Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0817 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 17, 1999 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER w 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Cindy Finerty Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Jim Lopez Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the July 20, 1999 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the July 20, 1999 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 3-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated there were no pertinent planning from the July 22, 1999 special council meeting. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 moo VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PP 99-11 - ROBERT RICCIARDI for MELANIE ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a Precise Plan of Design to construct two 8,844 square foot industrial buildings on the east side of Melanie Place between Sheryl Avenue and Merle Drive. Mr. Alvarez said the two properties were located on the east side of Melanie Place directly to the north of the recently approved and constructed KESQ facility. The properties were within the Service Industrial District and consisted of two 1 % acre lots. The precise plan included two 8,844 square foot industrial buildings. Both buildings would be single story with a maximum height of 22 feet. The buildings had a total usable square footage of 15,035 square feet and required 30 off street parking spaces. In August 1998 Planning Commission approved the expansion addition of studio and offices directly to the south on the KESQ facility. At that time Resolution No. 1881 was adopted. Condition No. 6 of Resolution 1881 required the construction of five off street parking spaces on one of the subject properties, or the one directly to the north. As noted, both properties would get access from Melanie Place and would share a single drive aisle. The parking lot would consist of 41 off street parking spaces which was sufficient to meet both the 30 required by the ordinance and the five required by Resolution 1881 . ARC granted preliminary approval subject to reducing the drive aisle width down to 30 feet from the 40 requested in order to accommodate more landscaping on 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 the south building. For purposes of CEQA the project would not have a negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. Mr. Alvarez stated that the project met all the requirements of the Service Industrial zone and recommended approval, subject to the attached resolution. He noted that there was one change he wanted to make to the resolution. Condition No. 14 should read, "Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded mutual access easement between the two subject properties." He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked what the normal width of driveways were. Mr. Alvarez said the minimum was 24 feet. The applicant originally requested 40 and in terms of design, ARC reduced that down to 30. Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the commission. MR. FABIO CERESA, 42-620 Caroline Court #102 in Palm Desert, stated that he had nothing to add. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Vice Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1932, approving PP 99-1 1 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 3-0. B. Case Nos. C/Z 98-9 Amendment, PP/CUP 98-19 Amendment, PP 99- 10, PP 99-12 and PP 99-14 - SELECT PROPERTIES LLC, Applicant Request for approval of three precise plan of design applications for certain portions of a previously approved master plan of development including a total of 59,250 square feet of commercial uses and a 70,000 square foot mini storage facility, and approval of revisions to the previously approved master plan �.., of development to: 1 ) replace a sit-down restaurant with a non- 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 gasoline automated car wash on Lot 1; 2) delete from the master plan the self storage facility at the north end of the site; and 3) revise a change of zone application to include the self storage facility in the proposed service industrial (S.I.) zone. The property is located at 77-880 Country Club Drive, APN 626-520- 029. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. The 20 acre property had a master plan approved on it. Planning Commission recommended approval of it January 5, 1999 and it was ultimately approved by City Council January 28, 1999. At this time there were basically six requests before the commission. First, the applicant wanted to amend the master plan of development to replace a sit down restaurant on Lot 1 at the corner of Desert Circle Drive and Country Club Drive. They wanted to replace the restaurant with a car wash facility on that site. Item 2 of the request was for approval of the precise plan of design for the car wash facility. Item 3 requested that at the northwest corner of the site where they had an approval for mini storage on the master plan, the applicant wanted to delete that portion of that section of land from the master plan yet still proceed with the mini storage. The reason for that request was due to the landscape requirements. Concurrent with that request the applicant then sought to rezone that 3.2 acres to Service Industrial. Item 5 was the precise plan of approval of that mini storage facility. Item 6 was the precise plan of design approval as it applied to the retail buildings numbered 7, 8, 9 and 10 and parking development which would support the buildings on 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12 and 16. Mr. Smith explained that the master plan called for a sit down restaurant on the corner property at Desert Country Circle and Country Club Drive. The request was now for a car wash. A car wash is a permitted conditional use in the Freeway Commercial Overlay District. The District required that it meet the minimum 30% landscape requirement, that the drive-up lanes be designed so as not to be visible from an arterial street. With a view to meeting those standards, ARC reviewed these plans on two occasions. Through the ARC process the plans were revised extensively. July 27, 1999 ARC granted preliminary approval. The plan provided for 16 parking spaces as required. It met the setback requirements from Country Club and Desert Country Circle. It also met the landscape requirement. That notwithstanding, he said staff could not support an amendment to the master plan to replace a restaurant with a car wash. The concern was that they have a highly visible corner and they were putting F a use on that corner where the express goal of the code was to eliminate its visibility. That seemed to be counter productive. He also noted that in the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 past where it has been attempted they haven't been successful long term in maintaining the screening. The Mobile Station at Deep Canyon and Highway 1 1 1 came to mind. Basically he felt the corner location should be reserved for uses which could benefit from full exposure. Therefore, staff was recommending that the master plan not be amended, hence, denial of the precise plan for the car wash. Items 3 and 4 with respect to the mini storage facility at the northwest corner of the 20-acre parcel, the applicant sought to delete the area from the master plan because of the landscape requirement, but then they concurrently sought service industrial zoning which would permit the use. The Freeway Commercial Overlay Code Section 25.108.030E3 permitted Planning Commission to decrease the minimum landscaped open space requirement upon a showing of good cause. Staff took the issue to ZORC at its meeting of July 14. That was the group that originated the commercial overlay district. That group agreed that it was not reasonable to expect 30% of that storage facility property be landscaped, especially when considering the location of the mini storage facility at the back of a retail center bounded on the north by the railway and on the west by other service industrial uses. ZORC recommended that the mini storage facilities not be �. included in the landscape calculations for the master plan. Staff concurred with that recommendation and that became part of the recommendation to the Planning Commission tonight. Mr. Smith felt there was a way of leaving the mini storage in the master plan, not doing the change of zone and yet still approving the mini storage facility. He indicated that the elevations for the mini storage facility were on display. The main building was basically 11 feet in height. The two story element occurred at the west end adjacent to Garand at the entrance. There was a two story office and caretaker unit. ARC granted preliminary approval to the architecture. On item 6 with respect to the retail portion of the plan, there was a colored site plan on display. The applicant was looking to implement the buildings shown as 7, 8, 9 and 10 and the major development would be a Gold's Gym facility. This was consistent with the previously approved master plan of development. To support that they needed to provide at least 268 parking spaces. In actuality they would provide 338. The excess parking would be utilized with the development of future phases. Landscaping for the current plan, excluding the mini storage area, would amount to 34.8%. The minimum was 30%. Staff was recommending approval of the precise plan for phase 1 of the retail portion. He said that the elevations for that portion of the development were on display. They had also been reviewed and approved by ARC. For purposes of CEQA, the matter was reviewed pursuant to a Negative Declaration of %N„ Environmental Impact which was certified January 28, 1999 and no further 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 i environmental review was necessary. He noted that staff's recommendation was outlined on page 7 of the staff report. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked about the status of the drive-through. Mr. Smith said the drive-through restaurant was shown on parcel 4 which was the parcel immediately west of the main access driveway which aligned with Harris and staff didn't have a proposal for it at this time. It would come through at some future time. Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK BLOMGREN, Axcess Architects, 18652 Florida Street in Huntington Beach, stated that he was the architect for the retail portion of the project. He apologized for the multiple applications, but they had three possible owners sitting in the audience with three separate applicants that had certain reasoning for having an application done separately. That was why they were trying to do this all together. He was going to try and explain to the commission what had transpired since December and all the moving targets they had to deal with. When they got approval from Council in January, there were multiple players for each of the lots. He said commission might recall that on that site plan building 5 was in the lower left-hand corner. To the left of that was a proposal for a hotel unit. There were many conversations regarding the hotel, the type of food use that would happen inside the hotel, and where potential restaurants on the site would be. They looked at lots 1 , 2, 3, 5 and 6 as food locations and several things became really evident on the site plan. Buildings 2 and 3 became very sacred to them because that would be a food court. They designed the main access to come down and they really wanted those buildings to maintain that location. They felt they had potential tenants for those that could be coming in within the next three-four months. For building 4 there were a couple of potential users for that. They hadn't signed contracts yet, but that location had been pretty popular. Lot 5 was still designated as a restaurant location and it was their feeling that both Buildings 5 and 6 would probably be the most logical locations for any additional food use that they could have within the limit of the retail center. They wanted to keep lots 5 and 6 for that. Even though Lot 1 where the car wash was located was a prominent lot when coming westbound, there were a couple of reasons they picked that location. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 They personally felt that Lots 3 and 4 were actually the more prime corner lots in the center. They would be at the traffic center, were on Harris and would have the benefit of the majority of the people coming into the center and driving through there. That was the advantage of those corner buildings. Lot 1 of this lot seemed to be a portion of the lot in any retail center which would have the least amount of traffic. If they figured that the car wash activity would be a little hectic, they wanted to have that out of the path of pedestrians as much as possible and that was part of the reason for that location. It was a good location, but their thinking on the site plan was that Lots 4 and 5 were the choice corner lots. Also, they were aware that the PC zone with the Freeway Overlay allowed for car washes under conditional use permit and it came about that someone looked at Lot 1 early on and said they wanted to do a car wash there. That was different than what they originally planned, but they took a look at it. They came to the City and talked about that and moved forward. They had conversations with staff and the applicant took the project to ARC twice and they came up with a plan they thought in their estimation filled the requirements for the City of Palm Desert in relation to car washes. On Saturday they got their first look at the staff report and it was the first indication to them that there was any potential problem with the car wash, which wasn't necessarily a problem for them, but it didn't give them much time to think about what their alternatives would be when they came to the Planning Commission. The architect for the car wash applicant did a sketch, and he gave copies to Mr. Smith, of a possible way of taking the door on the street and completely making it go away so that the back of the car wash building would look very similar to the back of the two food related uses in the food court. It was their desire to work with the City in any way they could to get the approval of a car wash somewhere on the project. They thought Lot 1 was the best location because of the way the site would function. It was not their intention at all to have tried to get anything past the City that wouldn't meet their requirements and they thought that with ARC that they had done that. At this point they were asking for Planning Commission's help on how they could move forward with that. All the applicants for all the project were present and he would be representing the retail center and if the commission needed to talk to the car wash architect, they should just let him know. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Blomgren said that he wanted to keep Buildings 2 and 3 for restaurant use. On the map the commission was given (A 1 .02) what she saw was that they were trying to replace a restaurant with a car wash and another restaurant location with retail. Mr. Blomgren said that basically in the retail zone, 20% was allowed for food use. They weren't sure where that was going to happen but were almost positive that Building 5 would become a food use. That was pretty set. They potentially had part of Building 6 set for that right now and there would be pieces of 2 and 3 and they had to live within that percentage. Commissioner Finerty said she thought she heard Mr. Blomgren say that Buildings 2 and 3 would be restaurants as part of a food court. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Blomgren said yes, but it wouldn't be exclusively restaurants. There was a possibility if they looked at where the center open court was they might have two or three shops off that court. It was their intention to have a food court, but not all food use. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Blomgren what his definition of a restaurant was. Mr. Blomgren said anything food related. Commissioner Finerty asked if they were talking about a coffeehouse or steak house. Mr. Blomgren said possibly. An example might be a Subway Sandwich Shop. Commissioner Finerty indicated he was talking about a fast food type of use, not a restaurant. Mr. Blomgren concurred that he wasn't talking about a formal, sit down restaurant. Commissioner Finerty thought that the master plan only allowed for one fast food use. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 Mr. Blomgren said they understood it to be only one fast food drive- through. Commissioner Finerty asked if when Mr. Blomgren sought approval for the master plan with three restaurants at that time, if Mr. Blomgren thought they would be fast food. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Blomgren said that on their last go through on it they had Building 1 , Building 5, and then Building 4 as a fast food restaurant and then a food court which was part of the discussion they had here in Buildings 2 and 3. They had up to a maximum of 17,000 square feet that could go food use. When they got to the 17,000 maximum, that was where they would stop. It would be a first come first serve basis. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that Mr. Blomgren's plan for food use was more fast food and one with a drive-through. She asked if that was correct. towMr. Blomgren said he didn't see that there was a distinction. Commissioner Finerty said that to her there was a distinction. That was why she asked him for a definition of restaurant. Her idea of a restaurant was when you walk in, sit down, look at a menu and a server brings your food and you eat. Apparently Mr. Blomgren's definition was maybe a little different and she was trying to get clarification on when he came before the commission to get approval of the master plan, what he was looking at as far as a restaurant. Mr. Blomgren said that semantically they didn't take it to that detail. They were looking at trying to define whatever the city's requirement was in that percentage for any type of food use and whatever the definition was per city code, that was what they would do. He thought they were getting into semantics here, which he would be glad to clarify, but any kind of related permitted allowed food related use. Commissioner Finerty noted Mr. Blomgren had looked at the area and indicated there were a lot of fast food type restaurants out in that vicinity, but there was no coffee shop other than Coco's which recently opened. There was really no steakhouse, and, in her opinion, those were the types of restaurants they needed. When she saw restaurants in the master plan, that was what `„ she thought. But when she saw the deletion on the corner plan of two 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 ..r restaurants, she became concerned and needed to ask what Mr. Blomgren's definition was. Mr. Blomgren said that in the past when he has dealt with cities, and every city was different, what happened was when they came in and asked for an application for food, the intent in most applications was that they were allowed a certain percentage. He wasn't aware that if they went for 17,000 square feet of food use that they were required to do 17,000. They were permitted to go up to 17,000 and could back it down into retail. He thought that was where they were having the semantics issue. The intention was to make sure that they had the capability on the site to have enough space allocated for a certain amount of food use should that come into play. With the retail center they would want to have the first available tenants come in. If they could fill it with complete retail, he thought the owner would want the option to do that, but they wanted to make sure they had the parking in place to put restaurant in if that became available. Where the restaurant really came into play was when the hotel goes in--then they would need something there. If all of that came together correctly, it was their intention to have food use there, but he couldn't tell what since there were a lot of moving targets. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. DAVE PICK said he was the Project Manager for the self storage facility or mini storage facility and the managing general partner and developer of several others including Great American Self Storage on Cook Street. They were tucked away in the corner and their thoughts as it related to this project was they gained their access instead of through the project from Garand, they have designed the facility so that it was basically perimeter walls and everything faced in. Some of the buildings that were prominent in the development in front of them would shield the public from any view of basically the self storage. He said they were at the meeting to answer any questions on the design or how they operate. He pointed out that they do not put electrical inside the units and the facility was not open at night. The reason they didn't put in electrical was to keep better control over what happened inside those facilities and they didn't become small manufacturing j facilities when the manager wasn't there. They could live with either 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 recommendation, i.e., rezoned Service Industrial, or they could live with the current plan that Mr. Smith recommended if that fit the overall needs with the exemption being the 30% landscaping. He thought it was difficult at best to put in 30% landscaping on any self storage facility. They have quite a bit there currently that offered not only a little bit of a shield, but in the event the trees the railroad put up were taken down, they still wouldn't be able to see that facility from the freeway. MR. STEPHEN MUDRY, 77-900 Delaware in Palm Desert, stated that he was present regarding the car wash. He believed that they met everything that ARC requested they do. They hid the tunnel from public view from Country Club. They built berms up so that the cars that were waiting to enter the car wash or exiting the car wash could not be seen from Country Club. This building was probably prettier than any other car wash he has ever seen in his life and they have done quite an extensive research on car washes. They looked at all the other ones in the valley. There was nothing that compared to this architectural wise as well as landscaping. It could do nothing except enhance Palm Desert and that whole area. It was a beautiful building along with the rest of the center. They hid everything they could from the public driving down Country Club. It was the same size that a restaurant would be. It had the same mass, same elements, and it looked like a house. It didn't look like a car wash and it wouldn't look like a car wash. He owns another business in Palm Desert, Tots Stop Preschool which he has owned ten years and he said that business was probably the cleanest preschool in the valley. That was what he prided himself on and what he believed would be done with this car wash. It would always look good and they would always comply with what the city wanted them to do. He believed they needed a car wash there. There wasn't anything close by. There was something six miles away and it would be inadequate to handle the amount of car flow they would have on Washington or that whole area. Washington was going to be six lanes by next year. He thought it would do well for the city. Commissioner Campbell asked what the waiting area was for if a person had to stay in their car to drive through the wash. Mr. Mudry said they also had a detail area and there was also a drying �.,. area in front on the east side. If someone wanted to vacuum their car, 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 they would turn into that area. From there they would get out of their car and go inside to the waiting area. Commissioner Campbell asked if he would have employees there to do the detail work on the cars, so it wouldn't really be one of those drive through car washes. Mr. Mudry said it would be because a person could leave and their car would be clean on the outside and dry, but if they wanted the inside done there would be employees there. There wouldn't be 20 or 30 guys hanging around like at other car washes. There wouldn't be a need for them because of the machinery that they were using to clean the car and dry the car in the tunnel. Commissioner Campbell asked why he didn't include a gasoline station at the car wash. She asked if it was because of the Mobile Station and other station on the other corners. Mr. Mudry said it was because of that and because he didn't like dealing with EPA that much. It wasn't something they were interested in doing. Commissioner Campbell asked if, when traveling on the freeway and exiting to get something to eat, if he would like to see a car wash as the first thing or a gas station without a restaurant right on the corner. Mr. Mudry said it wasn't on the corner of Washington. They were one block away from Washington and Country Club. There would be a restaurant there on that corner; he heard a Jack in the Box planned to be there. They weren't the first thing people would see. There were two other gas stations directly ahead on each side. Commissioner Campbell noted that there wasn't really a restaurant there. Mr. Mudry said there was fast food, a Carl's Jr. and sandwich shop. Down the road there were quite a few restaurants. There was a mexican restaurant inside the Carl's Jr. shopping center so there were some restaurants there. There was also another mexican restaurant across the way that was a sit down one. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 iti.. Commissioner Campbell asked if the only other changes that he made from the plans the commission now had in front of them was on the south side they only had some tiles on the roof. Mr. Mudry said they had taken the tunnel and turned it so that it would be seen from the south. It would be facing east so they wouldn't be able to see the tunnel from Country Club. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked what type of equipment Mr. Mudry planned to install and if there was currently anything comparable in the valley. Mr. Mudry indicated there was nothing comparable. They had gone with a company called AVW (Automated Vehicle Washing). They were based in Chicago and in Las Vegas where they had two car washes that were top of the line and there was nothing in the desert that compared. Everything in the desert right now was hooked to a module and nothing could be replaced. He noted that Harv's used to have one type of machinery in there and they couldn't take just one section out so they had to remove the whole thing and now it was just a hand wash. They had a tunnel with guys in there working and it was just awful. He would be using stand up towers that could be replaced or removed if necessary or moved to different locations so they could upgrade as necessary without shutting down the whole facility. Everything could be taken out and replaced as needed as they advance. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if the cars were put on a track and moved through. Mr. Mudry concurred. Vice Chairperson Beaty stated that Harv's has been a hand wash since they opened. Mr. Mudry disagreed. He said they had Hannah Sherman Machinery in there when Harv's opened. Now it was all done by hand. The only thing that was mechanical was the conveyor. He said inside they could see where a lot of the stuff had been torn out. MR. DAVE OSMAN, the applicant for the retail center, said he wanted to make a couple of comments. They wanted to address Commissioner 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 Campbell's question more directly on the service station portion of the project. They had several people express an interest in that corner initially but because it wasn't exactly on Washington and Country Club it was not accepted by them as a valid location. They were dealing with the issue of being directly across from Mobile and they didn't really see that as a primary corner for them to be operating out of, so they were never able to negotiate with them. It was going to either be a combination of car wash/convenience store or car wash/gas station/convenience store. That type of thing. He knew the city had an application for the four acres next door which was on the corner and that seemed to be a more suitable use. The car wash in and of itself became more of a complimentary use for their corner right across from that location. That was how this whole thing kind of evolved into becoming a car wash and the interest and level of customer interest in this corner as opposed to being right on the corner. He said he just wanted to give the commission more of a flavor of what they the developer had been dealing with on that particular corner. Originally they thought the car wash could go further down. All of the retail uses had focused on Harris Drive and Country Club and the signaled intersection there where they have two buildings that are attendant to �■r the food court and then the fast food restaurant just immediately to the west of that location. That was kind of how this had evolved. The restaurant location on Parcel 5 was there because it would be complimentary to the hotel use which they were planning for phase 2 of the center. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked what they were planning for Parcel 11 . If that would be retail. Mr. Osman confirmed that it would be retail. They had a number of in- line tenants and were anticipating a Gold's Gym on the primary parcel, Parcel 8, and the statement was made by Gold's that they were looking at, with respect to the car wash and other traffic generating businesses, was that they look to coexist with them and co-market with them and give them specials and likewise back and forth. This was a statement made to them today by the owner of Gold's Gym and he was looking forward to that type of synergy within a retail center. He has some centers in Las Vegas very similar to this where he was in that position in a retail center, the elbow of the center, and it worked very well coming out both directions with retail such as health and vitamin stores, 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 a dry cleaner, a nail salon and things that are attendant to Gold's. A Discovery Zone type of business. That type of retail use that would bring kids into the center where their mothers or fathers could go into Gold's Gym for a workout and then have their kids also participate in some other activity in the center. Commissioner Campbell asked if Parcel 11 would be better for a car wash since Parcel 1 was more visible for retail. Mr. Osman said that Parcel 11 wasn't as visible as Parcel 1 and for that reason they had always thought of that as more in-line retail than being a car wash facility. Mainly stores that would not be able to necessarily afford to be right on the street but that would be more service type businesses in back of the street such as a dry cleaners and that type of thing. People would come into the site, get their workout and might get something to eat, but they could also get their dry cleaning. That was the general idea for that strip in the back and that was the interest level they received from tenants. r.► Commissioner Campbell stated that being in retail herself, she would rather be up front than in back, even if it was a dry cleaners. MR. CHRIS STUIBER, another partner in the car wash, stated that the reason they were not thinking of the number 11 lot was because of the circulation of vehicles that would be going through. On the corner the circulation was a lot better. Also, he has been working for the City of Palm Springs as a firefighter for almost 30 years and this was kind of going to be his retirement deal. He wanted to get up and advise the commission that this would be a really nice project and he thought it would do really well on the corner there and wouldn't cause any problems at that location. He didn't think it would look out of place there with the front section. It would look like a regular building and he didn't they would be able to tell it was a car wash. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Stuiber had considered Lot 6 for the car wash. Mr. Stuiber said circulation was the issue. They didn't want to bottle up that corner there because they had the street going on the side and 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 the driveway right there too. That way the traffic would flow through the whole area there. He thought it would be a great spot for it. Commissioner Campbell asked what the height of the berm would be going around the car wash. Mr. Stuiber replied five feet. Commissioner Campbell asked how they felt the car wash was doing at Costco. Mr. Stuiber said right now it wasn't doing very well, but once that area developed, he thought it would do quite well for that area. Like their area was developing. They did a marketing study with residents of Del Webb to see if they would use their car wash and they got about 75% back that they would use it because they are seniors and it was hard for them to drive all the way to Costco or all the way to La Quinta. It would be a great thing for them right there. They were pleased with the answers they got back from them. They were all positive. Commissioner Campbell asked if this car wash would be similar to the one on Highway 111 along the frontage road. She clarified that she was talking about the one in Palm Desert. Where they just stay in the car and it washes it. Mr. Drell indicated that the one that was before commission a couple of weeks ago was where you drive in, get out and spray it with a hose. Mr. Stuiber said they went to 15 to 20 car washes to find out what was the best way to do this and a guy in Las Vegas had the only car wash that they saw where the cars just flowed. Most people didn't want to get out and wait to get their car back if they were there early in the morning or going to work or something. That was something that was done on Friday night, Saturday or Sunday. The one in Las Vegas was unbelievable. It functioned so well. If someone wanted the whole thing, they would pull in under where it would be vacuumed and come inside or they hoped people would go into the whole complex and shop and wait for their car. He thought it would bring people in to support the area. Commissioner Campbell asked how many car washes like Mr. Stuiber's were here in the desert. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 Mr. Stuiber said there weren't any. Theirs would be like the top of the line. Commissioner Campbell said they would drive up to a window, pay their money and go through and if they wanted their car vacuumed they could do their own vacuuming. Mr. Stuiber said they had workers to do the vacuuming. There would be a sign that said a wash would be $5.00. If they wanted a vacuum it would be $8.00 and then they would just come around, park their car and go inside or go into the retail areas and someone would take care of their cars. Vice Chairperson Beaty noted that there was one bay on Highway 111 where they could just stay in their car and drive through. Mr. Drell noted that the bay was 12 feet long. Vice Chairperson Beaty said he understood that, but he didn't have to get out of his car. r.. Vice Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Finerty said she really liked the original master plan that the commission approved. She wasn't in favor of the changes. She felt it was important that they have restaurants, not fast food, and she could support the mini storage changes and buildings 7, 8, 9 and 10. But she didn't believe that Country Club should be a frontage for a car wash regardless of how well or how pretty it was designed. It was a major entrance to the city off of Interstate 10 and this was not how she would like to see the city develop and there were a number of other options on this plan that could do well with a car wash. It sounded like a great car wash and that it would fit well somewhere, but not on Country Club frontage. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Finerty. She had no problem with the retail portion of it or the self storage. She felt it was a good location for the self storage. The car wash sounded very good but she also thought she would want a sit down restaurant right there instead of a car wash. If they could go ahead and change it around and if they really wanted it in that area, staff could work with them in finding another location. to. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 Vice Chairperson Beaty stated that he had mixed feelings about that location. He would go along with his fellow commissioners, but he would like to see a car wash developed at that intersection. He thought they were ready for a motion and said that first of all they would act on all of the findings relating to all of the changes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings for all resolutions as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1933, denying PP/CUP 98-19 Amendment (master plan amendment to delete sit down restaurant and replace it with a car wash). Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1934, denying PP 99-12 (precise plan for car wash). Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1935, denying PP/CUP 98-19 Amendment (master plan amendment to delete the mini storage from the master plan). Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1936, denying C/Z 98-9 Amendment (to rezone the mini storage property to S.I.). Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1937, approving PP 99-14 (precise plan for the mini storage facility) subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1938, approving PP 99-10 (precise plan for Phase 1 of the retail portion of the master plan) subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 vow Mr. Rick Blomgren asked if the denial could be without prejudice. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Hargreaves asked Mr. Blomgren to repeat the question. Mr. Blomgren did so. Mr. Drell explained that they interpreted it that they could not make substantially the same application. The first course of action if they wanted to pursue this identical application would be to appeal this decision to the City Council. He assumed if they appealed this to the City Council and it was denied at the City Council, that if they came back with a different application, not identical to this one with significant differences, then staff would not consider it the same application. They weren't saying they couldn't have a car wash on this site. If they brought the identical one back, then they couldn't bring it back for one year. He assumed they would want to bring back a different one. Commissioner Campbell suggested that they move it somewhere else. Vice Chairperson Beaty stated that he thought it was the consensus that they didn't have a problem with the design or the fact that it was a car wash, it was just at that particular corner. Commissioner Finerty clarified that for her, she didn't want to see it on Country Club. The applicant spoke from the audience and asked what kind of a restaurant the commission would like to see. Commissioner Finerty said a Mimi's or Claim Jumper. Mr. Mudry asked if commission said they didn't want to see a car wash on that corner. Vice Chairperson Beaty indicated he didn't have quite the same strong feelings as staff and other commissioners. Commissioner Campbell said she thought a car wash could be acceptable somewhere else in the project, but not on the corner or anywhere along Country Club Drive. Mr. Mudry said that none of the other car washes were backed into a project. Vice Chairperson Beaty said the commission didn't like them. Mr. Mudry said that anywhere you go they are located along a main road so people could get in and out of them. In other cities they were always on a main arterial road. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if the commissioners had any further comments. There were none. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (July 21 , 1999) Commissioner Campbell indicated that the committee met on July 21 and they selected 16 sculptures for the median on El Paseo and two would remain there. Hopefully the unveiling would take place the first week in November. They also had a design concept presentation for the park sign program. AIPP invited some designers to look at the public art collection and to identify certain items in the park. They felt the community didn't have a sense that there is a park there so they wanted to go ahead and bring it out with more colorful banners and different signage. Also, they would have braille on the artwork for identification. Council Member Benson suggested that they make a presentation to the City Council before they get too far along with it because some of the colors were very vibrant. The designers took pictures of all the flowers in the desert and used those colors. It really made it stand out. They continued the item and they would be getting some input from Council, Parks and Recreation Commission and AIPP. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (August 17, 1999) Commissioner Finerty informed commission that the clubhouse probably wouldn't open until the beginning of 2000. There was a little bit of a delay. There was a lot of work going on in the valley and all the subs were busy. Rather than rush it through they wanted to make sure it was done right. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Drell if the cell site would be coming before the Planning Commission. Mr. Drell said there was a different cell site coming before the Planning Commission, but they were proposing a cell site at the back end of the Seventh Day Adventist Church which was within 300 feet of city property which was residentially zoned. They would have had to either be given an exception, but it was anticipated that exceptions would only be granted when property owners within the 300 feet consented to it. In this case the property owner being the Redevelopment Agency as represented by the Desert Willow Committee would be opposing the application. He thought it might have been important to bring to the committee's attention that right now there was virtually no cell phone service on that 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1999 corner. People can't get cellular service when they are on Desert Willow right now. It might have influenced Desert Willow's decision given the sort of people who play golf and who will be at that hotel. He suggested that it might be a good idea to have good cell service or digital or PCS there. Vice Chairperson Beaty said he didn't think there should be cell service on golf courses, but the cell service at the corner of Country Club and Cook was horrible. Mr. Drell agreed that maybe it would be a plus for the resort not to have cell phones. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Finerty thanked council for the raise. The other commissioners agreed. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: PAUL R. BEATY, Vic Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 21