Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1215 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 15, 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 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Paul Beaty Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: George Fernandez 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 December 1 , 1998 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the December 1 , 1998 minutes by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent December 10, 1998 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 j r� VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 98-24 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, L.P., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments to increase the lot depths for Lots 4-7, 36 and "B" of Tract 26068. B. Case No. PMW 98-25 - SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments between residential lots and golf course lot in order to improve building plotting on the residential lots and relocate golf cart access to be within golf course lot. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. 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 91-9 AMENDMENT - OLIPHANT & LIZZA, Applicant (Continued from April 7, May 5, June 2, and October 6, 1998) Request for approval of an amendment to an existing conditional use permit modifying certain valet parking restrictions for the parking lot on the north side of Alessandro east of Portola Avenue and including 24 parking spaces within an adjacent parking lot (the Ace Hardware lot) for an existing 6,000 square foot restaurant at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Portola Avenue at 74-040 Highway 1 1 1 . ow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 tow Mr. Drell stated that the applicant withdrew the request most significantly because he no longer has a lease with the Ace Hardware lot and the issue of future operations of the existing lot and status would be on the Council agenda January 14, 1999. Code Enforcement would be directed to conduct investigations prior to that meeting to report to the Council on whether there is noncompliance with the existing conditional use permit. In essence, the issue was now before the Council. He stated that in terms of this item, it was withdrawn and tabled. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the matter. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell indicated that comments could be directed to the Council on January 14 under Oral Communications. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Mr. Drell stated that no motion was needed because there was no required action since there was no longer an application. Action: None. law B. Case No. PP 98-20 - ROBERT L. BUCKLES for MYERS COMPANIES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 2,114 square foot office building locating at 44-666 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Alvarez explained that the property is located on the east side of Monterey just south of the recently approved Howard Hait hearing facility. The subject property has an existing single family residence and is zoned Office Professional. The residence would be demolished to accommodate a 2,100 square foot office building. The site layout would be similar to the adjacent properties which include a rear parking lot and access onto Monterey. Access would have an ingress only entrance along the southern property line leading to the rear parking lot and egress would be achieved through the adjacent property's irrevocable access offer leading back onto Monterey with potentially a full ingress/egress point. Seven parking spaces would be located in the rear which was sufficient to meet the parking requirement. The architecture depicted on the elevations included a single story structure, 18 feet 6 inches in height, compatible with the adjacent building's design including a zero lot ,Ww line. Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval November 24, 1998. The only issue which had arisen, and Commission would hear from 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 the applicant, was condition number 11 from Public Works requiring a five-foot dedication on Monterey to accommodate a future third northbound lane. This condition was also implemented with the Howard Hait hearing facility and staff recommended approval of the precise plan with conditions as attached. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT BUCKLES, the architect on the project, stated that there were actually two items at issue. Number seven indicated that the driveway width going back from Monterey to the parking lot is 14 feet. In actuality it is 12 feet. He didn't know if this was a typographical error or not, but the 12-foot drive going back was reviewed with staff, they were directed to the Fire Department and they had the 12-foot driveway approved by them. It was his understanding that this has been approved. Mr. Alvarez concurred that it was a typographical error. The access was discussed with the Fire Marshal and Public Works' staff and 12 feet would be acceptable to both parties and that could be modified. Mr. Buckles stated that item number 11 was an issue that the owner, Mr. Myers, would like to address with the Commission but from an architectural standpoint, the dedication of five feet out of the front of this property pushed the building toward Monterey where they had planned for extensive planters, a fountain, and a sculpture feature in the front which had been severely diminished now by the possibility that they would have to give up five feet of the property. They hoped there was another solution or a partial solution that could be reached. One of the things they found was that the sidewalk proposed by the City when they do widen the street is for an eight-foot sidewalk. He said there was an existing eight-foot sidewalk along there, but if they visited the site they would find that taking seven feet of the existing sidewalk and adding another eight-foot sidewalk would be impacting every one of the five properties all the way up to the corner. He didn't know if Commission was aware of this, but all the signs would go and seven palm trees would go just because there was going to be an eight-foot sidewalk along that street. He understood that there were eight foot k sidewalks all over the city, but there were also six foot sidewalks all over the city and he strongly recommended from an architectural standpoint that Commission look into and approve a six-foot sidewalk 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 a.. instead of an eight and, therefore, would only take three feet of the property instead of five. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification regarding Mr. Buckles' comments. He asked if the sidewalk were to be reduced to a six-foot width and the City was to request a three-foot dedication, if architecturally and otherwise that was acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Buckles said he would ask Mr. Myers to speak on that, but from an architectural standpoint it would definitely help quite a bit. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would interfere with the plantings or water feature, etc., and if they would still be accommodated. Mr. Buckles said they would move it back, but they wouldn't be moving it back as far. Commissioner Beaty asked if that would save the palm trees Mr. Buckles mentioned. Mr. Buckles said he couldn't address that since those trees were on other properties but it was an observation he made while going out there that they would lose the palm trees regardless. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification that the property Mr. Buckles represented didn't have any palm trees on it. Mr. Buckles concurred, but indicated that their property has a couple of nice trees and they were trying to save one of those. MR. BILL MYERS, 115 Don Quixote in Rancho Mirage, stated that he was moving his main office from Glendale because it was being taken by the expansion of the Glendale Galleria and he wanted to have something nice and attractive closer to where he lives. Had he known what he knows now, it is very problematic, but he would not have bought this property. They started looking at this property in July of this year and B.J. Worzack with Industrial West met with him and they visited with Martin Alvarez at least on two occasions and they determined that the property was in fact zoned Office Professional and %wr they then ordered in July a soils report and a survey and they opened escrow. He hired Bob Buckles to come up with a plan that would be 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 j comparable to the hearing aid center property and to make it look like one unit and they were very pleased. During this period Mr. Buckles, himself and B.J. Worzack again talked on a couple of occasions with Martin Alvarez and also on October 5 his wife, Bob Buckles and himself met with Phil Drell and the only change that he notified them of was to enlarge the planter boxes at the rear of the property and to get permission from the Fire Department for the reduction of the driveway approach from 14 feet to 12 feet. At no time up through December of this year, including meeting with Architectural Review, although on November 24 Architectural Review mentioned that the four feet should be increased to six feet for the tree planting area and only when they got the approval from the Fire Department and Sheriff's Department, along came the engineering report that said they must dedicate five feet of their front yard. The property was only 126 feet deep and five feet was quite an area. In taking a look at it the City was making it a condition of the approval process with no compensation. Then he asked Mr. Alvarez to get him a copy of the Howard Hait approval and that project was done on November 20, 1997 and come to find out the same condition number 11 was imposed on Mr. Hait. Mr. Alvarez knew all this period of time from July to the present that five feet of their property would be taken and Mr. Alvarez's comment when asked why they had not been informed prior to this, Mr. Alvarez said, quote "It was not his responsibility to inform potential property buyers of City plans." As a property owner in Glendale and here, he said he was really shattered by that remark and couldn't imagine a City official making that comment. He wanted to find out if the other owners of property on the same side of the street were aware of this. He contacted Mrs. Noel, Mr. Nye's office and Mr. Donald Bolas' office and in the legal notice to people within 300 feet all it said was to approve a design plan to construct a 2,114 square foot professional office building. There was nothing that said they were going to take five feet. Nancy Noel confirmed she got the notice but didn't think anything about it and she said she would attend the hearing if she could. Mr. Bolas said the same thing. He thought the only way the City was going to get five feet of their property was to condemn it and pay compensation and now they were asking them to give it away for free as a condition of this approval and he didn't think that was entirely fair considering that the City knew about this and when they also met with Joe, the City Engineer, he said he didn't know, but perhaps something voluntarily could be worked out with those property owners and when Mr. Myers told Mrs. Noel about it she kind of just laughed. She thought that was very funny. He said 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 tow they would like to go ahead but as Bob Buckles said, it was very important that the City bend with them and the easiest way to do this was to take the property from the Town Center because that was why they needed the expansion and they were the people that would be benefiting from the widening. They only have $400,000 in the budget for their side of the street as opposed to $1 .5 million which according to Joe was the cost of moving the median on Monterey on that side. They were in it so far, but he felt the least the Planning Commission could do was to recommend to the City Council that they modify the sidewalk to six feet. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. MR. DON BOLAS, 370 Oakmont Drive in Palm Desert, stated that he has enjoyed living in Palm Desert for the last 25 years. He noted that he has a law office at 44-712 Monterey and until recently he was happily practicing law and enjoying the holiday spirit until he heard about Mr. Myers and what he heard caused him and two of his `•• neighbors some serious distress. In fact, it might even be said that all they could expect for Christmas from the City of Palm Desert was coal in their stocking. But more importantly what they were looking at if whatever plan the City was considering or have formulated goes through, he thought that something was unfair. As Mr. Myers indicated, these properties were not deep and he thought his was about 120 feet and they were already bordering close to heavy traffic and as his neighbors would attest, Bill Nye corroborated a similar experience that he had, was that constantly when trucks pass by certain vibration is achieved in the building, windows shake and things happen when it is a big truck. Now having that traffic closer and more of it and the more of it they perhaps couldn't change, the valley was growing, the city was growing dynamically and that was fine, but what they had there were vibration and noise of the kind that he thought would disrupt a business to the extent that it might result in a condemnation of the entire property if one were to characterize it as a nuisance. It was easy to characterize this as a nuisance for the reason he mentioned, to say nothing of the aesthetic point of view. They had a certain character with palm trees, Nancy Noel and himself. Between them they had about eight palm trees that were in jeopardy if this widening takes place, this expansion of Monterey. For that reason, and he couldn't speak for Nancy Noel or Bill Nye, although he spoke to both and could 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 represent to the Commission to the best of his ability that they share his sentiment although he wasn't expressly asked to present that this evening. In fact, Nancy Noel indicated to him as recently as last Friday that she planned to attend and he didn't know why she wasn't present. He asked Commission's consideration and he didn't know how far along their deliberations have gone or plans have gone with regard to this particular project. If they were still in the formative stages he would simply ask that they consider the wise admonition that an error doesn't become a mistake until they refuse to correct it. In the spirit of maybe correcting or at least adjusting, he would suggest adjusting the big property across the street called the Town Center and it was making a lot of money for this city and for itself. Now it was expanding $100 million with improvements going in. There was a simple elementary principle in law that says that which causes a burden should pay the price. He thought the Town Center has some nice land there that could be used to facilitate this expansion. He thought fairness required it. In that regard he was here tonight supporting Mr. Myers' concern that he should not lose five feet of his property. For their serious consideration and attention he appreciated the Commission's time. If their deliberations were still continuing on this issue, and he assumed they were, he didn't get notice of that particular issue except indirectly from Mr. Myers' proposed site plan. He requested that if there was anything further planned along these lines that directly affects him and his neighbors that they perhaps be given special notice because they regarded this as a very serious impediment to their investments--in the case of two people he knew, Nancy Noel's and his own law practice and the insurance practice on the corner. There was a very tight squeeze on those properties now and to squeeze them even further he thought was just plain not right to say nothing of taking out palm trees that add a certain flair to that part of the street. MR. HOWARD HAIT, 78-848 Via Carmel in La Quinta, stated that when Mr. Myers talked with him he decided to come down and also put in his two cents worth about the building that was a condemned duplex. They couldn't remodel it, tried to maximize the lot, bought the building, started construction of the new building, and then he was told the City wanted a dedication. Afterwards. It was not full disclosure on the City's part when he bought this building. These people were notified at the time he presented this last spring that they were going to change the zone. They never asked for five feet before they made the changes that were done and he got notification, and he had it in his files, it was 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 signed after everything was done. He had $400,000 in a building and he could guarantee, because he was in the hearing business, that the sound pressure level in his front yard where the street is right now is about 127 db and 135 db is the threshold of pain. He has a building sitting there with special construction to try and keep the noise down. If they moved the street closer to him and moved the big trucks closer to him, he would have more and more difficulty keeping the sound down from the employees' standpoint. He would echo the sentiments of his neighbors and asked the Commission to take another look at this and look at some other means of widening the street. It was money out of his pocket and he made a commitment to the City to put in a very fine building and he hated to see it compromised by large trucks and a lot of traffic going by five feet closer to his place. Mr. Myers readdressed the Commission and stated that he appreciated being here and he really thought the City Council needed to give some thought to modifying the plan. From his standpoint it was a question of money--$400,000 versus $1 .5 million and he thought that $1 .5 million was the number Joe threw out as to taking the west side of r•• Monterey and altering the median, but they were really going to hurt five small property owners that really need the five feet. Five feet didn't seem like a lot, but in their case it really was. He thought there might be a way City Council could adjust their budget to accommodate their request and at the same time he wanted to get approval so that they could finish their plans and have it tie in with their building being acquired in Glendale. They certainly needed some give on the eight-foot sidewalk. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Myers had considered the possibility that improving the traffic circulation in front of his property might enhance the attractiveness and value of the property. Mr. Myers said he didn't understand the question. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Myers' property was on a busy street and they pay a premium for a lot on Monterey because of the high traffic count. Mr. Myers said he paid approximately $20 per square foot. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 Commissioner Jonathan said that was a premium because he could name lots of places in the city that could be obtained for $6.00 per square foot and less, so obviously what typically drew property buyers along Monterey is the high traffic count. Mr. Myers said he wanted to explain his business, which is real estate investments. He has two employees and a secretary/bookkeeper and his accountant comes down once a week from Newport Beach. They didn't have traffic. They have an industrial park on Boardwalk just off of Cook and St. James and his other investments are real estate and stocks and bonds. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't intend to enter into a debate and perhaps a simple yes or no answer was adequate. He said the question was if Mr. Myers felt that improved traffic circulation might enhance the value and the appeal of his property. Mr. Myers said the answer was no. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty asked staff if Monterey was going to be widened, which she felt was in the best interests of the city, how they were going to widen it five feet in front of Mr. Bolas' and Ms. Noel's buildings. Mr. Greenwood clarified that there was no current project to widen Monterey Avenue. This was the City's opportunity to reserve right-of-way for a future project, however, they didn't have all the right-of-way all the way to San Gorgonio. There were properties that have existed for quite some time that have not provided additional dedications. There was no current project, although staff anticipated that the widening would be necessary. He noted that the Walgreen's project which was recently approved dedicated some amount more than ten feet and he thought it was closer to 20 feet to provide a full three lane section in that area. For the area in front of these individual properties, staff was sensitive to the needs of those properties, so they were asking for dedications substantially less than the ultimate to be able to allow those properties to remain functioning and to allow for a future widening project. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Greenwood was talking about five years, ten years, or 20 years. Mr. Greenwood noted he mentioned there would be a widening at Walgreens, the City has a project at Highway 74 and Highway 111 which would join the Walgreens widening and they could expect it to 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 happen in 1999, and this Thursday they would be striping Monterey from the north Town Center Mall up to the COD driveway, over half a mile, for six lanes on Monterey--three lanes north and south. That need existed today. If anyone had driven on Monterey during the holiday season, it hasn't been pleasant so while it wasn't a dire need, it was going to be something needed soon. Chairperson Campbell asked if three feet would be adequate, or if five feet was necessary. Mr. Greenwood stated that he spoke to the Director of Public Works about this issue before the meeting tonight and Mr. Folkers assured Mr. Greenwood that five feet was the request. If Commission wanted staff to reevaluate that, that was a possibility. As one of the speakers noted, when heavy traffic travels in that area there is some rumbling vibration noise and if they were on a fairly narrow sidewalk, as a pedestrian in that area with heavy traffic passing them at 40-50 mph, that would not be very comfortable for pedestrians. It didn't provide the best of pedestrian facilities, but they would be willing to take a look at it one more time. Chairperson Campbell noted that as far as noise was concerned, with her store on El Paseo when a large truck goes by there is rumbling and shaking. Mr. Greenwood noted that Monterey Avenue has been a busy street for 20 years and that was not a new issue. +� Mr. Myers spoke from the audience regarding the public improvement plan and the city's current budget. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for additional comments from the Commission. Commissioner Jonathan asked if property owners on the west side of Monterey were expected to be requested to dedicate a part of their property as well and if there would be widening on both sides of the street if in fact someday the City adopts a widening project. Mr. Greenwood stated that those properties have already dedicated more right-of-way than they were asking for on the east side. The ultimate street would be balanced on centerline and the west half was already to its ultimate width, but the east half was not in that portion north of San Gorgonio. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the six feet of sidewalk was determined to be adequate as a result of a later study, if in fact the City would only require three feet of dedication and would use two feet of its own property. His question was if the sidewalk were to be reduced to a six-foot width if it was correct that the dedication requested would be reduced to three feet. Mr. Greenwood said yes. Mr. Drell noted that in connection with some other traffic widening and other traffic changes and redesigning of medians, Council has expressed some concern as to how traffic changes affect landscaping within medians and parkways. They created a committee so that each time one of these things happened they reexamined 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 what the ideal engineering solution might be to see if it was appropriate to modify it given the other concerns of the City. Again that was something under discussion and although that particular issue was out of the purview of this commission, Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council and specifically to this council committee and have them address this issue at this location. For example with palm trees, when the Arco Station was built on Portola, there were some palm trees sticking right out of the sidewalk and the sidewalk actually goes around the palm trees. Especially with the large ones, the decision has been made that although it is not ideal, they have adjusted sidewalk design to accommodate existing landscaping. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission direction. Commissioner Jonathan said that he has listened to the input from the public and he was not at all persuaded about the traffic and noise and so forth. As stated earlier that has been the case for 20 years and there were very few thoroughfares in the city or the valley that are as busy as Monterey. He wasn't persuaded by those comments, but if they were talking about dedication of private property that was a sensitive issue and it had to be balanced against the welfare and benefit to the community at large and he agreed with Commissioner Finerty that it was a sorely needed project and he hoped to see it come about at some point. Given everything that has been said, he thought a requirement for dedication was fair and he also tended to believe that a six-foot sidewalk would probably be safe and adequate. He was in that area very often and there was very little foot traffic. There was some, but it was very little and he thought the situation would be rare where people would be walking in opposite directions on the sidewalk and would require more than six feet. He thought a possible solution and compromise was perhaps, subject to the City's further study, a reduction of the potential sidewalk width in the event of a widening project to six feet thereby requiring a dedication of only three feet. They have been told that for the project before them, architecturally that would be acceptable and if it was acceptable from the City's standpoint, they would have a solution. He suggestion was to let staff study that possible compromise and come back with their comments. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. In consideration of the current businesses and current landscaping, they should see if the six feet would work, but they still needed to look at the best interests of the city and that is to widen Monterey. She agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that = they had to expect noise and vibrations on Monterey. It is a very busy street. She was a little perplexed when Mr. Myers spoke of giving up the dedication 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 without compensation. She didn't think there should be an issue of compensation, but it needed to be an issue of what's in the best interest of the city and that is to widen Monterey in a way they could try to be fair to the businesses and therefore she would move to take the item back to Public Works and see if the six-foot sidewalk would work. Mr. Drell said it was probably a decision that City Council would have to make and suggested that the Commission adopt the resolution as is and then the applicant could then appeal that condition to City Council and the Council could hear it and at that time the Public Works Department could report on the justification of the number of feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Drell thought the issue would go to Council anyway and that would expedite the process. Mr. Drell concurred. He said the alternative is to continue it and get a report back. Commissioner Jonathan said it was possible that if the answer came back favorably that the matter would end at the Planning Commission level if the applicant didn't object and the Council didn't call it up. Mr. Drell said it was a possibility. Commissioner Beaty asked if staff had any comment on Mr. Myers' concern 11W or questioning or criticism of the Planning Department regarding notification of this issue. He asked if Mr. Alvarez made the statement that Mr. Myers quoted him as saying. Mr. Alvarez said no. Mr. Drell commented that if staff knew or remembered what the dedication was, we should have informed the applicant. Commissioner Beaty said he didn't think there was any question and he was in agreement with his fellow commissioners. He would like to see some sort of resolution worked out, but to take one point that Mr. Myers made in that an error was not a mistake until they refused to correct it, he thought perhaps the mistake had already been made in not notifying the other owners when they purchased and modified their property that that dedication was probably going to happen. He said it was pretty obvious that Monterey needed to be widened to some extent. Palm trees were easy to move because they are very tough and he thought that could be accommodated also. Commissioner Finerty clarified that her motion was to go back and see what Public Works would say about having a six-foot sidewalk and therefore it wouldn't go to Council, it would come back to Planning Commission and they might be able to end it there. Commissioner Beaty said he liked Mr. Drell's suggestion and he would prefer to see it that way and it would accomplish exactly what Commissioner Finerty was asking for. Mr. Drell noted that Planning Commission could approve the project with the comment that while j" they were not really in a position to contradict Public Works, but if a solution 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 0 i could be worked out, they wouldn't mind seeing a six-foot sidewalk and the dedication reduced to three feet. Commissioner Beaty said that would be his preference. Commissioner Jonathan said he was favoring Commissioner Finerty's motion until Mr. Drell made that suggestion. He wouldn't want it to go to Council as is, but if the motion was revised to keep condition number 11 as proposed but with a comment to Council that if the requirement for a five- foot dedication could be reduced to three feet as a result of reducing the sidewalk width to six feet from eight feet, then that would be acceptable and perhaps even preferable. Mr. Drell said that one more solution which might even avoid it going to Council was in the interim if the property owners could get together with the Public Works Department and if the Public Works Department agreed that three feet is acceptable, then they were there. If they weren't, staff would just schedule it for Council. Commissioner Beaty asked how much it would cost the applicant to appeal. Mr. Drell said it was $50.00, but with an issue like this they wouldn't have to charge him. Commissioner Jonathan stated that Commissioner Finerty's proposal was good and hoped that would work and wouldn't need to go to Council. Mr. Alvarez noted that condition number 7 also needed to be modified from 14 feet to 12 feet and he would like the language added, "or as approved by the Fire Marshal". Commissioner Jonathan thought the quickest way to deal with this was to do it according to the motion and perhaps eliminate the need to go to Council. He stated that he would second the motion as stated by Commissioner Finerty. Mr. Drell noted that they were directing the Public Works Department to restudy the dedication and report back on January 5, 1999. Commissioner Beaty asked if they were in essence continuing the public hearing and leaving the public hearing open. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Campbell reopened the public hearing. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing Case No. PP 98-20 to January 5, 1999 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case Nos. PP/CUP 98-19 AND TPM 29068 - SELECT PROPERTIES LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit and tentative parcel map for a 302,300 square foot master plan of development including retail uses, restaurants including drive- thru, self storage, industrial buildings and a 100-room hotel on a 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 20.52 acre site on the north side of Country Club Drive 340 feet west of Washington Street. (APN 626-320-029) Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display and indicated that Commission also received blueprints of the plans in the packets. The site is a vacant generally flat piece of property immediately east of the existing industrial park on the north side of Country Club. The property was designated Freeway Commercial Overlay (FCO) by the City when they created this portion of the Zoning Ordinance in 1997. The basic reason for the FCO district was to add certain other uses to the permitted uses in the base zone, uses typically deemed to be acceptable in close proximity to the freeway access points. The applicant gave them a proposed master plan of development. As noted, building area would total a little over 302,000 square feet and overall the plan provided for 708 parking spaces. Essentially the plan provided for four land use areas. Basically at the southeast corner of the site would be the retail portion. Across the north portion of the site would be the proposed mini storage area. At the southwest end of the site there would be a 100-room three story hotel and between the hotel site and the mini storage site there would be a service industrial area. Access to the site would be from three access points from Country Club Drive. The easterly most would be a right in only, the westerly would be a right in and right out and the main center access would align with Harris Lane to the south and it would be a signalized intersection. At the east the project would have two access points from Desert Country Circle: one into the retail and one into the mini storage area to the rear. Additionally, three access points were shown connecting onto Garand Lane to the west into the service industrial area at two points and into the mini storage to the north. He mentioned that Garand connects into Springfield, which connects into Park Center Drive which is another signalized intersection in the area. Architectural plans were presented to Architectural Review Commission at its meeting of November 24, 1998 and conceptual approval was granted for the retail portion of the plan. The applicant indicated a desire to have this architecture become the architectural theme for the remainder of the project. He noted that the tower elements reached to as high as 41 feet and as such would require approval from the Council in that it exceeds the height limit of 30 feet for that zone. The FCO district prescribed a minimum of 30% landscaped open space. The ordinance permitted Planning Commission to approve a reduced amount on a showing of good cause. In this instance there was overall 27.8% in the area of the hotel and retail on the southerly portion of the property. The applicant advised that the landscaping *M. amounted to 33%. The FCO also required creation of a common usable public open space and that was established when they were looking at a restaurant 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 i i park when the ordinance was being written and the idea was to create a large area where people (generally from the freeway) would be encouraged to stop and walk their dogs or have the kids run and that type of thing. In this instance there wasn't any one area, but there were several large areas and while they wouldn't meet the half of the 27% they were fairly large areas. The specific four areas the applicant had shown staff encompassed some 9.62 acres for retail use, 86,350 square feet of which as much as 20% or 17,270 square feet could become restaurant areas. The applicant also indicated he may have a 30,000 square foot gym use in one of the main buildings. All the buildings would be single story. Parking in this area exceeded the five spaces per 1 ,000 square feet requirement at 463 spaces versus 432. This part of the plan also included a proposed drive-through restaurant on pad number four. The FCO allowed for the drive-through restaurants provided the drive-through lanes and windows are screened from view from arterial streets. The applicant proposed an eight-foot berm which should more than adequately screen the drive-through. Staff suggested in the report that the applicant might wish to, when they come in with the precise plan on that portion of the site, that they might wish to look at reversing the plan of the restaurant in that the City wanted this to be a successful restaurant and typically when they were totally screened from view it would become more of a challenge to make it successful. If they could accomplish the intent of the ordinance which is to minimize the visual impact of the drive-through lane and the window by orienting it another direction, then perhaps they wouldn't necessarily need the eight-foot berm, but staff wasn't making a call on that because it wasn't before them now, but wanted to make that observation. Part two, the southwest corner of the three story hotel sitting on some 2.33 acres, the plan denoted 110 parking spaces which met the required 1 .1 . The maximum height was limited to 30 feet per the PC-2 zone limits and there would be 32 feet of setback from Country Club Drive. On the west side the hotel proposed a ten-foot setback. Staff made the comment that they would prefer to see 20 feet, at least, but that type of comment would probably be better made if and when the precise plan application was received for that part of the plan. He noted that there is an existing retention basin on the property to the west which was depressed in that it is below adjacent grade and it is ill maintained. If the applicant needed to maintain the ten-foot setback that might be one way he could look at creating somewhat of a visual barrier where he could go in and improve that and agree to maintain it. That would be something that while staff couldn't condition that, it was something that he might wish to attempt to proceed with. Part three along the north side had 4.86 acres of self storage currently showing at 113,000 square feet with a mix of one and two story buildings. Height would be limited to 30 feet. The area was served 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 by 20 foot wide one-way driveways. The issue in this area was parking. At the present time the City didn't have a specific parking standard for mini warehouse facilities. There was a storage standard which if applied would require 41 spaces. The plan denotes seven spaces. The issue of the parking standard was presented to the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and they recommended creation of a new standard for the mini warehouse facilities. Fourthly, the west edge of this property had a proposed service industrial area on 3.7 acres, a total of just less than 51 ,000 square feet of building area ranging from 2,800 to 6,700 square feet. The area was proposed to be parked at two spaces per 1 ,000. If this area was developed with basic industrial uses then this parking standard would be adequate. The PC-2 base zone did not permit industrial uses. The FCO district also didn't permit industrial uses so staff concluded that a change of zone was needed for that portion of the plan. Mr. Smith indicated that when this matter was at ARC on November 24 the comment was offered that the applicant might wish to consider clustering of the satellite pads along Country Club Drive in the retail portion of the development. This could have the effect of making uses more pedestrian friendly. Staff also noted that the main entry driveway proposed 16 foot wide lanes in each direction and considerable landscape planter areas on both sides of this main access driveway. The remaining parking bays and the landscape strips between them both to the west and east in the retail portion were shown at four feet. He said they might wish to widen the landscape strips in those areas by narrowing the lanes and narrowing the large landscaped areas east and west of the main access point to a minimum of six feet, more consistent with what the City is attempting to do with landscaping especially with trees in the landscaped areas. The report the Commission received had a recommendation of approval in it. Upon further consideration, with the rezoning necessary on the service industrial portion of the plan staff didn't feel comfortable that the Commission would approve the master plan ahead of making a recommendation to the City Council on the service industrial portion of the plan. Staff looked at various ways of approaching this. The final determination was that staff could notice the change of zone for the service industrial portion of the plan and have it in the newspaper early next week to meet the requirements for the Commission to hear that portion of it at the January 5, 1999 meeting. That would be staff's recommendation and they would concurrently do the parking amendment to add in the parking standard for the mini warehouse use. Those were things that if they were to proceed with the original recommendation that would be happening in a couple of weeks hence, but they should go ahead and tie them together and present it to Council in one package. At this point staff recommended a continuance to January 5, 1999 with a direction for staff to proceed with the required 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 noticing to schedule the matter of the service industrial portion change of zone and the amendment to the ordinance to add a parking standard for mini warehouse use. He recommended that Commission open the public hearing, take testimony, and offer comments on the issues presented so that the applicant could perhaps address those issues during the intervening period also. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff knew the height of the park center/building center to the west of this proposed project. Mr. Smith said he was there this afternoon and the buildings immediately west were single story and 16 feet in height. At the extreme west end of that development there were two story office buildings which he guessed were around 32-33 feet. He indicated that he had photographs if Commission wished to see them. Chairperson Campbell noted that Mr. Smith mentioned clustering the retail buildings and asked if that could provide the public space that the City wanted in the Freeway Commercial Overlay. Mr. Smith said not necessarily. He indicated that it could provide for better pedestrian flow and suggested that Commission might wish to make its comments to the applicant on whether to stay with the spread out plan or to look at clustering. He noted there were examples of both in the city. Chairperson Campbell asked if they could actually use it for that purpose. Mr. Smith was sure that could be incorporated also. Chairperson Campbell asked what the height of the hotel would be. Mr. Smith-said it was proposed at three stories and the zone currently limited the height to 30 feet. Chairperson Campbell noted that the other buildings in the area to the west were 16 feet. Mr. Smith indicated that even further to the west the height is 32-34 feet and there were tower elements on the extreme west end that were easily 40 feet, right on the corner at the signalized intersection. Chairperson Campbell asked if those towers would be the same size as the proposed ones. Mr. Smith agreed and said the proposed towers would be setback considerably more than the existing ones. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Smith mentioned that there were two story office buildings to the west that were somewhere between 32 feet and 34 feet in height. The proposed hotel would be three stories, but staff noted there was a 30-foot height limitation and asked if it was possible to construct a three-story hotel within the 30-foot height limitation. Mr. Smith said they had one proposed and designed on El Paseo about 15 years ago. It was never built, but he recalled that it met the height limit. Mr. Drell thought it would be quite constrained, although it was probably physically possible. He wasn't sure the City would want a three-story hotel that constrained. Commissioner Jonathan thought it was interesting that they could have two stories that went 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 as high as 34 feet and he wasn't sure how they would get three stories within 30 feet. He asked why this application wasn't seeking an exception to the height limitation. Mr. Smith said he noted in the staff report that when the precise plan is received on that portion that the applicant could seek a height exception if necessary at that point in time. Commissioner Jonathan understood that they could but his question was if the application was for three stories, given the extreme likelihood that three stories would go over 30 feet why it wasn't a part of this application and why it was left later for the precise plan. Mr. Smith said it was because staff had no idea what the architecture of the hotel would be. Mr. Drell explained that typically staff wouldn't consider an exception until they actually saw what the building looked like. Commissioner Jonathan asked why they were even considering a precise plan approval when they had no idea what it would look like, how high it would be, etc. Mr. Drell said that they weren't considering a precise plan approval. Commissioner Jonathan said that was the other part of his question. Mr. Drell said staff also concluded that based upon the requirements for a precise plan, all that was before Commission is this master plan. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that in the application before Commission it said approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit and if they could strike ... out precise plan. Then they were only talking about a CUP and tentative parcel map at this stage. Mr. Drell agreed and said it was also a master plan as described in the overlay. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was similar to the parcel map. Mr. Drell said no. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the master plan showed the proposed use of the parcels. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK BLOMGREN stated he was with Axcess Architects and was the agent for the applicant. His office was located at 18652 Florida Street in Huntington Beach. He said he would like to answer some of the questions before giving a brief overview. They did the two story office buildings to the west in 1986. The towers were 43 feet 6 inches high. The top of the parapet wall of the building is 33 feet. The reason they could fit a three-story hotel in 30 feet was because there really weren't any mechanical systems required inside the attic space so the floor plates could be about 9'2". In an office building the finished floor to finished floor is 13'6" and there were ducts that needed to occur. In the hotels there were two different hotel groups that have typical plans they use throughout the country and they can fit a three-story %" hotel in 30 feet. They would probably want tower elements on it to go 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 up to 35 feet for architectural purposes, but the only roof equipment would be some minor equipment for the kitchen area. Other than that everything would be wall mounted. Chairperson Campbell asked if the air conditioning would be wall mounted. Mr. Blomgren concurred and said they have very attractive side mounted units for these now and he could bring in pictures of a project in Tustin that was recently done in a really modern configuration. They didn't look like the old box air conditioners they used to see on the old hotel sixes. They weren't like that. They were much more contemporary. Commissioner Beaty asked if he could name some hotel groups that have those. Mr. Drell noted that the Courtyard Hotel was approved that way and they were now being designed to be virtually flush with the wall and at the Marriott they actually set them behind balconies and they would be screened by the railing. J Mr. Blomgren said that regarding the site plan, this site had been a moving target for them. They got involved in it about eight months ago and it originally started with the applicant coming and saying that he has a 20-acre parcel and he was looking at putting in a self storage project in the back. He went to talk to a couple of brokers and all of a sudden there was interest in retail and as they were talking about retail, there was a group that was interested in industrial because it was next to the adjoining industrial park. Then a group came together that had a hotel that was looking at this site as a prime location so the four uses were based on interest generated as they were starting to look at the project. They were on scheme 18 on this in only three months. They had interest for about 60% of the plan as shown. Part of their concern this evening was that they couldn't negotiate leases or get anything in place until the general concept was agreed to by the City. They understood the zone change requirement for the industrial use. Their urgency tonight was that they have people they are dealing with right now they would like to negotiate with to put into this project but they couldn't really do anything until they know they have a project. That was their main concern. They had a chance to review the staff report and all the addendum items after it. He had a couple of questions but didn't know from a procedural standpoint if the Commission had 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 questions for him at this point. Other than that everything looked good and all the suggestions from staff they had no trouble with. Chairperson Campbell asked how Mr. Blomgren felt about clustering the retail buildings. Mr. Blomgren said that clustering would be no problem and on the plan building one was a restaurant building and buildings two and three could be moved together and clustered to create more of a pedestrian access around the project and wouldn't be a problem at all. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Blomgren knew what kind of retail use was planned. Mr. Blomgren didn't know who the tenants were but said to put them together wouldn't cause a problem. Regarding the resolution conditions, item 22 talked about a day care allowance and he said there was a potential for the major building in the back to be a Gold's Gym and they might have a day care facility in that building. In the event that �.• one of the tenants did have a day care facility available, he asked if there was any way to negotiate and maybe mitigate some of the fee. Chairperson Campbell asked if there was going to be a Gold's Gym there if that meant they would be moving from their existing location. Mr. Blomgren said that was a possibility. He didn't think there would be an additional one. The question was if in the event that one of the tenants provided day care if there was any way to mitigate that fee. The other two items related to the 12/9/98 interoffice memo from Public Works, item number 11 talked about putting in a median all the way from Harris Lane to Washington and the question he had was if they would be responsible for the median portion in front of their project from Harris to Desert Circle or if they would be required to go all the way down to Washington. Mr. Greenwood indicated that there is an existing bit of median west of Washington now about 100 feet. The Desert Country Circle was maybe 250- 300 feet from Washington, so that would leave an opening of about 150-200 feet where they would have the median completed in front of the project, then a small gap, then the existing median. What they wanted to do was connect t` all of that into one. Mr. Smith noted that staff was expecting an application 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 within the next day or so on the property to the east on the far 4.5 acres on the easterly corner and he thought they would pick up that portion of the median. Mr. Greenwood said that from Public Works' perspective it was a difficult transition traffic wise to have a median, a gap and then a median. By the time they end up doing the transitions the two medians would touch each other anyway so they might as well build them to the ultimate. Mr. Blomgren asked if they could post a bond or something for their portion of the median. It was a question of cost and the developer was asking if he was responsible for the frontage on someone else's lot and that was a question they wanted to bring up. Mr. Drell said that conceivably they could have a reimbursement agreement where they would collect a payment from the future development toward Washington that would then be reimbursed. Mr. Blomgren turned toward the audience and asked his client if that was acceptable--the answer was yes. Mr. Blomgren said that the other question they had was on Public Works condition number 19 under the second star (*) that talked about deceleration and acceleration lanes and wondered if that was meant to be at all three entrances to the project fto or if it was just on the one at the east. Mr. Greenwood said that was a good question. He didn't believe they would need acceleration/deceleration lanes at the signalized location and that only left the westerly driveway. He believed they would want some acceleration/ deceleration at the unsignalized driveways, but the signalized one would be okay at the typical normal section. Mr. Blomgren thought that was doable, he just wanted it clarified. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. She left the public hearing open and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the applicant was looking for some feedback. First of all he felt this was an ambitious and wonderful project and could be a tremendous enhancement for the community. He had some areas of concern and he thought they were items that could be worked out. First of f all, he recognized that as stated earlier they were looking at a conditional use permit, parcel map and master plan. They were very far from a precise plan 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 tow so that was a big part of an overall project and he didn't need to tell them that since they were seasoned professionals, so the Commission was leaving that out of the equation at this point. He had some concerns with a three-story hotel. He had expressed those concerns with projects that had come before Commission in the past and they were approved, so just because he was concerned about it didn't mean it wouldn't happen, but certainly he for one would find two story preferable to three story. He understood the economics involved and the motivations involved, nevertheless he had a problem with the three story structure. Going to 41 feet on the towers was a bit of an issue, but they have granted quite a few exceptions to that particular requirement and if they were tastefully done and truly enhanced the aesthetics of the project it might work. Regarding the landscaping, the City created ordinances and then it seemed they were forever making exceptions and tearing them apart and one of the requirements in this particular and special zoning ordinance was for landscaping at 30% and he felt it was there for a good reason. He would want to stick to that minimum. He thought the danger that was created with mixed uses such as industrial uses, fast food places, drive- throughs and something other than high end retail, storage space, etc., the danger was that it wouldn't look good except for the first few months and `.. then after that they have the potential of being a blight and a problem rather than a positive enhancement to the community. Landscaping was one way to mitigate against that risk and he felt that 30% was in the ordinance and was reasonable and hoped that they would stick to that. The same thing applied to the common usable public space. The project didn't have one on the small size, but had none at all. Again, a great deal of thought went into this particular and special zoning and he thought that requirement was there for a good reason and he would like to see it incorporated. It is a very large project and he thought it was doable and he would like to see a common usable public space incorporated into the design. He also thought they would have a problem with the parking for the industrial section. The industrial area would total 50,000 square feet. Approximately 20% would be projected as office space given the 20-80 ratio. That would be 10,000 square feet of office. The normal requirement for office use was four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. That meant that the 10,000 square feet would carry a requirement of 40 spaces as opposed to the 20 being provided and he felt at a minimum they would end up 20 short and there was ample precedent showing the shortage of space where they just provide the normal two per 1,000. He said they could just go anywhere on Cook Street and see the problems, particularly in the design proposed which has an area for either open storage or roll-up gate deliveries, etc., and they ended up stacking the additional cars in that area which created all sorts of traffic jams and he saw it on and off Cook Street 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 s j every day. This was an opportunity to correct a wrong before becomes a wrong and becomes a problem. The design he thought was somewhat unimpressive and particularly on Country Club where there is a lot of exposure to a lot of traffic where they have people entering the city from the Washington Street off-ramp a lot could be done there without a lot of money. It could be that the landscaping could be enhanced, perhaps a water feature or some kind of art in public places piece could be incorporated into what appears on Country Club and he would like to see it aesthetically more appealing. It is a large ambitious project and felt they should do it right. He would rather see it stay as a positive enhancement to the community rather than in a few years turning into a typical drab industrial fast food kind of place. Between the design of the buildings and adding some visual interest and then improving on the landscaping, particularly on Country Club, he felt they could overcome that potential problem. He said that those comments were made in the framework of that this would be a great project, so let's do it right. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan with regard to the landscaping, especially on Country Club. She noted that shade trees were proposed and indicated that basically there were palm trees prevalent up and down Country Club and thought palm trees would be a nice enhancement. �1 She was also concerned about page six of the staff report where it addressed the storage facility and said that the two story structure shouldn't be a visual problem as long as they don't exceed the height of the tamarisk trees which border the railway and she had been told that the tamarisk trees are 30 feet high. She would be concerned if for some reason there was a blight or some reason that the tamarisk trees' health was endangered and what they would do then. As far as the child care, she felt the City needed some kind of an ordinance. It seemed they kept coming up with figures for child care that didn't really have any consistency. The height of the towers was a concern and she asked if the existing ones were approved under Riverside County or the City of Palm Desert when the park was built. (Mr. Blomgren spoke from the audience and indicated in was done through Riverside County.) Commissioner Finerty said she would hope that the architecture would be spruced up on Country Club and suggested lowering the towers at the same time. As far as the three story hotel was concerned, it was hard to tell because they didn't have any architecture to look at right now. A lot of it was vague, but as far as the uses being proposed, she agreed that it would be a good project. She was concerned about the fast food restaurant and wasn't a fan of fast food restaurants in the city with drive-throughs but realized they have an ordinance and if the ordinance was complied with she guessed they 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 would have to have it so she would ask for adequate landscaping and a nice design of the fast food restaurant with the drive-through. Chairperson Campbell stated that as far as the hotel was concerned, she wouldn't have a problem with it being three stories in 30 feet since a couple of those were being built right now. Regarding the parking for the storage, she thought that would be adequate parking for the self storage. Usually when they have an office, they didn't usually have that many people waiting to see the manager but actually went right in and parked in front of their own storage facility. She didn't think there was any problem with the parking. As far as the landscaping, she would also like to see more landscaping in the parking lot. They have had so many problems in the city and hoped that the new ordinance for parking lots would be used in this project. She concurred with Commissioner Jonathan regarding the common usable public space that should be provided per the freeway commercial ordinance and reiterated that additional landscaping was needed. Commissioner Beaty said he was in agreement with his fellow commissioners, he would very much like to see the site improved and felt that site had great potential and needed to be developed. He also liked the master plan and looked forward to seeing the precise plan. Chairperson Campbell recommended that the applicant contact the Art in Public Places Manager so that they could get busy with that right away. As far as the day care provision, she asked if people didn't belong to Gold's Gym where they would put their children. (Mr. David Osman of Select Properties spoke from the audience and indicated that in talking with Gold's Gym, they were considering offering the day care use for outside individuals as well.) Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open and asked for a motion to continue the case. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing PP/CUP 98-19 and TPM 29068 to January 5, 1999 and directing staff to advertise for a change of zone and zoning ordinance amendment to amend mini warehouse parking requirements by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. r.. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 a D. Case No. ZOA 98-7 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from December 1 , 1998) Request for approval of an amendment to Chapter 5.88 and Section 25.34.020 (M) and to add Chapter 25.110 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code regarding the location of Adult Entertainment Establishments. Commissioner Jonathan noted that he was a nearby property owner, about 500 feet away, and although technically he didn't believe there was a potential for financial gain, just to avoid the potential appearance of a conflict of interest he would be abstaining from discussion and voting in this matter. Staff distributed locational maps labeled A, B, C and D (copies attached hereto). Staff, commission and the City Attorney discussed the different maps and various possible combinations, as well as the locational criteria for each. Commissioner Finerty asked for and received clarification regarding the different service industrial zoned areas in the city, how the existing locational criteria affected each, and the possibility of distinguishing one service industrial area from another. After further discussion Mr. Drell recommended approval of Map C. Chairperson Campbell concurred. Mr. Drell noted that VMJ Map C would provide a 300-foot buffer around the church. Mr. Hargreaves felt that Map C would probably be acceptable with the existing 500-foot buffer remaining around the church. Mr. Drell asked if the City Attorney felt the remaining area was adequate with a 500-foot buffer around the church. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Commissioner Finerty asked about the availability of the Cardiff building as a potential site with the 500-foot buffer and Map C. Mr. Smith explained that it was outside of the 500-foot buffer and would be eligible. Chairperson Campbell stated that she would be in favor of Map C with the inclusion of the 500-foot buffer around the church. Commissioner Finerty expressed concern about going from providing a few available areas to too many. Mr. Hargreaves advised having as many potential sites available as possible, but if there were real concerns about a particular area they could address them, but he advised the City to provide a reasonable number of areas. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was possible for Mr. Hargreaves to give the Commission ordinances from other cities to review. Mr. Hargreaves explained that what they couldn't see from a particular ordinance was how it actually affected property on the ground, which was what was important. He informed Commission that he had brought with him copies of a recent case out of Long Beach which discussed this issue and in that case the ordinance was successful and what it did was show the legal standards and talked about 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 a number of other cities whose ordinances were upheld and cities that lost so that Commission could get some perspective on how courts handle the issue. He indicated he marked the areas in the margin which were particularly valuable in giving the legal analysis. Commissioner Finerty noted that she read about a woman who was very involved throughout the state of California in trying to establish an ordinance that would hold up in court. Mr. Hargreaves said he knew Ms. Holgate and they had worked together in the past and thought she would be available to talk to the Commission about this. Commissioner Finerty wondered what Ms. Holgate's opinion would be of Map C based on her experience throughout the state. Commissioner Finerty requested that Commission continue this matter and meet with Ms. Holgate and to also allow the opportunity for Commission to review what the City Attorney brought them so that she could better understand what they hoped to accomplish and could then make a more informed recommendation. After further discussion, Mr. Hargreaves recommended appointing a two-member subcommittee to meet with Ms. Holgate to have questions answered unless more than two commissioners wished to participate. Commissioner Beaty said that if Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Finerty wanted to meet with Ms. Holgate that was fine with him. His feeling was that they wanted to r.. comply with the law, but wanted to restrict it as much as possible. Mr. Hargreaves said he would set up a meeting with Ms. Holgate, Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Finerty and in the meantime they could review the material he brought. Commissioner Finerty recommended that Ms. Holgate review ahead of time the various maps Commission had before them. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Commissioner Finerty noted that Ms. Holgate has been very involved in this issue throughout California and has studied this and Ms. Holgate had said Palm Desert's ordinance was great. Mr. Smith noted that Ms. Holgate attended the last hearings when this issue was addressed several years ago. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing ZOA 98-7 to January 5, 1999 by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 `i IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST BY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS: 1) WATER RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 10 BIOSOLIDS FACILITIES UPGRADE AND CAPACITY EXPANSION PROJECT; 2) COOK STREET TRUNK SEWER BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND LIFT STATION 80-03. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this was a construction project and presumed that they would be digging up Cook Street and asked if staff knew when and for how long. Mr. Drell said staff would find out. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't want to hold up approval, but would like to know by the next meeting about their proposed schedule. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, determining by minute motion that the above noted projects are in compliance with the Palm Desert General Plan. Motion carried 4-0. w acquired b the City and the following application B. The property as q ed y y g pp was withdrawn: Continued Case Nos. GPA 98-3, C/Z 98-4 and PP 98-8 - LOWE ENTERPRISES COMMERCIAL GROUP, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment from Office Professional to Specialty Commercial, a Change of Zone from Office Professional (O.P.) to Specialty Commercial (PC-1), a Precise Plan of Design for a 180-room hotel, restaurant and automobile dealership, amendment to an existing development agreement, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto for an 11 .95 acre site at the southwest corner of El Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 , also known as: APN 640- 071-080-011 . Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion to receive and file the requested withdrawal. Commissioner Finerty noted that it wasn't needed before and asked Mr. Drell if it was necessary now. Mr. Drell didn't believe an action was necessary on a withdrawal. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the City was planning to do with the property. Mr. Drell said that there have been 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 sw discussions with hotel developers and assisted living developers, but it looked like the use would more likely be a hotel, visitors center and possibly some limited commercial uses like a restaurant or book store with the idea being that the east half of the property would be substantially open with some sort of a public space. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the City would be a financial partner in the development. Mr. Drell said that was unclear but presently might be in conjunction with perspective tenants developing a master plan and then developing the infrastructure and then selling the pads. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, to receive and file the withdrawal by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (December 8, 1998) Commissioner Finerty noted that there was conceptual discussion regarding the Art and Leisure Trail which RDA would be providing and Intrawest had some ideas of what to include and right now it was up to RDA to get it moving. Commissioner Finerty noted that the trial would be located around the perimeter of the project. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) E. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California AM .rl Will i 30 L ;10A,Ia7W2121*Wlli •: . . _ .sue �. WWI �► ■ 11111111■ .� � �: 11111111■ � . .. 1111111n�1 �� • 11 i 11 : 11 / 1 • Ii Iii Adult Entertafinment Sites Map %)wv I FOS .�Q r S.I. SA. SA. w SA. r r � P.C. SPRINGFIELD LANE LEGEND -®� Church Church Buffer .COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE ., _ , O.S. Dec+ R-E ■ �N s S o e . , Ml IN INrd ., IN �, fl BASIN, Ito! UNION on ■ :: I■■► /solos ■■ I■■ i •, IN ■ ■■ ' • • • •• ••• of ••• F '///////////�// � �%%j/�, ##a�li S• •ors alp ■ =--_ ■ 11 1 11 111 11 111 i • S UAVtl7 O 7 o NAWIrf L;ITY OF PALM DESE dommlSVOV fI-T^AI Tj ' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM �� �afir1ii 811 a1" HYc s W ; 5-YEAR SCHEDULE STREET WPROVEYENr PROJECT n: 2002-2001 NI 2 mwitr. PORTOLA OVERCROSSING AT 1-10 FWY. 10 FEASIBILITY STUDY �\ _ ESE.cosy:1100.000 , TRAFFIC SIGNAL Fr: 2M1-I002 '\ STRfEr IMPROVEMENT PROJECT n: 1998-IMO PROJtce GERALD FORD DR. AT PORTOLA AVE. P IaATe1 GERALD FORD TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION \ PORTOLA AVENUE TO COOK STREET or.COST:1130.000 Es,.cosy:$640.000 i MADE, STREET IANOSCANNG 2000-2a01 .Iwrcr. FRANK SINATRA DRIVE '\ MAJOR STREET LANOSCAPIK fY: 1001-2002 j RANCHO MIRAGE CITY UMiTS TO COCK STREET oLr.o GERALD FORD DRIVE Esr cos,,1650,000 / PRorra: ^. COOK STREET TO ELOORADO rRAr"c slow 0: low-1999 ` \ EST.Cos,:1175.000 .ROJEct. CORPORATE WAY AT HOVELY LANE EAST fir.cam 1130.000 ` \ �STRCfr rM•RI'.4i MC':I PROJECT n: 1000-1M„ P STREET NIPROYFAIENT PROJECT ON: IM-1990 '•� �..c-w rod' _b .,,. FRANK SINATRA DRIVE , mmer: MONTEREY AVE. AT COUNTRY CLUB % COO, STREET TO GERALD Fa=D DRIVE i SIGNAL E.cost.1275.000 �� � rs:ors-:S35^..000 TRAF / ES FIC n: 20OI-2002 � •�� •.\ //: 4 PRomer. PORTOLA AVENUE Al HOYLEY LANE WEST \ , �� COEVELO•MFNT M fNCY PF.OJECT r: Tor_-=00f� Esc cost.SF50,000 \ \. ,�i r : PROJECT AREA k4 AREA B - COUNTRY CLUB AT WASHiNGTON TRAFFIC SIGNAL n: 2001-2002 rs-.cos•..;1.SSJ-OGJ PROJECT. MONTEREY AVE. AT HOW LANE WEST ESE.cost.1150.000 `\X STREET AND 914w PROJECT TV.. 2002-200J r.. . ... M•w.iw 4C i .Rarer, MAGNESIA FALLS DRIVE BRIDGE \\� AT SAN PASCHAL CHANNEL pM i ESE rose 1800.000 S01ET R9ROYlItlEr IROL rl:r9y-199►I, srmcrl RJPROVEMEN,PROJECT rI: 2G0u-mot; \ LwN�y ° N1oJrn> WASHINGTON STREET .ROJEcr. SAN PABLO A VENUE ' "•'"°° wwmy GLIB ro emnArm CMAMIEL f` nlGl/ DRIVE DRWY. TO U40MESIA FAU3 DRIV ,��""" at-.Cost-:12.000,000 Esr cosy:$275.000 Nary vo ea I BUILDAYGS n: I998-1999 �A _ ,.....• LAIRS m.19u-19w ►ROncr CIVIC CENTER PARK - - ` ..I r: NEIGHBORHOOD PARK,- STORAGE BUILDING IN P.O.C.C. AREA y Esr cos.:fes,000 Rr_d _- .'- .� rs,.tosr.$425.000 im STREET AND so=PROJECT n: r999-2000I „r, p,'V s- PRoncr FRED WARING DRIVE BRIDGE AT ME PALM VALLEY CHANNEL ,s7 rM r Gin 4 or.cosy:1500.000 8 _ f � momSIGNAL iF. 2002-1MJ MAfTIC SOW n: 199s-1999 .ROIwr: HOVLEY LANE EAST AT OASIS CLUB DR. PROAmr HWY I T I AT DESERT CROSSING rn.cosr.115o,000 ESE,com$73.000 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Tn 1998-r999 mvm SNRIAL n: 1999-I999 ' •,;"« .RONct. FRED WARING DRIVE - RDA PROD. PROJECT FRED WARING DR. AT C.O.D. DRVWY, i. CAUFOWA ID ELKHOM ESE.cosy.1150.000 , m.cost-$431000 � SMEEF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT nr I99B-1999 / ORAN4GE PROJECT Fr' 1998-i99! op .Roxcr: MONTEREY AVENUE - NORTHBOUND j ` \ PRoser: PALM DESERT C. C. - RDA PROJECT i ` WARNER TRAIL IF. WARING TO WHITEWATER CHANNEL HWY I11 TO PAW DESCRT TOWN CNTR.DRIVEWAY /!� 1 �\ , / ESE cos.:1410.000 ,r m.tmc fL100.000 op SrREEI IMPROVEMENT PRDXcr Fr: 1 999-2000 1 + NO1 prR pi,R TRAFFIC sI0/4L FY: 1998-1999 1 ^axCr SAN PABLO AVENUE .Rom: BEACON HILL AT HOVELY LANE EAST � It HWY I II TO FRED WARING DRIVE i Esr.cost-1150,000 ESE.cost:1375.000 I r / a // SfREEI IYPROVENEN!PROJECT n: 1998-1999 � stREn 9r ' ^ 2091-za0a COOK STREET AT 42nd AVENUE PROJECT: .ROxcr. HIGHWAY I I I ' AND MAYFAIR DRIVE/GREEN WAY HWY 74 TO DEEP CANYON ROAD EST.cm,1500.000 Esr cost.1Z000.000 .A '- STREET IMPROVEMENT FROJEC, n. 1099-2000 j TaAFFIC SICWAL fY: 1000-2MI . a \ PRarcr: COOk STREET - MEDIANS j .Rarr, HAYSTACK ROAD AT N COUNIRY CLUB TO FRED WARING DRIVE PORTOLA At ENUE ar.cost-1400.000 I CST co;r.113O.00G � rRAFTIt ACNAL -C11rR70E n: 1998-1999 \ STR£Ci 11IPROVEYFNT i40JFtr n: 1999-2000 MAJOR STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS macr: TRAFFIC SIGNAL COORDINATION ►Rarer PORTOLA AVENUE Fr 1998-1999-S25D.000 FY.2O&C-201 - t250.M0 ANALYSIS A'IMPLEMENTATION ALESSANDRO DR. TO FRED WARING ORVE to I 20M-S230.OM n:2001-2002- SI30.000 ESE.cosr:$100,000 ar.cosr:1800.000 •• n:1002-2MJ-1250.0M PARKS n: 1999-1999 STREET NJPROVEMENr PRmCr n, IM-1999 r NUISANCE WATER INLET IDRYWELL PROGRAM mAmr: SKATE PARK/ROLLER HOCKEY ►ROJrcc PORTOLA AVENUE - NORTHBOUND n: 1990-1999 -1J00.000 rY.2000-2aJl - 000.00D rsr.cost 1500.000 SAN MARINO CIRCLE TO EL CORTEZ �F rI: 1999-ZM -S739.000 rn 2001-2002 - S300.000 Est con:j77S,000 n:2002-200J-1JM.0M .RONcr: COMMUNITY PARK LAND PURCHASE MAJOR STREET LANDSCAPE PROGRAM tsr.cost.$765,350 7IAI;1L C: I191-2070 LEGEND Fr: 1998-1999-12.97..0M FY. 20w7-20CI - r550.000 PARKING Fr: 1998-1999 ADOW MOUNTAIN A, POPTOLA AVE.FI: 1999-2000-F725.000 n:2001-2002 - fJ75.OM ,Ra,�r;TOWN CENTER PARKING STRUCT 75.000 P•PPrw CVAG PAYMENT FOR I-10 INTERCHANGES EST.rose 111.000.000 0 PP.rtal.e NOUSMC rr, 19911-1919 r: 1998-1999-$250,000 n:16L:-20a1 ,,,a,�,, -FAMILY REHABILITATION rrr. 1999-20M-S250.000 rr 2001-2002-1250.0M MUITI e.� �•'�"'n"'•`��� rY:2002-2001-1250.000 rsr.Cos,.11,800.000 m Oo0a0w 0oam a••+� � „ CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 NEW PROJECTS MONTEREY AVENUE NB FROM HWY 111 TO PALM DESERT TOWN CENTER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: MONTEREY AVENUE NB FROM HWY 111 TO PALM DESERT TOWN CENTER DRIVEWAY DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DESCRIPTION: Design and construction of roadway on Monterey NB eastside from Highway 111 to the North Driveway of the Palm Desert Town Center to provide three lanes north bound. Involved right-of-way acquisition, modification of traffic, street widening, and widening. STATUS OF APPLICABLE REVIEW PROCESS BY COMMITTEES AND/OR CITIZENS ANTICIPATED ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST: $ 3,500 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY FUNDING SOURCES PLANNING&DESIGN 35,000 MEASURE A FUND 213 $ 440,000 ! PROJECT MANAGEMENT 25,000 CONSTRUCTION $ 300,000 EQUIPMENT t PROJECT CONTINGENCY 30,000 UNALLOCATED COSTS: R-O-W 50,000 TOTALS: $ 440,000 TOTALS: $ 440,000 00 i r r Page 274 i - CITY OF PALM DESERT vaw PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM � v FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 1 OF 5 CURRENT YR FUNDING FY98-99 PRIOR YR PROPOSED PROJECT LIST SOURCES FUNDING FUNDING TRAFFIC SIGNALS: •Hwy I I I at Desert Crossing I Traffic Signal& Driveway Modifications Traffic Signal Fund 234 3 75,000 y 'Traffic Signal Coordination Traffic Signal Fund 234 100,000 •Beacon Hill&Hovley Lane East Traffic Signal Fund 234 150.000 •Corporate Way&Hovley Lane East Traffic Signal Fund 234 150,000 'COD Driveway&Fred Waring Drive Traffic Signal Fund 234 150,000 r STREET&BRIDGE PROJECTS: 'Major street sidewalks Year 2000 Fund 400 S 250,000 Fred Waring Drive(Southside);Portola to San Pablo(check ROW);El Paseo(Southside)Hwy 74 a to Painters Path •Fred Waring-California to Elkhorn(North) RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 435,000 -� •Cook Street&42nd Avenue I Mayfair Or I Green Way Measure A Fund 213 500,000 Monterey Ave NS from Hwy 111 to Palm Desert Town North Driveway(Design&Construction) Measure A Fund 213 440,000 •Monterey Ave&Country Club. Measure A Fund 213 $ 175,000 Rancho Mirage/Fund 213 100,000 275,000 •NB Portola Avenue-widening San Marino Circe to El Cortez(Design&ROW acquisition) Measure A Fund 213 775,000 •Washington-Country Club to Whitewater Loan From CVAGI Fund 213 2,000,0o0 Gerald Ford-Portola to Cook Measure A Fund 213 640,000 •CVAG payments for 1-10 Interchange RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 250,000 1 MAJOR STREET LANDSCAPING PROGRAMS: J 'Ell Paseo Palm Tree Program Construction Tax FD 231 400,000 •Hovley Lane East:Portola Avenue to Cook St Median Construction Tax FD 231 190,000 •Cook St:Country Club Dr.to Hovley Lane East Median Construction Tax FD 231 170,000 •Country Club Or.Portola Avenue to Cook St Median Construction Tax FD 231 260,000 •Country Club Or.Cook St.to Washington St.(Cook to Oasis&Whitehawk) Construction Tax FD 231 460,000 _ •I-10 at Monterey,Cook&Washington Entry Art& Construction Tax FD 231 $ 100,000 J Landscaping AR In Public Places FD 436 100,000 200,000 _1 'Neighborhood Traffic Control Year 2000 Fund 400 100,000 'Joni Drive Extension Measure A Fund 213 250,000 •Perimeter Landscaping RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 374.000 'West side Washington St.Improvements between 1 Delaware Place&Mountain View RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 300,000 J .4 DRAINAGE 1 •PDCC-Warner Trail/Fred Waring to Whitewater 'J Channel (Drainage Area"L") RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 2,200,000 'Nuisance water inlet/drywell program Drainage Fund 420 300,000 PARKS Total CY&PY y 'Skate Park I Roller Hockey Park Fund 233 $ 300,544 150,000 150,544 Park Fund 430 199,456 199,456 J $ 500,000 J 'Neighborhood Park RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 $ 425,000 425,000 •Land Purchase for Regional Park RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 $ 340,350 340,350 J WALL 'Wall Program I Hovley Lane&Fred Waring RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 $ 425,000 425,000 J *Civic Center Park-Equipment Storage Building Construction Tax FD 231 85,000 ;� Page 265