Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0904 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 .. 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Dave Tschopp +r Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the August 21 , 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the August 21 , 2001 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION �'" Mr. Drell summarized pertinent August 23, 2001 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS %mod None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-23 - WHITE ROCK INVESTMENTS, INC., AND 1-10 STORAGE, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines between two parties for property identified as APNs 626-410-024, 626-410-001 and 626-410-003. B. Case No. PMW 01-28 - ART PALM, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY CO, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines to reconfigure six existing lots identified as APNs 653-280-023, 024, 025 and 653-390-050, 051 and 052. s Action: Nod It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. CUP 01-14 - MIRELA F. MARINESCU, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a two-room massage establishment within the existing skin care business at 72-608 El Paseo, Suite Al . Mr. Smith explained that the applicant operates a skin care business at 72-608 El Paseo in Suite Al . He noted that this was the former location 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 of Little Caesar's Pizza. He said the unit is 1 ,354 square feet. The request was to operate a two-room massage establishment. Parking was evaluated and there appeared to be adequate parking in that they share it in a large center area. All the people working there would need separate massage permits and business licenses. He indicated that the property is zoned PC(3) and subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, the use was permitted in the zone. He felt the findings for approval could be met as outlined in the staff report. He explained that for purposes of CEQA the request is a Class 3 categorical exemption. He recommended approval, subject to conditions. Commissioner Campbell asked if the two rooms were existing rooms that were already in use. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. MIRELA MARINESCU addressed the commission. She stated that she has an existing skin care business which is very successful and she employs 12 people. She said that she had two �... more individuals waiting to apply for licenses. One got a temporary license pending this approval. She said they do a lot of body treatments and she has worked in the Palm Desert area for the last ten years. They wanted to add massage for their existing clients and the rooms were already used for facials and body treatments. There were only two rooms with flat beds which were required for massage. She stated it was for existing clients. Right now massages had to be at hotels or even in homes. Chairperson Lopez asked if Ms. Marinescu was comfortable with the conditions of approval. Ms. Marinescu said yes. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campbell said that knowing Ms. Marinescu's background and being one of her customers, she would recommend approval. She 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 thought this wouldn't be the only location Ms. Marinescu would have in Palm Desert because with her reputation her business would continue to grow. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving CUP 01-14 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2088, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. CUP 00-21 - BRADFORD GARROW, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 1,441 square foot detached accessory building in the rear yard of the property located at 73-263 Salt Cedar Street. Mr. Alvarez explained that the request was for a detached accessory structure located in the rear yard of the property at 73-263 Salt Cedar Street. The requirements allowing these structures were outlined in the staff report. He said these structures were now permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit within the required rear yards on lots over 12,000 square feet and the proposed location was over 20,000 square feet. The proposed structure was within the required rear yard and would maintain a 22-foot setback on the west side and would maintain an 1 1 '6" setback on the rear which met the 1 :1 height to setback ratio. The elevations showed a maximum height of nine feet at the closest point to the property line and a maximum height of 12'6" to the top of the hipped roof structure. Access would be via a new access point on Desert Lily. Desert Lily current terminates at Salt Cedar. There was currently a barricade that blocks the access toward the rear which would eventually give not only access to this garage but to a property located to the south. As a condition of approval the applicant was required to provide a 24-foot wide paved access to the proposed garage. The garage would be 1 ,441 square feet and would primarily be used for storage and enclosed garage use. ARC reviewed the project on January 10, 2001 and at that time it included a flat-roofed structure. The commission felt that 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 r... the flat-roofed structure was not compatible with the design of the house. It was revised and the applicant went back before ARC on June 28 with a hipped-roof structure which matched the existing residence. ARC approved the revised project with a 6-0 vote. Mr. Alvarez indicated that legal notices were mailed out to surrounding property owners within 300 feet. Staff had not heard any objections. He stated that the project would comply with the detached accessory structure ordinance and recommended approval, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Campbell requested clarification that the address was 73- 263 and not 73-262. Mr. Alvarez confirmed that the address is 73-263 Salt Cedar. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LEWIS BISHOP, the architect on the project representing Mr. Garrow, said there were a number of things that were costly in the conditions of approval, not the least of which was the requirement to pave the street that is already paved. He said right now there �... is a barricade that closes off that section of Salt Cedar, although Salt Cedar was improved in the past and just needed to be swept off to use again. By relocating the barrier which is near Salt Cedar to the rear of the property, the pavement was already there to provide access to the garage which was one of the considerations when they designed the project. It would be a very strong financial hardship on his client to have to pave 24 feet of street back at this time. He requested that the condition be removed since the street was already paved. To relocate the barricade and patch any holes would be more appropriate. Reading the condition, Mr. Drell said that the condition didn't say that the street had to be paved, they had to do the necessary street improvements. He thought that would be interpreted based on the current road condition. It would up to the judgement of the Public Works Director. Mr. Bishop said that if the condition were to assure that the street improvements were appropriate for the particular use on Mr. Garrow's side of the street, he thought that would be appropriate Ift. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 and was something they could deal with the Public Works Department about. Mr. Drell said that was kind of what the condition said and it was kind of vague. It said necessary street improvements. It didn't specify which are necessary and if it was in good shape. It was really a long driveway. The City would require a long driveway to have a dust-free durable surface so it really depended upon the quality of what is there. Mr. Bishop explained that the language of the condition was such that it would appear to require Mr. Garrow to remove what is there and build a new street all the way to the back of the property line. Commissioner Finerty noted that it was Public Works condition number four. Mr. Drell read that condition and confirmed that it said the applicant should provide construction of a paved access, 24 feet in width. It didn't say remove anything and if it was already paved, he would use that in conjunction with Community Development's condition number seven. He said that they could add to Public Works condition number four, "as is deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works." Mr. Bishop thought that would be appropriate. Mr. Drell said that they could leave that somewhat open and the applicant could come back and appeal it at a later date if that was determined. Mr. Bishop said that with the additional language he believed they could work with the Department of Public Works. Chairperson Lopez asked if someone purchased the property south of that barricade, if they would also be required to lay down that street. Mr. Drell said that was a good question. Typically someone wasn't required to do improvements offsite so the answer was probably no. On the other hand, they have to have access to their property. He noted that they have made the folks on Shepherd Lane off of Portola who are doing the residential tracks, the ones that are not contiguous with another one, they have been forced to put in minimal improvements, in essence a half street, to get them from one to the other. They do need a road to get where they are going and they do require it to be durable and dust free. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 r.. Chairperson Lopez said that part of the suggestion perhaps would be that improvements be done with this particular application and that the cost of this would eventually be split with the new owner. Mr. Drell said that they couldn't do that. They couldn't force the owner of a vacant property to pay for a road in the future that has already been put in unless he has already agreed to it. Mr. Drell clarified that the condition could read that as is necessary, the applicant shall provide construction of paved roads as necessary to be determined by the Director of Public Works, 24 feet in width, etc. Commissioner Campbell asked if someone was going to build a home on the south side and they wanted to improve the road, it would be up to them to share in the improvement of the road if they didn't like the present road. Mr. Drell said yes, if for some reason they wanted to improve it more. MR. BRAD GARROW, the owner of the house, stated that he wanted to make sure that they realized that the street they were discussing, Desert Lily, used to run all the way up to the back of his property line. Throughout the years people were going back there and dumping behind his house and either the homeowner complained or was the one who actually set up that barrier, but he wanted the commission to know that the road is Desert Lily. He didn't understand why it would be his responsibility to take care of that street. Commissioner Campbell asked if the barricade wasn't there, the street would go all the way up. Mr. Garrow concurred. He said that Desert Lily runs all the way up and then since the road had been disbanded and they put in the barricade, the road had deteriorated. He wanted them to know it is actually Desert Lily. Mr. Drell said that was a good question. He thought that they could add, "and as determined by the City Attorney" if it is a dedicated, improved public road. Because it had been abandoned didn't necessarily mean it was the applicant's responsibility to fix it. Mr. Bishop said the street was a street and is improved with curb and gutter on the west side of the street by the Tennis Club and NNW 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 it was in operation until the barricade was moved forward sometime in the past. Chairperson Lopez asked if he was comfortable with the other conditions of approval. Mr. Garrow said yes. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. LONNY CAMPANERO addressed the commission. He said he lives in the south portion of the property. He said he didn't object to the structure and he was just told about this meeting so he wasn't equipped to ask a lot of questions, but had a couple. According to the architect, it would be used for trucks and cars. He asked for an explanation. Mr. Garrow explained that he has multiple vehicles and currently the vehicles were parked in the driveway and on the street. His main concern with putting a garage out there was to get his work truck off of that street. It is a fairly active street right there on that corner, so he could park in the garage and in the driveway. Mr. Campanero asked how many cars the garage would hold. Mr. Garrow said it was a two-car garage. He has a work truck, his own vehicle and his girlfriend's. Mr. Campanero thanked Mr. Garrow and asked Mr. Drell and the architect why they couldn't do this correctly and put the drive in and make it look right. He understood that there was a cost burden here, but if they've been to the property which is a beautiful area, he asked why they didn't do it right, whoever was burdened with the cost. Mr. Drell said he didn't think there was an argument that the road needed to be improved. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 Mr. Campanero said that Mr. Garrow would be driving vehicles through there and it was dirt. Mr. Drell explained that if in fact it needed to be paved, and this was a question that should have been answered, the issue was not whether it should be improved to a particular standard, it was a question of who should be responsible. If it was an already improved public street, the fact that people drive on it doesn't make them responsible for doing the maintenance. Typically the City maintains public streets once it is accepted as a public street. When developers do improvements to streets, it is usually right-of-way that they improve. Once it is completed, it is dedicated to the City and from that point on the City is responsible for maintaining it. What they have to do is research the status of this street and how it was originally improved, why it was abandoned if in fact it was abandoned, and if they determine that it is still in essence a public street, the conclusion might be that the cost belongs to the City. But right now he personally didn't know that answer. It didn't change the conclusion that, yes, it needs to be improved and that is what the condition requires. low Mr. Campanero thanked Mr. Drell. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell stated that she didn't have any problem with the accessory building, but she would like to have the City look at that street and if it is a public street, the City should take care of it. The unsightly trucks could then be removed from the front yard and street. She said she would move for approval with that condition. Commissioner Finerty asked if it might be better to have a continuance until they have a clear-cut answer. Mr. Drell explained that either way they would have an answer by the next meeting which in either case would be within the appeal period. It was up to the applicant if he wanted this further clarified. They could keep the condition they way it is and if the applicant was happy with staff's determination, he could go ahead, but if he was unhappy, he %00 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 could appeal the condition. Or commission could continue it and have it back in two weeks. Commissioner Tschopp felt that given some of the concerns expressed by the neighbor he also thought a continuance would be in order and that way they would all be clear on what they were trying to accomplish and how it would come about. Commissioner Finerty asked if two weeks would be agreeable to the applicant. Chairperson Lopez explained that staff would research the records as to what was done at Desert Lily and how far that street went up and was paved. At that point it would be determined if it was the City's obligation to improve it. The current condition requires the applicant to bear the cost, or at least with the revision of the verbiage on that, it would be to the discretion of the Public Works Department. The commission could either continue the case two weeks to allow time for that clarification to be made, or the commission could move ahead on the application and staff would go ahead with their investigation and then the applicant could come back in and appeal that decision. Mr. Garrow said that a continuance would be acceptable. Mr. f Bishop agreed that would be the right thing to do. Commissioner Finerty also felt that a clarification needed to be made on Community Development condition number seven and Public Works condition number four. They needed to be headed in one direction. Chairperson Lopez reopened the public hearing and made a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing Case No. CUP 00-21 to September 18, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case No. PP 01-09 - KERR PROJECT SERVICES/McDONALD'S CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a McDonald's restaurant with drive-thru service on an existing too 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 pad in the Desert Country Plaza at the northwest corner of Harris Lane and Country Club Drive, 77-870 Country Club Drive. Mr. Smith explained that the request is to place a McDonald's restaurant with drive-thru service on an existing pad within the Desert Country Plaza located at 77-870 Country Club Drive. The site is a vacant 36,132 square foot pad located at the northwest corner of Harris Lane and Country Club. The pad is basically flat, has an existing main entry driveway along its eastern side and an existing driveway across the north limit of the site. When Select Properties processed the center map for the site back in 1999, Mr. Smith said they showed the City a drive-thru restaurant on the pad on the master plan. At that point in time it was conceptual but was approved subject to the future user obtaining the precise plan which was now being requested. The current master plan provided for a 2,500 square foot drive-thru restaurant on this pad with extensive landscape treatment. The present request is for a 3,395 square foot McDonald's restaurant with drive-thru. The facility would provide 64 seats inside. Access would be from the Country Club/Harris Lane intersection which is signalized. Access to the pad is from the existing driveway that runs across the north edge of the site. Two-way traffic could circulate around the full pad. Access to the drive-thru would be at the northeast corner of the building, so they would come in out of the northerly driveway and into the drive-thru lane and then proceed across the north side of the building and then turn left along the west side of the building to the actual window. Per direction from the Architectural Review Commission, the applicant added a trellis over much of the drive- thru lane. It would start at the northwest corner of the building. This would shade vehicles while they wait in line and the west side of the building. As well, the drive-thru lane at some point in the future would be screened from view by buildings that would be constructed on the vacant property to the west. Parking for the restaurant was based on the parking provided in the center. In the report, staff concluded that there was a three-space deficiency for code purposes. As of today, he received an updated site plan that came up with four additional parking spaces, so there was not a three-space deficiency for code purposes. The property has a Freeway Commercial Overlay District applied to it. That was what allowed the applicant to seek approval of the drive-thru facility. The FCO required a minimum of 30% landscaped open space of which at least half of the common usable open space could include picnic area, dog park, %NW 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 kids land, as well as landscaped setback areas. With a showing of good cause, the Planning Commission could decrease the minimum landscaped open space requirement. The site plan provided by the applicant indicated 30.3% open space. The existing landscape plan presented to and approved by the Architectural Review Commission had less. It had around 28% landscaped area. The applicant reworked the numbers off of their computer program and as recently as Friday came up with a number of 30.1 %. It was close, but that wasn't staff's real concern with the landscaping. Previously when a Jack in the Box request came in at the corner of Washington and Country Club, that matter made its way to the City Council and the big issue with the Council when it got there was where the usable open space was and the public amenity feature. Like this one, that one didn't have a public amenity feature. So from staff's perspective, the issue is the increase in the size of the building from 2,500 square feet to 3,400 square feet and the fact that there isn't a usable public amenity open space feature. The building architecture was reviewed by ARC and was granted preliminary approval. The drive-thru restaurant on the site was previously assessed as part of the master plan and no further environmental review was necessary. The earlier plan was part of the original approval and had the drive-thru lane on the southerly side of the building and called for a large berm system to screen it. As part of the Freeway Overlay District they were also charged with screening these features to the greatest extent possible. At that point in time in the staff report, Mr. Smith said they indicated that was fairly contrary to good retail practice and they should look at achieving it some other way and they did. They relocated the drive-thru to the north and west side of the building and did a reasonable job in screening it. Basically what they came back to was they didn't have the outdoor public amenity, the usable area. Staff thought part of the contribution to that was the increase in the size of the building. Staff couldn't support the project in this form. If the applicant could operate from a 2,500 square foot facility, staff thought the plan could be modified to create a significant usable public amenity area. If the applicant couldn't and 3,400 square feet was the absolute minimum they could work with, he thought they were then at a place where commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. If the commission didn't feel that the usable public amenity was as important an issue as staff when they looked at the record on the Jack in the Box proposal, then commission could direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval. In either case, staff could present the resolution to the commission at the next meeting. At 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 N"' this point staff's recommendation was that the commission open the public hearing and then hear the information and continue the matter. Commissioner Campbell asked for and received confirmation on the drive- thru circulation. She asked if there would be a lot of congestion from cars going through the drive-thru in addition to people trying to park and walk into the building. Mr. Smith said that his experience with drive-thrus was that people don't move through them very swiftly. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that they would still be going through the parking area and asked if that was a problem. Mr. Smith didn't foresee it being a problem. Commissioner Campbell asked how large McDonald's were typically. Mr. Smith said he was advised that this is the smallest of their current facilities. Commissioner Campbell asked the size of the one on Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Smith deferred the question to the applicant. Chairperson Lopez asked for clarification that the landscaped area is between 27.5 and 30.1 %. Mr. Smith thought it was within .5 either way. Chairperson Lopez noted that the parking issue had been resolved; Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Campbell indicated that since the drive-thru had been moved, they really didn't need the berm there as they did with Jack in the Box. Mr. Smith concurred and agreed that the berm was there to screen the drive-thru and that was accomplished by moving it to the north and west side of the building and landscaping it. The ordinance said it needed to be screened from an arterial street. Commissioner Campbell asked if there was some kind of a berm there anyway. Mr. Smith said there was a wall and landscaping. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the open space. He asked if the percentage right now included the sidewalk, handicap ramps, delivery access or if it was truly open space, landscaped areas. Mr. Smith said it was area that could be planted and didn't include sidewalks, handicap ramps, trash areas, or utility areas. Commissioner Tschopp asked if in the revised plan the applicant provided staff with on Friday, if the 30% met the Freeway Commercial Overlay District requirement. Mr. Smith said it met it in that the plan came in at 30.1 % and working strictly from the landscape plan, they were at a number slightly less than 30%. The other question was how important the usable public amenity feature is, the kids land, the picnic area, or however they wanted to 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 approach that, which they didn't have in the plan at this point. Of that 30%, Commissioner Tschopp wanted to know if it met the requirement that at least half of it be common usable open space, picnic area, dog park, etc. Mr. Smith said there was no question in staff's mind that they haven't met that portion of the requirement. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. DEBORAH KERR, of Kerr Project Services at 4655 Cass Street in San Diego, addressed the commission. She stated that she has been working for McDonald's for over seven years and on every project she has worked on, their goal has been to work very closely with staff and come to an amenable conclusion and come forward to commission with a favorable recommendation from staff. This was a first for her. They originally started talking with the City at the first of the year. Their early project included a play place and an almost 4,000 square foot building. They learned very quickly about the intent of the Overlay District and other code issues that they needed to start rethinking what their building was going to look like on their site. They eliminated the play place and reduced the building down from 3,700 square feet to just under 3,400. They worked diligently with staff. They added landscaping until they met the 30% requirement. She said it wasn't added on Friday, it had been there for two months. It was just a matter of how it was calculated. The application was made in March. They delayed going to ARC until they were more comfortable with their plan. They met with Mr. Smith in June and took those recommendations from staff and incorporated them into their plan. They went to ARC on two occasions and implemented all of their recommendations. Never before did they hear about the requirement for a public amenity. This was a first on Thursday. They were here to tell the commission where they had come from and where they wanted to go. They want a facility in the city of Palm Desert and realize this is the first drive-thru, the commission would scrutinize it and she didn't blame them. But they had to understand that they have been working with the staff and committees to meet all of the goals to make a project they could be proud of and that McDonald's could function in. She said 3,400 square feet was not a large building. It was the smallest prototype 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 they have. They experimented with smaller buildings and they don't work. She did a lot of remodels for them adding seating areas because customers complain there isn't enough seating. That was what got eliminated if they shrank the building. It is hot in the desert. Their peak hours were around noon. It was a noon time crowd, not evening. So they were looking to service people during the hot hours of the day. In order to create adequate seating it needed to be inside, it needed to be air conditioned and it needed to be comfortable. When she looked at the code for public spaces, it said it "can" be provided. It wasn't a requirement. And if she read it correctly, they could do one of two things. They could take away some of the landscaping to create a public amenity and maybe an outdoor patio with misters and create some outdoor space if that is what would satisfy this requirement. But it had to come at the price of some landscaping. She said they were trying to put in a building the City would be proud of and one which would service the community. She didn't want to put in a building that people didn't want to go to because there was no place to sit. She said there were representatives of McDonald's present as well as the developer. Commissioner Campbell asked Ms. Kerr if she felt they didn't need a play area for children like at other McDonald's. Ms. Kerr said that the market would support it but the site wasn't big enough. The play areas, especially the indoor ones which is what she would want to do, were on average 1 ,200 to 1 ,400 square feet. Commissioner Campbell asked if that would be a minus for children going to the facility if there wasn't a play area. Ms. Kerr didn't think it would be minus, it just wouldn't be a plus. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that on Thursday Ms. Kerr first heard of the requirement for the 15% set aside for the common area. Ms. Kerr said that was correct. They read the code before they started and it stated that it can be a part, but in all their meetings f.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 1 it was never mentioned and it was a big obstacle they have to overcome. They'd really like to seek the commission's approval and recommended for a resolution in their favor. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. NEILL CASPER, a McDonald's Project Manager, said that he has been the project manager for this site for the past five months and they had worked diligently with staff to carefully consider all of the things that were important to the City which as they understood them through their meetings were to adequately park the site, to adequately screen it from traffic and then to assure that it was adequately landscaped at a 30% ratio. He said they significantly decreased the size of the building from where they felt the volume would substantiate closer to a 3,800 square foot building, so they reduced it down to the 3,300 square feet to meet the 30% landscaping which they feel confident they are meeting. They worked with the design review committee to increase the shading along the west by adding trellis all the way around the curbs - the radius of the drive-thru, they added a screen wall along the major street front and along the drive-thru on the side as well as taken into consideration all of their landscaping concerns as far as increasing the landscaping and changing out some of the materials they would like to see. It wasn't until Thursday of last week that the requirement for a usable public amenity came up. It caught them by surprise and they had been operating under the assumption that they were coming in with a favorable staff report, a recommendation of approval, so it caught them off guard. As they read the code, it didn't seem to be a requirement, but more an option that they could decrease their landscaping and substitute a public amenity in its place. With the current site plan there was an option to possibly put outside tables around the building. It was limited by the front setback along Country Club as well as the significant landscaping to screen the drive-thru. There was limited area around the building. But they would definitely be open to trying put some tables in there if the commission felt that would be beneficial. They believed that they have worked out a site plan which both serves the public and would meet the City's objectives. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp asked how important the drive-up was to the success of a stand alone McDonald's restaurant. Mr. Casper said that in excess of 60% of their business goes through the drive-thru so it was a critical piece that they couldn't survive without. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that was compared to other McDonald's sites in the valley that didn't have drive-ups and if it severely impacted their businesses. Mr. Casper explained that he has only been with the company for five months and couldn't answer that question. But it was 60% and up of their business. MR. DAVE OMAN, Sixth Street Partners, explained that they were the master developers of the site. They were before the commission around two years ago seeking approval of the master plan and the conditional use permit for the McDonald's restaurant. At the time they had no idea who the fast food restaurant would be. They knew it was an element in their plan. The size of the building was really a depiction of what they thought the fast food might need at the time and that was just a point he wanted to make to them. Once McDonald's was identified, they worked diligently to size down their building to where it was today at approximately 3,300 square feet. They started with something more in the range of 4,000 square feet. He thought that was a point to consider. In addition to that, in the master plan they had a public space discussion with respect to the master plan at the time. They were trying to determine what could be done to just enhance the general area for the public within their 20 acres and the request was made and they tried to comply with that by designing a walkway between building 6, the back building with Gold's Gym and the other tenants, to the front building. A much larger walkway than just walking through the parking area. If they went out there today they would see a nice wide walkway that is landscaped and it would dovetail into the area where they have some restaurants. This was just to the east of the driveway where they see the China Wok restaurant, Mexican restaurant, Togo's, and Baskin Robbins, and that was an outside seating area and 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 would be an area people could walk to back and forth should they choose. A little more safety precaution than they needed to do at the time but they felt they were trying to comply with the spirit of what the City was requiring at the time. They also included a bus stop to the west of the McDonald's restaurant between buildings 2 and 3 going up to building 6. There was a courtyard type of area where China Wok is and they had a fenced area for their outdoor dining and right in front of that corner in building 3 and then went up toward building 6. They included that because they felt it made sense with all the retail circulation they would have with the tenants back and forth between building 6, the Gold's Gym building, building 4 and with 2 and 3 out front. Just to the west of the McDonald's pad, 9, was where the bus stop would go. There was a deceleration lane planned. That had been planned and was in the works for some time. They were required to include that in their warehouse showroom development just west of McDonald's. He thought the other items had been presented and asked for any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. ..r Commissioner Finerty stated that she appreciated the level of cooperation with staff and it was pointed out that this was potentially the city's first drive-thru. However, she believed that having no usable open space or public amenity was not appropriate. She felt the Freeway Overlay District should be complied with, but currently the City is reviewing the General Plan and she wanted to have this issue reviewed because she felt that drive-thrus should not be allowed anywhere in the city and perhaps through the revision of the General Plan this might actually occur. The city has one McDonald's and she stated that she would be hoping for a higher quality fast food restaurant if the restaurant use needed to be fast food. It would be her desire to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Commissioner Campbell said that the existing master plan provided for a 2,500 square foot drive-thru restaurant and they were striving to have for the city more usable open space. Now that they had a request for a 3,400 square foot restaurant, according to the plans there might be a adequate landscaping, but to her it looked like it was all parking and not 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 enough open space if they had a drive-thru restaurant in the city. She was also in favor of the preparation of a resolution of denial. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that the Freeway Commercial Overlay District required that the master planned project provide a minimum 30% landscape open space, but it did not require that 15% be set aside for public use. It said can. And that was if the wording was correct. Mr. Drell thought it was ambiguous and was giving them two messages. It also said at least half. Commissioner Tschopp read, "of which at least half the common usable open space can..." Mr. Drell said at least half, which meant not less than half. He agreed that the wording was less than very precise, but at least half meant it couldn't be less than half. The can created ambiguity. The basis of their recommendation was the Council's interpretation of what that meant when they reviewed Jack in the Box and staff recommended approval of Jack in the Box. They emphasized the last half part of that sentence and not the "can." That was the guidance they used in making the recommendation. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he understood the intent of the Overlay District requirement, however, when they said "can" it was a far r,.. cry from "require." Given that, he thought the intent was very good and it was designed with the idea that they would be having a 2,500 square foot building there. Once the applicant increased the size of the building, then there might be some tradeoff in that the intent asked for the usable open space in return for giving a drive up. Here they were trying to get a bigger building on the site and a drive up. In some ways they were asking for more than what was anticipated so they had to go to the intent which was that if they weren't building a bigger building they could easily meet that intent, but since they were building a bigger building and still wanted the drive up, they couldn't meet that. He would not be in favor of it and thought the City needed to look at this and clarify it so that future applicants didn't go through the process before they got down to the end just to find out what the intent really was. Chairperson Lopez thought that a recommendation of continuance was the route he would rather take on this item since there is a need to review certain items, especially pertaining to the Freeway Commercial Overlay District and item three regarding landscaping. He thought there was ambiguity there, but he also thought there was room for flexibility on the City's part. He was concerned that the flexibility they attempted on a previous request was turned down by Council, so there was a 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 d precedence there. When they talked about the number of seats and the size of the facility when 60% of their business is drive-up in an area which would mostly be drive-up because of the location near the freeway, he was sure there would be sufficient marketing and signage promoting the motorist to utilize the facility and he suggested that the number of seats in that particular location could be reduced, they could reduce the size slightly and he thought right now they were trying to put too much on this little piece of property. Instead of denial, he wanted to give the applicant an opportunity to work with staff. If the commission were to approve it, he felt certain that Council would deny this based on open space and lack of the usable area. Chairperson Lopez said he would move for a continuance of this item to the most convenient time for staff and the applicant. Mr. Drell said that staff could produce resolutions for approval and denial for the next meeting. Chairperson Lopez asked if two weeks was enough time. Staff and the applicant concurred. Chairperson Lopez reopened the public hearing. Action: It was moved by Chairperson Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing Case No. PP 01-09 to September 18, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). D. Case No. Master Plan/PP 01-16 and TPM 30226 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a master plan of development and a precise plan to allow the development of 11 .96 acres located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and El Paseo including 9,000 square feet of office use, two 8,000 square foot restaurants, a memorial garden and tentative parcel map to allow the subdivision of the parcel into 12 lots. Mr. Alvarez explained that the project is located at the southwest corner of El Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 . It is an 11 .96 acre parcel currently owned by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. He noted that in 1989 this site was approved with a development agreement and an EIR was certified for a project referred to as the Ahmanson Commercial Development Plan. The Ahmanson Development Plan included 100,000 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 square feet of office use and within that up to 20% could be set aside for restaurant use. The project before the commission tonight was a significantly less intense project. The Agency would potentially utilize the site to accommodate the City's new Visitor's Center, the Chamber of Commerce building, two restaurant pads and a memorial garden. He pointed out the location of the uses. The Visitor's Center would be 7,000 square feet. To the west would be a 2,000 square foot Chamber of Commerce building. And to the south there would be two restaurant pads which would accommodate up to 8,000 square feet of use. There were significant setbacks provided from Highway 1 1 1 , El Paseo and Painters Path. He believed approximately 98 feet from Highway 1 1 1 and El Paseo to the closest structure, and 150-160 feet to Painters Path. The primary objective of this development plan was to approve the land uses and a tentative tract map. The tentative tract map subdivided the property into 12 lots which were outlined on page two of the staff report by use and the primary objective was to allow the parcelization and uses of the property including the restaurant parcels so that the Agency could proceed with securing tenants for those parcels, selling off the parcels and securing agreements with perspective tenants. The southwest corner of El Paseo and Highway 111 would be the site for the memorial garden for the late Eric Johnson and 1 .3 acres would be set aside to provide a nice entrance feature to the project and to vehicles traveling Highway 1 1 1 and El Paseo. It would include and incorporate pedestrian paths and provide desert landscape themes and concepts which would then flow into the parcels and uses on the site. He said that the applicant would briefly describe the concepts used to come up with the site and some of the actions and recommendations they have gone through, the steering committees and from the Agency board. In terms of access and circulation, there were three access points: Highway 1 1 1 , El Paseo and Painters Path. The Highway 111 and El Paseo accesses would be right in and right out movements only. The Painters Path access would be a full ingress/egress point leading back out to El Paseo. Although they didn't have building elevations, the parcels and the properties would be required to come back to develop precise plans for the building pads and the design features of the buildings. The Agency indicated that they would be single story structures with a single and coherent architectural concept and theme. In terms of internal access, there would be access from Highway 111 leading into the project. There would be a central interior access which would split the buildings. This area would serve for passenger drop off, handicap access and for a valet area. The area could 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 a be sectioned off for special events. This would primarily be used as a dual access for both pedestrians circulating within the site and for vehicles at a slower moving pace to provide access to the structures. On page three the traffic study was discussed. It was revised for this project. As indicated in that project, this project would be significantly less intense. There would be 73,000 square feet less office space and about 2,000 square feet less of restaurant space. Mitigation measures were identified, all of which were incorporated into the conditions of approval from the Engineering staff. Those major topics and conditions were outlined on page four and were described by Mr. Alvarez. He explained that one issue that came up in the traffic study was that a traffic signal would be necessary at El Paseo and Painters Path. This issue was addressed by the Public Works Department by requiring a $150,000 cash deposit. At this point he believed it was Engineering's recommendation that it might not be the most appropriate or best solution at this point since Painters Path was less than 300 feet from Highway 1 1 1 and Highway 1 1 1/El Paseo synchronization of that intersection could not be compatible at this time. In the event that the Engineering Department believes a signal would be warranted, the deposit is there and could be implemented. There was a provision in the condition that allows for the return of the deposit if after the final IM Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the last building which will include the development of a parcel which will remain vacant, within ten years of the final Certificate of Occupancy issued for the site, the deposit would be returned to the applicant. The site would provide 246 parking spaces, which would be sufficient to accommodate all of the uses which would be developed. He said that about 5% of the site would be covered at this point. In terms of neighborhood concerns, the Agency has worked closely with the Sandpiper residents located to the south of the project on Painters Path. One of the primary concerns of the residents was that additional traffic would be incurred on Painters Path from the exit and the fact that there are four garages/driveways that back up onto Painters Path. In order to address this issue, the Agency was providing trees and pop out planters from the curb toward Painters Path to allow vehicles backing out of garages to back out in a secured space protected by that planter and tree. There would be a nice street scape with street trees and a sidewalk which currently didn't exist and staff felt that was an acceptable solution. The narrowing of the street would also decrease the speed of vehicles in this area. In terms of design review, elevations had not been prepared. The Agency wanted to get a tract map approved so ' 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 that they could proceed with selling off the parcels for the restaurants, securing agreements, and moving to the next stage which is design of the actual structures and finalization of other improvements on the site. ARC reviewed in concept the landscape plan and just informally the site plan on July 24. A few recommendations from an advisory standpoint were made since there was no architecture to review at that point. He said those issues were outlined in the staff report and issues 1 , 2 and 3 could be addressed through the precise plan process. That would include providing adequate access to the structures and providing adequate valet. In terms of the overall design, the master plan and site plan complied with all the regulations of the site. The site is zoned Office Professional with a previously approved development agreement. The proposed land uses would be less intensive than the ones previously identified in the certified EIR. The project would return to ARC and the Planning Commission with precise plans for the building elevations. Staff recommended approval of the master plan of development which included a site plan, land uses and the conceptual landscape plan. Staff believed the findings for approval could be made and in terms of CEOA, the Director of Community Development determined that the project falls within the scope of the previously certified EIR prepared in 1989 for the Ahmanson Commercial Development Plan. He said that the applicant would address the commission to elaborate on a couple of key concepts of the plan. Commissioner Tschopp said in looking at the plans, for the Visitor's Center, it looked like the closest parking would be on the other side of the restaurants. Mr. Alvarez indicated there would be Visitor's Center parking, temporary visitor parking, as well as handicap parking spaces. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many spaces. Mr. Alvarez said there were eight. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that would be adequate for their day to day usage. Mr. Alvarez wasn't sure and thought the Agency could elaborate on that. Chairperson Lopez asked about the landscaping on Painters Path and the planter boxes with the trees. He asked if the concern for blind spots out of the driveways with the trees had been taken into consideration. Mr. Alvarez said that was one of the issues that had been addressed through the proposed design. The cars would back out into that secured spot and allow for vehicles to turn left onto the street with protection. Obviously ism 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 when the trees grow up the canopies would expand, but the property owner would be expected to maintain them. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. LAURI AYLAIAN, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, stated that she represented the applicant, the Redevelopment Agency. She said that this property has been owned by the Agency for over two years. They have been working with a steering committee to develop this plan. The steering committee was made up of a couple of members from the City Council, the City Manager and about a half dozen staff members who represented different departments and different interests. Unlike a lot of commercial developments done by the private sector, they had a real luxury of not being driven by bottom line profitability of the project. They have had the luxury of taking other things into consideration so that the governing issue had been how to best welcome visitors to the city and how to make this a truly special place within the city so that they could attract the locals to go see it as well. They were excited about the plan for extensive gardens and landscaping, demonstration gardens, and for the way the site would look and feel and what would make it special. They took that all into account instead of just the profitability. The site configuration had been through the City Council. One issue in particular addressed by ARC that had been hotly debated had been the location of one of the restaurants and the Visitor's Information Center in relation to each other. There were strong arguments going both directions and after a great deal of deliberation the Council preferred the configuration that was before the Planning Commission. She said that the Agency took exception to some of the Department of Public Works conditions of approval and they would be working with them. In particular, they felt it was inappropriate for this project to bear the full brunt of the cost for improvements at Highway 1 1 1 and El Paseo for the intersection there and for some of the work on El Paseo because those improvements were being driven by things other than this project. So they agreed with the Public Works Department that they would work with them to negotiate an appropriate amount to participate in the cost of those improvements and if at some point they were 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 unable to come up with a successful agreement with them, they would come back to the commission for further direction. Right now they had agreed conceptually with what they would need to do, would identify what was related to this project and what cost the Agency should reimburse the City for those. She said that if the commission had specific questions, present was the landscape architect, the site architect who is also the architect for the Visitor's Center and Chamber of Commerce, which she clarified was one building, and he would be able to address the commission on the site itself. They also have the civil engineers present who worked to prepare the plan and the parcel map. She introduced Mr. Reuel Young from Interactive Design, their site architect. MR. REUEL YOUNG, President of Interactive Design Corporation, stated that they are the architects of the master planning effort. He said that the project had been presented quite well. He indicated that he would like to cover a few points that he felt were important to emphasize. As Ms. Aylaian commented, this site was seen by the Steering Committee as a signature site for the city, not as a strip development governed by the kinds of issues raised during the presentation of the previous conditional use permit. Given that, the City from the very beginning said they wanted to address the issue from the point of view of introducing a public garden. The location of the garden was discussed extensively by the Council as well as the Steering Committee. The heart and soul of the garden would be desert sensitive governed by Eric Johnson's long-term horticultural research and landscape design. As part of the landscape, it would extend around the entire edge. There was a very generous buffer on the south side to Painters Path, also along El Paseo, and a very gracious landscaped area. The location of it was given as an invitation and buffer to the building itself and a place-making identifiable landscape element that would be unique in a high-speed arterial development in a commercial setting. The Visitor's Center, as Ms. Aylaian noted, was also discussed and determined by the majority of the Council that this location presented its best face forward to welcome guests and residents. The location of the three buildings was determined that they should be interactive in the sense that people who came to a restaurant or the Visitor's Center would share some public space. But devoting that space specifically and 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 exclusively to pedestrians would be impractical would also provide close in parking. He pointed out the location of the handicap and close in parking on either side of the lane and said that it would be without vertical curb. That meant that the sidewalk and the paving component were gently melded together and the path was defined by bollards and other landscape elements so that there is no danger but the visual cue is that this entire area is devoted and welcoming to both the automobile and the pedestrian. The area could be closed off to allow for a large reception to be held in the courtyard. The design of each building would be driven by the user of the two restaurants and by the Visitor's Center. They were quite far along in the design of the Visitor's Center and the Chamber. The nature of the architecture, especially for the Visitor's Center, was that the building should not be a square box, but should be something that integrates very closely with the landscape. Therefore, there was almost a sawtooth edge which would allow for continuous viewing between the inside and the outside. Basically, one half of the Visitor's Center was public and the other half was back of house, production and administration. The intimate relationship between architecture and landscape also extended to the proposed restaurant building. He had been working with them on a preliminary basis to bring a continuity and compatibility between the architectural characters of the two buildings. All along the goal has been that from the public arena, the invitation into this development was not the typical strip scape, but something that takes advantage of the substantial change in grade so that this was a lower area viewed from the hypothetical car driver at the intersection, down, and then across the plaza. The parking was landscaped with a scheme that would provide some collecting of onsite water in the landscaped buffers so that the burden of retention and cleansing of the water from runoff was assisted in what was called landscape urbanism through bio-filtration and things like that. They were trying to introduce something that did not place the burden of runoff in one local but would distribute it and intercept it as close as possible to the original source. That kind of thinking was given very strong emphasis from the very beginning by the site development committee saying that this would represent the progressive thinking, the sensitivity to the landscape and the environment that the guiding principles of all development should have in the city of 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 Palm Desert. They prepared a model giving the character of the architecture, although not of the buildings themselves, but gave an indication of the scale and the orientation of the buildings and what they believed would be a very special place defined by all three. He clarified that there were only six handicap and regular parking spaces, but there were pull off parking spaces on either side of the lane which made a total of ten. Commissioner Finerty noted that ARC recommended a creative valet or drop off area for both restaurants and asked how that was addressed. Mr. Young said that for one restaurant, the area currently shown as hardscape would have a pull in valet. Because they didn't have an operator for that restaurant, they had not provided that other than identifying where they thought the valet parking could take place off of the internal curved lane. Commissioner Finerty asked what type of restaurants they were looking at having. Mr. Young said one restaurant was intended to be Quistot's, and Ms. Ruth Ann Moore was discussing the other site with a number of others. Some have been named, but one of the guiding principles was that the character of this restaurant should be complementary to the other buildings and if the franchise architecture was too strong, it might not be compatible at this site. Regarding the landscaping for the garden, Chairperson Lopez asked if, when proceeding down Highway 1 1 1 to the entrance, if vehicles would be able to see the Visitor's Center building through the garden areas and if they were relatively low garden areas. Mr. Young said yes. He explained that there were some trees shown that should not be there. One area was intended to have a dense planting of filifera to create a visual barrier between the high speed heavy traffic and the pedestrian area. The grade was 19 and the finished floor area was 26, so the building would be raised above. Mr. Young pointed out the areas where the whole plaza in the grading concept would take place and distribute it. The goal tow 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 was that as cars approach, the area would be clearly evident from the drive and there will be a corner monument to identify the development. Ms. Aylaian stated that visibility was very important to the Visitor's Center and would be to the restaurants as well. So where they have lush landscaping, they would provide help with monumentation and signage so that people could find the buildings. Chairperson Lopez noted that Ms. Aylaian indicated that the Visitor's Center and Chamber of Commerce would be in one building but there were two separate areas. Ms. Aylaian said they would function separately, but would probably be under a common roof. Commissioner Campbell asked about the water feature shown. Mr. Young explained that the intent, and it was quite preliminary because there had been a great deal of discussion within the Council itself, about the nature of that water feature. In general, the water feature would be at the base of a quite strong geographic change in grade. There was about a seven-foot drop from the south side to the water level. That was enabled by the general slope of the site. The water at the base would resemble an oasis. It was not intended to be a formal contained fountain. It was intended to be in a naturalistic setting. The goal is that from this pedestrian area and restaurant, the view would be down into this and would resemble the kind of landscape and hardscape rock formations that are characteristics in canyons. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MRS. SUSAN DOVES, 1706 Sandpiper, told the commission that she had always understood that they were going to have a berm, something that would protect them from the view of a parking lot and protect them from the noise and the smells of restaurants. She was also very concerned about the entrance/exit off of 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 Painters Path. Those at Sandpiper had always been opposed to an entrance there because driving now was hazardous. The other objection was there at the corner of El Paseo and Painters Path, she understood them to say that a traffic light was only a possibility. At this time it was quite dangerous for them to try and get across the street to get onto El Paseo if they wanted to make a left turn. She asked how that could be solved. Mr. Alvarez asked for comments from the Engineering Department. Mr. Diercks pointed out that one complication was the operation of the two signals. He explained that Caltrans operates the Highway 111 one and the City would operate the one at Painters Path. They couldn't guarantee the two systems would work in a coordinated manner. That was why they were somewhat opposed to it at this time. It was something they would be looking at and he indicated that a stop sign might also be an option. Mr. Alvarez requested the applicant to address the berming issue. Mr. Young said they met with Mr. Jack Hoover and a Dr. Keith to address the issue identified at that meeting which was high speed traffic on Painters Path. Therefore, in the earlier discussion they °i were introducing tree islands separate from the curb and gutter that would be eight-feet wide which is wide enough for a car to park along that and the spacing would be two cars and then a tree planter, two cars and a tree planter. The goal of that is to narrow the pathway visually to give a cue of this repetition of street trees to slow traffic, to provide protection for people who were parking on that street and at each of the driveways to provide as was described before, a place to back up into out of traffic before getting into traffic. That was an issue that was addressed and as proposed, he believed that the street section is the best solution. The second issue of how to block the development visually from the residents of the area, they proposed to have a berm between the curb and the drop in the parking. There was already a three or four foot drop from the elevation of the street to the elevation of the parking area for the first car. There was enough room to raise a berm about two or three feet above that so they would have a differential between the surface of parking at its highest point and the top of the berm of approximately six or seven feet which would virtually block from the street the cars parking. From the sight line they would see the building and the trees, but in general %MW 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 i a the slope of the site because it falls gave them an opportunity to ar treat the visual impact with berming and landscaping as opposed to a wall. Ms. Aylaian said they were also interested in having an inviting site rather than creating a fortress or walled city. They believed the sight line allowing the landscaping to be seen and to see what was there would serve as a kind of invitation to people. She said they thought the landscaping would be more aesthetically pleasing than a formal wall. Mr. Drell said that last time a project was proposed at this site and there was discussion of the Painters Path access, it was pointed out that without an access onto Painters Path, they physically couldn't get to the site from El Paseo. They felt that having a project where they physically couldn't get to it from the main street next to it was an unreasonable proposition, so the goal was to mitigate the concern as much as possible through design on Painters Path. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she was delighted with the project and knew that a lot of hard work went into it. From the look of it the hard work paid off. She felt it would be a huge asset to the city and that they had worked sincerely with the homeowner's association at Sandpiper to satisfy most of their concerns. She was absolutely delighted that they had gotten to this point. Commissioner Finerty looked forward to a quick completion. Commissioner Campbell also thought it was an excellent project and was well done. It was quite a change from the hotel that was going to be built. She didn't see many complaints from Sandpiper with the way this project would look with the landscaping and berm. As far as the smell from the restaurants, she said if was Quistot's restaurant, she wouldn't mind smelling it. She was in favor of the proposed project. Commissioner Tschopp said that it was amazing when they have the resources and means to design and develop an area without the normal J concerns that drive developers, which was typically profit, so he felt that 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 the City was showing what it likes to see done when they have the resources and means, so it was a well-designed corner. However, although profit might not be the motivating factor behind the City, success should be taken into consideration. After reading the Architectural Review Commission comments, as proposed it would be a good project and it was good to see that the City had the means to do it, however, some of the comments by ARC could impact the success if they weren't looked at. He thought some of the parking around the Visitor's Center, the lack thereof, could present future problems, as well as signalization and the comments made in the traffic study. He thought the concept of the garden was beautiful and would look very nice, however, he doubted that many of them would want to stand next to a busy intersection and walk in a park. However, since that wasn't their decision and the Agency wanted to do something like that as a developer, then more power to them. Practically speaking, he had his doubts about it. Chairperson Lopez commended Mr. Young on the beautiful layout. He thought the project had a warm feel to it. The area considered the walkway or pedestrian/driveway area would lend itself nicely, especially for the Chamber of Commerce mixers and events. He agreed there might be a problem with valet parking in that particular area because when it was closed off, they would have a problem getting into the restaurant, although they might like the idea about having it closed off so that everyone could go into the restaurant. Overall the project is great, but there was a concern with parking and he thought the parking at the Visitor's Center was a legitimate concern. Right now it was very difficult to get into the current Visitor's Center because there wasn't any parking. It had been an ongoing problem trying to get in and out of that particular location and he knew that those individuals there, and he had worked with them for many years on the Promotions Committee, they would want to make sure there is adequate access to that particular building which was very important. But he thought overall the project was wonderful and asked for a motion. Before an action was taken, Mr. Alvarez requested clarification on the two conditions that the applicant wanted to modify regarding the improvements on Highway 111 and El Paseo, Public Works Condition Number 9, bullet number one regarding construction of acceleration and deceleration lane with free right-turn on El Paseo including traffic signal %1W 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 modifications as necessary. The question they had was how and to what degree the Agency was responsible for the cost the improvements if the improvements were being designed for that intersection right now. The language they would like to see on the first and second bullets was to somehow arrange for an agreement between the Agency and the City to work out the costs. Ms. Aylaian wanted an appropriate allocation to this project as to the cost. Chairperson Lopez asked if there was a current formula for the allocation. Mr. Diercks said that Public Works currently has a project to improve El Paseo and Highway 1 1 1 and they would be sitting down and looking at the costs. Chairperson Lopez asked for and received confirmation that there was an opportunity to adjust distribution accordingly. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the second issue was in the Fire Department conditions, the last comment under "other" where it said that there may be some problem with access to back of lots 2 and 3. He stated that he discussed this comment with the Fire Marshal and the Fire Marshal indicated he would like to eliminate that comment. It was brought up by the applicant that once the buildings come back with precise plans, they would know their exact locations and what distances they would be from certain fire hydrants and access points. That would be removed and revisited when there were actual precise plans for the buildings. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that the Highway 111 and El Paseo improvements as outlined in the traffic study would be done, the modification to the condition was just a matter of who would pay for them. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Mr. Drell had one correction. He explained that the City Council had not approved this. The Redevelopment Agency Board had approved it as the property owner and ultimately the Redevelopment Agency Board as the property owner would sit down with their counterparts on the City Council and negotiate the sharing of costs. So he didn't think they really had to do anything with this condition. Commission concurred and Chairperson Lopez asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2089, approving Master Plan/PP 01-16 and TPM 30226, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS 1 . Mr. Drell informed commission that he would be meeting with the Palm Springs Unified School District Facilities Planner to discuss the City's new potential General Plan for their district area north of Frank Sinatra and whether or not they would rather have Desert Sands Unified School District provide educational services in this area because there would be a lot of educational services they would have to provide. He said he would keep the commission updated on the discussions. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 2. Chairperson Lopez noted that last year the Planning Commission .r moved to cancel the first meeting in November on Election Day and indicated that since this year there would only be school and college issues, staff was asking if commission would allow a meeting this year. Commission agreed to making an exception for this year. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. 7:PHILIP DRELL Secretary A(7]E : f zly-i- J EZ, Chai per n P m esert Plan ' g ommission /tm t tY(j 1 34