the facts that they were able to determine from the city planning department' s records and four of the five homeowners withdrew their letters, plus a couple of the other neighbors have written letters of support. They were not even aware as they came this evening of Carol Whitlock' s letter. They spoke to Mrs . Hedlund and it was an unfortunate situation, but there was nothing they could do about her view. They felt that was the driving force behind her opposition. Even though she didn't want increased coverage that would obstruct other people' s views more, the fact of the matter was that her view would be destroyed by any house built on this lot. He described a chart that was on display which showed the homes immediately around them that they found exceeded the 30% limit. Dr. Foote, who was on one side of them, was at about 36% and he wrote a letter withdrawing his 30 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 low objection. Not only withdrawing it, but indicating support. The Hedlunds referred to before were either at 38% or 39% . The Simmons were at 33% and they were next to them and they also wrote a letter supporting the variance request. The home across the street in front of the Footes ' was in excess of the 30% limit as well . One not shown on the chart behind the Jamesons on North View, the Olsons, their home was 32% . The Artis ' on Spyglass also exceed the limit and they fully supported the request as well . In conclusion he felt that it could be argued that the coverage limit is too low and there was a possible need for a code amendment, and the city records seem to validate that statement. They didn't want to get caught up in the code amendment issue. All except one of their neighbors support their request. They did not think it was fair to deny them the variance since many of the homes in the Summit exceed the limit and he hoped that the commission would have no problem with supporting their house, which was between 35% and 40% . He also felt that selective enforcement of the code in their case was unfair treatment under the code and requested that the commission approve the variance and allow them to proceed with their home. 4OW Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. GEORGE MURPHY, 48-624 Valley View Drive, a member of the Architectural Committee of the Summit Homeowners Association, stated that they had an opportunity to review these plans in depth and agreed that this would be a very wonderful addition to their neighborhood. He personally visited the lot and it was perhaps the largest lot available now in the Summit and this home as it is laid out could not possibly impact anyone in the area. He requested that the commission approve the variance to this section of the code based on the fact that there were many homes in the area that far exceed the 30% and the other was that this home would enhance the value of their neighborhood. MR. JERRY BABITCH, 48-601 Valley View Drive in the Summit, stated that he and his wife constructed their home there ten years ago. They didn't have to go through the problems these poor people were going through today. He didn't know, nor had he met, Mr. and Mrs . Lilac, but he heard of their problem today and 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 wanted to come to the meeting. He was very disturbed 00 that there was such an opposition to a beautiful home. He said that he was on the Summit Architectural Committee and felt this home would enhance the community. It was a beautiful home and the individuals complaining about this home were part-time residents and always have been part-time residents . He urged the commission to not make it hard on these people. It was very disappointing when a person wanted to move into an area to find neighbors that are not nice. He urged the commission to approve the variance. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would incorporate everything he said earlier. He wanted to point out that he had a discussion of some length with members of the planning department, including the director, about the purpose behind the ordinance and the 30% lot coverage as it applies to the Summit and he found that there was really no driving force behind it. It was perhaps a decision that was made when government thought it ought to decide how much land needed to remain open and how much needed to be built on. He was appointed to a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee with Council Member Benson and this was perhaps a good example of one of the ordinances that they needed to look at. Notwithstanding that, he came to the meeting prepared to vote against the variance because he felt their job is to enforce the law, not to change it--that was the council ' s job. However, based on the staff report and based on the review of the diligent work of the applicant in taking a look at other homes in addition to his own knowledge, it seemed that the law in the Summit has been that they can exceed 30% and he felt it would be selective to now enforce a 30% rule particularly when there was no real reason for it and he would be taking it up during the zoning ordinance review to take a look at the reasons behind it, but there were vacant lots up there and was pleased to see them building up there. He agreed with the gentleman who said that he could not find a single detrimental impact because he had a hard time finding one as well . Property values go up, the view would be obstructed in any event, and he had a difficult time in finding the harm they would be preventing by enforcing the ordinance which has been previously not enforced at all . With that he was prepared to move to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the project finding that the selective enforcement of the ordinance would work a 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 +•r hardship inconsistent with the way the ordinance has been enforced in the past by selectively enforcing it against the applicant now and that because either this commission, a previous council, or whomever made those decisions, that those were extraordinary circumstances as they applied to the Summit and, therefore, finding numbers 1 and 2 were justified and he would move that the variance for those findings be approved. Mr. Rudolph clarified that the ordinance requires that the findings be made and he would not be comfortable as an attorney with an approval which ignores the finding requirements just on the basis of past precedents . The commission would have to make the findings and for perhaps with the reasons stated--that they should be made here and that was fine, but they needed to be in there. Mr. Drell stated that staff would attempt to make the findings and return with the resolution for adoption at the next meeting. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that approval could proceed subject to language that would be adopted at the next meeting. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan stated for the record, in terms of findings for approval of the variance, that he didn't feel +r there was a dispute with findings 3 or 4 . His interpretation of them were numbers 1 and 2 in that they do indeed apply to the present application in that: 1) strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would, in his judgement, result in practical difficulty and, 2) for the reasons discussed earlier there were exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions that are applicable to this property. In his opinion there were sufficient findings for approval of a variance and he concurred with Commissioner Ferguson for those reasons . Commissioner Campbell also concurred with Commissioners Ferguson and Jonathan. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, directing staff by minute motion to prepare a resolution of approval for adoption on July 16, 1996 . Carried 5-0 . Commissioner Jonathan felt there was some confusion on the part of the applicant as to whether the commission actually gave approval tonight. As he understood it the commission gave approval, but the language would be incorporated and ~ 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 acted upon at the next meeting. Mr. Rudolph clarified that the commission granted approval in concept reflecting their discussion, but it would be memorialized at the next meeting. E. Case No. CUP 96-18 - MCFADDEN/MCINTOSH ARCHITECTS FOR CAM'S CORNER, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and conditional use permit for construction and operation of a fuel station/ convenience store with property at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road, also known as APN 625-095- 003 and 004 . Mr. Smith stated that the property was zoned C-1 general commercial . As with the other applications being reviewed tonight, this one has continued to evolve through the report writing, so there were some internal inconsistencies where they were talking about dimensions . At this time the application has not received an affirmative response from the architectural review commission. It was there last Tuesday and the applicant sought a continuance at that time. Following that meeting the applicant made some modifications to the site plan which reduce the building area from 5951 square feet to 5820 square feet. At the ARC meeting they had a concern with the north elevation. Staff has a north elevation now where there was a glassed window area facing the street as on the other three sides . Formerly it was a blank wall, so ARC has no problem with the architecture of the site. They did have some problems with the site planning, landscaping, and with the intensity of the use on the site. Given those physical aspects of the proposal that are still unresolved, staff is recommending a continuance. It is an advertised public hearing, so commission should take testimony so that the comments of the neighbors could be taken into consideration as part of the applicant' s further submittals to ARC and ultimately come back to Planning Commission when that issue is settled. Staff was suggesting that the matter be continued to July 16 or August 6 and perhaps after hearing the comments from the neighbors there might be a clearer indication of how much time the applicant may need at ARC. Staff ' s review of the matter at this point in time indicates that the revised plan provides for 24 on- site parking spaces which is adequate for the amount of building they are proposing. The convenience store aspect of 34 Wo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 �..�. the development continues in a state of flux. The letter from the applicant indicates that it could be anywhere between 2100 square feet and approximately 4000 square feet. If they went towards the higher end it would reduce the options on the other retail aspects which have been tentatively identified as a deli and video store. Those uses were very tentative and were just for consideration purposes . The city will be beginning major intersection improvements at the Deep Canyon/Highway 111 intersection. Part of that the Frontage Road as it connects with Deep Canyon will be eliminated, similar to what was done with Arco at Portola and Highway 111 . There would be some property, approximately 7000 square feet, that could be available to be dedicated back to this applicant and would become part of his site. In the proposal that staff has, that area is mostly shown as landscaping. The building setbacks comply with the code requirement, the revised plan staff now has, assuming they obtain the vacated property, the landscaped area would comply with the 20% minimum requirement. Notwithstanding that most of it would be on one side; the Deep Canyon side would be fairly sparse and that was a concern of architectural review and they would be looking at that. Height, parking, and coverage were not issues . The applicant is proposing three pump islands for a total of 12 fueling positions with a %W• canopy over it. In discussions with the representative of the applicant, he indicated that they would be providing a full service facility as well as self serve, hence the need for the three islands. Mr. Smith stated that he received a call from Mr. Godecke today, but basically he wished to be on record that he has not taken a position one way or another on what would be the appropriate layout of the site. Mr. Smith said he was of the impression that he preferred the revised plan and in fact he indicates he hasn' t taken a position. Staff recommended approval . Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TIM BARTLETT, 73-382 Salt Cedar in Palm Desert, stated that since it was his idea to originally bring a market and fuel station here he wanted to make an introduction. When they approached this project initially, they understood that fuel stations were not the most welcome thing in Palm Desert. When he brought Lucky' s to Deep Canyon supermarkets were not the most welcome thing. He used the word "fuel" station. A service station in his mind were a few bays, some cars that need repair, some gentlemen in greasy overalls and `�` 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 puddles of oil and air conditioning fluid on the ground. Today fuel stations have changed and have a convenience store element as well as a fuel pumping element. Their development does not have service bays, but it was similar to a typical convenience store/gas station. He noted that the city approved the Arco station on Portola, which was originally met with great opposition. He spoke with several council members about that issue and when they first considered the idea they were all greatly opposed. One of the things that Arco did was generate a different plan architecturally, provided landscaping and incorporated a fountain and the project eventually met with all five council members ' approval . Arco's CEO lives in Ironwood and liked the plan so much that it has now become their standard and Palm Desert is to be thanked for that. They were not building another Arco Station. What he challenged the developer to do, which he has complied to do, was go to his architect and tell him that they were not just going to build another canopy with a little mexican tile on it, but they would build something dramatically different. He introduced the project architect, who would go into the finer points of how their project is not like any gas station the commission has ever seen. MR. CHRIS MCFADDEN, 74-251 De Anza Way in Palm Desert and business address at 73-929 Larrea Street, stated that he lives two blocks from this project so he couldn't be accused of not designing something that he wouldn't want in his own backyard. He hoped that they would get an opportunity to respond to some of the commission's particular concerns . He felt they were fortunate to have a client that wanted something special and unique and he felt they have delivered an exemplary project. This project was missing two major criteria of a fuel/convenience store design and that was immediate egress to and from a major thoroughfare. This has neither access to Deep Canyon or Highway 111, so they need something that is articulate, something different, that people will be able to see. They didn't want to hide it, but wanted to flaunt a portion of this facility. They were very sensitive to screening certain elements out that are not desirable such as the fuel pumps and perhaps some of the parking and pavement areas, so he brought a site study showing the elevation differences and how they are treating that with some walls, landscaping and berming. They left the area in the front along the southeast corner and along Highway 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 low 111 and Deep Canyon open. They were allowing staff, architectural committee and design consultants to participate in the appraisal of that. At the first ARC meeting he felt they needed the rendering to understand the concept of the project. They were asked to add some more landscaping to the front and they had all of the landscaping modified. They have been working through a lot of issues with the ARC. He stated that he has met privately with some people who opposed the project and they were trying to do their ground work to make this a nice project for the community. This project features an innovative use of shades and materials integrating with an exciting color palette. They were especially proud of the canopy structure in the front. They shielded this from lower views to be adequately screened. They were not putting up a wall with a giant sign on it or pole that creates a nuisance area for trash to collect. He stated that he had photographs of other service stations that demonstrates that the area when backed up to the back side of a building tended to be unkept and that area was not maintained. That was another factor he wanted to point out. When the site was flipped and the fuel canopy was on the in-board, it really helped for a shopping center or retail space to ''r be on the in-board side to gain the customer service base from. The ideal was to have street access off the major thoroughfares and an in-board shopping center. That was optimum and then they could forget about keeping the landscaping really nice behind the building because there was plenty of business . What happened in that type of arrangement, because people have to look through the landscaping to even see that there was a nice facility there, an oasis to come back to, they had to keep the landscaping nice otherwise if they were looking through trash to see something nice, it would reflect on their facility. The Arco was once touted as an exemplary design. Now it was used as a four letter word. In looking at all the different service stations, which he has done, the Arco has the nicest landscaping and it was their curb appeal . That is what people have to go by to get to that Arco Station and they keep that landscaping up along the highway immaculate. They were featuring some up-lighting within the canopy, so while this wasn't the actual entrance to the city, it is a major intersection. These would be up-lit, casting indirect lighting down into the fuel bays . They have a spoke-wheel like structure that is highlighted in colors similar to the Lucky's store. They didn't design this 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 project to be set apart, but they have taken their color palette and worked with some of the color schemes from the Lucky's Center across the street. The structure from the canopy ties into the building itself . They designed the three separate, but integrated entrances . The one building has a separate entrance for perhaps a deli/sub shop, there was a separate entrance for the convenience store which is the predominant use of the site, and over on the side there was a video store perceived use there that has its own separate entrance. This building was visible from all different angles . As soon as it was brought to their attention that the rear of the building was a concern to the adjacent landowner, they asked no questions and immediately upgraded it. They did this to be very office in appearance, office in scale and rather than incorporate any type of articulation here, they wanted this to compliment the adjacent structure as opposed to competing with it. This ends up that there are no bland elevations on the facility. Everything has been addressed and they were trying to work with everyone involved. He would accept the continuance and he felt that once ARC has seen some of their site studies they would agree. The back side of a building usually has electrical rooms, condensers, vents, and other ancillary services to the building that have to exist somewhere and in all the other photographs he has looked at, all of these have appendages attached to the back side. He felt that once they got back to ARC they would agree that perhaps it was not necessary to flip it. They are currently complying with the automobile service station requirements, but he asked the commission not to stereotype this project in their minds as a service station. People won' t be able to buy oil filters and air cleaners here. This was not another strip center/Circle K type project. He stated that they were working with staff and Keith Companies and they were vacating a cul-de-sac that was going to be a very poor site solution. They were allowing two means of ingress through the site so that people coming down the De Anza turn back to the service station, but they have also allowed for some bypass . They were enhancing the Smokey' s parking lot area and cleaning that up. They also relocated their fuel cells away from the back property so that things could be easily loaded out in front. Even when the service trucks were there loading the tanks, there would be available room for cars to pass around that tanker truck. He felt that really cleaned up the situation and they don't have access to 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 �••• the major thoroughfare. He believed this project would take some of the load off of Portola, which was quite a dangerous intersection. He asked for the continuance to work with ARC and they would like to come back with ARC approval. He was sure they would probably be called up to city council, which was fine because he felt the whole community should be involved in a project like this . He asked the commission to review the project, and they were here to find out what all of the issues are from opponents so that they could try and address them. He knew that they wouldn't be able to make everyone happy, but they would work towards that end. Chairperson Beaty asked if two weeks would be adequate for a continuance or if the applicant preferred a continuance to August 6 . Mr. McFadden stated that they would like a continuance to August 6. Chairperson Beaty stated that with the probable event that the commission would be continuing this case, he asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. JOE POPPER, the owner of two businesses in Palm Desert--the Computer Gallery and 7-11, stated that he was here on behalf of 7-11 . This proposal would be in direct competition. The fact of adding another convenience store would be a negative impact. The reality is that as more and more people are getting into the marketplace, there were more stores per capita coming in the next five years than they have had in the past ten or 15 years . Basically that meant that the market was getting more competitive and they would wind up with more stores in Palm Desert failing due to this . It might not be this gentleman' s store, but based on what they have seen they would probably be successful and that would cause failure of some other retailer or convenience store owner that is not doing well . There was definitely going to be a negative impact. He was opposed for obvious reasons . MR. JOE FINNELL, the Texaco dealer at 74-180 Highway 111, a block from the proposed site, asked why another service station was needed in Palm Desert. In a two mile stretch there were seven convenience store type service stations that were well maintained and they spent a lot of money, time and effort keeping up their businesses in an appropriate manner. Out of the seven service stations between the Palm Desert Town Center and Deep Canyon, six of them had convenience stores . Texaco `. 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 provides fuel, as well as automotive repair. This was ow more of a diagnostic industry rather than a grease- monkey industry. He didn't think the community would like another 8,000-9,000 gallon fuel tanker running through the back streets of Alessandro and Portola. He felt it was disturbing that he didn't know about this project until two weeks ago and he couldn't wait to see what was being proposed here. On a quick note, Texaco has been on their corner since the 1940 ' s providing fuel to the Palm Desert area. In 1993 the parent company spent $600,000 to remodel and upgrade the facility. They have a pumping capacity of 400,000 gallons per month--last month they probably pumped 60,000 gallons so they were not even at 25% pumping capacity. He didn' t see the need for this project and strongly urged the commission to not even consider it. MR. HAROLD HOPP, 44-379 Cannes Court in Hidden Palms, stated that several of their homeowners were able to attend tonight and they planned to be back on August 6 . He felt the commission would hear from them then. From what he has heard now, he felt there was too much project on too little land and it would create too much traffic for this area. rl MR. TIM FINNELL, the owner of the AM/PM on Portola and Highway 111, clarified that Arco was in the city for 40 years prior to building the AM/PM. They just relocated across the street. Also, he didn't think there was any discrepancy in how nice the facility is, but he felt that every service station owner in Palm Desert does a good job in keeping up their facility. That wasn' t a point here, but what was a point was if another service station was needed in Palm Desert. He urged the commission to not approve the project. MR. DENNIS GODECKE, a resident of Indian Wells and the property owner immediately to the north of the proposed project, stated that he has provided staff with a letter that he wrote yesterday regarding this project. This project was a lot of project for a small piece of property. This project requires that the city vacate property to the adjacent property owner and he has some serious questions as to that vacation. He also felt this would become one of the largest gas station/ convenience store operations in the entire city of Palm Desert and it would have a tremendous impact on the surrounding area, both upon traffic and because of its 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 use. He has been to each of the architectural review commission meetings that have dealt with this project. He didn't think they currently had one vote. For them to get the project approved was going to take at least two meetings and he wished them well . The amount of landscaping promised and maintained was a concern. Trees drawn on a diagram look full and look like they will shield the project, but once they are pruned and trimmed they may have a different effect. He felt ARC was concerned about how the landscaping would be maintained and whether or not this project was going to be screened from full, open view. In studying the information provided by staff under traffic generation, he had a question he wanted to direct to staff that had to do with the number of vehicles that would be added to this location. The numbers show that there are numbers provided for gas station operations and then for convenience stores. After reading them several times he was confused as to whether they were talking about an additional 240 cars per day or 240 cars for the gas operation and 240 cars per day for the convenience store operation. He felt this project was like dropping a 200 pound canary on a ten pound cat. He felt it was too much for a small area. They were all here to voice opposition to gas station type projects and car washes on the Lucky' s site, never dreaming that by getting them r.. excluded them from that site they would be forced into a smaller, less desirable area immediately across the street. He urged the commission to evaluate this project very carefully and if they did approve it, to make sure it was approved at a much smaller scale than was currently being proposed. MR. JIM KRIEG, 72-121 Clancy Lane in Rancho Mirage, stated that he has been a businessman for 20 years in Palm Desert and he was highly opposed to this gas station/convenience store being built. He arrived in 1976 and it was a nice, small beautiful community and now it has grown bigger and bigger. He felt that they just had to put a stop somewhere, sometime to all these retail convenience stores and gas stations that were being built in Palm Desert. He said that when driving from Deep Canyon to Washington Street, which was all of Indian Wells, he wanted to know why there wasn' t one gas station in Indian Wells . Apparently there must be a reason why. In his opinion it was because it was an eyesore. Coming from the east side entering into Palm Desert he believed this would be a tremendous eyesore to 41 ftw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2 , 1996 x our beautiful city. He hoped the commission would give this some tremendous thought. He felt they shouldn' t just develop this piece of land just to develop this piece of land. He noted that in Indian Wells over the last six months they were building beautiful financial buildings, not this garbage--retail, gas station convenience stores . He was just saying that they must be doing something for their city and hoped Palm Desert would take into consideration some of these factors . MR. DENNIS CHAPEL, a resident on Carlotta in Palm Desert and a business owner here, stated that he has been to a lot of Planning Commission hearings and in this particular case, again they have another local development, a local architect and one of the best in his opinion. He felt that McFadden and McIntosh Architects have done a wonderful job. He listened to the comments made and he has been in this community for 18 years and has seen a lot of growth and he loved Palm Desert. He lives and works here and he liked the direction the city has taken. He felt that Palm Desert was the best city in the valley. He was also an electrical contractor and asked if we could not allow any more electrical contractors here because he didn't want any more competition. They were going to see growth and he knew Dennis Godecke very well and served on his wife' s campaign supporting her for the school board and he knew both sides and everyone here. People were saying that we're here now and no one else can come in, but the city was going to grow and it was the commission' s job to see that it grows in a proper manner. Part of their job was to enforce the rules and he felt that the city staff enforced the rules very well, but the rules don't apply to everyone. There were always exceptions and always reasons and there was a bureaucracy that the commission could see through and could do something about. It was his impression that the commission was here to do what was best for this community and for the growth of the community. He heard the comments of this commission and felt there has been great insight as to what is going on and what will happen in the future and he liked the way it is going and liked the commission' s comments and attitude and wanted to see the growth continue. He was sorry that it meant more competition for people, it was hard enough for him to make a living too. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 Chairperson Beaty asked for comments or action from the commission. Commissioner Ferguson moved for a continuance to August 6 . Commission concurred that there would be a quorum. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, by minute motion continued CUP 96-18 to August 6, 1996 . Carried 5-0. Mr. McFadden stated that he had been looking forward to getting some of the commission's comments about the project in light of their working with the ARC. Commission indicated that they wanted to hear what the architectural commission had to say first. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO UPDATE BIKEWAY ROUTES/PLAN AND GOLF CART PATHS Mr. Drell explained that the city' s circulation element was revised prior to the development of the golf cart program and staff was also initiating a major re-examination of the whole alternative transportation program, including bike paths . To actually create and plan a program that includes an implementation plan to accomplish the tasks . He hoped this would be the beginning to getting a coherent comprehensive plan followed by an implementation plan and that was the purpose of this general plan amendment. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, to initiate an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan by minute motion. Carried 5-0. B. REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE EL PASEO PEDESTRIAN COMMERCIAL OVERLAY ZONE TO INCLUDE BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1987 Mr. Drell explained that the city attempted to create a regulation requiring that all street-fronting businesses on E1 Paseo be pedestrian friendly. The ordinance as currently worded listed a whole category of permitted uses and all others were not necessarily prohibited, but they would have to apply for a conditional use and show how through their store front design how they could run their business to be conducive to pedestrian interests . As a result of opposition w 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1996 from some major property owners at that time, the amendment was adopted exempting all buildings built before 1987 . The rf current request was initiated by a letter from the E1 Paseo Business Improvement Association. Staff was made aware of a number of vacancies where they have the opportunity to fill those vacancies with pedestrian-friendly businesses . Since they were in buildings that were older than 1987, there was no requirement that landlords do so. One of the ones that was especially troublesome was the corner of E1 Paseo and Highway 111 where a local commercial developer has been trying very hard to locate a restaurant there. He felt it would be a shame if that building was reoccupied with just an office or some non-pedestrian friendly use. Again, the ordinance does not preclude any business from going in, it just forced each one to create some sort of store front which maintains pedestrian interest to draw people down the street. Staff concurred with the suggestion from the E1 Paseo business people and recommended the commission initiate the amendment and run it through the public hearing process . Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, to initiate an amendment to the E1 Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay Zone to include buildings constructed prior to July 1, 1987 by minute motion. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Campbell abstained) . X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Drell summarized June 20, 1996 EDAC actions . XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting to July 16, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 9 :53 p.m. •1� PHILIP DRE L, Secretary ATTEST: PAUL R. BEATY, Chai person Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 44