The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0406 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - APRIL 6, 1999 �, 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � � � � * .� � ,� � * � � � * � � * �. � .� � � * � � � � � � � � �- � � � � � � �« � �. .� � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez � Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steve Smith, Planning Manager Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Martin Alvarez, Assistant Planner Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 16, 1999 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the March 16, 1999 minutes as submitted. Motion car�ied 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent March 25, 1999 City Council actions. w MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 3� � � VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 99-4 - ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CO., INC., Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment to conform to approved project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. 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 Nos. PP/CUP 99-3 and VAR 99-1 - SEAN KEARNEY, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, precise plan of design and front setback variance for a two story 7,500 square foot office building at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Acacia Drive. Mr. Smith noted that this application should be considered in conjunction with the second public hearing item, Case No. ZOA 99-1 . He indicated that the property was located at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Acacia. The site plan and colored elevations were on display. The property comprised two lots with 120 feet of frontage on Fred Waring and 154 feet on Acacia for a total of 18,896 square feet. The north lot was zoned Office Professional. The south lot was zoned R-1 single family residential. The site � was currently vacant and had recently been graded clear. The building would � be two stories and a total of 22 feet high. He described the architecture as � 2 . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � contemporary and indicated that the building was completely located on the northerly lot, the office professional zoned lot. The parking lot to support the use was proposed on the R-1 lot to the south. Part of the application was a variance request on the front yard setback. The request was to reduce the setback from 15 feet to 3 feet and at some points zero. The variance request was based on the exceptionally wide parkway between this lot and Fred Waring Drive. He noted that there were remnant parcels located adjacent to Fred Waring Drive when it was originally widened and that resulted in the excess setback. The buildings to both the east and west were granted similar setback variances. Relative to parking, the applicant would provide a total of 26 spaces which was consistent with the ordinance for a building this size. As previously noted, the parking lot would be located on the R-1 zoned lot. Currently the ordinance did not permit parking in an R-1 zone. As indicated in the next case, the Palma Village Plan when it was adopted in 1990 encouraged the creation of these office professional uses along Fred Waring Drive with parking in the back. Two zoning ordinance amendments were done. One was when adjacent to the C-1 zone, the provision under which Walgreens proceeded, and the other was when adjacent to the R-2 zone. �""' Staff did not proceed with the zoning ordinance change to allow it as a conditional use in the R-1 zone at that time because there were no pending applications. The building would be two sto�ies high, but only a portion of the building had a second floor. On the first floor there was approximately 6,000 square feet and on the second floor 1 ,444 square feet. The parking for the facility was based on the general office use only. No medical office uses would be permitted and there was a condition prohibiting medical and dental offices in this building, noting that the parking standard was recently increased for medical and dental offices. Earlier office professional buildings could go in and have up to 2,200 square feet of inedical use without providing the higher parking amount. Staff received three letters which were distributed to commission. Two of the letters, from Peggy Ames and Frank Miller, expressed concern with the architecture and parking. Both noted that the buildings on either side had a southwestern style while the proposed one was contemporary. They also asked that the commission be confident that there was enough parking. Staff felt that with a condition prohibiting medical and dental uses that parking would be adequate. The third letter received was from Mr. Swenson, the property owner immediately to the south. He requested the inclusion of a seven-foot wall. The typical standard was six feet. Staff had no problem with conditioning the seven-foot wall and did so �, in the draft resolution. Mr. Smith felt that the commission could adopt a 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNWG COMMISSION �. APRIL 6, 1999 Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and recommended approval subject to the conditions. He noted that in the conditions this approval was subject to the approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 99-1 . He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked where Acacia was blocked off right now in relation to where this project was proposed. Mr. Smith noted that Acacia was blocked off on the north segment approximately across to where Mike Homme's building was under construction last summer. Since that time diverters were installed which prohibited left turn movements from Acacia onto Fred Waring from either the north or south side. Mr. Greenwood explained that currently there were no closures on Acacia but there was a median on Fred Waring across Acacia so someone could turn left from Fred Waring onto Acacia but they couldn't turn left or go through if they were on Acacia at Fred Waring. Commissioner Lopez asked if the wall next to the proposed southerly wall was also seven feet high. Mr. Smith said he thought it was six feet. He indicated they would probably step the wall down from the seven feet and transition it to the six-foot wall, but the main concern was the wall to the south. Upon questioning by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Smith explained that there was an existing fence along the south and a combination of wood fence and wall to the west. He pointed out that the split face wall material being asked for was used here at city hall. Chairperson Jonathan asked if ARC considered a southwest design as opposed to contemporary. Mr. Smith indicated they weren't presented with a southwestern design, but a contemporary which was deemed acceptable and was given preliminary approval. To his recollection the subject wasn't addressed specifically. Chairperson Jonathan noted that in the letter from Mr. Miller he asked about the inclusion of an elevator. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the current status was on requiring elevators and if this application would be conditioned on that. Mr. Smith noted that the Building Department did not call it out as a requirement in their comments. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith knew in general or as a matter of policy if the City required it or if there were other governmental agencies that due to handicap requirements provide for an elevator when a building was two stories. Mr. � Smith explained that �equirement was enforced through the Building Department but he didn't know who they were doing it on behalf of. Mr. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 �... Hargreaves indicated that generally speaking, if a business was open to the public they would be required to be handicap accessible. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the building standards should incorporate that requirement or if it was already done on a defacto basis by other agencies. Mr. Smith thought it was part of the adoption of the ADA requirements. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was, if it was an oversight that there wasn't a condition of approval or if it was just an assumption that there would be an elevator. He assumed it had not been included in any of the plans the City received. Mr. Smith said that was correct and suggested that Mr. Holden address that issue. From the Building Department's perspective they would assume it wasn't necessary until they find that the building was open to the public. At this point the tenancy was not determined so if they were going to use the second floor area as storage it might not be required. Chairperson Jonathan thought it might be wise to have a condition in the same way we prohibit medical use ' we could prohibit public access to the second floor unless an elevator was installed. He indicated he wouldn't burden this application with the issue, although he would ask the applicant about it, but he requested a brief report at the next meeting as to what the City's current procedures were with regard � to elevators and two story structures that appear to be available to the public. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the north elevations indicate that the windows were high up and therefore would not intrude into the privacy of the residential neighbors. He asked if that was accurate or if he should ask the applicant. Mr. Smith said staff assumed the windows were not above 5'6" and included a condition requiring that it be visually obscured either with the use of glass block, etched glass or something that would eliminate the problem. If in fact the windows were above 5'6" that condition would be waived per the ordinance. Chairperson Jonathan noted that they discussed the seven-foot wall but the letter also asked for tan coloring as well. He asked if that was addressed and if it would be acceptable to be consistent with the building to the west. Mr. Smith felt the applicant should address that issue. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK HOLDEN, Holden and Johnson Architects at 44-267 Monterey Avenue, indicated he was present to answer questions. Regarding the question of a southwestern design being considered by � ARC it wasn't and as they were designing the project they felt no 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 provisions to design it southwest. There was no deed restriction or city requirement that it be southwest and when they did a couple of buildings for Mike Homme and Wes Oliphant next to them they did kind of a one story little mexican village next to their two story contemporary and they hadn't had any complaints about that offending anyone. He thought a mixture of architecture helped. He didn't know that they wanted everything to be the same. It wasn't meant to look like a condominium development and he thought this one actually had a little more relief than the two story pueblo building that came into their parking lot on the other side of Acacia. They were able to pull things back a bit. One of the things the commission asked about was the glass on the second floor. Realistically, if they had been inside their building, this was kind of the same way. What happened on the second floor was that there were offices on both sides adjacent to Acacia and adjacent to the other building. There was only a bridge between those offices and it was a two story space on the inside. That glass was not adjacent to the bridge but free floating. The bridge was open to a mezzanine on the first floor and the glass was above. It was high and shouldn't be an intrusion. Regarding elevators, Mr. Holden explained that ADA didn't require elevators based on the size limitation of the second floor. The second floor was only 1 ,000 feet compared to the first floor at 6,000 square feet and it wasn't a requirement. Chairperson Jonathan noted that one of the requirements of ADA was if there was a second floor bathroom they did require grab rails and the width for wheelchairs. Mr. Holden indicated that just like hotels or whatever, even if they had them it was a percentage of the space that was required. Someday it might be but right now it wasn't. Right now there were no plans for an elevator. During the course of their work they run their jobs through the City before they turn them in for ADA requirements because they change constantly. That was checked out before they turned in the job. Chairperson Jonathan noted that one of the respondents indicated not only a request for a seven-foot split face block wall but also that the color be tan. He asked if a tan color was acceptable and if it was consistent. � , 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 �.. Mr. Holden confirmed that the tan would be the same color used in the building. He noted they were also trying to screen the motor home behind the wall. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell said if Mr. Holden was in favor of raising the wall to seven feet or even higher to shield the motor home and change the color of the masonry blocks and agreed with all the conditions of approval, she would be in favor of the project. Commissioner Beaty felt it was a very attractive rendering and moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, �' approving the findings as presented by staff. Chairperson Jonathan felt the project was not only attractive, but was the exact design intended under the Palma Village Plan with the unobtrusive transition from Fred Waring into residential. He was in favor and called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918, recommending to City Council approval of PP/CUP 99-3 and VAR 99-1 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. ZOA 99-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to Chapter 25.16.030 of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance to allow office professional parking lots as a conditional use within the R-1 zone when directly adjacent to office professional zoned property and consistent with the recommendations of an adopted specific plan. �rw 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � � Mr. Smith noted that most of this was covered during the previous report and he would not repeat that other than to say that this would be consistent with the provisions of the Palma Village Plan and consistent with the other two zone changes done in 1990 and it would allow the previous application to proceed. He indicated it was a Class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and staff was recommending that Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to City Council. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing, noted that the City was the applicant, and asked in anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. .� It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1919, recommending to City Councit approval of ZOA 99-1 . Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP 98-9 - JOHN STEIGERWALDT FOR MARK MOSCROP, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct an outdoor storage yard, outdoor display garden and a 720 square foot sales office located on the north side of 42nd Avenue 1,000 feet west of Cook Street. Mr. Alvarez noted that landscaping, elevations and site plans were on the wall. The project was located in the service industrial district and fronted on 42nd Avenue. There was vacant property to the west, service industrial to the east, and Waste Management property to the north. As indicated, the project consisted of three categories of uses. An open air storage area which would contain materials which the property owner sells, manufactures and installs. The second area consisted of an outdoor display garden which had an eight- � foot concrete meandering path meandering through the site to various concrete pads for outdoor display areas. The landscaping plan was approved by the 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � architecture review board on November 24, 1998. He noted that the plan consisted of a variety of native desert plants, trees and ground covers. The � site also incorporated a meandering pond and stream system. Parking would be located in the front section along the west property line. Fourteen spaces were being provided on site. The third use would be a 720 square foot modular building. The building itself was 12 x 60 and was a manufactured modular building ten feet high and setback 75 feet from the front property line. The design of the modular building was before the architectural review board and was granted preliminary approval January 12, 1 999, subject to various architectural details to be implemented on the structure. Those details had been incorporated in the design before Planning Commission and as described on page 2 of the staff report, those features included the addition of a stucco exterior finish, the addition of a trellis system along the front to break up the elevation, adding window treatments along the windows and doors, and lowering the building to the ground instead of mounting it on piers. Significant amounts of landscaping were strategically located in front of the building to soften that look. As indicated before, there would be 14 parking spaces which staff felt was adequate to meet the needs of this facility. The 720 square foot � sales office required three spaces or 1/250 square feet. The applicant indicated he would have a total of five employees. That left staff to believe that the 14 spaces would be adequate. For CEQA purposes the project was a Class 3 categorical exemption and with the conditions of approval which included condition number 13 requiring the applicant to provide additional off street parking spaces if parking became an issue, he concluded and recommended approval subject to the conditions. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if Velie Drive went through where it would come out on 42nd Avenue. Mr. Alvarez noted that it was located to the east. Chairperson Jonathan oaened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARK MOSCROP, 52 Sutton Place in Palm Desert, and MR. JOHN STEIGERWALDT, 85 Alpine Village in Mountain Center, addressed the commission and indicated they were present to answer questions. � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � ,� ,; � . � Commissioner Finerty noted that the staff report indicated that the building would be a permanent structure and asked if that was the case why they were going to build a modular instead of a permanent structure. Mr. Moscrop stated that basically the issue was his budget. He would have anywhere between S.5 million and $.75 million worth of inventory � and he wanted to have the landscape and the experience of going to their stone yard so he wasn't' worried about making a monumental building there. It was more to come and see their product and he also had the land between his current business Glass Stone as well as the parcel that was in between. In time his big plan was to have an office building in there and they would take the corner unit and make that the actual corporate office of Glass Stone. He said it was as permanent as it needed to be. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was opposed to putting in a permanent structure now. Mr. Moscrop said yes because he just didn't have the budget with the � � amount of inventory and with the landscape design they have done. It would be very prohibitive. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. � Commissioner Finerty stated that she was opposed to this mainly because of the modular building. She felt a modular building did not live up to the image of Palm Desert and if this was going to be a permanent structure she personally would like to see a permanent building. She would like to see the applicant work toward some sort of permanent building and perhaps lessen his inventory for the overall benefit of the city. She felt that to allow modulars throughout the city would be lowering Palm Desert's standards. Commissioner Campbell said she didn't have any problem with the building. She thought some of the buildings around 42nd Avenue looked more like warehouses and since Architectural Review Commission approved it and added conditions on the developer, she would be in favor of approving the project as � proposed. � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � Commissioner Beaty stated that he didn't have a major problem with the building. He thought it was screened by landscaping from the street and didn't think it would be a problem. Commissioner Lopez indicated that initially he had a problem with the modular building but looking at the landscaping, he thought it would work out and as the applicant indicated, the future might hold additional growth and the potential to add on an area that would be considered a sales office. He asked if the applicant did decide to build a much more permanent or part of a building that would be a sales presentation office what would happen to the modular building at that point in time. Mr. Smith indicated that the permanent building would come back through Planning Commission and they could condition it that they remove the modular building. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he also shared Commissioner Finerty's concern. In an ideal situation he would much rather have a truly permanent building up to the normal standards and if it was in any other part of the city he would stick with that but he thought that part of Cook Street could handle � that particularly because it would be set back and not visible and overall the project was a positive addition to the area. If it came out half as nice as envisioned, he thought it would be a very nice project. All in all he was willing to approve it but he certainly shared the concern and the preference would have been to see a nice permanent building but given the fact that the applicant was not able to do that at this point he was going to hope that at some point he would. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1920, approving PP 98-9, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no1. D. Case No. TT 28590 - SOUTHLAND COMMUNITIES INC., Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental � Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 17.5 acres into 64 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � � � single family lots. Property is I�cated at the northwest corner of Fred Waring D�ive and Phyllis Jackson Lane. Mr. Alvarez noted that there was there was a revised tract map which had been distributed to commission and put on display. He apologized for the delay in getting the revised map. He indicated that a major issue which had arisen was the access. The access was modified and changed to Phyllis Jackson. He pointed out the location of Phyllis Jackson, Moss Rose Road and the access. He noted that originally the tract map was proposed with a single access funneling all traffic through on Moss Rose and an emergency access off of Phyllis Jackson. Various neighborhood letters of concern were received and the issue was addressed. Staff felt this was a better solution to the potential traffic problem. He explained that the property consisted of 17.5 acres and had frontage on three streets: Fred Waring Drive, Phyllis Jackson and Moss Rose Road. The property would consist of 64 single family lots each a minimum 8,000 square feet consistent with the city ordinance. Page three of the staff report listed neighborhood concerns. Number one related to � access/traffic which he addressed. Staff looked at various alternatives regarding the access. For Fred Waring Drive staff felt that would not be feasible. Staff also looked at the adjacent tract map to the west which was also owned by the same property owners. Since that was a private road system that also was not a feasible alternative. The best alternative was Phyllis Jackson. For purposes of making this a better subdivision Phyllis Jackson would be widened to five lanes which would relieve some of the congestion on Phyllis Jackson. Per another issue which would be coming up staff included a condition (number 34) requiring the applicant to install a student drop off area which would be for west bound parents dropping off kids so they could walk over to the high school which would also alleviate some of the morning and afternoon congestion. Condition 31 also indicated that Phyllis Jackson would be widened. With those conditions implemented, staff believed this would be a feasible solution. Morning traffic traveling northbound to the high school would in general be opposite to the subdivision traffic which would be traveling southbound on Phyllis Jackson and opposite during peak afternoon hours. Other issues raised were pedestrian cut through traffic on Moss Rose Road. Students right now traveled down Moss Rose through a chain link fence and to the high school. In the future when the subdivision to the north is constructed, a solid perimeter wall would travel down Phyllis Jackson ,.� practically down to the wash so cut through traffic would eventually be � eliminated. Another issue was construction traffic. As requested by the � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � �r,u► neighborhood, Condition No. 34 would require construction traffic to enter the site via Fred Waring. That would alleviate some of the existing impacts which the residents were experiencing due to the adjacent tract map construction traffic entering Moss Rose and into the subdivision. With those conditions staff recommended approval. For purposes of CEQA staff recommended that commission adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked where the entrance was for the development currently under construction. Mr. Alvarez indicated there were two access points for the west property. One on Deep Canyon and a secondary access off of Moss Rose. Construction traffic was using the back piece as a staging area for their phases. Commissioner Campbell asked where the main entrance was located. Mr. Alvarez said it was off Deep Canyon. Chairperson Jonathan asked how the access road onto Phyllis Jackson aligned with the project to the east across Phyllis Jackson. Mr. Alvarez showed current access to Phyllis Jackson and the proposed access. He indicated they �' didn't align and were about 300 feet apart. Commissioner Lopez asked if it happened to align with the road running east and west by the high school. Mr. Alvarez said no. Mr. Alvarez clarified that they intentionally did not align. Mr. Greenwood explained that there was a substantial traffic problem at the high school now. If they were to align traffic with Fred Smith Way which was the access road running along the south side of the high school, they would potentially run the risk of needing a traffic signal there which was something they wanted to avoid. There could also be more impact to the residents by parents parking in that turnout blocking the gate so by offsetting it the intent was to mitigate the impact of the high school on the residential neighborhood. They didn't align it with Waring Court to get it as far away from Fred Waring as possible and to also avoid a full intersection at that location. Commissioner Campbell asked when Phyllis Jackson was widened to five lanes what the lanes would consist of--if there would just be a left turn into the development or what. Mr. Greenwood said there were a couple of alternatives: to make it an ingress to the high school, a third lane in and a third lane out, or a two way left turn lane so that the project could use it also as a left turn into the residential development. It hadn't been decided which way would be the optimal use. Chairperson Jonathan suggested that the center lane function as both an ingress and egress. The high school had staff that could move cones � or do what they needed so they could have three lanes usable when they 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � needed them. He had seen that done at other places. Mr. Greenwood agreed that would be the most optimal use. However, the high school did not have staff there willing to commit to that use. Mr. Greenwood agreed that a reversible lane always included some kind of physical barrier between the opposing direction. Chairperson Jonathan noted the pedestrian foot traffic across Moss Rose Road, rather than blocking it off if it would be feasible to do a little path and opening at the block wall so that the students if they were using it and he assumed there was a student population that was coming from west of Deep Canyon and asked if they could make that available to them. Mr. Alvarez indicated that staff looked into that but based on neighborhood concerns staff felt that was an issue that should be addressed by blocking it. Mr. Greenwood explained that Public Works has also had a long term ongoing process because the neighbors were complaining about the pedestrian traffic so they had done their best to prevent the pedestrian traffic because it impacted the neighborhood. He was sure they wouldn't support that. Commissioner Beaty said he had that same question and that bothered him. He certainly did not want motorcycles or cars running through there but he would like to see a sidewalk through there for students in the proposed homes and the other area back there. He suggested that perhaps access could be blocked at certain times during the day, but if they couldn't walk through there they would drive all the way around and that created more traffic. Mr. Greenwood noted that there is a walkway along the wash that was quite a circuitous route. Unfortunately the pedestrian activity near schools, especially high schools, tended to have a negative impact on neighborhoods. He said it wasn't an unusual situation where the students tended to cause minor problems in neighborhoods. Commissioner Beaty also noted that the school was there before the neighborhood. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission thought that was desirable from a legal and easement standpoint and there was room to make that happen. If commission found it desirable to accommodate a pedestrian walkway from Moss Rose Road to Phyllis Jackson, if the commission had the ability within this application to create an easement to facilitate that. Mr. Alvarez said that if commission specifically requested it staff could add that as a condition. Chairperson Jonathan noted that it was a large lot. Mr. Alvarez explained that it was a retention lot. Mr. Greenwood agreed that physically it could be done. � Commissioner Lopez asked if at Fred Waring Drive at the entrance, which was � addressed in Condition No. 31, if along Fred Waring west of Phyllis Jackson � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � if there was a sidewalk along there. He knew the property line came way out and it would all be set back then and asked if that was where the drop off area would be. Mr. Alvarez concurred and explained that the new curb line would align with the existing curb line for the west property and then there would be a drop off area in that location. He showed on the map the location of the drop off area, curb line and sidewalk. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. KEVIN RICHER, LDDC Engineering, 1910 South Archibald Avenue Suite N in Ontario, stated that he was representing the applicant. He thanked Mr. Alvarez for bringing the concerns of the neighborhoods up at the earliest possible moment so they didn't have to have this continued and cause a further delay. He felt they had addressed the concerns of the neighbors and concerns that came up in other tentative conditions by closing off the access to the Moss Rose subdivision. They looked at a number of options. Fred Waring wasn't feasible for �"' traffic reasons. So as not to impact the interior design of the site this was a relatively minor change and they provided the access onto Phyllis Jackson, widened it south of that access and in discussions with Mr. Gaugush they located the access as was discussed far enough away from the intersection of Fred Waring to not cause a traffic problem and to not align with Waring Court or the access road that goes along the south of the high school. As far as the concerns with the pedestrian access, the residents inside the tract would have access out through the access onto Phyllis Jackson. Their intent right now was to have it completely walled, but as stated, the retention basin would definitely provide a means for that if so required. He didn't know if the commission wanted pedestrian access going through a basin which potentially could have water in it and it might need to be a separate walled easement possibly blocked at times, but he would defer to whatever was conditioned. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that he wasn't so rriuch concerned with pedestrian access for residents of the proposed project as he wanted to continue Moss Rose for pedestrian access along the northern boundary of that retention basin for east-west foot traffic connecting Moss Rose to Phyllis � Jackson. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 Mr. Richer said that as far as turnouts on Fred Waring, they provided a 200-foot long turnout just west of the intersection with Phyllis Jackson and then the extra lane on Phyllis Jackson was added south of their entrance only. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked where they would locate two story homes. Mr. Richer said he couldn't answer that. The developer had not decided what his mix would be. He thought the developer's intention was to build the same units that he has on the property to the west and he wasn't sure he had any two story homes there. Mr. Alvarez noted that Condition No. 13 called out which lots would be feasible for two story development per section 25.24.321 of the ordinance which basically prohibited any two story homes along the perimeter of the project, or at least one lot depth from the perimeter. Commissioner Campbell asked if some of the homes on Moss Rose Road were two stories. Mr. Alvarez said he thought they were all single story. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that the application was for a tentative tract map and asked if the project would come back to them with a precise plan where they could review elevations and architectural renderings. Mr. Smith said no, that would be handled through the Architectural Review Commission unless the commission requested to see it prior to approval and they could condition it. Chairperson Jonathan said for example they could say that if there were going to be two story structures then the commission would want to see it. Mr. Smith said staff could add a condition to that effect. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. MR. DAVE WILLIAMS, 74-570 Moss Rose in Palm Desert, indicated that he couldn't say he was opposed to the project. First of all he was happy to see some of the changes and that some letter writing spurred this. He wanted to address the issue of foot traffic. He said if the commission drove down Moss Rose they would see all the smashed mail boxes. The residents were continually cooperating with the local � police that are monitoring that area. They find marijuana pipes in the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � gutters and it was a mess. Not to mention it was a raceway up and down Moss Rose. Chairperson Jonathan asked if students drove on Moss Rose. Mr. Williams replied absolutely. Students park on Moss Rose and walk across because they didn't want to pay for parking. One of his only requests was phase one, which was close to Moss Rose, if that could actually be phase one to be less of an impact to all the neighbors there. They've had nothing but problems with the Palmira project. It was an enormous nuisance with the construction traffic, debris and no ground cover and when the wind blows the whole neighborhood had to clean the roads at their own expense and the gutters. He noticed that as soon as they got that tract complete they directed the traffic around to Moss Rose which was obvious they didn't want the homeowners of their tract to see construction traffic going up and down. If they could get phase one at least complete then the contractor would enforce the traffic in that area and it would be less impacting on the homeowners �••► on Moss Rose. He was in construction and when they completed an area they were not allowed to drive around in it. It would be less of a nuisance for them. He wasn't aware of any two story homes and that kind of shocked him although he heard that wasn't for sure. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that the application and conditions of approval allowed two story homes but not along the perimeter of the project, only within. All two story structures were subject to height restrictions and other types of �estrictions according to the zoning ordinance. At this point they didn't have a precise plan so the applicant had not indicated whether in fact he intended to build two story homes or not. Mr. Williams stated that they addressed the first seven items and that was great. He had some serious reservations about the foot traffic only because if they drove down that road it wasn't a pretty sight. They were continually fixing mail boxes, cleaning up coke bottles and homemade pipes and it was a mess. He said they were just high school kids exercising their free spirit. Commissioner Campbell asked if all the kids drove there, parked and then � walked over or if there were any kids walking to school. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 `� Mr. Williams said there were parents that drive, drop the kids off and wait. There were also the kids that drive down and that had been limited because they had been making so many phone calls to the enforcement over at the high school, but usually they parked along Moss Rose and walked across. He didn't know how much a parking pass cost but the kids wanted to avoid that. Then they congregated before school and after and he personally had to call because they were smoking pot over there. The problems might be cut down after the whole neighborhood developed and with no fields, but right there it was wide open with no trees and they were doing it right out in the open and didn't care. They almost dared anyone to say anything. Commissioner Lopez asked if they parked on the dirt. Mr. Williams said no, they parked at the curb on the housing side of the street. They didn't want to get their cars dirty. MS. WILLA INGLESON, 74-560 Moss Rose Drive, stated that she too was not opposed to the tract map as presented. She was very pleased with the amendments that had been made; however, she wanted to express some concerns she had with respect to pedestrian traffic. Certainly Mr. Williams brought forth several of the concerns they have on a daily basis with respect to foot traffic. She wanted to point out to the City right now that she didn't believe that foot traffic was legal. There was actually barbed wire fencing which went along the perimeter of the property and the students cut a hole through that so she presumed when the school was originally built that it was not the intention that Moss Rose be used for pedestrian foot traffic. She understood that the fence had been patched several times and the students continued to cut a hole through so they could get to the school. With respect to the student activity, they have had several incidents they have experienced as well. Their mail box had been destroyed and basically it was coming out of the concrete because it had been kicked so many times. They had an incident about a week and a half ago. They were putting in a pool in the back and had dig alert signs on their front lawn. On a Saturday evening some students- teenagers set them on fire so when they came out the next morning � they found them burnt. They had condoms and used condoms located � outside their house, drug paraphernalia and cigarette butts. They had 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � experienced problems with students driving up the street at a high degree of speed and they have several children on the street which was a concern because the drivers paid no attention to how fast they were going. They park on the street both on the housing side and dirt road. Sometimes they go through the dirt road to kick up all the dust just to be a nuisance. She wanted to express their concerns that they do not want a pedestrian walkway through there. There was a walkway through the wash which was less than five minutes away and she didn't see any reason why the high school students could not have access to the school through that because it wasn't a huge amount of time added onto their walk to school each day. MR. MARIO HERNANDEZ, 74-530 Moss Rose Drive, thanked the commission for the changes and amendments that had been made. He thought it would work out fine with the traffic off of Phyllis Jackson. Along with his neighbors he wanted to express his concern over the foot traffic and the possibility of an access being made through Phyllis Jackson onto Moss Rose Drive. He had also experienced the concerns � expressed, as did other neighbors that weren't at the meeting who have commented on the same things. Particularly the smashed mail boxes. They kept replacing it and it kept getting smashed along with the garbage. He thought the other propositions with the walkway along the back side and even around the front in his view would be sufficient. He didn't see that they would have to have a walkway through Moss Rose. He would appreciate it if the commission would not allow it. MR. TODD FILPULA, 74-560 Moss Rose Drive, said he wanted to speak not only for himself and the neighbors along the street, but he felt it was important at this time to also say something for the people who were going to move into the new development, Canyon Crest. Right now they were experiencing a lot of the problems with the mail boxes and garbage and should a walkway be put through, he thought those people who would reside even further down the street in the newest development would be turning their area into a parking lot and they would continue to experience the garbage and a lot of things already mentioned. The walkway to the wash and the walkway-sidewalk along Fred Waring were plenty close for the students to get around the development. Once the developments had been built, both Canyon � Crest and the new Palmira development, the area would be very 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � � � beautiful which was one of the reasons they moved into the area. He said he would like to dissuade the comrnission from the pedestrian walkway as well. Another incident his wife neglected to mention was they have had their hose used for whatever reason and they have come home to find it on and flooding their front lawn and those sorts of things. Right now they would like to see those things stopped. He realized they probably wouldn't stop but thought that once the entire development was done with the exclusion of the walkway he thought the area would be very good and to everyone's satisfaction. He thanked Mr. Alvarez, Mr. Smith and Mr. Richer for the proposed changes because they certainly met what the residents proposed. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wished to provide any further comments. Mr. Richer said no. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty said he now certainly understood and the neighbors had convinced him that they probably did not want a pedestrian access there and he thought that was really a shame. The only good thing he heard was that � perhaps some of them were using condoms and suggested that perhaps they should consider an eight-foot wall with razor wire. He thought that situation was really bad. Commissioner Campbell felt that as long as the developer was happy with all the conditions put upon them and the neighbors seemed to be happy with all the changes she would move for approval without the opening in the wall. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Chairperson Jonathan commented that at first he too initially thought what a nice idea it was to have a pedestrian access, but he had certainly been dissuaded or persuaded otherwise. He noted what a shame it was that as so often was the case a few bad apples made the other good people pay the price because he imagined and hoped that there were only a few students doing this compared to the whole student population and he like others had children at the high school so he knew it was a good school, but it was really appalling what was going on .. there. He suggested if the residents hadn't done so already that they should � contact the Palm Desert Police in this regard because it sounded like it had � � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � escatated beyond simple vandalism if there was such a thing to what he felt was a serious problem and perhaps over the course of a few days if they put someone out there inconspicuously, not in a squad car but in some other way or had some automatic cameras or something, if a few students got expelled he thought it would send the message out that their neighborhood was not the place to do these kinds of things. He was really sorry to hear that was going on. He asked if there was other discussion. Commissioner Lopez thanked the neighborhood for taking the time to speak to the commission and was also very concerned about the conditions existing on the road. He sat there during school time and watched the traffic go through there, but there was the opportunity to go along the wash. There was a walkway along that wash that wasn't very far away and he rode his bike there almost daily and it was convenient and opened up an opportunity for them to walk to school, especially the folks that would be living in the newer section after it's built. Chairperson Jonathan noted there was a motion and second for approval which did not include a pedestrian access but included a block wall and called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1921 , approving TT 28590 subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Chairperson Jonathan thanked the applicant for being a cooperative and understanding neighbor and commended him for making the changes he did which made the commission's job easier. E. Case Nos. MP/CUP 99-1 and PP 99-4 - TRAVIS ENGINEERING, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a master plan of development for a drive-thru restaurant (Jack in the Box►, a convenience store, gas bar, and mini storage facility; a precise plan of design for the Jack in the Box restaurant (including drive- thru), convenience store (including sale of beer and wine) and gas bar, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for property at the northwest corner of Washington Street and Country Club Drive, APN 607-070-017, � 78-078 Country Club Drive. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � Mr. Smith noted that as indicated, the property is located at the northwest corner of Washington and Country Club. The site is a vacant 3.99 acre site generally flat bounded on the east by Washington Street, on the north by the railway and the tamarisk trees, and on the west commission recently approved a master plan of development on a 20.5 acre site which included a retail portion, a hotel. portion, a mini warehouse facility and an expansion of the industrial park. The property is included in the Freeway Commercial Overlay District. That code section was created in 1997 to expand the permitted uses. This applicant was seeking approval of three aspects which were only permitted in the Freeway Commercial Overlay. That was the drive-through restaurant, a second or third service station within 500 feet of other service stations and the mini warehouse facility. The master plan contained two differing land uses. The southerly portion proposed Jack in the Box with a drive-through. The northerly portion was a future mini warehouse facility. The Jack in the Box facility as noted included a proposed convenience store approximately 2,400 square feet as well as a gas bar. The plans in question were on display. He showed the location of Country Club Drive, Washington Street and Desert Country Circle. The project proposed three access points from Desert Country Circle. The southerly one would lead to the gas pump islands and to the drive-through facility. He showed the traffic flow pattern for the drive-through. Two other access points were on Desert Country Circle. One at the northerly end provided access into the future mini storage facility and then a center one that would provide exiting from either project. He felt the access to the site was adequate. At the top of page 3 of the staff report he noted that the Public Works Department in their conditions indicated that the intersection of Country Club and Desert Country Circle would not be signalized. That was due to the proximity to Washington Street some 340 or 350 feet away. The Public Works Department did not want to create a provision for left turn movements exiting this project so there was a requirement in their conditions. He thought the diverters would be somewhat similar to what they have at Acacia and Fred Waring. He wasn't sure how they would do the design but it would be designed to prohibit the left turn movement. People wishing to get back to the freeway would turn right. There would be a signal at Harris Lane and it would provide for left turn "u" turns back to the freeway. That was a distance of 500 feet. Parking on the � southerly portion of the site required 39 parking spaces plus 7 stacking spaces in the drive-through lane. They were providing 39 regular sized spaces plus � 3- compact spaces plus 9 in the drive-through stacking and there were an additional 12 spaces in the pump islands. This complied with the code 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 �r.• requirement. He noted the colored rendering was on display. The architecture was granted preliminary approval by Architectural Review Commission February 23, 1999. They conditioned some changes which were not indicated on the display. They required the lowering of the tower elements and the deletion of the wood beams protruding through the walls to try and tone down the architecture. The plan complied with the 30% requirement of landscaped open space. Mr. Smith indicated that the earlier submittals to ARC did not meet that standard and in fact started at 14%. The applicant came along and they now had 32% of the overall site area. He noted that while the landscape plan indicated the areas to be landscaped ARC did not approve the plant palette associated with it. That would be refined further in that staff had some concerns specifically that some of the material would not do well in the wind conditions at that location. The palette would be revised. The applicant advised that they intend to incorporate Art in Public Places into the site plan. There was room to do so. Staff was recornmending a payment of a day care mitigation fee of S 10,000. The setbacks for the proposal complied with the ordinance. The code required that drive-through lanes be designed so as not to be visible from an arterial street. As a result of the increase in the � landscape area, specifically along Washington Street, ARC felt a little more comfortable with that provision in that Mr. Smith didn't think it would be visible from Country Club Drive in that the drive-through window was located on the north side of the building, but due to the elevation change on Washington Street it made it difficult and that was why they had a much greater landscape depth there. ARC felt that getting anything to grow on that slope would be dicey at best and weren't counting on doing anything there. If they could accomplish something that would be great, but the flat area should also afford that level of protection. The north end of the site, the future mini storage facility, was generally unplanned at this point. They showed access at this point from the north end of Desert Country Circle. Staff felt that it was the logical location for it. The parking associated with a mini storage facility did not increase with an increase in the size of the building so staff did not include a condition relative to the maximum size that it could be. At some point in the future an applicant would come forth with a detailed precise plan design for that portion of this site and they would be required to adhere to the architectural theme they establish here, but with the rest of it they would have the ability to massage it and make it work. The project was within an area of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Preserve and they would be conditioned to pay the required fee. Staff was recommending the � adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � APRIL 6, 1999 recommendation was that they approve the master plan of development and the precise plan of design for the drive-through restaurant, the convenience store including the sale of beer and wine, the gas bar and the Negative Declaration. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on the location of the convenience store. Mr. Smith explained it was in the westerly portion of the restaurant. It was a new concept. Chairperson Jonathan asked for confirmation that there was no wall between the convenience store and Jack in the Box according to the drawing, although it might be a roll up one so they could block it off at night but it was basically one facility. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked if they could order a glass of wine with their hamburger. Chairperson Jonathan said that in theory the convenience store would be licensed for take out sales only of liquor but in practice there was probably a policing issue there. He thought it was physically possible to buy liquor and walk over without exiting the facility and have lunch. Commissioner Campbell commented that it would be more palatable. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant had any problem with lowering the tower or removing the beams. Mr. Smith said no, they had been convinced. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was any signage that fell outside the normal provisions under the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone. Mr. Smith said the facility might be eligible for the Caltrans logo program depending on the hours of operation which would be 24 hours. Staff would certainly make them aware of it and provide them with the appropriate contact people. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that would come back before commission. Mr. Smith said no, it was a program that took effect in the Caltrans right of way and did not need to be part of the precise plan approval. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the signage shown in this application was consistent with all the other parts of the city. Mr. Smith said no, but until they had an actual project approved through the Planning Commission they wouldn't process the signage. He indicated there would be significant revisions to the sign proposals and ARC would work on that at the appropriate point in the process. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Smith thought the applicant would want a sign on Country Club like Burger King on Highway 111 . Mr. Smith concurred that they were entitled to a freestanding sign. The applicant was here at the meeting and could address that if they wished, but that was something that was a little further down the road. � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � Chairperson Jonathan noted that he didn't see any limitations in the conditions of approval with regards to operating hours. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that meant it was possible for them to operate 24 hours. Mr. Smith said yes. Commissioner Lopez asked if that applied to both facilities. Mr. Smith said yes and from the liquor perspective, ABC would limit the hours of it being open for sales. The Planning Commission and City Council in other locations imposed a 12:00 a.m. shutoff on the sales of alcohol as opposed to 2:00 a.m. permitted by ABC, so he didn't know if it was necessary in this instance, but it was something commission could consider. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the mechanism for imposing that restriction would be as a condition of approval. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. KARL HUY, Travis Engineering representing both the property owner and the applicant, 12453 Lewis Street, Suite 201 in Garden Grove, stated that over the past few months they have had the � opportunity and pleasure to work with the planning staff and received their cooperation and guidance in getting this project presented to the commission. Other than a few items which he would elaborate on shortly, they were in concurrence with the findings of the staff report and the conclusions. There were several items he wanted request verification/clarification on and the commission's consideration for modification. In response to the commission's questions to staff that he could confirm relative to the building elevations, they were in concurrence about reducing the height of the parapet wall and removing the wood timbers on the building elevations and had done so. The modifications to the landscaping per ARC's recommendations for the types of tree and the palette they were in concurrence with. This project was a co-brand facility. It was a new concept that was spreading throughout Southern California and had proven to be very popular. The convenience store, the C store component, and the dining of the fast food component would be housed within one building. In this case as with the case with all the co-brands so far the operation and ownership would be corporate--one identity. Jack in the Box or Food Maker would be the owner and operator of the dining facility and the C store component, in addition to the gas sales component also. � Relative to the questions pertaining to the signage, they were fully 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION . APRIL 6, 1999 aware and completely concurred with the requirements they had to go through--a separate signage review and submittal to the city and concurred with that and would comply with the sign ordinance as dictated by Planning Department. Relative to the sale of beer and wine, they would be applying for an off site beer and wine license which did not allow onsite consumption. During those hours when the need arose to have the dining facility closed, whether for cleaning, maintenance or stocking, this facility was provided with a roll down gate which would physically separate the two identities which prohibited a person coming into the C store component, purchasing goods whether snack goods or beer and wine, and then proceeding to sit down in the dining room area to eat or drink. That was a device in all the co-brand facilities at this time. On the matter of clarifications/verifications on the conditions of approval and the indications in the staff report, he only had a few that he wanted to go through. The first item was Art in Public Places. During their processing and submittal through ARC it was indicated that the AIPP as it represented this project would be the installation of a fountain element in front of their building and they would like to get concurrence that it was understood both on the applicant's standpoint and the city's standpoint. He wanted to make sure there wasn't an additional art piece or mechanism that was required. Mr. Smith explained that the Planning Commission could make that recommendation to the Art in Public Places Committee. The typical process was that the applicant would put in a deposit on the AIPP fee and then go through the AIPP Committee and get them to approve that art piece and in this instance the fountain. If they concurred with it they would tell him to proceed with it and once it was complete they would go out and make sure it was what was shown to them in the rendering and then they would credit them back the fee. Planning Commission could say yes, but it didn't rest there, but with Art in Public Places. Mr. Huy said the next two items were found on page four, item numbers 15 and 16. Item 15 was the low income housing mitigation fee and 16 was the day care mitigation impact fee. He asked if these two fees were applicable to commercial developments and how the fee was determined. The day care mitigation fee was indicated at a flat ,� rate of 510,000 and they wanted a clarification on how that fee was brought about. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � Mr. Smith explained that staff looked at the fee that Planning Commission established on the project immediately to the west, which was 560,000. Staff looked at the size of the buildings and the area in question and pro rated the amount. Mr. Huy asked if the day care and low income housing mitigation fees were both council adopted policies. Mr. Smith said fo� certain the commercial development low income mitigation fee was. The matter of the day care mitigation fee while it had not been adopted by resolution had been imposed as a condition on numerous recent commercial developments that have gone through Planning Commission and through the City Council. Commissioner Beaty asked who the fees went to or if they just went to the city. Mr. Smith said they went to the city and they were earmarked specifically for those purposes, i.e., for day care facilities and to underwrite the costs and for the commercial low income housing mitigation fee also. That part went to redevelopment. � Mr. Huy said the next item was on page five of the conditions, number 19. He believed it was indicated earlier that the�e were no plans for signalization at the intersection of Desert Circle and Country Club and the fee they were responsible to pay at this point or on this item, per Condition No. 19, was for in essence a citywide kitty fund for signal improvements citywide. Mr. Greenwood said that was true. Mr. Huy indicated the next item was on page five, Condition No. 20, regarding the potential for the credit for the storm drain reimbursement. Offsite drainage coming from what he understood from engineering staff was a total of about 70 acres that had nothing to do with this project. The drainage from those 70 acres proceeded eastbound on Country Club, entered into a catch basin and was piped directly . underneath that intersection and dumped out onto this site. The condition of approval Public Works Department placed on this project required that they install storm drain improvements to properly channel that and move it to anothe� location. He wanted to make sure for that condition that the potential to apply for credit relative to that non onsite � drainage lasted throughout the project. He clarified that the last 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 :.� � sentence of Condition No. 20 indicated the applicant may request a credit for the cost associated with this system against the required drainage fee. Any such request would be subject to City Council approval. He said they just wanted to make sure there wasn't a time restraint on that. Plan preparation on this would take a certain amount of time. Permit acquisition and going through that phase of the project would take a certain amount of time. They just wanted to make sure that if this was something they had within three to six months then they were made aware of that and if that was the mechanism, they could start right away. Chairperson Jonathan asked if for example he wanted time up until the building permit was issued. Mr. Huy said if that was the city's policy--to have it identified accordingly. . } � Mr. Greenwood said the City didn't have a formal policy but it wasn't our � intent to have the applicant get hung up on these costs. They would work with them and he thought they could come to an agreement to make everyone feel secure. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. H uy if he needed written clarification in the conditions such as "the ability to request credit would not expire prior to the issuance of a building permit" and if that would be acceptable. Mr. Huy concurred. Mr. Huy said he had several items relative to the last condition. This was something they were made aware of for the very first time at the end of last week and all through their processing of this project and the ARC process the next items were never brought to their attention. On page six item 25 sub items 1, 2 and 3. Page six item 25 identified Public Works conditions for construction of several different improvements. The first one, on the construction of curb, gutter and asphalt paving on Desert Country Circle he wanted to make sure there was a clarification and that it was only for a half street-half width on that item except for the area adjacent to their driveway. He fully understood they would have to put in an adequate facility for two- way traffic access for their driveway, which was the driveway closest to Country Club, but they did not want to be required to install curb, � gutter, sidewalk and paving on the other side of Desert Circle if they � � 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 �r•+ would take the extension of the centerline for the other development's responsibility. Mr. Greenwood said they certainly didn't intend to require curb and gutter on the west side of Desert Country Circle. If the mini storage and Jack in the Box was one project as presented here, then they would require it on the entire east side and would require adequate paving for two traffic lanes on Desert Country so that the paving probably would extend beyond the centerline to the west. Mr. Huy said that was understood. On the second one it was the same situation. It required construction of concrete sidewalk along Country Club Drive and Desert Country Circle. Again, only for the requirement of half the width on the east side of Desert Country Circle. Mr. Greenwood agreed that was the intent. Mr. Huy said the last item, which was brought to their attention late � last week, was the requirement to construct a raised landscaped median designed to allow eastbound left turns into Desert Circle but now allow left turn access out of Desert Circle. He said they were quite surprised regarding that requirement. During the processing of this project they were never advised of the need or the warrant for such an improvement. They were never presented with factual accident data, any collision reports or collision diagrams or anything to that matter so it was never brought to their attention that there may exist a hazardous condition there. In analyzing the Negative Declaration it stated on page six of 12 that there was no impact relative to dangerous conditions, public health and safety. At this point in time he respectfully requested that this condition be eliminated from the conditions of approval. Chairperson Jonathan asked if his concern was the responsibility of constructing the median island or if his concern was the ingress/egress. Mr. Huy said it was the ingress/egress. It was a vital concern of theirs that patrons to their facility would have to proceed westbound on Country Club, go to Harris Lane where the future signal was proposed, and then make a U turn there and proceed back to Washington to make � a right or left to the freeway. For the actual construction, if it was the 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � � City's intent to have them install a landscaped median on Country Club within the confines of their frontage, that was anothe� item, but to eliminate the access which was a vital access to the project and a very economic one by not allowing anyone to get out from Desert Circle to proceed to Washington was a critical concern to them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Huy had a concern about their patrons making a left on Country Club without a signal as they exit the project. Mr. Huy said if they were generating a substantial amount of traffic, more so than what was projected for this project, then they had a substantial amount of queuing available on Desert Circle to proceed and the number of left turns were substantial. Gaps and the signal timing on Washington and Country Club he would envision the traffic signal at Harris Lane and Country Club would be timed accordingly to either interconnect or be gapped accordingly to allow sufficient gaps in traffic both eastbound and westbound that the left turn maneuver out of Desert Circle would not be a conflict or hazardous. � Mr. Greenwood stated that the Negative Declaration was based on the conditions as written. If they were to change the conditions they might reconsider the Negative Declaration. As to the information not provided to the developer, he hadn't requested the information. They would have gladly provided it had he given Public Works a call. He believed that Mr. Smith talked to them last week and asked them to contact the Public Works Department and they received no contact whatsoever until right now. The intersections of Country and Washington and Country Club and Desert Country Circle were about 300 feet from centerline to centerline. There was only about 200 feet of curb length in that area. They have no signals in Palm Desert closer than 600 feet to each other and only one or two of those. Most of them were about 1 ,000 feet from each other. The closer the signals were to each other the more poorly they operate. As an example, on Portola from EI Paseo to Highway 111 was a length that didn't function very well. That block was 600 feet long. They didn't envision that if a signal was needed here that it would operate very well, whether it was coordinated with Washington or not and it would certainly need to be coordinated here. As to the signal at Harris and Washington and being able to coordinate and provide gaps in the middle that could not be assured. They would be fortunate to be able to provide � progression on the street, but no signal system ever designed had been able 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � to provide gaps at an uncontrolled midpoint driveway to assure them any kind of comfort that gaps were going to exist. Other locations on arterial streets where they allowed left turns out of the project were sources of frequent requests for various forms of traffic control. One was a current request at the Marriott project on Frank Sinatra and Cook. The developer there designed a left turn ingress with no egress there. After consulting Public Works and hearing their rationale for this the Desert Falls project on Cook Street where their access was currently uncontrolled and they could turn left in and left out, Public Works received nearly monthly requests from residents to provide either traffic control, stop control or some kind of control for the very low volume exiting from the side street to cause a break in the very high volume on Cook Street. This kind of facility couldn't be provided with any hope of efficient operation. So they developed this left turn ingress but not egress at several other locations. Two good examples were Highway 1 1 1 at Sage Lane and Fred Waring east of Highway 11 1 . He clarified that the location at Sage Lane was west of Portola where there was a westbound left turn but no northbound left turn. The example on Fred Waring Drive was probably closest to this example where they have the Mervyn's center on the north, Toys R Us center � on the south where each was provided a left turn into their site but no left turn onto Fred Waring from their site. Both of those centers were thriving commercial centers near a very busy arterial and were also located on a busy arterial. That was the kind of operation they were proposing. Commissioner Beaty asked for someone proceeding east on Country Club, if there was a provision for a left turn onto Desert Country Circle, or if they would have to go all the way to Washington. Mr. Greenwood asked if he meant east bound right turn or left turn. Cornmissioner Beaty said left turn, and asked if they would have to go all the way to Washington. Mr. Greenwood said there would be an eastbound left turn egress. MR. JEFF ROTHBERG, 15550 Rockfield Boulevard in Irvine, stated that he was the developer and he had been listening to what was going on and they have been working closely with the tenant, Jack in the Box, in support of this project. Some of the examples that were given, Mervyn's and Toys R Us were very good tenants and generated a lot more traffic than Jack in the Box and they were destination oriented and this project would be convenience oriented. Their concern was customers coming off the freeway would try it once. Once it became � a pain for them to get back on the freeway they wouldn't do it again. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � � Based upon conversations he has had with the tenant, if there was no left turn access out of the project that they would not go forward with the project. Their feeling was that the Overlay District allowed for this kind of use and the Overlay District invited this use and if they didn't allow the left turn access out of it they wouldn't get that kind of use. What would end up on the property was a four-acre storage facility or maybe some type of purely destination non tax generating use. The turning access points, ingress/egress, for a destination retailer was the most important item. Staff had not shared with them their internal traffic report or internal traffic study it was based on. That also concerned them because typically if there was a concern about left- hand turns they were done by an outside source, a traffic engineer that came in and was hired to do a full-blown traffic study. Their concern was that they worked closely with staff and would very much like this project to proceed but this one condition out of everything else made it prohibitive. He asked for any questions and noted that the tenant for Jack in the Box was present. ,; MR. RANDY CHRISTENSEN of Jack in the Box, 100 N. Borranca in � West Covina, said that one of the issues here was competition. They have Mobil, Union 76 and Carl's Jr., all of which had access points from Washington and Country Club while they had neither. They were taking their access up the new cul-de-sac road. The others all had left turns in and out of Washington. They needed that left turn out because the bulk of their customers would be coming off Washington and wanting to return that way. To them it was really competition. Commissioner Beaty indicated he was going to ask Mr. Greenwood to comment on that situation because there was a favorite Mexican restaurant they frequent and they turn left out of both locations. Mr. G�reenwood informed commission that there was a project active right now between the County of Riverside, City of Palm Desert, City of La Quina and City of Indian Wells all cooperating to widen Washington Street to six lanes with a median. That median was likely to remove Carl's Jr.'s left turn access onto Washington and Mobil and all those other commercial uses that didn't have shared driveways that provide common points of left turn access that potential signalization--those left turns have caused a serious accident problem at that location. Commissioner Beaty asked if there was a history of accidents. Mr. Greenwood said yes. He said he had recent conversations with the County 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � Traffic Engineer. As to staff's internal traffic study, he pretty much paraphrased it right now. If the applicant felt that a traffic study could clarify this better and would provide more information to their point for the commission, they were always welcome to perform a traffic study; however, the internal traffic study that exists he just gave to the commission. Mr. Christensen asked if all the other access points were shared. He believed that the Carl's center only had one driveway, one left turn driveway off of Washington and one driveway off of Country Club. To get into the Mobil Station they had to go past the Mobil Station to the strip retail and take a frontage road back to it. What they were looking at right now was all shared access. Mr. Greenwood agreed that it was in those developments. He noted that Carl's Jr. wasn't in the city of Palm Desert and they were likely to lose their left turn access where it existed now. Mr. Christensen said they wouldn't be opposed to doing their own '� traffic study and comparing it with one or even using a traffic engineer that the City would suggest. He thought they were about 400 feet off of the corner before they hit the cul-de-sac there which they felt was sufficient distance. Chairperson Jonathan said the commission would keep those comments in mind during their discussion and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. STEVE LEE, 40-843 Biscayne in Palm Desert, stated that he lives in that area and concurred with the report as far as the left-hand turn. As busy as Country Club is, he didn't see how a left turn lane would work there. He thought going down to Harris and making that turn as was done in so many other places in the city was the best solution for a site like Jack in the Box. Also, in the City's provision for a drive- through, even in that area, he asked if it was subject to being a five- acre development. Staff said it was only a 3.99 acre development. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he meant under the Freeway Overlay zone. � Mr. Lee concurred. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 Commissioner Finerty noted code said the property to be master planned should be at least five acres in size and on a designated arterial street. Mr. Smith said that was accurate and when the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee identified sites that would be included in the overlay district, they included some sites that were below the five-acre minimum. They couldn't very well do the overlay district at this location and leave out the closest corner property. If someone was trying to subdivide the property and create a four-acre parcel then it would be a different story, but this parcel had existed for many years in this size and shape and from that perspective and given its location they included it in the district and found that it did meet the requirement in that it preexisted the establishment of that ordinance. Mr. Lee acknowledged then that there were exceptions to that provision. Chairperson Jonathan asked if this was an exception to the Zoning Ordinance and as such if it needed to be specified as that. Mr. Smith said no. � Chairperson Jonathan asked if this was something in the zoning process that � is recognized as being eligible for the Freeway Overlay zone. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it specifically identified this property. Mr. Smith said it was included with the rest of the property at this intersection and it was recognized that the site was 3.99 acres and it was included in that district. Mr. Lee said that even at four acres, it was an acre short of what they thought it needed to be in order to be approved. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wished to readdress the commission. � Mr. Huy said no. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Campbell said what she heard was that the applicant would be willing to go ahead and perform a traffic study so if they were, this item should be continued. � � � 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 �r Commissioner Finerty noted that on Country Ciub cars move along at a pretty good clip, anywhere from 50-60 mph and trying to make a left hand turn out of there was like to trying to make a left hand turn out of where she lives onto Fred Waring and it was just about next to impossible. She thought that the safety of the citizens needed to come first. She agreed with Public Works' condition prohibiting the left-hand turn. She also concurred with ARC's recommendation that the landscape palette needed work and she especially wanted to see more palm trees along Country Club. This was a major entrance into Palm Desert and she didn't feel the landscaping or the architecture met the image of Palm Desert. The ordinance stated that drive-up lanes and window facilities should be designed so as not to be visible from an arterial street and it had pretty much been explained that on Washington it was a near impossibility and realized they tried to mitigate it with landscaping, but she didn't know if it really addressed the issue. In trying to do something really special, she thought they needed to have state of the art landscaping and architecture as the entrance to our city and that would require some creative design to hide that drive through. Lastly, she questioned the image of Jack in the Box. She wasn't a fan of fast food restaurants but she was � hoping for something with perhaps a different image more compatible with the city. Commissioner Beaty said he was in agreement in that he didn't like not having the left turn and hated it when he didn't have easy access to and from an intersection and they ran into it more and more these days, but they probably wouldn't convince the applicant or potential tenant but he was getting used to it and thought it was something they were seeing more and more and perhaps it wasn't as big a problem as they thought. Commissioner Lopez stated that he shared the concern with the left-hand turn. He knew the traffic along Country Club Drive traveled quite rapidly and he currently worked at a location where on Cook Street it was becoming increasingly more difficult to make a left hand turn to go to his house. Traffic along that street was now approaching 45-50 mph easily. He was concerned about the safety of the citizens, especially in light of the fact that Jack in the Box for better or worse was a very popular restaurant, especially for the youngsters in the community so it would not only be frequented by people coming off the freeway but would also be frequented quite a bit by the residents living in that particular area. It would increase the opportunity there � and was a concern. The other concern was the single usage of the building. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � APRIL 6, 1999 y He noticed that the plans included a roll down door and they would close it when one use or the other was closed, but he wasn't sure which one would close and which one would stay open 24 hours. The next question was the location of the rest rooms and if they were only on one side or if double rest rooms were provided. He was a little concerned about the single usage, but he had been in places along the freeway where that existed and it seemed to work fairly well. He was concerned about the left-hand turn and thought it was something that needed to be reviewed carefully and would agree that it would be very dangerous coming out of that location in the future and perhaps there needed to be a U turn and Harris was only 500 feet away. He asked if Harris went into another location. Chairperson Jonathan noted that it went into a large 20-acre development. Mr. Greenwood also indicated there was a signal proposed at the intersection at Harris and Washington so traffic that didn't want to or couldn't make a U turn on Country Club could turn left on Harris and left on Washington and be headed back to the freeway. Commissioner Beaty said he wasn't concerned about the image of Jack in the ;� Box and would like to see Jack in the Box come to the city of Palm Desert and thought it might be an opportunity to make a staternent with a different ,,,� architectural design than fast food typically had and he would like to see them proceed. Chairperson Jonathan addressed some of the comments brought up by the applicant and indicated that the Art in Public Places credit for the fountain on site, properly designed and with the approval of the Art in Public Places Committee, he would have no problem in amending Condition No. 9 to that effect and that would be fine. Condition No. 20 regarding the applicant's ability to request a credit, that ability not to expire prior to the issuance of a building permit was fine as well. He had two majo� issues in his mind. One was the applicant's request for left-hand egress. He thought they were fighting an uphill battle. He felt the safety issue would clearly override the marketing needs of Jack in the Box in this particula� case and if that particular tenant needed a place that is perceived as more convenient access, then they needed to look for another place. This just wasn't going to cut it. The location was too close to other lighted intersections to provide another lighted intersection and furthermore to allow left hand turns out of the project without a light was clearly inviting tragedy. He thought the applicant was free and ;� welcome to request a continuance and commission a traffic study, but from the comments expressed tonight, he thought that might be a waste of money, 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 i�wr but that was up to the applicant to decide. The bigger issue in his mind was the combination of a convenience market that sells beer and wine with a fast food eating establishment. He agreed with Commissioner Lopez's comments regarding locals usage of Jack in the Box. He didn't think it would just be freeway drivers. He thought they would have a lot of construction customers. There was a lot of construction in that area, a lot of construction people there, and he could frankly envision them buying a six pack, getting their burger at Jack in the Box and sitting down for a burger and six pack and driving off and that scared him. He thought to have a combined liquor sale facility with a fast food facility was a subtle but dangerous invasion into a separation that exists now and one he believed should continue to exist. He understood that there was a different corporate culture out there that thinks this is appropriate, but his feeling was not in his town. He felt it was a very dangerous precedent to. set so he would be opposed to a combined facitity that sells beer and wine and fast food. He would not be opposed to the facility if there was a wall and an absolute separation between the two stores. He would recommend that as an additional condition of approval. That rather than a roll up shutter that there be a solid wall and if that necessitated additional rest room facilities or � whatever other design changes, then so be it. Commissioner Campbell noted that the city has convenience stores that sell beer and wine and where someone could buy a hot dog or sandwich. She asked if that would be the same thing. Chairperson Jonathan said no, because he wasn't aware of one where there was a fast food sit down facility. Commissioner Beaty thought what Chairperson Jonathan was proposing might be similar to Deep Canyon at Nighway 1 1 1 where someone could buy a beer and walk around to SubKing. They could put their beer into a cup. He said he has seen a Star Market which had a Del Taco, a bagel use, convenience store and gas. He didn't know if they had a history of a problem. Chairperson Jonathan said he wasn't denying that they were starting to be out there, it was a concern with him and he thought these things happened gradually and subtly but he thought liquor consumption in this country needed to be regulated and there were people who have problems with it and their lack of responsibility endangered the rest of the public. The added dangers associated with the consumption of alcohol, the added dangers occurred subtly and this was one of those subtle changes that he felt would be inappropriate. He thought they could set the limit that if someone was desperate enough to go into one store and buy their liquor and put it into a Jack in the Box paper cup � and let people think he was drinking a coke, they had a problem he couldn't 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 ``' solve, but he didn't want to make it easy for that person or for the person who doesn't have that extreme of a problem. For lack of a better stereotype, and he apologized for it, but a construction worker might pick up a few beers and have a burger. He might be in a minority there, but he was expressing his feeling and his objection to that part of the application. Just because this was the beginning of a trend didn't make it right and he had an opportunity to voice opposition and he seized that opportunity. Chairperson Jonathan noted there were a number of issues before them. He had suggested a modification to Conditions 9 and 20 and a change to the precise plan that instead of a roll up door it be replaced with a wall. He didn't know if that was acceptable to anyone else. Commissioner Beaty asked if they could address those individually. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. He asked if anyone objected to the Art in Public Places modification. Mr. Smith clarified that the ordinance did provide for that so he didn't think a modification was required. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. The next item was Condition No. 20 to provide written clarification that a request for credit would not expire earlier than the issuance of building permits. Mr. Smith said that was fine. Mr. Greenwood said he was hoping they could just do that by ,r,� the comments tonight so they wouldn't have to create a document for that. Everyone agreed with that change. Chairperson Jonathan asked if he was the only one in favor of the wall instead of the roll up. Commissioner Finerty concurred 100%. Commissioner Beaty disagreed. He thought that was taking it to the extreme and if people were going to do that they would and maybe if there was no wall there might be better supervision of someone trying to do that. If there was a wall, they were hiding it. He didn't see it as something they could control or needed to worry about because if they were going to do it they would. Commissioner Finerty agreed that if they were going to do it they would, however, the commission had the opportunity to make it more difficult or make it easy for them and she thought as Chairperson Jonathan stated they should seize the opportunity to make it more difficult. � Commissioner Beaty said that was where he disagreed. He thought it would be easier if they wanted to sneak a beer if there was a wall there, then the people selling the food didn't see the people purchasing the beer. Mr. Hargreaves noted that there was going to be one corporate owner of both facilities and the license was for take out rather than consumption on the premises and asked if it would be a violation of their liquor license to actually have people go over to the Jack in the Box to consume the alcohol over there. w� 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � Mr. Christensen said he assumed it would be a violation. They actually had a dozen of these open and McDonald's probably had almost 100 of these. Fast food and gas stations have traditionally gone together at freeway locations and he didn't know of any problems that have occurred in the past. If a guy wanted to go and buy a six pack at Texaco then walk next door and drink it at Jack in the Box, he thought he would have that opportunity to do that even if they had one facility or two. He knew of no problems they have had with alcohol consumption on site in the dozen they have open or with any that McDonald's had. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Hargreaves if his question was answered. Mr. Hargreaves said that Mr. Christensen's sense was that it was quite possibly a violation of the liquor license and he didn't know if they had a definitive answer for that, but his suspicion was that it would be and that the consequences for letting that happen could be quite severe, but if this was an item that warranted that kind of attention they could certainly check into that and get back to the commission. Commissioner Campbell thought it would be '�+' to their best interest to go ahead and have adequate supervision so that people wouldn't do that. Mr. Hargreaves concurred. Commissioner Beaty asked if they could come to a consensus as to whether to have a wall or the roll down and then proceed with a motion. Chairperson Jonathan noted that two were in favor of the wall and two felt the roll up was okay. Commissioner Lopez felt the roll up was okay. Commission Beaty said he was prepared to move to accept the findings of staff as amended. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that would include the existing condition to prohibit the left-hand egress. Commissioner Beaty concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a second. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioner Finerty voted no►. It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1922, approving MP/CUP 99-1 and PP 99-4, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried �-2 (Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioner Finerty voted no1. � 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION z APRIL 6, 1999 � Mr. Smith noted for the applicant that the decision of the Planning Commission was appealable for 15 days after the action. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - 1March 17, 1999) Commissioner Campbell noted that as indicated earlier by Mr. Smith under Summary of Council Action, City Council considered a request for a master street painter who would create street art for which he was world renowned. The artist was being retained to do a platform at The Gardens in the grassy area and would be there for quite a few months. He shellacked his work so the rain didn't wash it away. He would also go to the different schools for the children interested in art and would show them what he could do and teach them. She felt his work was comparable to the Sistine Chapel and was very glad to have him come to Palm Desert. It was noted that he would be paid 534,000 for a week plus the cost of building the platform. The artist fee itself was 522,000. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERIN'G COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) x ;, , 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1999 � F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (March 24, 1999) Mr. Smith said they took up the issue of the planned office park district again. They circulated a draft to local office developers and they came up with some concerns. They felt the city would be encouraging too much development, two story development, with the way it was drafted so the committee discussed that again and they would be doing some modifications. It would eventually get back before the Planning Commission. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting � was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. � _��= ST HEN R. SMITH, cting Secretary ATTEST: SABBY NAT AN, Chairperson Palm Des rt Planning Commission /tm � 41