Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1117 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 17, 1998 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER �.. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Assistant Planner Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 3, 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the November 3, 1998 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent November 12, 1998 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 rr/ VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 98-4 - CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY, Applicant (Continued from September 15, October 6, and November 3, 1998) ..J Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 2,900 square foot retail food mart at 72-801 Highway 111 . Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was requesting another continuance to further discuss the traffic study. Public Works was satisfied with it, but apparently the applicant wasn't. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the September 15 minutes condition number seven indicated a maximum of 30 feet and asked if that was a misprint and should be 38 feet. Mr. Drell said it should be 38 feet and there was some clarification needed. They were showing 44 feet from the outside to outside aprons and he wasn't sure where the 38 feet was measured. He suggested that Mr. Greenwood comment on that issue. Mr. Greenwood clarified that Public Works Condition 7 originally did say 30 feet. After some 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 discussion with the applicant it was revised to 38 feet measured from the southerly edge of the existing driveway so that they would be moving it a few feet farther away from Highway 111 . Mr. Drell asked if that width was measured from where the apron meshed with the street or if it was from the extreme limits where it starts to taper down. Mr. Greenwood noted that different applicants design them in different ways, but the most common way was that the driveable area was 38 feet. That would be the area lowered down to the street. Mr. Drell said that as it is now drawn, he measured the existing at 40 feet so they were really only talking two feet they would have to shift it, which was actually influenced by their own curb design. Commissioner Jonathan thanked staff. Commissioner Beaty thought this came up at their last meeting. He said that this was the fourth continuance of this matter and it was a request for additional communication with the Engineering Department and he asked if Mr. Greenwood was satisfied with a continuance to December 1 . Mr. Greenwood said they were satisfied that they have a good description of what to expect now. He wasn't quite sure what additional study the applicant wants to do. So far this had been a relatively limited operational study and if they wanted to do a full in-depth traffic study two weeks wouldn't be enough time. Commissioner Beaty asked the other commissioners if they thought this should be continued to a date uncertain and let it be readvertised when the applicant was ready. Mr. Drell said he believed that on December 1 they would be prepared and would have a resolution before commission. They weren't required to acknowledge the continuance request and if they know as much as they could, they could make a decision. Commissioner Beaty noted there was a resolution before them this evening. Mr. Drell felt they should be given another chance. Mr. Greenwood indicated that commission had Public Works' opinion on this issue and asked if there was anything more the commission would like them to look at and if they were headed in the right direction. Commissioner Beaty clarified that they were questioning Chevron, not Public Works. Mr. Greenwood said he would like the next meeting to be the last one so if there was anything additional that the commission needed he would like the opportunity to get it. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, to continue Case No. CUP 98-4 to December 1 , 1998 by minute motion. Commissioner Jonathan felt that Commissioner Beaty's point was well taken 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 and requested that staff communicate to the applicant that there appears to be an inclination to move forward with this matter on December 1 , 1998 and they might be well advised to come here and be prepared with some kind of presentation. Mr. Greenwood said that they would pass that along to the project traffic engineer. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained). B. Case No. CUP 91-8 Amendment - SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CHURCH, Applicant (Continued from October 20, 1998) Request for approval of a one-year time extension to a conditional use permit to allow the temporary use of a five-acre parcel west of the existing facility to locate a 6,400 square foot classroom building and a 280-space parking lot at 73-251 Hovley Lane West. Mr. Drell indicated that some correspondence was received from Southwest Community Church reiterating their commitment to comply with the permit and they have replanted eight queen palm trees on the west side of the temporary building. He noted that Mr. Richards was in the audience to report on his perception of the current state of affairs. Chairperson Campbell noted that public hearing was still open and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. JIM RICHARDS, 40-840 Avenida Estrada, said he wasn't with the church, but they have been in contact with the church administrators and since the last hearing the neighborhood was very pleased with the response from the church. He felt that over time they were getting better communication and the Planning Commission had been a great help in facilitating this and they were hearing their concerns. The church was willing to compromise, the neighbors were willing to compromise and the church had been very proactive since the last meeting and the neighbors found nothing that was an open item right now. He thanked the Commission and church for their efforts. Chairperson Campbell stated that if there were any problems in the future, Mr. Richards could let the Commission know. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 MR. JERRY WILEY, 40-900 Avenida Estrada, stated that he was one of the homeowners that lives close to Mr. Richards and he was pleased to report that they have been working with Southwest Community Church, with Roger Phillips, and they have resolved all of their issues. Their commitment was to continue to work with the homeowners in the area and the homeowners' recommendation was to grant the one year extension request. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and for commission comments. Commissioner Fernandez thanked the neighbors and church for being able to get together and communicate. He believed if this had happened sooner, they would have been able to approve the request the last time. He was pleased and was in favor of the program and extension of one year. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification on the date of the extension--if it would be from September 30, 1998. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Beaty asked the church staff if they were comfortable with that date. Mr. ~" Phillips spoke from the audience and said that the continuance to September 30, 1999 was fine. Chairperson Campbell asked if they were planning to be open in July. Mr. Phillips said they planned to start moving in July and beginning to have services in September. Chairperson Campbell asked for other comments or a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving a one-year time extension of Condition No. 7 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP/CUP 98-17 - T. MICHAEL HADLEY for ROBERT McLACHLAN, DDS, Applicant (Continued from November 3, 1998) Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit to construct a 9,312 square foot dental office and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto on the C-1 (general commercial) zoned property at the southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Portola Avenue, APN 627-222-054. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 i r Mr. Smith noted that the site plan and colored elevation plans were on display. He indicated that the site at the southwest corner of Portola and Highway 1 1 1 was formerly occupied by ARCO. It has been vacant for some time since ARCO relocated to the north side of Highway 111 . There is an existing frontage road across the north end of this site which connects to Portola Avenue. As a part of this application that portion of the frontage road would be vacated. The frontage road would turn southerly and connect into the Presidents Plaza parking lot. The goal was to remove that intersection from Portola to try and improve traffic flow. The request was for a two-story dental office building with customer service on the first floor and a laboratory on the second floor and general office space on the second floor also. Along the westerly portion of the site there was a driveway connection into the Presidents Plaza parking lot along with seven parking spaces under a carport structure to provide shade. Access to the site would be from Presidents Plaza or from the frontage road. There was a slip ramp westerly of this location which would also provide access to those seven parking spaces. Mr. Smith noted that the parking requirement was recently amended up to six parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of building with a reduction for nonuseable area. ? In this case the 15% reduction was warranted in the form of hallways, stairways, elevators, and mechanical rooms. He noted that the site is adjacent to Presidents Plaza parking lot. When Presidents Plaza parking lot was originally constructed the City agreed that vacant parcels could be developed to one story in height between the setbacks. Mr. Smith said that when you look at the size of this property it is currently 12,600 square feet. If they take out the setback areas on the east and north, they were left with a buildable area on the first floor level of 11 ,400 square feet which equates to 46 parking spaces which they are entitled to in the Presidents Plaza parking lot. That coupled with the seven parking spaces provided onsite gives them a total of 53 spaces. They comply with the parking requirement. The architecture was shown on the colored renderings and was basically desert contemporary and setbacks were met five feet from the front and sides. Being the street setbacks, they were not required to have setbacks from the other two perimeters. Building height would be 29 feet at it maximum point. The code limit is 30 feet. Staff noted that the upper story was not a full second story. It is setback considerably from the front. Findings for the approval of the precise plan and conditional use permit were outlined on pages three and four of the staff report. The matter was reviewed for compliance with CEQA and f a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. Staff I 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 %W recommended it be certified this evening and concluded that the recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the parking calculation. He asked what the approximate size was of the first floor. Mr. Smith replied 6,100 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan said that in their collective experience most developers tried to maximize the footprint on any given lot, so it was quite a discrepancy between a 6,100 square foot footprint and 11 ,400. The footprint that exists now would accommodate 6,100 square feet and presumably if they could have expanded that to 11 ,400 and gone two stories they could have gotten a 22,800 square foot two story building, yet their footprint is only 6,100 square feet. Given most developers' tendency to maximize a footprint on a site, he was wondering if staff's calculation of a potential 11 ,400 square foot single story building was accurate and if staff took into account landscaping ratio requirements, parking, traffic, driveways, sidewalks, setbacks, easements, utilities, etc. Mr. Smith stated that the property as it presently exists and as shown on the survey attached to the last page of the plans circulated to commission, they actually did the calculations and he thought the discrepancy Commissioner Jonathan was observing was that they were still including the property that is part of the driveway and the parking on the westerly side of the property. That was at least a third of the property. In addition, they reduced the five foot setbacks around the perimeter in both instances. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was the other layout, what kind of single story building they could get: 6,000 or 7,000. Mr. Drell clarified that in the calculation of the existing area of the lot Mr. Smith included the driveway to the west but it did not include the area shown in green which was being vacated to the applicant in exchange for the driveway to the west. Mr. Drell said what was happening here was in the normal configuration the building could have been built all the way over with a zero lot line up against the building to the west. Instead, they did an exchange with the frontage road area being given to the applicant and the applicant was dedicating roughly an equal area of that driveway. In a normal commercial project the setback would only have been five feet off of Highway 1 1 1/off the frontage road in the front. In this case it was a setback of 24 or 25 feet and that was part of their deal. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was consistent with the other properties. Mr. Drell said no, they have a setback of five feet off of their property line. The alignment was consistent but what was different was they took property from them on the side and in exchange we gave them property in the front which they are not utilizing. They were not 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 a/ putting a building on it. They were providing greater setbacks in that area, therefore that area would go into the calculation of how much they would be entitled to. Commissioner Jonathan said given that arrangement, if they came into the city, instead of a two-story building and given that configuration with the reconfiguration of the frontage road and so forth, if they came in with a single story structure application, if they could built an 11 ,400 square foot office building there. Mr. Drell said that technically, according to the setbacks, yes. There was no landscape ratio in the C-1 zone other than landscaping the required setbacks. Commissioner Jonathan asked if including all the requirements they could do that. Mr. Drell said that was correct. What was anomalous here was the city didn't give them that choice. Where they'll do this frontage road exchange, they didn't let them build out to the corner, but technically that was real estate they own and they gave them credit for it. From an aesthetic point of view they didn't want them building out to the corner but gave them credit in terms of square footage. Under the existing situation they could have built that 11 ,000 square feet in the normal configuration. Because of the city's desire to reconfigure the lots and get property from them for free, they were doing this real estate exchange by giving them land on the north side which they really couldn't build on and the city gets land. To make the land the city was giving them have some value, they were saying they would count it as if they could have built on it with the single story calculation. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood that but the perception problem he was having and the "reality check" was the City's deal on Presidents Plaza parking lot was that they could develop the empty lots but they would give them credit for a single story structure at four spaces per 1 ,000 and here comes before the commission a two-story structure requiring six spaces per 1,000 and the calculation was saying that the parking requirement was the same. Looking at it, he wondered how the two could be the same. Mr. Drell clarified that they weren't building setback to setback, instead of building in that 20 feet in front and since they weren't maximizing their development on the first floor, they were making up that square footage on the second floor and were adding seven spaces on their property. Commissioner Jonathan said he would like to process that, but thought that part of the reason the developer was doing it was that like most developers, they weren't magnanimous, they weren't doing it because they want to beautify our city, but they have an understanding of what they need to do to get the project passed. He had doubts as to whether a single story 11 ,400 square foot structure with a zero lot line separation from the adjacent building and five feet from Highway 111 on a busy corner like that would ever be 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 passed. Mr. Drell said it would have been five feet from the frontage road which was the exact same setback as any other building. Commissioner Jonathan said he would like to process it, but he has looked at that corner, looked at the plans and he couldn't conceive that the city would ever permit an 1 1 ,400 square foot building. He heard what Mr. Drell was saying and would process that information as the discussion continued. Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification that the request wasn't for 11 ,400 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan said no. Commissioner Beaty asked if Commissioner Jonathan was just trying to clarify a point, but wasn't addressing tonight's issue. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that he was addressing tonight's issue. Regarding the calculation of parking, the basic deal was that if there was a building that comes before commission that is single story and has a normal parking requirement of four per 1 ,000, there was sufficient parking in Presidents Plaza. What was before them wasn't a four per 1 ,000, it was a two-story building at six per 1 ,000, both which were deviations from the deal. His interpretation of what staff was telling commission was that the parking requirement was the same for this project which is two story six per 1 ,000 as compared to what is normally permitted in Presidents Plaza under the deal the city has which is single story four per 1 ,000. That was the reality check problem he was having. He asked how a single story four per 1 ,000 have the same parking requirement as a two-story six per 1 ,000. That was where the paragraph in the staff report was going through a calculation that says in theory they could have built an 11 ,400 square foot single story building there and therefore this is the same. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MICHAEL HADLEY, 16 Cedar Tree Lane in Irvine, stated that he was the applicant and architect for the owner of the property, Dr. Robert McLachlan. As Mr. Smith outlined, when this project first started the design phase they worked with the Planning Department to determine the probable realignment of Highway 1 1 1 and Portola and in particular the abandonment of the frontage road. It was suggested that they bring it down to the west side of the property as illustrated and that was accomplished. The Planning Department also assisted them in the determination of setbacks, parking requirements, building heights and so forth. He addressed the issue of the size of the building and its `, orientation. Dr. McLachlan as the owner would also be the occupant 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 mod and this would be his dental practice for the rest of his career and for his son who had recently joined the practice. It wasn't a commercial venture in the sense that it is a medical dental building for lease. He was the sole occupant of the project. It was never their desire to fill the site. He had specific needs of about an 8,000-10,000 square foot building. They chose this site because of its location primarily with respect to Highway 1 1 1 and Portola. There were several reasons they oriented the building the way it is. For one, he thought it was a real asset to the city that the El Paseo shops and retail outlets all faced El Paseo and it was a very pleasant pedestrian experience and vehicular experience. That didn't work for this project because it is not a strolling type of building. It is a destination building. The only people coming there were the patients of the dental office and with the proximity of the parking in Presidents Plaza it made sense to pull the building all the way to the Plaza and leave a large setback on Highway 1 1 1 . They also wanted to do that because Dr. McLachlan was very desirous of this building being a very nicely sited building with lush landscaping on the corner. He is participating in the civic art project and there would be a + large sculpture at the knuckle of the frontage road. With regard to the �t second story, there were several reasons for wanted to do that as opposed to a more massively spread out single story building. One was to keep the traffic of patients and doctors on the first floor as compact as they could. All the functions on the second floor were secondary to the actual dental practice. There was a lab up there that patients would not go to and there were doctors' private offices and a large work room for staff and that was about it. All the dental functions were on the first floor. All the private office and lab functions were on the second. They purposely held the secondary portion of the building back as far as they could from Highway 1 1 1 to present a lower profile along there. Chairperson Campbell asked how many employees the doctor would have. Mr. Hadley said he didn't know, but at present there were five dentists in the practice and approximately 15 dental assistants and office staff. Chairperson Campbell asked if that would include laboratory technicians. Mr. Hadley said yes, but with the exception of the lab personnel, all other users of the second floor were already onsite. VAJ 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jonathan said he already commented on the parking issue and couldn't swallow it. Number one, the parking lot was a mess to begin with and it was already over utilized and under parked and it might be a good problem to have; nevertheless, it is a problem. Number two, the last dental office they approved they granted an exception to and he didn't know why they created an ordinance and then fought so hard and got so creative in granting exceptions. If they were going to do this with every application, they should change the ordinance back to four or down to two or eliminate the parking requirement. It was rare that they actually stick to it. The 15% reduction was automatic. He didn't know if the ordinance took that into account or not. Without any scrutiny by the commission the reduction was automatic and then they grant the exceptions. If the ordinance was wrong, they needed to change the ordinance. Number three, dental offices in his personal experience were very busy. He visited his own dentist last week, Dr. ... Baumann, and the only parking spot in that whole long parking area he could find was over by Holden & Johnson that says they will kick you out if they catch you there, so he kept looking every few minutes to make sure his car was taken. They are busy and have a lot of traffic between vendors, patients, employees and so forth. He felt the six per 1 ,000 was a minimum requirement. The calculation tried to tell them that a two-story building with a six per 1 ,000 requirement is the same as a single story with a four per 1 ,000 requirement. He understood the basis but he felt that they were going overboard to make assumptions that weren't realistic. He didn't think they would ever allow a 11 ,400 square foot single story building in that corner whether it technically qualifies under the code or not. There were four conditional use requirements having to do with whether this is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. He disagreed and didn't believe it was and disagreed with those conclusions. He thought the architecture was nice and consistent with what they were looking for but to him it was too plain and needed to be spiced up. It was a very visible and busy corner. He thought the architect had shown a capacity for creativity and he wasn't talking about a major change or any major overhauls, but some trellises and points of interest. It was very bland and flat and he felt that inexpensively they could bring out some depth and contract, either with wooden trellises or cement with shingles, 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 i something that would create depth. For those reasons he was not in favor of approval. Chairperson Campbell said that she was in the dental business herself previously and being on El Paseo for 12 years and seeing that corner they way it's been, she felt this would be a great asset to that corner. With the redoing of Presidents Plaza East they have gained about 86-89 spaces. She felt that was working out very satisfactorily right now and people were still learning how to pull in and out and as far as the second floor, even though this was a large building there wouldn't be any usage on the second story. She was in favor of the project. Mr. Drell indicated that Presidents Plaza East gained 70 spaces and Presidents Plaza West gained 140. Commissioner Beaty said he was a little confused with Commissioner Jonathan's comments and they could discuss that later and noted that the staff report said that the project complies with the parking requirement and he was confused with Commissioner Jonathan's analyses. He asked if Commissioner Jonathan was in disagreement with that statement. ' Commissioner Jonathan replied yes. Commissioner Beaty asked staff if that was an incorrect statement. Mr. Drell said that they believe it is in conformance and there had been no exception. He indicated that Presidents Plaza is a different animal in that typically 100% of the parking has to be developed on the pad or lot. Here they have a situation where there was a 12,600 square foot lot that if it were a retail building would not have to require any parking to be developed on it if the building was developed within the setbacks. The purpose of the formula in the code as to how could be built on a Presidents Plaza pad was square footage driven. They use it as an example single story because that was what they felt was the minimum, but it was square footage driven. For example, what they did at the other end with the Gannon building at San Luis Rey where there is a two-story building they went through the same calculation and came up with a two-story building, but it was how much they could build on a single story 12,600 square foot lot pursuant to all the codes, all the setbacks and that was where the 11 ,400 number came from. That was what the purpose of that formula was, to figure out how much building could be built on that pad and as far as the parking ordinance was concerned, they could build it in 11 stories as long as it was still 1 1 ,400 square feet of space. The parking ordinance didn't recognize or differentiate between square footage in one, two or three stories. Commissioner Beaty noted they weren't talking about 11 ,000 but 9,300 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 t.. minus the 15%. He said he utilizes that end of the parking lot and has never had a problem parking. He might in the future, but he hasn't to date and he would accept that. The architecture was reviewed and given approval, so he was prepared to move for approval. Commissioner Finerty stated that she concurred with Chairperson Campbell. If there was any parking problem, it appeared that it would be absorbed by the additional parking spaces so therefore she didn't see a problem with it and was in favor. Mr. Drell said that Mr. Bartlett's other project across the street was going to include 24 public parking spaces in his Nevada Bob's lot across Portola. Commissioner Beaty didn't think anyone would cross Portola. Chairperson Campbell felt that corner would be a great addition. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 �••► (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1903 approving PP/CUP 98-17, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 ( Commissioner Jonathan voted no). D. Case No. CUP 98-17 - PALM ASSOCIATES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of an existing 2,275 square foot building into an El Pollo Loco restaurant located at 73-495 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Alvarez noted that the site was located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and San Pablo Avenue. The existing site has access from Highway 1 1 1 near Coco's Restaurant. There is an egress point where the former drive-thru teller for the bank used to be and another ingress/egress point on San Pablo. The site has an existing 2,275 square foot building which El Pollo Loco would remodel. The site plan on display provided for a total of 23 parking spaces and two golf cart spaces. The existing building has 1 ,934 square feet of usable area and that was how they determined that the site 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 requires 20 spaces. The site plan was modified to eliminate the egress point onto San Pablo, elimination of the drive-thru of the former bank, the trash enclosure area was subsequently designed to the south with additional landscaping added along San Pablo, landscaping would be added on Highway 111 and he noted that the applicant would have to meet the master plan parking lot tree ordinance with the addition of two more. The restaurant would have 50 seats, five shift employees and would operate from 1 1 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. The elevations were on display and the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval of both the architecture and landscaping. The architecture as seen was contemporary Spanish with some 24 foot features added at the corners. He distributed photographs of the existing site. For purposes of CEQA he stated that the project was classified as a Class 3 categorical exemption. Staff believed the findings for the conditional use permit could be made and recommended approval. Chairperson Campbell noted that there were two ingress/egress points on San = Pablo in that area. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if the one that was going to have the egress closed was actually not shown because there wasn't a driveway there where the drive-thru used to be to the street. Mr. Alvarez stated that there was an egress point there that was shown in the photos. Commissioner Beaty thought it had been closed. Mr. Greenwood clarified that originally there were three driveways on San Pablo and there were now today two driveways on San Pablo, none of them adjacent to the building. The two driveways that exist today were both south of the building. Chairperson Campbell said that they didn't have to change the egress because there was no longer a drive-thru right there. Mr. Drell concurred that it was closed when they widened San Pablo. Chairperson Campbell asked what the height was of the present building. Mr. Alvarez stated 18 feet at the top of the roof. Chairperson Campbell asked if they were adding an addition of six feet. Mr. Alvarez confirmed that the highest architectural element was 24 feet. Chairperson Campbell asked if there would just be one architectural projection at that height. Mr. Alvarez concurred, but it would be facing north and east. Chairperson Campbell asked if they were having five shift employees, what the total number of employees would be. Mr. Alvarez deferred the question to the applicant. 1 Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 MR. RICK HOLDEN, Holden & Johnson Architects, stated that he was present to answer any questions and clarify what he could. Regarding the driveway and what exists today, there was still a drive-thru there but nothing was being used. The asphalt paving extends to the existing sidewalk and curb so there was a curb that runs across it but what used to be a drive-thru still exists and the asphalt had never been removed and the overhang was still there. That was proposed to be removed with this submittal. The other question regarding five shift employees, it was his understanding that it meant five employees per shift. The people who would own and operate the restaurant were present. He asked if there were any questions regarding the architecture or site plan. Commissioner Jonathan asked if approval was granted tonight what kind of construction time line they were looking at and if it would move forward in the foreseeable future. He was asking because there was a Del Taco approved a while back and he had yet to see it. Mr. Drell explained that it was because Edison, the property owner, had some problems selling it to them. .. Mr. Holden indicated that the property owner felt he could be up and running by March. Basically they were trying to clean up the building, take off the blue tile and put on a red the which would be more in keeping with the area. Across the street there was a two-story building with a florist and design shop that had the Spanish the and that kind of a look. He felt this would soften up the corner a little as well as use that area. There was some discussion about maybe trying to cut back a little bit on parking to free up the corner a little more and put in some more landscaping. One of the problems they had was that it was an existing site and existing building and since it was developed the ordinance had changed and when they have parking up against the building it didn't leave much room to put in shade trees or other structures. He said they were working with staff to perhaps put in some compact car parking or cut some planters in where they could put in some trees. Basically if they looked at the whole lot there weren't very many trees in that whole center. He understood parking requirements and parking ordinances, but just as a naive individual he said it looks at if there is plenty of parking there that never gets used and he felt it would be nicer to put in some more landscaping around the building and around that corner, but he also understood for the 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 project to stand by itself it needs parking on its particular property. That was what they provided. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Holden was talking about having trees facing Highway 111 . Mr. Holden said that right now they were proposing trees by the use of tree wells. Unfortunately, it was an existing condition and when Caltrans widens the street the edge of the parking would be just about where the new curb lane would be so the only way they could get trees and landscaping in was by cutting wells. They worked with a landscape architect on desert type plantings and trees that were within the shade ordinance and are fast growing and they felt they could probably do it easier on Highway 1 1 1 where it orients east and faces Coco's. They hadn't really shown it yet, but there were about six spaces on the west side of the building and that was where staff had asked them to include some shade so they would cut in some planter wells in there and work + with compact parking or whatever was required to make it work. .r Commissioner Jonathan said that if he put in some shade structures perhaps the city would waive some of the tree requirements. Mr. Holden said that the problem with shade structures was that they then had to meet the handicap requirements for vans and then all of a sudden they had a shade structure taller than the building. From an aesthetic point of view, that wouldn't work really well. Commissioner Jonathan felt that if they had to come in with a modest parking reduction in this particular area he would understand that. He agreed with the applicant's conclusion about the usage of that lot. He didn't think parking had ever been a problem. Mr. Holden said that unfortunately they were asked to provide the parking on the specific site because it is a specific site and not a part of the whole center even though customers coming in would park wherever. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 Commissioner Finerty noted that in the restaurant's name there were 11 letters and the proposed color is red. She asked if Mr. Holden agreed with that. Mr. Holden asked for clarification. Commissioner Finerty explained that in the staff report the sign was proposed to be red individual reversed channel letters, halo lit, and asked if he agreed with the color red. Mr. Holden said they agreed with it basically because they were non- illuminated red. They weren't a clear plexiglass face and didn't light up at night. The light was a solid can and it was lit from behind so that it formed a kind of a shadow pattern. It wasn't the typical light like the one for Office Max red sign just behind it. Instead of only being a foot high those letters would probably be three feet high and they light up from the inside. He found that to be very non-offensive. Commissioner Finerty asked what specific shade of red the letters would be: carnival red or more of a muted red. Mr. Holden said that was a good question because there was Bank of America red, Chief Auto Parts red, and this was theoretically El Polio Loco red, but it was red. He didn't know if he could tell the difference between Bank of America red and El Polio Loco red. Usually the applicant's say they can, but it was meant to be red. Commissioner Finerty explained that her concern was that the letters were proposed for three sides of the building and that seemed like a lot of red with 11 letters on three of the sides. Mr. Holden said the letters were only 12 inches high. He pointed out that Office Max was right behind it, Alcobar was right across the street, and he felt these were very subtle letters in comparison to the ones around it. Chairperson Campbell said it wasn't going to be a neon sign. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 i rl Mr. Holden said the letters themselves wouldn't light up so during the day they would see an approximately 12-inch high red letter. At night the light would shine from behind it and they would see some color from the street lights, but it wouldn't light up red. Mr. Alvarez compared this sign to the lettering used within Desert Crossing with the backlighting against the wall outlining the letter. There wouldn't be any illumination of the action face. Chairperson Campbell noted that the El Polio Loco restaurant in Indio had a lot of posters attached to the windows and she asked for confirmation that they wouldn't have anything like that in Palm Desert. Mr. Alvarez said staff wouldn't encourage it but they are allowed 20 square feet of temporary window signage which is what the ordinance called for. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. j Commissioner Jonathan felt the proposal was an excellent use for that particular location, said he really likes El Polio Loco and moved for approval. Commissioner Beaty concurred and requested that at the next study session they have El Polio Loco for dinner. He seconded the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Finerty stated that she has mixed emotions about this use. She realized that it meets the zoning ordinance and is within code and setbacks, her concern was that Palm Desert, especially Highway 1 1 1 doesn't become a fast food row. They have a number already: Burger King, Carl's Jr., Kentucky Fried Chicken, SubKing, Arby's, McDonald's, etc., and she was concerned about the trend and where they are headed. She wondered if the other commissioners might agree to having a study session to possibly limit the maximum number on major thoroughfares or how many could be in the city or what their thoughts would be with regard to the number of fast food restaurants in this one particular area. Chairperson Campbell asked if she meant after this project was approved. Commissioner Finerty said yes. Chairperson Campbell said she would be in favor of a study # 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 session. She questioned how much property was left or if anyone would bring in anything else and asked what was missing. Mr. Drell commented that he thought there was a good balance of Ruth's Chris and Quistot's and Julienne's. First of all, he didn't believe that the police power in the zoning allowed them to pick tenants. They couldn't choose between a Ruth's Chris and a McDonald's. They were both food establishments that differentiate between price and product but didn't think that was covered by the zoning ordinance, but again, they were still seeing high, low and medium to meet all the needs of all segments of our community. Chairperson Campbell said she considered El Pollo Loco in the same category as Kentucky Fried Chicken and she didn't consider that fast food like hamburgers. Mr. Drell said what they could control were what things look like and how they are designed. Restaurants don't always stay open forever and didn't believe it was within their purview to pick the tenant that would go in there per the zoning. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood Commissioner Finerty's concerns. On the other hand these applications before them are market driven and the applicant was moving forward because he is an investor and he expected the market to demand the product he was offering. Given that, he asked where else they would place fast food establishments in Palm Desert. Highway 1 1 1 was the logical place for these uses to exist. He didn't perceive a problem at this point although he shared the concern. He didn't believe that we have a problem on our hands. If there was a study session, he would attend it, but he didn't feel they had a problem at this time. Commissioner Fernandez felt that El Pollo Loco was needed and it was something different and there was a diversity in the community so they needed to attract some of those restaurants for the different tastes. He welcomed the restaurant and was in favor. Chairperson Campbell concurred and called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1904 approving CUP 98-17, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (November 10, 1998) Commissioner Finerty said the committee discussed the art and leisure trail presentation and basically the consensus was that it be educational, cultural and environmentally focused and there would be a three-hour presentation scheduled December 8, 1998. Chairperson Campbell asked if Commissioner Finerty would be able to attend that meeting. Commissioner Finerty concurred. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (November 16, 1998) Commissioner Finerty said the committee was still discussing the walls and it appeared that there might be a solution with the sound attenuating wall to be built on public right-of-ways. The committee approved that and now it would go to council and they would need to decide their policy issue for the major arterials. An item that might be coming before the Planning Commission would be the Montessori School. Apparently they would like to sell it and the City was interested in purchasing it and they would turn it over to Parks and Recreation for a child care facility. She indicated the current facility at Civic Center Park was bursting at the seams and there were several children from the Palm Desert Country Club area that were attending that child care. Right now the item was an informational one and they were waiting for more details. D. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (November 10, 1998) Chairperson Campbell noted that they discussed an amendment to the adult entertainment ordinance. Staff recommended that the city continue to provide a 500-foot separation between adult entertainment businesses and residential areas, as well as churches. Also, they discussed parking amendments, mini-warehouses and self storage 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 projects. There was a development proposal for the 20-acre site west of Washington on the north side of Country Club. That area was part of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone and the north third of this site would contain a mini-warehouse storage facility and they discussed parking in the mini-storage facilities. Mini-storage uses didn't usually require as many parking spaces as warehouses so they were not going to change the ordinance, but they were going to consider a parking adjustment for that particular development through a conditionai use permit process when that comes before Planning Commission. At that meeting Mr. Smith also suggested that a separate section could be added to the ordinance that would be applicable to mini-storage facilities. The consensus of the committee was to concur with the staff recommendation. XI. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was a rumor circulating that �. Sears was coming into the mall and asked if there was any truth to that. Mr. Drell agreed that was the rumor. Commissioner Jonathan felt that would be disastrous for the city and asked if there was any way at this point to assert any influence or control over the tenants that would be going in there. Mr. Drell said no and explained that hypothetically if Sears was a tenant, the reason why it was hypothetically important that Sears be in the mall was that there was another large department store out there and that large department store would only come and locate in another mall if it has at least one other major with it. If there was another major out there that was willing to link up with one and start another mall that would be more damaging to this mall if another one developed somewhere else. To preempt another mall from being developed, they couldn't have a major floating out there. Commissioner Jonathan said it was hard to imagine that it would cause more problems than having a Sears. He didn't necessarily want to debate it. Their concern when the mall people came before them was some of the present problems and if those would be improved or made worse by the expansion. In his opinion, and he said he could be wrong, but he felt that Sears would make the situation worse. He remembered asking the applicant about the tenant mix and who they were looking to bring in and what impact that would have on the problems they discussed. He 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 a specifically asked the applicant if they would be more likely to bring in a Nordstrom or Montgomery Ward's. The applicant's answer was that it definitely wouldn't be Nordstrom's because they weren't interested in coming here and it definitely wouldn't be Montgomery Wards. He took that to mean they would end up with something in between and he felt they could live with that. He stated that there was nothing wrong with Sears and has shopped there, but for the mall and for the retail image that he thought Palm Desert was trying to create and maintain with the kind of tourist shoppers they were trying to bring into the city, he didn't think Sears was consistent. The merchandise, presentation, and price level they were talking about. He could be wrong but in terms of the retail mix, he asked who the remaining tenants would be in the other 134 spaces because the majors tend to drive that market. Commissioner Beaty felt that some J.C. Penney's were the best but this one has presented itself well and thought it was comparable. Mr. Drell thought that Penney's was in the same category as Sears they will have a vacancy and there weren't many department stores left to fill that vacancy except Nordstrom's and Nordstrom's wasn't prepared to come here. For other communities that have spent money to get Nordstrom's it has turned out not to be a great investment, but great for the shoppers. Mr. Drell said that was the rumor but the motivation was to preempt another regional mall from ever being built. Chairperson Campbell stated that she was in favor of that. They didn't want to go over 1-10 with another mall. 2. Commissioner Beaty noted that staff was going to check into the Realty Executive sign. Mr. Drell said it was an illegal sign and they were out of business. They were moving to get it abated and asked if it was still on because he thought Mr. Smith was going to give Mike Homme a call, who owns the building. The first thing they wanted to do was turn it off because the business was closed. Staff couldn't locate any permits for it and found it had an inactive business license and the place was shut. 3. Chairperson Campbell said that on Alessandro there used to be a taxi service/building and in the building itself they have built out to the sidewalk with boards. Mr. Drell said they have always had a little patio. Chairperson Campbell indicated they enclosed that patio with boards 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 tow that now come all the way out to the sidewalk. Mr. Drell said that staff would check into it. 4. Commissioner Finerty noted that the clothing rack was still out as recently as today in the Lucky shopping center on Washington. Mr. Drell said that he would give the message to Mr. Ponder. 5. Commissioner Finerty asked if on Cook Street from Merle north if that group ever had any landscaping requirements because basically all they have is dirt out in their planters and some of their letters were falling off their signage. She felt it looked really tacky. Mr. Greenwood said there is a project in the works that Public Works was involved with to rebuild the wall, which is structurally damaged, but it was currently not designed to retain earth on either side and it was retaining the parking lot on the high side and to also incorporate some landscaping and decorative or artistic features on the wall. He thought Eric Johnson was in charge of that project and he could have him contact Commissioner Finerty or she could contact Eric. Commissioner Finerty �• said she felt that something needed to be done with it because it has been like that for years. Mr. Greenwood noted that there was also another project in that area to install a traffic signal at 42nd and Cook, remove the stop sign at Velie, median work, a lot of reconfiguring of streets in that area and he thought this landscaping in the wall area on the west side was to precede this other project or possibly be incorporated. There would be quite a bit of work in that area in the future. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that there would be a signal at 42nd. Mr. Greenwood concurred. Mr. Drell said that they were going to take Green Way and redirect it to align with 42nd. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they would ever put a light at Sheryl and Cook. He said there was about an accident a week there. Mr. Drell said that right now they probably have a worse situation with the stop signs because there was a continuous flow of traffic. Mr. Greenwood said that a stop sign and signal are competing in the way they distribute traffic. A stop sign strings them out and a signal groups them up. Commissioner Jonathan said that people try to make a left out of where Harv's is and there was an accident a week. Mr. Greenwood said that Sheryl has never come up. They maintain a continuing high accident location list and Sheryl has never come up in the top 50 that he knew of. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was amazing. He has an office 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 there. Commissioner Finerty concurred that you couldn't turn left there. You would have to go around to Merle and come out at the signal. Mr. Greenwood said they couldn't signalize every intersection or traffic would never get anywhere. He thought there was a site distance with Sheryl that perhaps they could work on to make it a little easier. Chairperson Campbell noted that there were finally trees at the driving range after many years. 6. Commissioner Beaty noted that there was a person selling newspapers in the Lucky center and asked what would happen if they couldn't even have coke machines. He had developed a neat little stand. The vendor was selling different kinds of newspapers and he had a pretty good looking rack. Mr. Drell thought he was probably a squatter and was sure he didn't have permission to sell there. Mr. Hargreaves thought that the city could control that kind of activity. Commissioner Beaty said he wasn't complaining and coke machines never bothered him. Mr. Drell said that the guy who had the clothes rack asked about all these other uses. The city has the ability to say the other things are fine. Under the current ordinance, technically any outdoor sales require a permit so that was what they were looking at. Whether they were going to identify certain outdoor sales, which require only a site plan to determine they are not blocking pedestrian traffic flow. Chairperson Campbell said that Ralph's at Cook and Country Club now had plants outside. Commissioner Finerty said she also saw it. Mr. Drell said that they have always considered nurseries to be appropriate. Commissioner Finerty questioned the use at a grocery store. Mr. Drell said that places seasonally sell at other stores like Home Depot, Home Base and hardware stores. It was also noted that Christmas trees were sold outside. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. 0 PHILIP DRELL, 31 cretary ATTEST: -SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 25