Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0903 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 7 : 00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ferguson led in the pledge of allegiance . III. ROLL CALL Members Present : Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell Jim Ferguson George Fernandez Members Absent : Sabby Jonathan Staff Present : Phil Drell Martin Alvarez Sandy Jacobson Gregg Holtz Steve Smith Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 6, 1996 meeting minutes . Action• Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell , approving the August 6, 1996 minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent August 23 , 1996 council actions . VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None . VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 96-26 - G.L. LAND HOLDINGS L.P. AND BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, L.P. , Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map it waiver for lot line adjustments for Lots 20, 21, 22 , 34 and 35 of Tract 27520-1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map Waiver 93-6 (Golf Course Lot) within Bighorn MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 B. Case No. PMW 96-27 - ANDREW PIERCE CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for Lots 14 and 15, in Phase 3 of Tract 26018 . Action• Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued 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 indicated that this matter was continued twice before (July 2 and August 6) . On both those occasions the applicant was aiming to obtain preliminary approval from the Architectural Review Commission and they were working towards hiring a traffic engineer to conduct the traffic study. On August 13 ARC granted preliminary approval subject to some conditions . He said that the Commission had the copy of the ARC minutes from August 13 . Effectively what the conditions of ARC sought to do was to increase the landscaping strip across the rear and the landscaping buffer across the Deep Canyon side of the project in two ways . One was take out half of the third bay and move the roof canopy back so that it would have less of a presence on the street . It would seem that all of those criteria could be met . What was left was the issue of traffic and whether or not a convenience store and gas providing facility could be supported on this corner without impacting on the traffic in the intersection. The applicant advised staff last week that they had not yet retained a traffic engineer and, hence, there was no traffic engineer' s report to indicate what the impacts would be to that intersection. As a result, at this point staff suggested that the application be continued to a date not 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 certain to permit the applicant to complete a traffic impact analysis . That next hearing would be re-noticed when the City Traffic Engineer was satisfied with the traffic study. If it was the applicant' s wish to proceed without the traffic study, then staff was recommending denial and would suggest that the Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TIM BARTLETT, 73-382 Salt Cedar in Palm Desert, stated that the applicant and the project architect were also present to address the Commission. He asked if they have met the landscaping requirement and replied that yes, they exceeded it . Have they met the setback requirement? Yes, they exceeded it . Have they designed an interesting building that was not like any other gas station? Yes . He felt that what the issue had become for some of the surrounding property owners and from some of the comments they had received from staff and city officials was the use . He noted that this was a commercial use . He said that yes, it was an intense commercial use, but it fell within the Specific Plan for this area. It was another commercial development . He felt that at some felt there was enough development in Palm Desert . There is a Target, they are about to have a Saks, there is a McDonald' s and a Ruth' s Chris . They could theoretically close off the pass because Palm Desert has everything needed. He noted that he makes his living off of new development, but we do have everything we need in this city. The problem is that they can' t stop people from coming to the city. The population was doubling every nine and a half years . The property owners have rights . Developers proposed projects that was in the appropriate zoning, that matched the General Plan and that matched the Specific Plan and have rights . The surrounding property owners also have rights and they have not attempted to ignore them by any means . One of the first things he did when they made the application was meet with Dennis Godecke who lives directly next to them. They met with the Smokey' s owners and everyone that he felt was in an area that may or may not be impacted. What the issue came down to was if the city was going to turn down another commercial development because of traffic or some other reason. The applicant was willing to do a traffic study, but they wanted to know that they have some `... direction from the Commission that they are heading in the right direction. ARC has struggled over the use, 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 although that was not that committee' s charge, but they have struggled over it and have come up with a plan that pretty much would kill the project . They were here tonight to present a project that was not like any gas station that he has ever seen. It was in a well designed area that was buffered by an office building in the back that was ideal . They were here to bring the city a project that was exemplary, not common or ordinary, and they were asking for the Commission' s approval or at least some indication that they were heading in the right direction. He felt that the Commission would be hearing from their opposition that gas stations would generate traffic when that was not true . They typically go on high traffic corners because they feed off of traffic . The Lucky' s Center which he was involved in is a 81, 000 square foot shopping center and it didn' t require a traffic study. Why? Because it is on Deep Canyon and a State highway. Highway 111 was designed to handle all the traffic they could ever have . Deep Canyon will be a four-lane road when the widening was finished. It would be as wide as Monterey Avenue, which is a high traffic road. What they brought to the city was a project that fits all of the requirements that the city has set forth and specifically fits the Specific Plan designed for this area. Yes, there would be opposition from Hidden Palms who feels they are impacted. He felt the high school was just as far away and their traffic was much more intense because it was traffic at peak hours in the morning and afternoon. What they were asking for was a "fair shake" . The Commission would hear from their competitors, which they did last time, who would say that Palm Desert doesn' t need another gas station. That was not what made this country great . Competition is what made America what it is today and retail development is what made Palm Desert what it is today. Ernie Hahn went to the mayor of Palm Springs and said he wanted to build a regional shopping center. They laughed at him. He came to Palm Desert, put in the Town Center, could not find a lender to back him and put it in with his own money and it has been his most successful shopping center. That literally put Palm Desert on the map. A lot of residential development came here and said they now have a shopping center and services and they wanted to build houses here . People moved here because they now had a place to shop. That process has continued and that was why Palm Desert is now the retail hub of the entire Coachella i Valley. The city has been built on retail development . They were adding to that . A portion was gas sales and Mai noticing by the cars tonight, just about everyone here 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 mow drove a gas powered car and they were here to provide gas into the next century. They were not showing them a lousy project for Palm Desert, but an exemplary project unlike any other. He indicated that the next speaker would be Mr. McFadden, the project architect . Commissioner Ferguson said that he had a few questions for Mr. Bartlett . Staff stated at the outset that the issue before the Commission was either to approve their project subject to an acceptable traffic study being forthcoming or to direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial . He just heard him say that those two things or some direction from the Commission. He asked Mr. Bartlett to be more specific as to the direction he was seeking. Mr. Bartlett said that ARC has been struggling over the use and has had difficulty separating the use from good architecture, good planning and good landscaping. He would like some direction from the Planning Commission that they were not just "beating their heads against the wall" . He didn' t believe that traffic was an issue . If an 81, 000 square foot shopping center across the street did not require a traffic study and the city felt that none was required, then he didn' t feel that a gas station, which was not a traffic generator but a feeder of traffic, was going to show anything. They would do a traffic study if that was the charge of the Commission, but they were convinced that it wouldn' t be an issue . They wanted to know that if traffic was the issue and they resolved that issue that they would get approval . If traffic has just been a ghost or something that everyone was pointing their fingers to and was not really the issue, then they wanted to know that as well . Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Bartlett also represented the Lucky' s Center development as well . Mr. Bartlett said he did. Commissioner Ferguson asked if he negotiated with the same people, i .e . Mr. Godecke and Hidden Palms Homeowners Association, with respect to that project . Mr. Bartlett concurred. He said that when they came to the city originally they met with council members in an informal session and said they wanted to change the zone from resort commercial in the front and multifamily in the back. The first thing the city said was that they should make the neighbors happy and then come back. He started out with Albertson' s about four years ago and that process went on for about 18 months and it fizzled away. They came back with Lucky' s about two and a half years ago and finally got it done . They came up with 28 conditions that met the issues of the surrounding property owners . They weren' t ignoring the 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 a x surrounding property owners but he believed that they thought they had the same input because they were essentially put on a pedestal and could tell them what to do and they would do it, which they did because it was a change of zone . Commissioner Ferguson asked if, when they had that opportunity, if traffic was raised as an issue . Mr. Bartlett replied yes . Commissioner Ferguson asked how it was resolved. Mr. Bartlett said that the city stated that Deep Canyon was designed for in the range of 17, 000 cars per day, there were currently 1, 200 cars and that Lucky' s would generate around 4, 500 extra cars . Deep Canyon, even if Lucky' s tripled in size, would never be to full capacity. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Bartlett had any estimate on the amount of additional cars the proposed use would add to Deep Canyon. Mr. Bartlett didn' t feel that they would generate any new traffic, they feed off of traffic . That was why there were gas stations at high traffic corners . People generally didn' t drive by three or four gas stations to get to a fifth one, unless they were looking for price and ARCO has had some of that exposure. People might drive past two or three gas stations to get to an ARCO because they were a nickel less . Their developer wasn' t planning on being at that end of the scale, not the cheaper, but the more expensive, and would be providing service for Palm Desert and possibly Indian Wells residents because there wasn' t a gas station between Washington and Deep Canyon, so they were going after that market . MR. CHRIS MCFADDEN, McFadden McIntosh Architects at 73- 929 Larrea in Suite 1-A in Palm Desert, stated that he wanted to apologize on behalf of the lack of exhibits that were on display. They have been some months on the development of this project and he noticed here at the last meeting that they were missing the canopy drawing, which was an issue, and which is a full roof plan colored elevations of the canopy, and it was lost . Likewise tonight on display was their original landscape plan submittal showing narrow landscaping along Deep Canyon and Highway 111, they built to their setback, and the frontage was not shown correct . The other plan on display was their current eight scale landscape plan, which has much larger planters . What was unfortunate about the submittal tonight was that the current plan was in blue and white, or had no color, and the old plan was a colored plan that was easy to read and could be easily seen by everyone in the audience. That was going to be a problem because the current plan was difficult to read and it was going to be the focus of their comments . He had a signed transmittal dated 7-15-96 that indicates that the colored landscape plan was 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 submitted and has been lost along with some other documentation. In review of the staff report he received today, he found a well written description of the project from their last public hearing. The description on pages 36 through 39 of the minutes adequately described the project so he would not re- present the project to the Commission. He said that he has a lot of detail that they needed to go through to get on the record. He said that he would present a five part synopsis delineating their progress to date . It would consist of this introduction with a little bit more, the opposition, the architectural review committee, the specific plan and a conclusion. He asked if this was a controversial project and replied that it was perhaps not as controversial as the Eagle Mountain Landfill . His definition would not be controversial , but ambitious . He said that there was no doubt some various legitimate concerns which they could deal with, unfortunately along with the legitimate came the frivolous and the Commission' s charge in that respect was similar to his--to deal honestly and fairly with those which could be mitigated and ignore those which are in. He stated that the public opposition to this project had been choreographed by a couple of individuals including the development of a form letter that aroused additional involvement . These individuals were also responsible for imposing their interests utilizing similar tactics against the Lucky' s shopping center. He had no problem with opposition. It was only the validity of solicited opposition. In the same vain they have solicited support for the project . Its value was no less then that of the opposition. He asked the Commission to find here for the record and he would submit it as an exhibit (received 9-4-96 and attached hereto as Exhibit A) , nearly 100 names which they spent the Labor Day weekend collecting. As a matter of interest, they found on a door-to-door survey of the Grove project only one individual that would not sign the letter of support with their description where they provided a site plan and a copy of the rendering and told them about the project . It was his opinion that if they had the opportunity to solicit response for and against their project simultaneously in the same questionnaire, presenting both points of view, they would have received more support within the ranks of the opposition. He developed this idea when he returned from vacation last week. Jim, his partner, showed him an editorial in the Public Record which quoted two %1W individuals in opposition to the project and he then read his form letter statement response where he stated 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 that he was not in full agreement with the content of the form letter and that any improvement would be better then what is existing on that corner. Jim spoke with the editor of the Public Record and felt that it was an unfortunate oversight that the reporter did not attempt to get their opinion or anyone' s opinion in favor of the project . The next issue was the ARC committee . He stated that they have been to the ARC committee four times and although they currently have conditions of approval , these conditions, especially the canopy reduction, seriously threatened the economic sensibility of proceeding forward with the project . He said that he would explain this chronologically. They thought the first Architectural Review Commission meeting would go pretty well since they had met with Planning staff and Public Works and were aware of some of their concerns . Public Works was quite impressed with their site solution as it resolved some serious concerns with the property cul-de-sac . He showed where that dead-end cul- de-sac would be and indicated that they also provided some thoroughfares through the site . There were concerns about the concerns that Architectural Review would have with the Highway 111 and Deep Canyon frontages and what their involvement would be in the improvements in the public right-of-way as architect, developer and owner and what their participation would be : the final determination of the zoning definition and its impact to the project, would it be classified as a commercial retail with 15% landscaping required or as an automobile repair station with 20% landscaping required. He reminded Commission that they would not have any automobile repair services there . Mr. Godecke' s issues had already been addressed prior to this meeting. They already had a letter out and that was in the record. All went as anticipated, they were assigned the more stringent landscaping requirement along with some other minor issues which would require some plan modifications . The expected that . Then they came to the final commissioner' s comment and his request to reverse the entire site layout . That was shown on the June 11 Architectural Review Commission' s meeting minutes on page 9 . He was initially shocked and indicated that although he didn' t think it was a good idea, they would look into it . That would move the building to the corner and put the pumps and canopy structure behind the building. Two issues came out of this meeting which would prove difficult to resolve and pretty much became the subject of the next two meetings . Landscape screening and site reversal . They discovered in the second Architectural Review meeting that their 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 interpretation of the word "screening" was incorrect . They found that screening could not be accomplished with landscaping alone, since everyone knew that it would be pruned, killed or later removed to satisfy the needs of the user. This was according to the ARC members . Their narrative explanation of why they did not reverse the site plan as suggested was due to the fact that fundamental fuel station site design criteria required one of two, preferably both, site access criteria. 1) immediate egress to the major thoroughfare it serves, and 2) in the case on an in-board pump, were they to reverse it as recommended, they must have another commercial use i .e . retail stores, restaurant or hotel on the in-board side to service the traffic . Since their site had neither scenario, their plan as designed is the best solution for an economically successful project . Their response from the ARC commissioner was that this criteria was recognized, but there are examples in the desert that demonstrate the rare exception. He pointed out that they were aware of the station this commissioner designed that ignored this criteria and that he was also told that they attribute a 30% loss of business directly to the inhospitable site layout and that fuel company will not consider building another fuel station of that layout . Commissioner Ferguson asked where that site was located. Mr. McFadden replied that it was the Shell station at the corner of Gene Autry and Ramon. Mr. McFadden then addressed the Specific Plan. He said that their project area was identified as a gateway, subarea D on page 24 , and it states under gateways, "Visitors first exposure to Palm Desert play a critical role in defining the city' s character and identity. In addition to communicating an overall impression of quality, it is important for gateways to emphasize that one is entering a unique and distinctive community. " At the city' s western gateway, the city' s eastern one wasn' t there when this was written in 1957, the Las Sambras restaurant park built in 1980 was constructed with a fundamental site planning flaw which detracts from the development' s appearance as well as being detrimental to the success of many of the tenants . The project was built backwards with inferior rear elevations facing Highway 111 . He felt this clearly supported their fundamental site planning issue . Their third meeting they felt was pivotal . They couldn' t dissuade the %D. reversal issue since they felt it was founded on a personal bias so they decided to provide a photographic 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 a study of the stations they reviewed around the desert previously to support their site layout and narrative . The abandonment of the public right-of-way had been determined along with the landscape coverage requirement . They made some significant site adjustments and incorporated screen walls and berm elements to satisfy the need for screening, according to the ARC. He felt it could be best seen on the southeast corner elevation from Highway 111, which showed the pumps being adequate screened. The site study also showed the elevation difference to accommodate this issue as of their third ARC meeting. They also provided a sight line study to demonstrate that the pump location' s view from the scenic corridors had been mitigated. At the close of that ARC meeting the chairman made a motion to approve the plan as drawn, with conditions, since in his opinion they had come a long way and the project was acceptable . He could not obtain a second since he was reminded that there were a couple of landscape issues that could not be resolved unless the committee saw a revised plan, so they took their final continuance . The Commission was hung over a couple of landscape issues . That area has always been too thin and he has never denied that, but they've shown them photographs of other situations with narrow ones and they were unmovable on that so they had to redesign the site, push everything west and reduce the building down. They doubled the size of that landscape area. He felt their final meeting at ARC was comical . He was on vacation and Mr. McFadden' s partner Jim attended. The purpose of this meeting was to review the revised landscape plan which resulted in a hung motion at the previous meeting. When it came to their turn on the agenda their "favorite" commissioner made a motion to approve the project with conditions without any further discussion. He struck a line across the plan increasing the size of the diagonal planter that was currently shown at 30 feet deep. He wanted it 50 feet deep and a decrease in the canopy overhang of 44% . He wanted it pulled back to the second canopy so that it didn' t adequately shelter it either and reduced fuel dispensers from 12 to 10 . Prior to him completing his motion he received a second. No revised plans, no discussion and not even a completed motion. In his opinion this was a classic definition of a railroad job. They were proceeding forward with the objective members of the ARC committee and he felt as though their concise, objective responses were being squelched by one individual ' s personal preference which, in light of their last 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 meeting, appeared to be an entire committee' s consensus since he obtained a unanimous vote . Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. McFadden was asking the Planning Commission to ignore the recommendations from architectural review. Mr. McFadden replied no, he was going to ask them for some help and he would have that in his conclusion. Chairperson Beaty noted that so far Mr. McFadden had criticized everything the city stands for and requested the applicant to proceed in a less negative manner. Mr. McFadden said that he was hoping that the Commission would remember that with their first submittal they came in and were very energetic and were very ambitious about this project . They want to get this project to go through. Chairperson Beaty noted that the applicant had run down the Planning Department, the Engineering Department and the Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Fernandez agreed. Chairperson Beaty felt that Mr. McFadden had made his point . Mr. McFadden stated that he was ready to move on. He said that he felt that staff had done a good job in preparing the report before Commission. It was a very concise reiteration of their initial meeting. He said that he was a little frustrated with the process and apologized to Commission and staff for talking them down. Commencing in February of 1986 the City Council and RDA board appointed a 30 member citizen' s advisory committee and along with Planning and Public Works staff hammered out the Commercial Core Specific Plan. This project took nearly 17 months from inception to adoption and at considerable expense to the taxpayers . Since staff had not mentioned its recommendations or findings in the report to the Commission, or to the Architectural Review Commission, he wanted to highlight those findings . They had also intended to present these issues to the Architectural Review Commission at the last meeting but the decorum of the meeting prevented them from doing so. Their proposed project lies within two of the study' s subareas . These were defined as Subarea A, north Highway 111/Alessandro and Subarea D, gateways - Monterey Avenue on the west and Deep Canyon on the east . He already discussed Subarea D, the gateways, earlier so he would move on to the north 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 3 Highway 111/Alessandro subarea which is the location of the proposed project . The committee identified the four specific issues impacting this area as frontage road access, shallowness and fragmented commercial lots limiting substantial high quality development, replacement or remodeling of obsolete or non-conforming buildings, and land use conflicts between expanding commercial use and the residential area to the south. They specifically related to items 2 and 3 in those specific findings . Issue 2 limited depth of commercial zone . Due to the limited lot depth and the stringent parking requirements, buildings were usually limited to meet the parking requirements . They were usually limited to the front 50 feet, leaving little room for future expansion. More ambitious projects were either required to devote several Highway 111 frontage lots to parking or to develop parking on the north side of Alessandro Drive. Their parking layout would be tied to the existing project next door, which is Smokey' s . He showed the new parking layout which was not there now. At a minimum this would be the incentive required for Smokey' s to upgrade their lot and perhaps their facility. Issue 3 was the replacement or remodeling of obsolete or non-conforming building. The Specific Plan states, "In various blocks there are sections dominated by older buildings which, due to their original design or lack of maintenance no longer conform to present standards . Existing policies provide little incentive for owners to improve these properties . The inability to comply with current parking requirements actually acts as a dis-incentive for new investment . This creates a cycle of decline which causes the properties to deteriorate further as well as depreciating adjacent buildings . " Mr. McFadden felt that their project commences the domino effect that the Lucky' s shopping center started and as the property values increase due to the implementation of their project, future improvements were sure to work their way westward, reversing the cycle of decline that the Specific Plan referenced. Under the specific policies for these subareas, section A states that incentives shall be created to encourage the remodeling or replacement of obsolete older buildings and uses . What the specific plan states here is that the city is willing to "put their money where their mouth is" and shall financially support the findings of this report if need be . The Specific Plan also mentions the problems associated with the frontage road. It states, "The current frontage road system continues to be a source of conflict and controversy in the business community. While the two- 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 way circulation east of Cabrillo Avenue and west of Las Palmas represents an improvement over the one-way system, significant inefficiencies continue to exist . Access to rear parking areas is still difficult . Frontage road cross street intersections continue to be a source of traffic safety conflicts . " The Specific Plan indicated no absolute solution. Mr. McFadden felt that they comply with the spirit of the Specific Plan as their solution is recognized as more efficient then the proposed cul-de-sac since they now have two means of egress through their site. In conclusion, Mr. McFadden stated that the requirements from the last Architectural Review Committee meeting delivered them a death blow. The fuel dispensers are critical to the economic sensibility of this project . It is a fuel station and this element is critical . His client did a lot of studying prior to proceeding with this project . There were currently two renditions of this canopy utilizing 12 dispensers . It was very straight forward and it was a two island, three pump scenario that has been recommended by the Architectural Review Committee . It is wider then the three island/two pump. They all have 12 dispensers . The inefficiency comes in because the two island arrangement has three pumps where the middle element is a pump so cars come in at different times and would cause congestion because it is a more inefficient design. When they have the three island/two pump there is a car at each end obtaining gas, there is plenty of clearance to get in and around. The middle element was just a windshield/wash station and trash center. The dispenser count still adds up to 12 so it seemed that they were being hard nosed that they wouldn' t just change it to the two island canopy and pull everything back up, but when that was done the length increased. They were basically the same dimensions, but width to height would reverse--the three pump was much wider. Therefore, the three island/two pump scenario is the best solution for this project since it would alleviate vehicle congestion incurred at the center dispenser and provides a more efficient traffic flow. The 12 dispensers justify the economic investment into this project by the client due to the increased cost over and above a standard fuel station design. They would like to retain those fuel pumps . To date they have made the following changes to the plan to accommodate staff and ARC: they've increased the entire planter along Deep Canyon by six feet - they cut six feet out of the building and moved everything over six feet to get a generous planter at the narrowest element . The narrowest element is 12 feet wide . Along Alessandro 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 across the back they have increased the planter width from six feet to nine feet . They've added the diamond cuts in the sidewalk to accommodate new trees for additional relief . They enhanced the exterior elevations along the side . He showed the older elevation which was just a blank wall . They shortened the canopy cantilever by eight feet to just cover the third island. Along with the six foot shift in the entire site, this increased the distances between the curb along Deep Canyon from 20 feet to 30 feet to the canopy. He showed this on the revised elevation. Overall, they have increased the landscaped areas to 8 , 405 square feet, which was 22 . 8% coverage from their original area of 7, 008 square feet, which was a difference of 1, 400 square feet . This largely came out of building area. They originally proposed a building of 6, 440 square feet . They currently have a building size of 5, 532 square feet, a difference of 900 square feet, a 15% reduction. This didn' t reflect additional cuts they might have to take with the Architectural Review Committee' s recommendation to take an additional three feet off the back of the building, that excluded that . This probably changed the original program for three proposed tenants to two because of the decreased area. They've increased the driveway corner distance to a total of eight feet . They had the previous one approved by Public Works . There was some concern from the Architectural Review Committee about stacking close to this intersection and getting it back would be appreciated. They were able to squeeze an extra eight feet so they put it in there. They added additional colored concrete paving patterns . There was a concern about the amount of concrete paving, so they added brick paved patterns to enhance the overall appearance of the site . They approached the Architectural Review Committee with an exciting and ambitious project seeking their participation in the details . They knew this wasn' t the best type of project but they were charged to make it the best project of its type to set a new standard. What they received was an alternate statement and they really wanted them to do it their way. This was unacceptable to the Architectural Review Commission. He requested that the Commission approve and/or condition the project per their latest plan which they spent hundreds of hours studying and analyzing. He asked that the Commission not follow staff' s recommendation to deny this project, but that the Commission subject this project to the findings of the traffic study so they could move forward. He again 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 apologized to any inferences made to the character of either of the departments . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he spent an enormous amount of time preparing for this hearing. He pulled the minutes from the Architectural Review Commission meeting that Mr. McFadden referenced, he pulled the CUP for the Lucky' s shopping center and went through its multiple variations and had Planning staff working through those files . He went through Mr. Godecke' s conditional use permit to evaluate the conditions that were setforth in there. He went through three separate packets of materials relating to what he thought were the client' s real concerns and he spoke with Mr. Bartlett at some length today and this was the first time he had been informed that the applicant was asking the Planning Commission to basically override the Architectural Review Commission and the reasons for it . During the presentation he took two pages of notes, but nothing could have prepared him for what they really wanted him to evaluate tonight . Had Mr. McFadden' s comments been submitted in written form with the exhibits, that would have given the Commission the opportunity to review them. Mr. McFadden said that he could do that . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was prepared to evaluate the issue of whether they would condition taw approval upon an acceptable traffic study and spent the last 30 minutes hearing about their travails with the Architectural Review Commission. It threw a curve ball at him. If the Commission did continue this item and if the applicant has issues that come up, he requested that they be submitted in advance, particularly when they were of this magnitude, to give them the evaluation and credit they deserve . Mr. McFadden stated that he appreciated that and indicated that his focus tonight was the Specific Plan elements and he felt as though the Architectural Review Commission was preventing them from the getting information to the Planning Commission. He said that the owner would also like to address the Commission. MR. CAMERON NEVINS stated that he was a lifetime resident of the desert area. He currently lives in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and for the last five years has seasonally stayed in Palm Desert . It had been a dream of his for many years to develop and run a mini-mart/ fuel station. This would be a family run business to provide a friendly service, safe and accessible to the community. He thought they had proven their commitment to the city by the amount of work they were doing with staff and the neighbors to resolve issues prior to these 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 meetings . He had no intention of hurting the residential neighborhoods or the environment . His brothers, sisters and nieces all live in Palm Desert . All of the studies that he has had performed on this prime commercial spot for a potential fuel station/mini- mart have indicated that it does support it and it is a prime spot on a major highway. He believed that the financial commitment they would be making to this area would do a great service in improving the site presently. His architect and realtor addressed several issues that he wouldn' t reiterate. He said that one of the points of opposition was that the project would cause pollution and he was having trouble seeing where that might happen. Vehicles cause the vast majority of pollution. From everything he could tell from the architect and his meetings, the use seemed to be the biggest stumbling block. This was an ambitious project and in order to counter-balance the large financial cost of this development they had to have such a use . He didn' t believe that a typical office building/retail store could justify the high cost of this prime commercial corner on a highway. He believed that this project would ultimately benefit the community by employing approximately 21 full time people and adding approximately $60, 000 in annual tax revenues . The project would run approximately $1 . 6 to $1 . 8 million, that was an extra $350 , 000 over a normal convenience store/mini-mart/fuel station. They would also have some other retail use, possibly a video store or deli . That extra $350 , 000 was to make this the most architecturally unique fuel station that anyone has ever seen and he was firmly convinced that it is state of the art and they planned to have a misting system, full service aisle . They planned to go as far as they could to make this the number one fuel station/convenience store . He wanted to underline the word convenient for customers that visit the site for services . He said that his objective tonight was to get approval conditioned upon a possible traffic study and possibly working out some items with the Architectural Review Commission. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. CHARLES SLAUGHTER, 605 Monaco Circle in Hidden Palms, stated that this was his first attempt at visiting his local government at work and it had been a nice evening. He said that he didn' t doubt for a minute that this was a splendid building and that the city in whatever way that is required would see to it that it 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 meets all the requirements i .e . not leaking gas, not polluting the ground or trees, that it would be pretty and it would be the world' s best gas station. It was just the wrong place--it didn' t belong there . When they were told that there would be a reconsideration on the kind of development that would be on the opposite corner, Lucky' s, he didn' t know anyone that wanted a supermarket . Two of them met and they got the message that the city expected people who were proposing this to talk to the neighborhood and find out what exactly they wanted. That sounded like a good city idea and they did that . To show that they were not unreasonable people they were getting a supermarket that none of them wanted and they would probably shop there . Now, exactly across the street they were going to get another high impact every few minutes someone in and out kind of business . It didn' t make sense to him. That corner was just that . They were talking about one little corner, but he was talking about the neighborhood and where he lives . He wouldn' t make a dime or lose a dime no matter what was put, on that corner. He would live here the rest of his life . His house was paid for and he would be there. He only cared about the neighborhood he is in and he didn' t believe for a minute that whoever built Deep Canyon thought there would be 13 cars going by every minute . That was how many he was told this evening that it was designed to handle . He said that in his opinion they didn' t need this kind of facility in that particular location. There were a lot of empty corners and they should find another one . He wanted to see something that was a little more benign where the people who would do business stop to spend an hour or so to slow down what would be an enormous rush of traffic . He said that if they were holding the Planning Commission meeting at that corner right now the Commission would have to concur that there was no way in the world this would not create traffic . People don' t just go to gas stations because they are handy. Most people can' t afford to do that . They can' t afford to spend that extra fifty or seventy cents a gallon for gasoline, so people shop for gas . Maybe if they could get the applicant to promise that they would charge $3 . 00 per gallon of gas, it might be a tempting thing because they wouldn' t have any business and there wouldn' t be any traffic . He didn' t think that would be the case . Commissioner Ferguson asked if it would be fair to say, because the property is zoned the way it is and the applicant r.. wasn' t seeking any variances or exceptions, that Mr. Slaughter' s objection to the fuel station was the intensity 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 of the use or traffic . Mr. Slaughter replied that was correct, intensity of use and traffic was a fair summary. MS . TRUDY NEVINS said that she was a homeowner in Palm Desert and a tenured teacher in the Palm Desert region and indicated that some of them did want the Lucky' s store and some of them do want another convenience/gas station, especially one of this caliber. She said that she wanted to review why she felt this was a good location. She said that as a teacher that travels to work every day, she meets up with the same traffic as Mr. Slaughter and other residents in this area do and many times the AM/PM is already overcrowded. They were talking about traffic situations here, but she was in the traffic situation in the morning on her way to work and coming home and that was exactly what she runs into at AM/PM. There were no other convenience/gas stations for the Palm Desert region other then the Texaco which is a little further down and she often found herself driving all the way to Rancho Mirage when she is in a hurry. From her point of view she felt it would credit the community with a good convenience gas station, but it would also save traffic problems, especially in the Portola area where traffic was getting backed up. They were waiting in line and huffing and puffing in the heat to get their gas pumped. She believed that it would be a benefit to have that . Also, she was excited to have a Lucky' s store . She is the Mom and the shopper and has to run to the store to get things done and when she is going home from work, if she has to go to one area to shop and then drive to another area to get gas after a hard day, s work, that was a lot of work. She was excited about this project and felt it was a good thing for people to be able to shop and drive across the street to a nice open area where they could drive in and drive out and get their gas . For convenience and traffic she voted yes . She also believed that the project would cut down on some of the traffic on Highway 111 for those who were tired and had to drive to Rancho Mirage to get their gas because it was the only other place, or Indio if that was their destination. She noted that as stated by Mr. Bartlett, this is a commercial use and she felt that the majority of the residents of Palm Desert do view the frontage road as a commercial use . When she goes shopping, she thinks about what is along Highway 111 and this was already zoned commercially and they don' t have another gas station in this area. When she is shopping she ends up doing extra trips . She felt this was a needed commercial use, not just a good one, but a needed one . 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 low With the Lucky' s being there and if they've solved the traffic problem there, which was right next door, then they should be able to solve these problems . Also, visually she has heard a few comments on the visual aspect and everyone seemed to agree that it was a beautiful building, was nicely designed and had other conveniences such as the deli that they might want to use . What they were looking at now were old buildings . She appreciated them because she loved the history of Palm Desert and she grew up here, so she did appreciate the old buildings, but they were upgrading and as the city is growing the needs of the people needed to be met . She said that since this road was already viewed as a public service road, that is what it should be utilized as . She is the public and she felt there were other people in the audience that agreed with her and liked the convenience of the project . She said that this morning she went to a teachers seminar and without a problem she had 27 teachers and principals saying that they would like to be able to get to work a little easier and not have to drive out of their way to get gas . MS . COURTNEY LOTIS stated she has lived in the Coachella Valley all her life and in Palm Desert for the last ten. She has two children that go to the high school and she lives just a few blocks from this project and thought it was a great idea. She said that she was the one that spent the Labor Day weekend gathering signatures going door to door and everyone she talked with felt it was a great idea, except for one person who said that another gas station was not needed. It wasn' t because of traffic, it was just that they felt Palm Desert didn' t need another one. She talked with people in Hidden Palms who weren' t told the whole story behind this project and she felt that was a great injustice . She felt the Commission needed to look at this project from all points of view, not just the people from Hidden Palms, but everyone that lives around Palm Desert that use the roads that would like the convenience . She said that the AM/PM is a "mad house" and since the roads were redone, getting in and out is difficult . She felt the proposal was a great project and should be approved. She said that traffic is all over and didn' t feel that traffic should be that big of a concern here . MR. MIKE TRIPPLY, a resident of Hidden Palms, stated that he was new in this area but where he came from he was very involved in many of the city projects and one of the main things they were concerned with was 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 convenience stores . In his opinion a convenience store was a store that sells everything including beer. He asked if he was correct and the applicant replied yes . He said that he notices that a lot of school kids stand on the corner of Highway ill and senior citizens pick up the bus there and this convenience store would be available and which he assumed would be open 24 hours per day. The applicant indicated that was possible . Mr. Tripply said that the Commission could see the environment that these people and kids would run into and he was surprised that there was a school teacher in favor of a convenience store. There was a liquor store across Highway 111 and Lucky' s would sell liquor and this would be another liquor store . He asked the Commission to consider what they were doing. MR. DENNIS GODECKE, the owner of the property immediately to the north of the proposed gas station stated that he wanted to make a couple of points . Some of the issues were the size and intensity of this project . The applicants were asking for everything, i . e . the maximum number of pumps and the maximum number of building space . He said that he has looked around at some convenience stores and a 5, 500 square foot convenience store was a pretty good size convenience store . It was larger than most . One across the street is 3 , 800 square feet and the AM/PM is around 2 , 500 square feet, so this one is definitely larger than those . The intensity of the use really concerned him. He said that just a gas station like the Texaco down the street has traffic, but it was in and out . It didn' t seem to be so intense. The combination of the convenience store and the gas station added some more traffic problems . If the applicant could limit the number of pumps, the size of the store or do something to fit more appropriately on the property, there might be a chance that Architectural Review would approve the project . He said that the hours of operation for the Lucky' s store were limited and he wasn' t sure what those hours were, but hoped that a condition would be placed on this operation to limit its hours to the same as Lucky' s . The applicant was asking for approval and for conditional use permits for liquor sales, gasolines sales and possibly a third one. When talking about zoning, they were asking for variances . One of the people speaking in favor of the project mentioned that the AM/PM is a madhouse . He believed that this would be another madhouse and he hoped the Commission would not create one . He also said that if this project were approved, there was to be a vacation of a certain amount 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 �r.. of property by the City of Palm Desert to the developer. He said that it wasn' t the city' s job to determine what kinds of businesses and what kind of competition would be created in town, but if the city vacates property in order to make this project possible, they were in fact enabling competition by approving this project and vacating the property to make it possible . He felt there were serious issues there that needed to be considered and he hoped that the Commission would give them due deliberation. He also hoped that a traffic study would not be an item that the Commission would condition an approval on, but that after seeing a traffic study they might be better able to evaluate whether or not this project should go at this location. Commissioner Ferguson noted that Mr. Godecke mentioned that if the intensity of use were reduced or if something was done to reduce the overall size and scope of the operation that Architectural Review might approve it . He asked Mr. Godecke if there was anything that the applicant could do to get his blessing for this project . Mr. Godecke said that he thought he could live with the project . He has tried to be open minded and say that the Commission might approve this project . The zoning permits it and if they could get a majority of the Architectural Review happy, then he would say that sitting in the Planning Commission' s place, they might very well approve this project . He tried to be open minded to say that this could happen and if it happened what he would like to see . What he would like to see is a single use . If it was going to be a gas station, have a gas station. But don' t have a gas station, liquor sales and a 5, 000 square foot convenience store . If they were going to have a convenience store, have a convenience store but don' t have the gas sales that would attract all the people . He suggested that it might make the project uneconomical for them, but he didn' t know because he hadn' t been privy to their calculations . One use he felt would be better. He noted that a lot of kids use Deep Canyon to go to Palm Desert Middle School and Palm Desert High School and he felt they would head right to this convenience store and it would be a gathering place. He said that he was sure the Sheriff' s department had been consulted about that and he was sure that there has been some talk about potential problems . He felt that if he had to answer the question as to whether they needed a gas station or something on the east end of Palm Desert he would say they probably did. If he had a choice of putting it in 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 C this location or putting it in the Lucky' s Center, there was no question he would rather have it in the Lucky' s Center. It would be much better able to handle it there, but when they came asking for a zone change, a lot of the neighbors around there said okay, but no car washes or gas stations should be allowed, not realizing that they would get this right next door. They thought it was possible, but they knew they would have to fight it when it happened. Commissioner Ferguson stated that the reason he asked the question was that in reviewing Mr. Godecke' s very articulate letters as a critic of this project, Mr. Godecke consistently raised 11 different items . He suspected that the applicant wanted to know before they went out and spent the money for a traffic study if this was just one issue and once they take care of the traffic problem, one of the other ten issues would pop up and kill their project . If everyone wanted to kill the project, they wanted to know that before spending more time and money. He said that the answer to his question to Mr. Godecke was aimed more at the applicant then to him, that yes if there were some things that could be done and worked out, maybe a time extension would be appropriate to try and effectuate that and they should go for it, but if Mr. Slaughter, himself and others were just dead-set against the project and were going to fight it tooth and nail no matter what they did with the project, he felt that fairness dictated that they be told that as well . Mr. Godecke said that if their approach is all or nothing, or in other words that everything they have presented to the Commission here : 5, 500 square feet, 12 pumps and no Architectural Review Committee approval, then he would say that yes, he would continue to oppose the project . That would be his answer and he would continue to oppose it on every front if it was that or nothing. If they could trim it down to one of those uses, then perhaps they could get his support . MR. CHRIS BASH, a Palm Desert resident for the past 33 years, stated that he was the property owner of not only that corner, but the Smokey' s corner. He felt that the gentlemen doing the project have been trying real hard and a lot of opposition he could understand. He said that he knew the city' s opinion of his piece of property and it was his Father who left it that way. He was sure that the city didn' t want to see it and he didn' t want to see it and the people around there didn' t want to see it . It was 46 years old and needed to go. There was another project brought up in years past and was denied 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 for whatever reason. He agreed with the city and everyone else that this corner needs to be developed and each time something comes up it gets opposed. The last project was an office building. He asked what would be approved. He felt the applicant was doing the best they could to accommodate, but they still had to make a living with whatever they build. He said that the city didn' t need another office building that would remain empty. It was zoned for that and he thought in years past that he might open an automotive repair place because that is his business, but he didn' t and felt it would not happen on Highway 111 . He wanted the Commission to know that he was in favor of the project and would like to see that corner developed. He said that he knew of other plans if this was not the project that is done . He stated that the comments made about the city giving up land, that was done either way according to his conversations with Public Works . They were trying to work to make Deep Canyon better even if there is no project there . Widening Deep Canyon and closing the frontage road and giving the land to the developer was no different than if it was not developed because it would be redone to make the traffic better even if there was no project, so that wasn' t an issue as far as making the project bigger or smaller or whatever the case is . He said that he thought the parking on the west side would help Smokey' s and he said he could guarantee in the future that the Smokey' s building needed to be redone to be nice and he hoped to be able to do that in the future . The parking on the west side would help both projects and would get that whole corner to look at lot better. The south side across the street was looking better and if this side was redone, this city entrance would look a lot better. Mr. Nevins readdressed the Commission and stated that when they started the project, his agent went to Mr. Godecke and tried to take care of a lot of concerns . And he thought that up to date they have . His concerns now were concerns they have considered regarding the high school kids . They shouldn' t be old enough to purchase beer, but in order to eliminate this from being a hang out like other places that might have video games, pay phones conveniently located near those video games, they would eliminate things like that that might keep this from being a hang out for kids that might ditch school . There would be no video games and if there was a pay phone on-site, it wouldn' t be conveniently located and if there was one, they hoped to own it and control the amount spent to use that phone . 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 They would charge a minimum of $1 . 00 to make a phone call and he believed that would eliminate a lot of the traffic that might hang around to use the pay phone. They were trying to do everything they could to make this a higher scale development . The clientele they were trying to bring in would also be from Indian Wells . They would have self-serve aisles and that was the kind of clientele they were trying to bring in. They would not come to this project if it was just a hang out for kids . Commissioner Ferguson asked if the applicant' s position was that the project either receive approval as it is, or they would request a denial . Mr. Bartlett said that they had heard some valid concerns from homeowners . He felt that they have received some indication even though they managed to upset three of the four commissioners, but the Commission hadn' t thrown them out the door and they were listening to them, which he appreciated. He thought there was a way to proceed so that all parties would be a happy with the end result, including the property owner, developer, land owner, staff, engineer, etc . One of the things he felt the Commission alluded to was to receive ARC approval . Some of the other issues about how the gas station would be operated, the developer alluded to some of those conditions and he felt that if they came back with a list of self-imposed conditions, the Commission might find that preferable so that they were not running a place for kids to hang out . Assuming they were on the right track, it sounded like that if they came back with a traffic study that showed the project wouldn' t seriously impact Deep Canyon and Highway 111 or the two streets that bound it, that that issue might be resolved. Regarding the property vacation, he felt that had been brought up numerous times and Public Works could verify that this was planned five years ago and it didn' t necessarily make this project work. It could work without it, although he didn' t feel that was a big issue . Regarding the gas station/convenience store, the 5, 000 square foot building was not planned as only a convenience store, the convenience aspect of the project would be 2 , 500-2 , 800 square feet and that would be a condition that they would accept . It was not a huge convenience store for kids to play video games and drink beer illegally. That was not their intent . 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson asked if the response to his question was that the proposal was not a "do or die" situation and that they would entertain some suggestions or modifications . Mr. Bartlett concurred, if they got the feeling that it wasn' t a fruitless endeavor. Commissioner Campbell asked staff if the traffic study would be relevant if it was done right now prior to the opening of Lucky' s, since it could cause some congestion on its own. Mr. Smith said that the other argument was that traffic studies shouldn' t be done in the summer because the traffic flows were real low, but the traffic engineers that the applicant would hire would have a great deal of familiarity with applying an appropriate cushion over the low season to try and come in with a figure that would depict a realistic number on the street . The same thing applies with the 62 , 000 square foot Lucky' s supermarket . This was not the first 62 , 000 square foot Lucky' s supermarket that has been done, so they would take a look at the other examples and see what the traffic flows were in and out of them. They would apply it to this and through that manipulation of the numbers, they would come up with what they would hope would be a realistic traffic level on Deep Canyon at the Deep Canyon/Highway 111 intersection. He felt that it could be done . Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he knew Mr. Bartlett and he has dealt with him at some length in the past and he is a good friend of Mr. Godecke and had also met with him on this particular issue . What the applicant asked for was guidance from the Commission and indicated that he would give his as one commissioner. He was inclined to move adoption of the staff recommendation that this matter be continued. He was not unmindful of the guidance that the applicant was seeking, although he could only tell them that it was his view that when the city adopts a General Plan and adopts a Specific Plan and when an applicant goes through and meets the conditions of approval and have done everything they've been asked to do in order to develop their private property and their business interests and they pursue their profession. He felt that by and large the applicant has done that with some residual issues that they have to settle with the Architectural Review Commission. He noted that in the resolution with the Lucky' s shopping center Mr. Bartlett obtained an attorney from Los Angeles who negotiated a document between Hidden Palms, Dennis Godecke and the owners of Lucky where they addressed many of these issues, 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 l specifically including a condition in perpetuity that the property owner maintain the foliage of the landscaping so that the dead, dying and removal issue never came up. It appeared to him that they have a problem with ARC and he didn' t know what it was as this was the first he has heard of it . If the project were to be continued, the applicant would have to deal with them. He checked with the Planning Director who said that ARC' s recommendations were recommendations to the Specific Plan which were ultimately under the Planning Commission' s jurisdiction and therefore any appeals from ARC' s rule making or recommend making were subject to the Planning Commission' s review. He didn' t feel that they had the opportunity to meaningfully review it tonight since he just heard it for the first time . While he normally afforded great deference to staff because of the track record of excellent work they have done, by the same token he was not willing to accept a recommendation that they have serious concerns with without at least taking a look at it further. As an independent ground for continuing this hearing, if they couldn' t resolve their differences with ARC, he would like to see something a little more definitive on their claim of bias or ARC dealing with them unfairly. With respect to the traffic study, he thought they would need one to move forward and as far as he was concerned, based on mi staff' s work on this project if they did receive ARC approval and if they did work with the residents of the area and achieve some reasonable consensus, and he knew there could be unreasonable people on both sides of every issue, but within reason and if the traffic study indicated there wasn' t a problem, he was prepared to vote for approval of the project along those general guidelines and subject to whatever might come up in front of him at a future public hearing. If that was the guidance they were looking for, that was about as specific as he could be . Commissioner Fernandez agreed with Commissioner Ferguson. He believed that the Palm Desert Planning staff was one of the best he has ever come across and the only thing he could suggest was that he saw a lot of positive things and heard a lot of good things from the community that they want this project, so in that respect, he was leaning more towards approval tonight, but he would like this continued to allow the applicant to continue working with all parties . Commissioner Campbell stated that she concurred with both Commissioners and she would be in favor of this project and after hearing the public testimony, she felt that a lot of people were in favor of the project and she sat on the Commission when the Lucky' s supermarket was being approved, but she would like to have a complete recommendation from the 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 taw Architectural Review Commission and have the traffic study completed, if possible . She was in favor of a continuance . Chairperson Beaty said that he was still undecided. Under no circumstances would he vote to approve it without a traffic study or the Architectural Review Commission approval, but he also didn' t feel comfortable with the size and scope and the ambitious nature of the project, although he would support a continuance without saying that he was in favor or opposed. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would like to "drop an asterisk" by his comments . The last time he provided that analysis for a project he got reversed on a 5-0 vote by the City Council, as did staff, and he was sure that the applicant was aware of that and the Commission didn' t always prevail . Mr. Drell noted that the applicant did receive an Architectural Commission approval . What the Commission was saying was that they wanted to refer the matter back to the ARC for a reexamination, but they approved something and it was as described by Mr. Smith. The project was cut back to a certain extent on the corner. If the Planning Commission was referring the matter back to them, they should be given some specific direction. Chairperson Beaty said that it sounded like the project had an approval that the applicant didn' t agree with and they were appealing it . The applicant concurred from the audience . Mr. Drell clarified that the Architectural Commission looks at the whole project since they are architects, but technically the Planning Commission was ruling on the use and was the ultimate authority, other than the City Council , on the site plan. The Architectural Commission was technically looking for design issues, design of the building' s aesthetic appearance . They offer their opinion and in this case they conditioned their approval of the architecture and the design of the appearance on changes to the site plan. So they were kind of linked there . He felt that one of the Commission' s directions might be to reconcile that dichotomy and to separate those two items of their action, one the architecture and the landscape plan only and secondly, the site plan issue which they conditioned the site plan issue which they have conditioned the architecture on. Then they could make a determination to over-rule their recommendations concerning the site plan and accept their recommendations concerning the architecture . Commissioner Ferguson said that when he reviewed the minutes from the ARC meeting, he tended to agree with Mr. McFadden 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 that they were sort of summarily dismissed. He would be in favor of asking ARC to revisit the issue . If that is their recommendation, then he would like to give the applicant an opportunity to show the Planning Commission why they should reconsider the ARC' s recommendation, which is their proper role, or if they were able to work something out ARC could rescind their earlier action and modify it accordingly. Mr. Drell agreed that the Planning Commission could request that they do that . Again, their recommendation or their action concerning the site plan is technically a recommendation. The Planning Commission approves site plans, they approve architectural design and landscaping design. This was unusual in that they said that the architectural design was acceptable only if it was made smaller, in essence if the site plan was changed and more landscaping was added to the corner and the canopy was pulled back. Their architectural decision in this case was contingent upon changing of the site plan. The Planning Commission could have them clarify that and reexamine that, but he didn' t feel that ARC dismissed them. They reviewed this project three or four times and finally came to the conclusion that they had gone as far as they were going to go and made an action which allowed the project to proceed. If the Planning Commission wanted ARC to revisit it, the Commission could so direct Ind them. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was hoping that Mr. Godecke, perhaps Mr. Hopp from Hidden Palms, and the applicants could sit down and go through and reach some sort of an agreement which may or may not affect the overall size or shape of the project, sit down with Architectural Review and at least get an agreement in principle that they could live with or they could come back and say that it broke down and explain where it broke down and inform the Commission what they would like to do and the Commission could vote on it one way or another at a future meeting. Whether that was asking Architectural Review to revisit the issue or suggesting that they do so following proper procedure, that is what he would like to accomplish. Mr. Drell said that the applicant has an approval and the Planning Commission could request that they revisit it and the applicant could actually request reconsideration based on specific direction. They could ask that aside from the use, what were specific aspects of the project that they agree with or disagree with. Commissioner Ferguson said that the other thing that was difficult for the Planning Commission was that when he read Mr. McFadden' s letter to Mr. Smith about the ARC minutes, he asked the secretary to pull those minutes and he actually went through them. He didn' t know if the rest of the Commission had an opportunity to review them or were in a position to accept it or not . Mr. Drell asked for clarification that the Commission didn' t receive complete 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Architectural Commission minutes with the staff report package . Commissioner Ferguson replied that he had to specifically ask for them that morning. Chairperson Beaty indicated that he would not be in favor of receiving them on every case . Their function was to serve as the Architectural Review Commission. He took what they recommended as valid recommendations . Commissioner Ferguson said that he didn' t disagree, but he felt the Planning Commission had an over- sight responsibility if their recommendations were called into question. Unfortunately, it wasn' t called into question until orally at this meeting. Chairperson Beaty clarified that as a general rule, he wouldn' t want to receive all of their minutes . Commissioner Ferguson agreed, unless it became an issue . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would move to adopt the staff s recommendation that the matter be continued with the modification that the Planning Commission ask the Architectural Review Commission, subject to discussions between the project developer and residents, to review any modifications proposed by the project developer and that they come back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation at the continued date of the hearing, which might or might not be their next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Drell �. indicated that staff felt it would be unfair to have citizens continuously coming back for hearings if the continuance dates were not met and recommended that the case be continued to a date not certain. When staff received all the information or everyone has gone as far as they are willing to, then staff would re-notice the public hearing and then everyone would know that this meeting would be the one where a decision would be made . Commissioner Ferguson concurred. Commissioner Fernandez agreed and stated that he would second that motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing CUP 96-18 to a date not certain to permit the applicant to complete a traffic impact analysis and requesting the architectural review commission, pursuant to discussions between the project developer and residents, to review any modifications which result from those discussions . Carried 4-0 . B. Case No. 4671 SA - A.G. EDWARDS & SONS, Applicant Request for approval of an exception to %NW the city' s sign ordinance (Section 25 . 68 . 300) to allow a wall sign above 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 the eave line of the building at 72-795 Highway 111 in the PC-3 S . P. zone . Chairperson Beaty informed Commission that some pictures had been distributed for this case . Mr. Alvarez explained that the applicant was seeking an exception to Section 25 . 68 . 300 of the sign code to specifically place a sign above the eave line of a building. The pictures indicated the proposed location of the sign. On a four foot by four foot parapet above this commercial building which is located in the Palms to Pines shopping center approximately 200 feet south of Highway 111 on Plaza Way. The sign would read "A.G. EDWARDS" in blue individual channel letters . The letters themselves would be 18 inches high by ten feet four and a half inches long and the sign would rest approximately 20 feet above grade . The pictures showed other businesses which have received similar exceptions to the sign code . He stated that the proposed sign meets all code requirements except the height or eave line requirement . The Architectural Review Commission gave the sign approval at its August 13 , 1996 meeting and staff recommended approval, subject to conditions . Commissioner Campbell asked if this sign would also be illuminated on the south side . Mr. Alvarez clarified that only the single proposed sign which faces north would be illuminated. Commissioner Campbell asked about the other directional sign and freestanding sign. Mr. Alvarez explained that the signs were part of the previously approved permit for the entire project and that it also met the requirements based on the acreage for the entire Palms to Pines site. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN O'HAY, the sign contractor for the A.G. Edwards project, stated that he was present to answer any questions . Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project . There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for comments or action. Action• Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Ferguson abstained) . 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 n�. Moved by Commissioner Campbell , seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1759, approving 4671 SA, subject to conditions . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Ferguson abstained) . C. Case No. CUP 96-23 - ORRIN AND BARBARA VINCENT, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to construct a garden wall, various private recreational improvements and a gazebo on a separate vacant lot adjacent to the main residence. Improvements will be located at 72-796 Bel Air Road. Mr. Alvarez explained that the applicants were requesting a conditional use permit to enclose a vacant lot which is directly adjacent to their existing residence . They wished to incorporate various private recreational improvements . He noted that the site plan showed the various activities planned, which included a gazebo, a half-court for tow basketball, a putting green with sand trap, bocce ball and a horseshoe pit . The applicant' s would enclose the subject property with a five foot garden wall with a wrought iron fence in the front . The remaining perimeter would be the existing block wall . The applicant' s also planned to remove approximately 64 feet of their side yard to their existing residence to gain access to and from the improved area. The recreational improvements would be limited to the use of the owners and their family. This lot requires a conditional use permit because the owners did not want to consolidate/merge the lot with their existing property. They might want to sell the individual lot in the future . He noted that condition of approval number eight requires a deed restriction to be recorded on the property to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. This would prevent the sale of the lot without the construction of a single family residence or demolition of the improvements without amendment to this conditional use permit . Staff recommended approval to CUP 96-23 subject to conditions . Commissioner Fernandez asked how high the block wall would be; Mr. Alvarez explained that the wall to the front of the property would be five feet with wrought iron fencing, the remaining east and north walls were six feet high. `., Commissioner Campbell asked if a six foot high wall was enough for the basketball court . Mr. Alvarez replied that he 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 i was assuming that it was high enough to prevent errant balls since the backstop actually faced on the east side and the basketballs would ricochet north and south. Commissioner Ferguson said that as a poor basketball player, when he had a backboard adjoining a wall he found himself jumping the wall more then he did making baskets . He asked if that was a problem for the neighbor. The question was directed to the applicant to address . Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. STEVE NIETO, Southwest Concepts in Indio, stated that he prepared the proposed plan and felt that they could resolve that issue by putting up a trellis of some sort with possibly bougainvillea when they completed their landscape plan. He noted that the wall behind it was six feet high but some of the balls might go over the wall . He felt that issue could be addressed. Commissioner Ferguson asked if he contacted that neighbor. Mr. Nieto replied that he did not contact that neighbor, but they had the support of most of the neighbors in the community. That neighbor hadn' t been available . He said that notices were sent out to everyone and there were people in support of the project present . He said that the applicants intended to build a house on that property, but not in the immediate future but in possibly two to three years . They also just recently finished completing a lot of improvements on their existing residence which turned out very nice . He said it was a first class project and they intended to do the same thing on the other side. If there were any concerns from the neighbors, they were willing to work with them. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. BOB PERRY, owner of the property that backs up to the vacant lot, noted that there was a sand trap and he was concerned about golf balls in his yard and about lighting. The applicant indicated that lighting would be only used when the area was in use . Mr. Perry asked if there was any limit as to how late the lights could be on. s Chairperson Beaty noted that the conditions of approval ..i allowed the lights only until 10 : 00 p.m. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 %No Mr. Perry noted that an earlier concern was usage, but it was explained that the use would remain for the family. MR. LEON SNYDER, owner of the property directly across the street from the Bensons, stated that the Bensons within the past year had made extensive improvements to the outside of their property for the architecture and general design of the home. He believed that they now had the best looking home on Bel Air Road and anything they have done has been first class . He felt the same thing would happen to the proposed lot and that it would be a definite asset to the neighborhood without any derogatory effect on their property values . He was in favor of the project . Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Action• Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell , approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1760 , approving CUP 96-23 , subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . D. Case No. VAR 96-6 - JEROME M. BEAUVAIS, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow the construction of a detached accessory structure (garage) within the required 10 foot minimum distance from any main structure at 74-060 San Marino Circle . Mr. Alvarez explained that the applicant was requesting two variances pertaining to building a detached garage in the rear yard of a corner lot at 74-060 San Marino Circle . The first variance was to construct a detached garage three feet eight inches from his existing residence . Section 25 . 58 . 280 stated that the minimum distance required for a detached accessory structure to any main structure is ten feet . Because of the lot' s irregular shape and the fact that Section 25 . 58 . 300 requires that every single family residence have two off-street parking spaces and either a carport or %ON garage, the garage was limited to this location. Staff felt it was justifiable . The second variance dealt with the 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 reduction of a street side setback of 20 feet to 18 feet 6 inches . The applicant wished to construct a 20 feet by 20 feet garage which is required by code, but in addition, he wished to construct a 10 foot by 6 foot section to use for a washer/dryer and photographic dark room. The applicant was aware that he could reduce this section in order to comply to the 20 foot minimum side yard setback, but was requesting the variance. Staff felt that the applicant didn' t encounter any physical hardship in meeting this 20 foot setback and didn' t feel it was justifiable . Staff recommended approval to the location variance, but recommended denial to the second variance to reduce the street side setback to 18 feet 6 inches . Commissioner Ferguson asked what the requirements were for carports and side setbacks . Mr. Alvarez replied that every single family residence was required to have two off-street parking spaces, either a carport or a garage . Mr. Drell said that the code requires a 20 foot driveway for a carport or garage so it wouldn' t make a difference which one he requested. Commissioner Ferguson noted that on the exhibit, directly to the east of the proposed garage structure on the adjoining property there was a carport that was right on the property line between Mr. Beauvais' property and his neighbor. He noted that it would be a side setback for the neighbor and a rear perimeter setback for the applicant . He asked if the neighbor' s carport was in compliance with city code . Mr. Drell clarified on the map the location of the variances in conjunction with the neighbors . Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. JERRY BEAUVAIS, the applicant, distributed some photographs of the area for the Commission. He stated that this neighborhood is an old neighborhood in the Palma Village area. Most of those dwellings were built in the 1940s . He said that not only were the lots irregular as a result of San Marino Circle, which his house faces, it was a horseshoe shaped street . As a result the lots were kind of bunched around and when the houses were built they were built kind of askew and catercorner because it was well before the Planning Commission came in. The house that he' s owned for the past 16 years didn' t sit square on either street that it abuts . It sits a bit catercorner. When he first conceived of this project to build the garage, he went around to the various garages his house is surrounded by. All the houses that were there have setbacks . The houses surrounding the setbacks do not meet city 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 �+ requirements and he understood the position of "so what if other people were breaking the law, that didn' t mean he could" , but he was going to make the request any way. Of the four structures surrounding his house, two of them have setbacks of 15 feet from the property line . One has a setback of 13 feet and another one has a setback of 14 feet . On the property that is a mirror image of his property across the street on the other side of the circle, that garage is 13 feet back from the street . He understood Mr. Drell' s position that he doesn' t want the garage to impact on the city. Mr. Drell ' s requirement was that there was room to park a vehicle without impacting on possible future sidewalks that might be installed, but because of the age of the neighborhood and the houses involved in every direction in there, he questioned that it should be necessary for him to comply when everyone else adjacent to his house has done something else . Mr. Beauvais said that Mr. Drell wanted him to put his garage further back into the lot and that the darkroom and laundry room were the problem, but he could do without them. The reason he didn' t want to move that garage back into the house area was because if he put this garage 20 feet back it would push it into the screened porch area that faced east i.r which was his living room and if he pushed the garage back into that corner, he would look out his living room window at his garage wall . Not only would it impact the view from his living room, it would seriously cut down on the light coming into the living room. He also pointed out that when he purchased this house 16 years ago it was a shack. It was un-insulated and had no air. He was just recently offered $170, 000 because he had spent a lot of time upgrading this house and he would compare it to anything on the south side of Highway 111 . The only area that hadn' t been upgraded was the back corner. He indicated that he has gone from one area to the next around the house making improvements . He said that the problem was not the laundry room, but pushing the garage back into and in front of two screened-in porches so that it would be three and a half feet away from one screened-in porch and the back screened-in porch would be approximately seven feet away and they would be looking at a large stretch of wall . He was not asking for something that every other neighbor in the neighborhood didn' t already have . The houses that were recently built in those neighborhoods on vacant lots had houses that were set far enough back on rectangular lots and everything was done correctly, but the majority of %NW the neighborhood was built in the 1940s and nothing was built to take care of this and if he built this garage 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 in compliance with the code requirements he would too destroy the value of the house. He said that he would also like to put in a red brick courtyard with trellises and bougainvillea to make that view really inviting. He said that there was a misunderstanding because he asked for two variances, one to bring the garage within three and a half feet of the house and the second variance because his back property line was the neighbor' s side property line . Mr. Drell clarified that it could have been either way, they could have said this was an attachment to the main structure and then it would have been a rear setback variance, but in that it was completely detached, he was subject to the detached structure which allows a five foot setback in the rear. The applicant didn' t apply for the second variance, staff noticed that he was also not in compliance with another section, so they told him that in order to get this done, he would need another variance . Again, staff wasn' t arguing any of the aesthetics, it was just that the city forefathers felt that it was important to have a 20 foot garage and driveway. While staff agreed that there were physical hardships that required the applicant to site the garage in this location, moving the garage back 18 inches staff did not feel was a J significant hardship. Commissioner Campbell asked if the garage was for two cars . Mr. Beauvais said that it was one car and a half . He said that there was a city ordinance that states that for a house built before a certain time period, which his house was, without ever having had a garage they were allowed to build a one car garage . Mr. Drell said that there was nothing that stated that, he was just legal non-conforming and the city could not force him to build any garage . Anything that he builds would make him closer to conforming and was something the city would encourage . Commissioner Campbell said that if Mr. Beauvais was only going to use the car for one garage, she asked if Mr. Beauvais could put his laundry and darkroom on the other side of the garage . Mr. Beauvais replied that he could, although there wasn' t any storage area for the house, but the laundry room was off to the side and it was in the back. It was also away from the structure so it didn' t really impact on what was happening. The impact was pushing the garage back into the visual area. He said that he measured that area today and it was more then a foot and a half, but the garage still pushes back too far into that area. All he was asking for was what everyone else has done in that area. goo 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson noted that staff was asking Mr. Beauvais to push back his garage 18 inches, but the diagram showed half of his screen-in porch having its view obliterated. Mr. Beauvais explained that the way he designed it was for two feet of that porch to be cut off . The garage being 20 feet deep, where he had the garage set in conjunction with the property line right now, it would take up two and a half feet of that porch. If he pushed it back any further, it would take up about four feet and would turn the court yard into a dog run. Commissioner Ferguson noted that the variance requirement/ finding for the commission to make was that it was a material hardship to the applicant, not that it would bring him in conformity with all of the neighbors and what they have . The reason he was asking about how far this would push back the garage into the porch was that Mr. Beauvais had made the statement that this would depreciate his property value if it was built as the city was requesting. He asked if there was any estimate on what kind of impact that would have on his financial value . Mr. Beauvais said that he was a carpenter and he would invite anyone to see it . It was built like an old world cabinet . People would walk in and say that they've never seen anything like it in the desert and the garage would "put the skids" on 16 years of turning this house into a really neat three bedroom house . He said that he was offered in the $170 , 000 range and the guy told him not to build the garage, but to stop and leave it the way it is . The last house that sold in the neighborhood was Jim Sattley' s house and it sold for $142 , 000 and that was astronomically high. The average price was usually $120, 000 . If the garage was built there it would ruin everything. Chairperson Beaty noted that there was no else present to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he did go look at the house today and it was remarkably different then all the houses around it and it was obvious that the applicant put a lot of capital investment and the sweat of his own brow into building this house and he didn' t want to be unkind by saying that others in the area were distressed, but the pictures showed that it was a pretty distressed area. Mr. Beauvais stated that in general on his street, people have been fixing up their houses, but on San Marino Way which was the block behind him, they weren' t as fortunate . Commissioner Ferguson said that the variance being requested of 18 inches as seen most visibly on the map that the applicant supplied showed that this would have a detrimental effect on his property that would justify a variance . He applauded what Mr. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 Beauvais was doing for that area and if he could do what the plan suggested, it could only help the property values . Chairperson Beaty said that he had no problem with either variance . Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Ferguson and stated that she also looked at the property. She didn' t have any problems with the request . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would moved to adopt staff' s recommendation except with respect to the second variance and moved that they overturn staff and grant the variance . Mr. Drell indicated that the commission could adopt that the findings shown and have them apply to both variances . Commission concurred. Action• Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Campbell , seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761, approving VAR 96-6 for Section 25 . 56 . 280 and Section 25 . 56 . 190, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . E. Case No. PP 96-8 - ROBERT RAUFMAN/CARDIFF LIMOUSINE, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration and Precise Plan to allow the construction of a 7, 490 square foot warehouse building for storage and light maintenance of limousine vehicles . The subject property is located at 75-095 Sheryl Drive . Mr. Alvarez explained that Cardiff Limousine requested approval of a precise plan to construct a 7, 490 square foot warehouse building on a half-acre parcel for purposes of storing and maintaining limousine vehicles . The subject property is located on the south side of Sheryl Drive approximately 550 feet east of Cook Street . He noted that the building would be two story with a maximum height of 20 feet . Access to the project would be from Sheryl Drive via two driveways . There would be 12 covered parking spaces provided in the rear for employees . One handicapped space would be provided in the front and the entire project would 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 1r met the parking requirement. He stated that the project met all the city, s development standards and the Architectural Review Commission gave the project preliminary approval at its August 13, 1996 meeting. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions . Commissioner Campbell asked how far away from the corner of Cook Street and Sheryl the project would be; Mr. Alvarez replied approximately 550 feet east of Cook Street, which was one parcel east of Harv' s Car Wash. Chairperson Beaty opened and closed the public hearing, noting that the applicant was not present and no one else was in the audience to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval of the variance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . �r Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1762, approving PP 96-8, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Drell summarized pertinent EDAC discussion items . XI. COMMENTS 1 . Mr. Drell noted that at the next Planning Commission meeting there would be an E1 Paseo Overlay Amendment which the City Council initiated a while ago, as well as the telecommunication ordinance. He said that staff received great assistance from the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee W. on both cases and ZORC was now fully engaged in going through 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 the whole ordinance and one of the goals is to change a lot of the decisions the commission has to make that are variances where they have to make extraordinary findings to an exception process for a conditional use process . 2 . Chairperson Beaty commended Commissioner Ferguson on the Desert Post article. 3 . Commissioner Ferguson told Mr. Alvarez that he really liked his staff reports . They contained the best elements of Steve Smith' s reports which were long and narrative that he really liked, and Jeff Winklepleck' s which were the findings that are required. He felt that Mr. Alvarez put them both together. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting to September 17, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 9 :27 p.m. • � f`2i f� PHILIP DREL , Secretary ATTEST: /, / (�. PAUL R. BEATY, Chai erson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 40 City of Palm Desert / Planning Commission RECEIVES Cam' s Corner ( 9612 . 00) - Sept 3, 1996 Introduction: SEP - 4 1996 JOMMUNTy DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT In review of the staff report I received today I oun f � kERT written description of the project from our last Public hearing. This description on pages 36 thru 39 of your staff report adequately describes the project, so I will not re- present the project to you tonight. I will however present a five part synopsis delineating our progress to date. This will consist of this introduction, the Opposition, The Arc Committee, The Specific Plan and Conclusion. Is this a controversial project? Well perhaps not as controversial as the Eagle Mountain land fill . My definition would not be controversial, but ambitious . There is no doubt some various legitimate concerns which we can deal with. Unfortunately along with the legitimate came the frivolous and your charge in that respect is the same as mine. Deal honestly and fairly with those which can be mitigated and ignore those which are intended to cloud. Last week I was told that this project will not be approved since we have only approved two gas stations in 15 years . Well all I can say to that is we better start planning. The growth of this city has not yet been stopped and in fact there are a number of projects in the works that would indicate it' s not going to stop either. I firmly belive as a citizen that the east end of the city needs this project: It will serve the concentrated use at that end and influx from Indian Wells . This project is in complete conformance with the General Plan, zoning Ordinance and satisfies a number of issues evident in the Specific Plan. Everyone who has reviewed the Architecture has been impressed (including the ARC Committee) it is not a "Standard" Station. The number 1 problem we have encountered is with the USE . O Gee, it ' s a gas station, let' s plant-it out behind landscaping and walls, let' s hide the gas pumps from the street . . . we can' t bury pumps or the building, let ' s site the building against the corner and hide the gas pumps with the building. These are all resolutions we have been dealing with. Unfortunately they all guarantee one thing - an economically unsuccessful project. We may not be discussing the best type of project tonight, but we are discussing the best project of its type. Let' s dispel a few myths, prior to hearing from the opposition later tonight. This type of project does not generate traffic. It serves off of existing traffic or traffic generated by others . Will the successful approval or denial of this project have any bearing on the gas moguls? Will it contribute to or prevent another oil spill? The answer is probably not . But on a smaller scale will it serve the community and more specifically the neighborhood with goods and services in a more convenient and accessible manner. Will it provide additional Tax Base for the City to deal more effectively with anticipated growth? I think so. Planning Commission page two . . . RECEIVED s S F - 4 1996 The OppoS it ion: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CrrY OF PALM DESERT The public opposition of this project has been choreographed by a couple of individuals, including the development of the form letter which has aroused additional involvement. These individuals were also responsible for imposing their interest utilizing similar tactics against the Lucky' s Shopping Center. I have no problem with opposition it' s only the validity of solicited opposition. In the same vain we have solicited support for the project. It' s value is no less than that of the opposition. Please find here for the record a list of nearly 100 names which we spent the Labor day weekend collecting. As a matter of interest we found on a door-to-door survey of the Grove project only one individual that would not sign this letter of support. It is my opinion that had we the opportunity to solicit response for / and against our project simultaneously in the same questionnaire presenting both points of view. We would have received more support from within the ranks of the opposition. I developed this idea when I returned from vacation, Jim (my partner) showed me an editorial in the public record which quoted two individuals in opposition to the project. I then read his ' form letter' response where he states that he is not in full agreement with the content of the form letter and that any improvement would be better than what is existing. Jim spoke with the editor of the Public Record and felt that it was an unfortunate oversight that the reporter did not attempt to get our opinion or anyones opinion in favor of the project. RECEIVED Planning Commission page three . . . SEP - 4 1996 The ARC Committee: COM41l�N�TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT We have been before the ARC Committee 4 times and a M currently have conditions of approval, these conditions especially the canopy reduction seriously threaten the economic sensibility of proceeding forward with the project . Let me explain chronologically: We thought the first ARC meeting would go pretty well since we had met with planning staff and public works and were aware of some of their concerns . Public works was quite impressed with our site solution as it resolved some serious concerns with the proposed cul-de-sac. There were a few issues which as yet needed to be resolved. They were the concerns that ARC would have with the Highway 111 and Deep Canyon frontages . What our involvement would be in the improvements in the public right-a- way or would there be a complete abandonment . The final determination of zoning definition and its impact to the project. Would it be classified as commercial/retail with 15% landscaping required or automobile repair station at 20% . Mr Godeckes issues had already been addressed prior to this meeting. All went as anticipated, we were assigned the more stringent landscaping requirement along with some other minor issues which would require some plan modifications . Then we came to our final Commissioner' s comment and his request to reverse the entire site layout (See June 11 mt' g. minutes pg. 9 ) . Initially shocked, I indicated that although I did not think it was a good idea, but we would look into it. Two issues came out of this meeting which would prove difficult to resolve and pretty much became the subject of the next two meetings . Landscape screening and site reversal . We discovered in the second meeting that our interpretation of the word "screening" was incorrect. We found that screening could not be accomplished with landscaping alone, since everyone knows that it will be pruned, killed or later removed to satisfy the needs of the user, this is according to ARC committee members . Our Narrative explanation of why we did not reverse the site, was due to the fact that fundamental fuel station site design requires one of two (preferably both) site access criteria. One, immediate egress to the major thoroughfares it serves and two, in the case of an imboard pump location you must have another commercial use (retail stores, restaurant or hotel) on the imboard side. Since our site had neither scenario, our plan as designed is the best solution for an economically successful project. Our response from the commissioner was that this criteria is recognized, but that there are examples in the desert, that demonstrate the rare exception. I pointed out that we were aware of the station that he designed that ignored this r, criteria and that I was also told that they attribute a 30% loss of business directly attributed to ,the inhospitable site layout and that fuel company will not consider building another station of that layout in the desert. Planning Commission page four . . . RECEIVED S E P - 4 1996 The ARC Committee (Cont) : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PAM DESERT Let' s jump ahead to the specific plan for a moment. Our project area is identified within as a Gateway sub-area D on ( 1) page 24 . . . . . . . . . this clearly supports our fundamental site planning issue. Our third meeting we felt was pivotal, we couldn' t dissuade the reversal issue since we felt it was founded on a personal bias . So we decided to provided a photographic study of the stations we had reviewed around the desert previously to support our site layout and narrative. The abandonment of the public right- a-way had been determined along with the landscape coverage requirement. We made some significant site adjustments and incorporated screened wall and berm elements to satisfy the need for "screening" according to the ARC committee. We also provided a site line study to demonstrate that the pump locations view from the scenic corridors had been mitigated. AT the close of this meeting the chairman made a motion to approve the plan as drawn with conditions, since in his opinion we had come along ways and the project was acceptable . He could not obtain a second since he was reminded that there was a couple of landscape issues that could not be resolved unless the committee saw a revised plan. We took our final continuance. Our final meeting at ARC was comical. I was on vacation and my partner, Jim attended. The purpose of this meeting was to review the revised landscape plan which resulted in a hung motion at the previous meeting. When it came to our turn on the agenda our favorite commissioner made a motion to approve the project with conditions and without any further discussion. He struck a line across the plan increasing the size of the diagonal planter from 30 ' to nearly 50 ' and decreasing the Canopy Overhang 44% and Fuel dispensers from 12 to 10 . Prior to him completing his motion he received a second. No revised plans, no discussion, not even a completed motion. In my opinion this is a classic definition of a railroad job. We were proceeding forward with the objective members of the ARC Committee and I feel as though our concise objective responses were being squelched by one individuals personal preference, which in light of our last meeting appears to be the entire committees concensus since he obtained a unanimous vote. Planning Commission RECEIVED page five . . . The SQecific Plan: P -� 4 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Commencing in February 1986, The City Council and RDA board appointed a 30 member citizens advisory committee and along with Planning and Public works staff hammered out the Commercial Core Specific Plan. This project took nearly 17 months from inception to adoption and I am sure at considerable expense to taxpayers . Since staff had not mentioned its recommendations or findings in its report to the commission or to Architectural Review Committee I would like to highlight those findings tonight. We had also intended to present these issues to Architectural Review Committee at the last meeting, but the decorum of the meeting prevented us from doing so. (2 ) Our proposed project lies within two of the studies sub-areas . These are defined as sub-area A North Highway 111/Alessandro and sub-area D Gateways - Monterey West and Deep Canyon East. We have already discussed Area D (Gateway) earlier so I will move on to the North Highway 111/Alessandro sub-area which is (3) the location of our project. They are () . The Committee identified four specific issues impacting this area and specifically related to this project are issues 2 and 3 . (4) Issue 2 . Limited depth of commercial zone. () Due to the limited lot depth and the stringent parking .. requirements, buildings are usually limited . . . More ambitious projects are needed. Our parking layout will be seamlessly tied to the existing project next door. At a minimum this will be the incentive required for Somkey' s to upgrade their parking lot and ultimately their facility. (5) Issue 3 . Replacement or remodeling of obsolete or nonconforming buildings () Our project commences the domino effect that the Lucky' s shopping center started and as the property value' s increase due to the implementation of our project, future improvements are sure to work their way westward reversing the cycle of decline that the specific plan references . ( 6) Under the specific policies for these sub-areas section h. states that: Incentives shall be created to encourage the remodeling or replacement of obsolete older buildings and uses . What the Specific Plan states here is that the City will be willing to put there money where there mouth is . And shall financially support the findings of this report if need be. (7 ) The Specific Plan also makes mention of the problems associated with the frontage road. () The Specific Plan indicates no absolute solution. I feel however that we comply with the tow spirit of the specific plan as our solution is recognized as much more efficient than the proposed cul-de-sac. RECEIVED Planning Commission page six . . . SEP - 4 1996 Conclusion COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CfTY Of P"DESERt The requirements from the last Architectural Review Committee meeting were orchestrated to deliver this project a death blow. Let me explain, the fuel dispensers are critical to the economic sensibility of this project. My client has done alot of studying prior to proceeding with this project . There are currently two renditions of this canopy / fuel dispenser utilizing 12 dispensers . There is the two island, 3 pump scenario which has been recommended by the Architectural Review Committee a few times . This will not work on this site due to the additional width requirements and more importantly, the poor vehicle access to the center pump creating inefficient traffic circulation and congestion. The three island two pump scenario is the best solution for this project since it alleviates the vehicle conjestion incurred at the center dispenser and is a more efficient traffic flow. Our plan illustrates a trash / window wash dispenser at the center. The 12. dispensers justify the economic investment into this project by our client due to the increased costs over and above a standard fuel station design. . To date we have made the following changes to the plan to accommodate staff and ARC ----> See attached notes <----- We approached ARC with an exciting and ambitious project seeking their participation in the details . We knew this was not the best type of project, but we were charged to make it the best project of it' s type - to set a new standard. What we received was an alternate statement. You do it my way, or it' s the HIGHWAY! I would request tonight that you approve and/or condition this project per our latest plan which we have spent hundreds of hours studying and analyzing. We ask that you do not follow staffs recommendation to deny this project, but that you subject this project to the findings of the traffic study so we can move forward. t