Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0918 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 18, 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 Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 4, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to approve the September 4, 2001 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION No meeting. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18 2001 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 01-08 - PREST/VUKSIC ARCHITECTS FOR KLAFF REALTY, Applicant (Continued from July 17 and August 21 , 2001) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan to demolish an existing building located at the northwest corner of El Paseo and San Pablo and construct a two-story 19,300 square foot retail/office building; remodel the existing building located at the northeast corner of El Paseo and Lupine Lane with a 1 ,400 square foot addition at the east end of the building; construct a new 7,000 square foot restaurant fronting on Highway 1 1 1 ; and remodel the north elevation of the OfficeMax building. Mr. Drell recommended a continuance to October 16, 2001 . Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing would remain open and asked for a motion of continuance. 5 i 1 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing PP 01-08 to October 16, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. 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 pad in the Desert Country Plaza at the northwest corner of Harris Lane and Country Club Drive, 77-870 Country Club Drive. Mr. Drell explained that the applicant was requesting a continuance to October 2, 2001 to try and address commission concerns. Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing would remain open and asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion continuing Case No. PP 0 1-09 to October 2, 2001 . Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PM 30287 - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map to recreate the original two lots at the southeast corner of Warner Trail and Robin Road, 43-400 Warner Trail. Mr. Smith explained that the applicant wanted to recreate the original lotting. The commission turned down a request to expand the church and prior to that application they had gone through a merger on the property so it was necessary to go through the steps to de-merge it and go back to the original lotting. He stated that for CEQA purposes it is a Class 3 categorical exemption and recommended approval. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 9 Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to .. address the commission. MR. WARREN STALLARD, 78-683 Como Court in La Quinta, said they were requesting approval and he was available to answer any questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving PM 30287 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2090, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. 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. Drell informed commission that the applicant met with Public Works and it appeared that there was an agreement reached and the condition for the access road had been modified. The applicant would pay for half of the 24-foot repaving of Salt Cedar and he indicated the applicant could describe his reaction to the condition. Mr. Garrow said that he never actually agreed. That was just what he was told his option was. Mr. Drell said that unfortunately the City Attorney was not consulted which was one of the questions commission had at the last meeting. He indicated that if it is a public street that was barricaded and the City 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18 2001 didn't maintain it didn't mean it is abandoned. Abandoning means it is given back to the adjoining property owners. He said it was unclear and apologized that the issue had not really been clarified. So as not to hold up Mr. Garrow, he suggested that the condition be modified to read, "or as determined by the City Attorney" so that if the City Attorney in consultation with the Public Works Department determines there is no justification in forcing the applicant to repave a public road, he would not have to come back. Mr. Garrow said that would be excellent because he didn't understand why he would have to do it by himself and even if he was to share it with the City, why the homeowner of the other lot that would access the road would have nothing to do with it because that would be a great selling feature for them. Mr. Drell said that property owners wasn't asking for a permit and the City couldn't force someone to pay something when they weren't asking for the use of their property. Mr. Garrow said to him it seemed wrong and wished he was a r... lawyer so he would know. Mr. Drell recommended approval with the modification to that condition. Commissioner Campbell asked if the City Attorney were to say that Mr. Garrow was liable for 50% of the cost and he didn't agree, what would happen. Mr. Drell said he could appeal that to the City Council. Chairperson Lopez reiterated to the applicant that if he did not agree with the City Attorney's ultimate decision or with this condition, Mr. Garrow could appeal it to the City Council. Mr. Drell said the commission could also delete the condition entirely. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that Mr. Drell said the commission could delete that condition entirely. Mr. Drell said yes, but on the other hand somehow or other the road had to be improved. Commissioner Campbell stated that if the road is a public street, she agreed with Mr. Garrow. Since the new paved road would also give r.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 access to the undeveloped lot located to the south of Mr. Garrow's property, she asked if that property owner should also pay for part of the road as well as the property to the west. Mr. Drell explained that the City had no mechanism to make that owner do anything. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval deleting condition number four. Commissioner Tschopp asked if we knew if the road was a dedicated public street. Mr. Drell said he believed it was a public right of way and that we for convenience barricaded it off. Commissioner Tschopp asked who would pay for improvements to a road like that under normal circumstances, like surfacing, etc. Mr. Erwin stated that originally it probably would have been paved with curbs and gutters by the subdivider of the area. Once done and accepted by the City, it would be the City's responsibility from then on. Commissioner Tschopp asked if we knew if it had been accepted by the City. Mr. Erwin said he did not know. Mr. Drell apologized and said that staff was supposed to have researched that information. He noted his earlier suggestion was to put it in the hands of the City Attorney and Public Works Department to determine the status of this road and what the legal responsibility was of the City to maintain it. He didn't want to hold up Mr. Garrow because of staff's lack of follow through and that was why he suggested the amended condition. Commissioner Campbell noted that the report stated that the west side of the lot already has curb and gutter improvements. Mr. Drell indicated it was put in by Deep Canyon Tennis Club. Commissioner Jonathan thought that Commissioner Campbell's point was well made. The City had ample opportunity to determine if there was reasonable basis for requiring the applicant to participate in the cost of the required improvement and the City failed to seize on that opportunity and as a result the applicant shouldn't be harmed. If it turns out that the City makes the determination that in some way the applicant is responsible, the City could appeal to City Council, but at this point since the City failed to show the applicant is responsible, he thought it would be inappropriate and unfair to hold him up. He concurred with Commissioner Campbell's suggestion to delete condition four and move forward with approval. Chairperson Lopez asked if that was a second to the motion. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18. 2001 Commissioner Finerty explained that while she supported Commissioners Campbell and Jonathan's position and since Mr. Garrow didn't seem to mind, she would feel more comfortable approving it but subject to the City Attorney's interpretation of who should pay for what. Commissioner Tschopp concurred with the motion made and seconded. He felt the opportunity was still there for the City to take the initiative to pursue this if they wanted and in the meantime Mr. Garrow could move forward with his plans. Chairperson Lopez also concurred and asked for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2091 , approving Case No. CUP 00-21 , subject to conditions as amended deleting Public Works condition number four. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). E. Case No. PP 01-14 - T. MICHAEL HADLEY for ROBERT McLACHLIN, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan of design for a two (2) building medical office complex with a total of 15,070 square feet on the south side of Park View Drive, 150 feet west of Joshua Road, 72-145 Park View Drive. Mr. Smith stated that in addition to the letters that were received and included with the staff report, yesterday there was a letter received from Mr. Steve Sandifer who lives on Cholla Drive and a letter from a gentleman at 72-415 Cholla Drive who said he agreed with Mr. Sandifer's position. Mr. Smith said that the site plan and elevations were on display. He explained that both buildings would be single story and would range in height from 18 feet to 23 feet. Building "A", the easterly 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 { building, would be 9,070 square feet of dental office, while the westerly building would be a 6,000 square feet of medical office. The buildings would both front onto Park View Drive. One access point would be located at the easterly end of the property. Park View Drive is currently used as a channel, so there is a levee across the front/northerly limit of the property which would range in height from three to four feet, hence the driveway would be quite long because of the slope. Parking would be provided on the south side and between the buildings as shown on the site plan. The architecture received preliminary approval from ARC. Relative to parking, medical office buildings are required to provide parking at six spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area. He said Commission could grant reductions of up to 15% for elevators, stairways, landings, interior utility facilities, restroom areas, and non leasable common areas. At this time staff only had a floor plan for the easterly building which had eight percent of the floor area that qualified for the reduction in the form of restrooms, a staff lunch room and a kitchen. That reduced the required parking down to 87 spaces and they showed 86. Staff felt comfortable that the westerly building when staff did receive a floor plan for it would have at least 2.7% of the floor plan being non usable area. Mr. Smith said there were some tower elements as high as 23 feet and indicated the project meets the O.P. code requirements and that the applicant was requesting a 5.5% reduction over the total project. Staff felt that the reduction was warranted. In discussions with Public Works staff, they had concerns and those concerns were also brought forward in the letters from the neighborhood. There were problems with medical buildings not having enough parking and then parking spilling over into the residential neighborhood. They could piece that together with the requirement from the Fire Department. The Fire Department wanted a second access from Cholla Drive. Staff included a condition in the packets requiring a six foot high masonry wall along the south and east sides of the site with a gate for fire access purposes only. The gate would operate with a Knox Box lock system. No pedestrian access would be provided and that should assure that people wouldn't park on Cholla and climb over the fence. Mr. Smith said that he had a request from the applicant that instead of doing a masonry wall, they would do wrought iron. Mr. Smith thought they could achieve just as much with the wrought iron in the form of security and privacy and not have the impact of the block wall, so staff was comfortable with the change to wrought iron with landscaping on either side. For purposes of CEQA, staff was recommending certification of a Negative Declaration 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 raw of Environmental Impact. Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions with the modification to the wall condition. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the east building has trellises on three sides facing the parking lot, but the west building didn't. He asked if there was an architectural or structural reason for that. Mr. Smith referred the question to the applicant. He indicated that question was not raised at the ARC meeting. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the zoning. Mr. Smith explained that the property is zoned O.P. Commissioner Tschopp asked how long it had been zoned O.P. Mr. Smith said at least five years. Mr. Drell explained that this property about 20 years ago was actually zoned commercial and the property along with the area which was now single family lots on the other side of the street was once approved for a hotel and health club. Dr. McLachlin was actually on the Planning Commission at that time. When those didn't go any where and the partnership broke up, half the property owners came back and rezoned their property back to R-1 and with that same action they changed this property to Office Professional instead of Regional Commercial. He stated that when the Mervyn's �.. center went through, they didn't extend back to this property. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TIM BARTLETT stated that he was present representing Dr. McLachlin and Michael Hadley. Mr. Bartlett said they concurred with staff's recommendations and did propose the wrought iron versus the block wall which they felt would accomplish the same goals that the neighbors had regarding cross parking. They thought wrought iron was a more elegant look and would open the area up. Commissioner Campbell asked how many 23 foot towers there would be. Mr. Bartlett explained that they were actually on all four corners and thought that was only true on the western building. The eastern building was smaller. He referred to the plans and indicated that there was only one 23-foot high tower and the other three corners were smaller. %NO 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 Commissioner Campbell reconfirmed that the other three towers were between 18 and 23 feet high. Mr. Bartlett concurred. Regarding the trellis element he said that architecturally, since the eastern building would be larger, the trellis would break it up. As far as shade, it would be ineffective because it is on the north and east sides, so it wouldn't be too useful in the shading department but did break down the mass of the building. The western building was much smaller in scale and faced the wrong way. The trellises wouldn't provide any significant shading for pedestrians or cars. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was covered parking to the east. Mr. Bartlett agreed and explained that all along Cholla Drive they would have 16 spaces provided with covered parking. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the commission viewed the trellis as a desirable aesthetic feature, if Mr. Bartlett would have a problem with that. He didn't think it would be costly to add. Mr. Bartlett was a little concerned because of the scale of the elevations. The trellises fit between the towers, except for the main tower. He said they could certainly accommodate that, but felt that on the smaller building there wasn't a lot of space. It was something they could accommodate, but scale-wise it might look a little funny. Commissioner Jonathan said that for the same reasons it was added on the 9,000 square foot building, they could enhance the 6,000 square foot building. They did some of that on the corner, but with modification it might enhance the two sides as well. He agreed that it shouldn't be overwhelming and may not need to span the whole width, but maybe could be a touch here and there. Mr. Bartlett said they could do that and it would eliminate any tall landscaping type trees, but they would be willing to do it. z 5 R 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the landscaping was between the parking lot and sidewalk there. The other issue was the wrought iron issue versus the block wall. The open feeling that the wrought iron would create might be undesirable from the neighbors standpoint and if that was the case, he asked if the applicant had anything other than aesthetic objections to masonry block versus wrought iron. Mr. Bartlett said no, not if that was the commission's desire. They felt that because they wouldn't be able to see the landscaping on that side, people tend to forget about it. Graffiti on the other side of the wall on the neighbors' side was also possible. Those were their concerns. They thought that both landscaping maintenance and graffiti type issues were a concern. Mr. Drell reminded the property owner of their obligation to maintain that wall and landscaping. Commissioner Jonathan concurred that it was one of the conditions. Mr. Bartlett said they were considering it from a practical standpoint. Commissioner Campbell thought the block wall and the wrought iron would give more open space and open area instead of all block. Mr. Bartlett noted that the crash gate couldn't be block and would be some sort of metal. Mr. Drell said that the issue was the residents being able to look across the street and seeing a commercial project. He didn't think they had a desire to look into a parking lot, which is what they would be looking at. They did have expanded metal crash gates that are opaque. Mr. Bartlett said that if that was commission's desire, they could accept that condition. Chairperson Lopez indicated that along Cholla would be covered parking and if there was a wrought iron fence the residents across the street would see the front of cars. fw. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 3 Mr. Bartlett said they would see the landscaping that would theoretically block the front of the cars, but that was correct. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. RAY KILORN, 43-510 Joshua Road, on the corner of Park View and Joshua, stated that he has several concerns. The chain link fence was a concern, but that was addressed. He thought the residents in the brand new houses would be very dissatisfied and didn't think they wanted to stare at cars for four years until the landscaping matured. Along Park View Drive coming from Highway 1 1 1 , there was a big bump there they put in for the shopping center which he thought was wrong. He was also concerned about the traffic coming out from Mervyn's because they couldn't see the traffic coming and the people on Park View didn't see it as storm drain, but a speeding track. When they come down toward the proposed center, putting the driveway at the far end was where the road narrowed to one lane. One lane only and two lanes had to come into it and that was where the driveway would have to be to go in. If the driveway was at the other end .. next to the commercial it would be fine. He stated that he wasn't against the project and was in favor, but that was a very dangerous thing. If someone wanted to turn on Joshua and a car went around too fast, there would be some accidents. The last concern was the bump. He said he has been working with Mr. Gaugush in the Engineering Department for many years, 12 years, and the bump was still there. He knew there was a problem because Rancho Mirage owns or is taking care of half of the road. He stated that his house shakes every time someone goes by. The speeding end of it all tied into the same thing. It would all come to a calamity and something would happen. MR. STEVE OPPENHEIMER, 72-435 Cholla Drive, stated that he represented the residents on Cholla. They submitted five letters to the commission asking that the applicant keep a masonry wall. They were in favor of the project, but they wanted to keep a masonry wall and didn't want to look into a parking lot. They were also concerned about parking and through traffic from that facility. He also indicated that the masonry wall could be landscaped. In 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18 2001 that cul-de-sac area, Manzanita, there is a masonry wall that is landscaped and he thought it looked kind of nice. MR. STEVE SANDIFER, 72-405 Cholla, stated that his home is directly across from the project and he also submitted a letter. He was also speaking for Mr. Kyong Soo Maeng, his neighbor. He explained that his neighbor was Korean and didn't speak very good English and that was why he wrote the letter. He had an interpreter explain the situation to him and he signed the letter stating that he agrees with Mr. Sandifer's objections. Mr. Sandifer stated that basically all of the other people live down Cholla at the end. There were basically only two houses there right across the street. He lived right at the bottom of the bend. His neighbor was to his right and they would be right across the street. They were both opposed to it. He stated that he has an 13 year old and an 11 year old and he has been a single father for eight years and this was their first home. He bought this home in the hopes that new homes would be built there. On every plot plan he had seen from the developer it was zoned residential for the last two years that his home has been there. He had been hoping for new homes, new families and new kids in the area. Basically, neither he nor his neighbor wanted to look out their front doors or living room windows and see block walls or wrought iron. He was still hoping for new homes there, even if it was in the next ten years. He planned to be there for the next 10-15 years. Mr. Maeng was an artist and his studio was basically his living room window and his wife was the one who insisted that Mr. Sandifer write the letter and said if he wrote it they would sign it basically saying that they didn't want this project. He said he wasn't so much concerned about the building and knew that Palm Desert was growing and he had no opposition toward the building whatsoever, but it would be right across the street. If they looked at the street behind them, he said he had the option when they moved in to pick one of four lots. Two of the lots were on the street behind him. They basically looked at a wall at the rear of the Ross shopping center. He chose not to pick that lot because he didn't want to look at that wall when he walked out the front door. He wanted the opportunity for new neighbors and new homes and that was why he picked the lot he did because everything he saw from his developer was tow 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 zoned residential two years ago when he bought the home. He was opposed to it, but thought it was a beautiful building. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Sandifer where he got the impression that it was zoned residential. There was an indication from staff that it has been zoned OP for a long time. Mr. Sandifer stated that he went through Stemmer Construction who showed him the home and Mr. Stemmer showed him several lots in Palm Desert because he had to be in Palm Desert and loved Palm Desert and thought it was the best city in the whole valley. Mr. Stemmer showed him these lots and Mr. Sandifer said that in his computer he picked out the adjacent lot to the left of him and on the computer tried to put his house on that lot and it wouldn't fit very well. It also wouldn't fit very well on the other lots in the cul-de-sac. That was why he picked the lot he did. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he had an understanding that the property across Cholla from him, which is the subject property, was residential. Mr. Sandifer said there were seven or eight lots across the street according to the plot plan he had; everything was residential. That was two years ago. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was from Joe Stemmer. Someone said it was Ken Stemmer. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that it wasn't something from the city that said that, but it might have been something the developers might have been proposing. Mr. Sandifer said at that time he didn't know what the city had, it was just something that Mr. Stemmer gave him. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff was aware of any applications for a change. Mr. Drell said no and explained that this whole area had been subdivided and lots were created 50 years ago. The rezonings never erased the old lot lines. The property the houses are on was zoned 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 commercial 20 years ago. All those streets were truncated to four lots west of Joshua. If they were to look at an assessor's parcel map, they would still see what looked like residential lots even though they are zoned commercial and have been zoned for at least 20 years. MR. MIKE BELL, 72-435 Cholla, asked if 70 parking spaces would definitely be sufficient for the employees and the clients. He asked how many employees they were anticipating. Mr. Bartlett spoke from the audience and stated that they didn't have a tenant for that building yet, so he didn't know. Mr. Bell wanted confirmation that they didn't anticipate any parking on either Joshua or Cholla. Without know how many people would be working there, there was a chance that they would park on either Joshua or Cholla. Chairperson Lopez explained that based on the zoning and the proposed buildings, parking would meet the city requirement. They didn't have an �.. exact layout of the second building, but with the information given, the second building would also meeting the parking requirement. Mr. Bell agreed that with the previous speaker that if they did decide to go ahead with it, that they should change the entrance. He said he has only lived there four months, but there was definitely that bump the previous speaker brought up and he thought it would behoove everyone to put the entrance closer to the Mervyn's entrance and would save some accidents. As far as the construction goes, he asked if it would only be Monday through Friday so that residents would have the weekends for peace and quiet and asked how long all of this would take. Mr. Bartlett said that the city has an ordinance regulating construction hours and they were very good about enforcing it. After no further questions, Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Bartlett wished to give any further comments. Mr. Bartlett said that regarding access, Park View does curve as they get past the alley. There was a large radius curve, probably 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 700 or 800 feet. He thought that putting that driveway there would have a number of disastrous results. One would be to have cars coming out into a blind curve. Secondly, it would move the building closer to the residents currently on Park View. They also have a drainage issue and Public Works demanded that they drain in that direction because of the water flows. He said it wasn't a good idea to put in a driveway on that side of the development. If they looked at an aerial photo, they would see that it is a blind curve. Regarding the housing issue, the property has been zoned commercial and he has listed it for sale for the past five years and his sign has been there. His sign didn't say it was commercial and perhaps he would change that, but it has been zoned that way and if they looked at a parcel map, the current parcel map and the parcel map he had five years ago depicts these lots in particular, they were still there, but they were shown as dashed lines. Certainly the city maps had been very clear from day one and he apologized to people who have been misled by their real estate people or builders because it seemed to happen more often than not, but the city was very clear on zoning and the parcel map depicted the difference in zoning. He noted that at one time there was some talk about turning it into residential, but Public Works commented that all those driveways onto Park View would be a problem and it would not be something the city would consider favorably. The fact that it is commercial and has limited access with peak access generally only a couple of times a day, early morning and 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. for employees. Regarding the number of parking stalls, depending how doctors operate their offices, some have 100 people in their waiting rooms and while he couldn't guarantee that Dr. McLachlin would never sell his property, he happened to be Mr. Bartlett's dentist and he had never seen more than two or three people there. He didn't operate on that kind of a basis. They obviously couldn't guarantee that in the future, but it had a lot to do with how people operated their business. People parking and walking down Joshua to Park View and walking back up Park View which didn't have a sidewalk and has a three or four foot berm which is part of the whole channel concept and people would actually have to walk on the street itself and then climb up the driveway and walk about to the building. That was possible but not something he saw happening any time soon. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 '"w Mr. Kilorn readdressed the commission and said that there is a driveway at the far end to the back of Mervyn's and it is two lanes. He asked how it could be more disastrous to put it there then putting it where there was one lane. Next, for people coming to Cholla, he asked if they had gone to the bottom of Joshua lately and seen the fire doors. They were stripped of their hardware and were useless. People just walk through and that was what was going to happen here, too. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for comments or action. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the traffic engineer looked at the location of the driveway and if he concurred with the comments made on the proper location of the driveway. Mr. Diercks said he personally had not, but Mr. Greenwood looked at the site and wrote the conditions. He had not discussed the site and access with Mr. Greenwood. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the gate that would back up on Cholla and asked how many parking spaces would be eliminated. The earlier map didn't show any being eliminated and he assumed the Fire Department would %" not allow any where the gate would be located. Mr. Smith said that they would lose two and he thought they could be picked up elsewhere on the site. Before staff issued the permits for the second building, they would be very sure that there was either a reduction in the building size or additional parking spaces. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he liked the project and the architecture. He thought it was very appealing. He felt the Office Professional use was a good transitional use for that particular area. He didn't have a problem with the driveway being located where it is but thought that the masonry wall would be much more effective in terms of shielding the visibility and the activity of the use from the surrounding residential neighborhoods. He was in favor of a masonry block wall versus the wrought iron, as well as an opaque emergency access door that Mr. Drell referred to with attractive, well-maintained landscaping on the outside perimeter. He also favored the trellis aspect, so without being too specific, he said he would suggest that the feature be used to enhance the west building on the other two walls similar to the way it is on the east building. He would give the architect latitude to make that visually attractive, but he thought it would enhance the project without 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 adding too much financial burden to the applicant. He was sympathetic to the concerns of the residents. Most of them he thought were addressed with the masonry wall and other changes discussed during the meeting. With regard to residential use, he thought it would be very difficult to assert residential use on a property that has not been zoned residential use for probably 20 years. In some cases office uses were quieter uses than residential. That depended on the office use and the kind of residents. Sometimes it wasn't so bad. For sure they would lose the residential aspect, but he thought they would be challenged to do anything other than what the property is zoned for and he would be in favor of the application. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. Commissioner Campbell also concurred. She said that she felt badly that Mr. Sandifer when he purchased his home was shown that those lots were residential. Having a type of medical building, they might be better off because they were there from 8:00 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and it was quiet the rest of the time. She also agreed with the solid wall and trellis. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. He said he would feel a little better if he had more information on the driveway because the nature of that curb is such that it is coming out of a bit of a blind spot there. He would be in favor of the project because of the reasons stated. Chairperson Lopez asked if staff was clear on the stipulations. Mr. Drell said that the city would be requiring a decorative block wall, either stuccoed or a decorative block/slump stone. Commissioner Jonathan noted that was already contained in Condition 9. Mr. Drell also indicated that the conditions would include the addition of trellis elements on the smaller building. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2092, approving PP 01-14, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 tow F. Case No. PP 01 -18 - ROBERT RICCIARDI for MAJA RUESTSCHI/ROBERT DADDIO, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to construct a 4,402 square foot medical office building located on the east side of Village Court, 250 feet north of Village Center Drive. Mr. Smith explained that the proposed project was on one of the 16 lots created as part of the original parcel map, that the site is zoned Office Professional and designated Office Professional in the General Plan. The request is for a 4,402 square foot medical office building. It would be single story with a maximum height of 20 feet 6 inches. The site would comply with the O.P. development standards for setbacks, height and building coverage. The building would be consistent with other existing buildings in the area. There would be ingress/egress points at the north and south ends, a mutual access easement with the adjoining lots. That was a condition. The building size required 27 parking spaces and the plan provides 25 spaces or a 6% deficiency. The commission could grant a reduction of up to 15%. At this time staff didn't have a floor plan to review. Staff felt that a 6% reduction was fairly conservative and imposed a condition that would assure that the tenant improvement plan would contain at least 6% non usable space or require that the building be downsized to eliminate the 6% deficiency. The matter was given preliminary approval by ARC subject to adding some architectural relief or detailing to the east elevation and subject to comments from the Landscape Manager. Both would be taken care of by Architectural Review and were conditions. He said that the proposed project is a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. Staff felt the findings for approval could be supported and were included in the staff report. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the location of the architectural relief or added detailing on the east elevations. Mr. Smith said that the applicant would implement it as part of the working drawings which would go back before Architectural Review Commission. Chairperson Lopez asked for clarification on the condition regarding the 6% non usable space. After further discussion, it was noted that there 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 were two sets of conditions and it was shown as condition number 15 in the second set. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, in Palm Desert, stated that they agreed with staff and the conditions of approval. He said that Dr. Daddio is a dentist and Dr. Ruestschi is a plastic surgeon. He would be bringing the preliminary drawings he has to staff tomorrow to review the 6% reduction. He thought it qualified and indicated that these two doctors would be a nice addition to the city of Palm Desert. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Ricciardi would be adding the architectural relief. Mr. Ricciardi said yes, since he now knew where the windows were going to be located. He put the windows on the three sides which everyone would see and on the back side they left that open for the tenants to get the interior space they needed. Otherwise, the architecture was the typical architecture seen in that area which is what the applicant seemed to want, except for the Ruth's Chris steakhouse which he hoped would break ground shortly. 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. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2093, approving PP 01-18, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 ` G. Case No. CUP 01-15 - JOHN WESSMAN, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to add 1 ,262 square feet through the enclosure of the existing breezeway, approval to permit a 1,491 square foot Starbucks coffee shop on the corner and a parking adjustment to facilitate the two requests. The property is located at the northeast corner of El Paseo and San Pablo, 73-520 El Paseo. Mr. Smith explained that the request was two fold in nature. The first part was to enclose the existing breezeway and develop it out with 1 ,262 square feet of retail space. The second part of the request was to convert the existing retail space on the corner at San Pablo and El Paseo, the northeast corner, some 1 ,491 square feet, to a Starbucks coffee shop and to approve a parking adjustment to facilitate the two requests. The center was originally constructed in the late 70's with a total of 18,528 square feet, a mix of one and two story development. He said the portion on El Paseo is single story. At that point in time the project was used for retail and office purposes and provided 77 parking spaces. There was a restaurant approved in the early 80's which is now Doug Arrango's. Through various approvals through the Planning Commission through the late 80's and early 90's, that restaurant grew in size to around 5,700 square feet. The CUP for the restaurant allowed it to be open for lunch and dinner. In reviewing the approval on that restaurant from 1990, part of staff's argument at that time was that the parking lot that was being required of Ahmanson at that point was going to contain 200 additional spaces in excess of their base parking requirement and concluded that this supply should provide adequate overflow parking for the entire central El Paseo area. At that point the approval conditioned the restaurant to institute a mandatory employee parking program utilizing the Ahmanson parking. At that point it was just a dirt lot across the street and was later developed into the existing parking structure. With respect to the parking, the proposed 1,262 square foot addition would create a need for five additional spaces per code. Conversion of the 1,491 square feet on the corner from retail to restaurant use would create an additional need for nine spaces for a total of 15 spaces less the six they already were assumed to provide, so the five and nine create a need for 14 parking spaces. Staff felt approval of the project to enclose the breezeway would serve a positive function. It would fill a gap in the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 3 retail environment, provide for a more continuous retail environment, and adding Starbucks would provide an oasis for shoppers strolling on the street. The matter had been reviewed by the El Paseo Business Association and there was a letter from Ruth Ann Moore of staff who attended that meeting which indicates that they supported it. The City also received a letter from the General Manager of the Gardens which supports the application. Staff also received a letter from the Property Manager of the center immediately to the east which objected to the request and indicated that Doug Arrango's currently through the lunch hour encroaches into their parking area and the conclusion is that Starbucks would exacerbate that problem further. Mr. Smith informed commission that staff was unable to conduct a meaningful parking survey given that it is summer. Staff felt it is an infill situation, would not generate bunches of new traffic, and they also received a letter from Starbucks which indicates that 60% of their sales take place before 10:00 a.m. The area was not very busy before 10:00 a.m. Mr. Smith said that for the same reasons that staff argued for the project to the west, the parking structure across the street was constructed with excess spaces. This was close enough to it that their staff could be + expected to use it. In conclusion, staff recommended approval of both requests. He indicated that Architectural Review Commission granted .r preliminary approval of the architectural modifications which were necessary. Findings for approval of the conditional use permit were outlined in the staff report and is a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. No further documentation is necessary. Mr. Smith recommended approval, subject to conditions. Mr. Drell stated that it was kind of ironic that the project Ms. Herrera manages was developed with a significant parking adjustment because of the same rationale. When looking at El Paseo, the overall health of the street was considered and at that time it was the back end of Jensen's. Staff argued that it was far more desirable and beneficial for the street to allow that property owner, who Ms. Herrera works for, to build out retail without significant parking because it was far better for everyone on the street than to have the back end of a shopping center. Again, staff used the same rationale and was why $2 million was spent building 200 extra spaces. While parking is a concern, there were greater concerns when looking at the overall management and operation of a shopping district. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18 2001 tow Referring to Ms. Herrera's map, Commissioner Campbell asked if the parking spaces on Larkspur behind her buildings were Ms. Herrera's or Jensen's. Mr. Drell said that originally her buildings were built on what was a parking lot for Jensen's and this was the same owner as Jensen's and was all part of the property she manages. Her tenants could use any of the parking at Jensen's. That was also part of the justification because rarely is the Jensen's parking lot full. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that she never saw anyone-parked over by Larkspur. Mr. Drell said there were two people parked there today, but apparently even her employees don't park there although the spaces would be quite convenient. He wasn't sure where her employees park. Commissioner Jonathan said that what Mr. Drell was saying was that when the commission grants parking adjustments, that particular applicant is on their doorstep complaining about the next business that gets one, so they could expect that from this applicant in the near future. Mr. Drell hoped that wouldn't happen. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Drell made the point, and Commissioner Jonathan concurred, that the 200 excess spaces at the Gardens was available to assist with parking situations and other developing properties and they have heard that a few times. He noted that it wasn't an inexhaustible solution because there was a fixed number of spaces and asked if Mr. Drell was tabulating how many spaces have been accounted for. Mr. Drell said they have approved very little. There was Ms. Herrera's project, which was 20-30 spaces short, and Doug Arrango's was probably another 20 because of the requirement for their employees to park there. Commissioner Campbell noted there was also San Pablo Square and Commissioner Jonathan said OfficeMax. Mr. Drell noted that one wasn't approved yet. Commissioner Jonathan said there was an argument for use of the excess spaces. Mr. Drell said that part of that argument was based on the fact that there wouldn't be people parking there not necessarily because their destination was simply that store. The argument for the El Paseo Square project was that a percentage of their customers were going to be pedestrians who actually came to El Paseo to park at the Gardens. Our whole goal in subsidizing the Gardens and promoting the Gardens was that people who go to the Gardens and park at the Gardens walk and leave the Gardens and cross the street and walk down the street. That was the whole philosophy in the Core Commercial Plan in promoting the Gardens and why the City spent $5 million to make sure it happened. These were actually Gardens customers who continue to walk down the am 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 street. There were probably under 80 of the 200 and by the nature of the high end shops at the Gardens, they generate relatively low volumes but hopefully high customer sales. They probably had on average 300-400 extra spaces. Commissioner Campbell noted that when she was President of the El Paseo Business Association, when the Gardens opened, Ms. Herrera's tenants along there were calling her saying that the employees from the Gardens were parking right in front of her stores. They had all the parking in the back, but the employees were parking right in front of her stores all day long. She hoped that had been resolved. Mr. Drell said that with the exception of one employee who refuses to be polite, it had been addressed. Commissioner Campbell stated that she hoped all of these employees would park at the Gardens and that it would be mandatory as one of the conditions. Mr. Drell concurred and stated that with all subsequent leases at this center, they would always have that condition. Doug Arrango's already has that condition and staff would make sure that that condition is being enforced. That would probably be the greatest conflict with Ms. Herrera's project, the cooks and employees that show up in that 2:00 p.m. time period which is in conflict with her businesses, to make sure those employees do park at the Gardens. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant had been working with Doug Arrango's regarding the access and if it had been resolved. Right now patrons park in the rear and use the breezeway which would now be enclosed. She asked if any arrangements had been made with Doug Arrango's on how their people would get to the front door. Mr. Drell said he assumed they would walk around the building. He noted that it is a fairly short block. They have other retail developers who actually prefer that and want to force customers to walk in front of as many stores in their center as possible and not allow people to go in and out directly from a parking lot, especially with a restaurant. Commissioner Campbell noted that was easy to say, but the customers have been doing it this way for years. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the zoning for the expanded space would be for restaurant use. Mr. Smith said no, the expanded space would be retail and the conversion space on the corner would be from retail to restaurant. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the restaurant space would allow any restaurant to go in. Mr. Smith said no, condition number four required that if it changes from Starbucks, it had to come back through the Planning Commission. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18 2001 r.. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN WESSMAN, 72-200 Clancy Lane in Rancho Mirage, stated that this was a little unusual for him in that it was one of the few buildings he had ever gone out and bought from someone else. Usually they try to develop their own buildings and it wasn't exactly the kind of building he would have developed himself, but they were working on it. As part of this development, he was doing a couple of Starbucks in the Palm Springs and Cathedral City areas and he, Sam Spinello and Cindy Freo's from Starbucks were talking about the Desert Fashion Plaza in Palm Springs and he asked her how come Starbucks wasn't on El Paseo. She said that they have two stores in Palm Desert, one at Town Center Drive at the Best Buy shopping center and one at the other end of Palm Desert. Mr. Wessman said he agreed, but pointed out that they didn't have a store like they did in every other city for pedestrians. She said they looked at El Paseo and the Gardens, but there wasn't any space available right on the street, so they weren't interested and thought perhaps the street was maybe too seasonal. They got her to come down two or three months ago, she looked at the site and said that if they were going to locate on E1 Paseo, this location would be the only one. Once she was interested, they sat down with their tenant who has six years left on his lease (Trios on the corner) and they didn't want to leave the center and didn't want them to buy them out, so they started to look at alternatives and the only alternative was to use the breezeway and fill it in and once they were going to do that, they would improve the looks of the building by getting rid of some of the ugly 8 x 12's hanging off the building and replaster the fascia like Doug Arrango's did in 1995 or 96 when they took over that space. They thought maybe they could improve the look of the building and still keep their tenant and move them over and that was why they put the two projects together. Without one, the other didn't work. That was how they arrived at the current proposal and a 14 space deficiency in the parking spaces. He said they talked to all of the tenants and it would be a little more difficult to get into Doug Arrango's if they had to walk, but not really that much more because it was only 100 feet. They were also willing to work with Doug Arrango's. If they wanted to, they 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 i would come up with a secondary entrance off the back which they would have on this new shop and which Trios really liked because their tenants could park in the parking lot and come into their new space where the current breezeway is. All in all it looked like a good addition to that corner and he thought what they were doing would improve the look of the building considerably and Starbucks themselves spend $250,000 to $300,000 on their spaces and would upgrade the corner area there and they would remove one of the barricades sitting there right now which was a little block wall that sits up about five feet so they would have a clearer view of the corner. He thought it was important to keep the corner set back and they weren't doing anything to the basic structure of the building other than the fact that they would be putting new awnings on it. Awnings that fit the Starbucks image versus that round awning. He thought the Architectural Review Board thought they were improving the look of the building considerably. One of the things they were doing with Starbucks and the other tenants there was they were going to enforce the rules to have the employees park in the structure behind the center. They also met with Ruth Ann Moore and the downtown Merchant's Association and they were totally behind it. They met with the Manager of the Gardens and they were totally behind it and thought it would be a wonderful addition to that portion of the street. Commissioner Jonathan said that one of the critical ways they could justify the parking adjustment is one of the conditions requiring that employees park in the Gardens structure. Mr. Wessman said they wanted that for their benefit, too. Commissioner Jonathan said that it made sense to him to take it a half step further and require that all employees receive written notification. Mr. Wessman said he didn't have a problem with that either. Commissioner Jonathan said he would be suggesting that as a condition and the reason for that was because there was often a loss in the translation between what occurs here and reality in the immediate future and certainly in five or ten years. He said he appreciated Mr. Wessman's cooperation. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 Mr. Wessman stated that one of the things that Starbucks said was when they finally made the decision to go on El Paseo was they felt from a pedestrian traffic position, this was the only spot they really wanted to go because they figured they could capture a lot of the people that were already there_ They thought they would pick up 10% or 20% of their customers by car and that 70% to 80% would be existing tenants on the street that come in early to open their stores and then customers that are already on the street and he believed they were right. 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. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell said that she has been in business on El Paseo for the last 15 years and was familiar with the building. When she goes by there, there has always been ample parking in that parking lot. She knew that with the Starbucks coming in there would be more employees, �.. but she thought the 14 parking spaces wouldn't be a problem. She just wanted to make sure that the Doug Arrango's restaurant was comfortable. If he was going to have a second access from the parking lot and he really only had that one door, the patio entrance, he could probably use that if he needed to. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Jonathan said that as the staff report identified, parking was probably the issue and he would be a lot happier if there were 14 extra spaces rather than 14 short, but that wasn't reality and they didn't see that situation too often. The ordinance was there as a gauge and staff indicated they were 14 spaces short compared to the ordinance, but he noted there have been times when the Council has required projects to have more parking than the ordinance because of special circumstances. Most Starbucks locations would require more parking spaces than the ordinance and there were whole comedy routines about the long lines at Starbucks and those people got there normally by driving and parking their cars and he has been to Starbucks locations where that has been a problem. But he thought Mr. Wessman was right when he said that many people would be walking to this location. If someone wanted to drive to a Starbucks in Palm Desert, there were two on Highway 1 1 1 that were more accessible and hoped it worked out that %NW 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 way. Coupled with the fact that they do have the Gardens structure and this was where the intended use of the spaces could come in very effectively. He thought they had a situation that perhaps could justify the parking adjustment. In order to facilitate that their intent gets to the rank and file, he suggested that condition number three be modified to add a requirement that employees be notified in writing of the mandate to park in the structure. Mr. Drell said that they could make it a little stronger and require that the applicant submit to staff a plan for ongoing enforcement and effective enforcement of that requirement. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Commissioner Campbell also concurred and agreed that adding that condition made sense and that Starbucks would be a great asset in this location. Commissioner Tschopp thought it would be a great addition to El Paseo and would add to the continuity of the whole street. It would help generate some foot traffic. It would complement the existing businesses. Consistent with his previous comments on other applicants before the commission, he thought the parking structure was built because of the parking problems on El Paseo with the express intent to try and address some of those problems and helping the entire street. He thought this was a perfect example of how those types of moves by the City could economically help an area like this. He was very much in favor of the proposed project. Chairperson Lopez stated that he also concurred. Initially he was very concerned about what would be a very crowded parking lot relatively early in the morning. He visited the area and talked with a doctor's office and they made the comment that parking was really a problem behind that building until the Gardens opened up and then they wondered where everyone was going and figured out they were parking at the Gardens. There is a problem at lunch time with Doug Arrango's, but he hoped by lunch time the auto traffic to Starbucks would be gone. He felt Starbucks would be a great addition to El Paseo and the foot traffic would really provide a lot of business, so he would also concur. He thought the improvement to the building would be tremendous and really needed to have some improvement. He asked for a motion. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 tr Commissioner Campbell said she would move for approval with the amendment to condition number three for the ongoing enforcement for the employee parking and with the written notification to the employees and the submittal of the program to the city. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2094, approving CUP 01-15, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of proposed Desert Gateway project at the southeast corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore. Mr. Drell explained that this was an informational discussion of a proposal for which staff did not have an application. The only perspective he could give on staff's position and the position of the Retail Committee, which is a committee comprised of two council members, the City Manager and himself, is that the City's overall goal with this project is that this is probably one of the primary gateways to the city and they wanted to make sure that if they do a center right, this is the one they would do right and it wouldn't look like other projects they have seen before in the valley. MR. BILL CARVER addressed the commission. He explained that also present was Maggie Montez, who would be doing their leasing. He said they have a project that is in motion. It is one they wanted feedback from the commission on and he said he wanted to listen more than talk. He said he wanted to give them an overall view of where they are, what they would like to plan to do and a bit of the history of the property. He said he talked with a couple of the commissioners and would be repeating some of those points. When this property was annexed into Palm Desert in 1992, they had just finished a big battle with the interchange at Dinah Shore in connection with the Price Club and the settlement 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 agreement between the cities of Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and the County of Riverside. When this property came into the city of Palm Desert, it came with a development agreement attached to it. That development agreement provided that the prior County zoning would be applicable to this property for a period of two years and then another eight years extension beyond that in a couple of different areas including uses, that the zoning would comply, that the uses would comply and the requirements that the County would require would apply to this property except for architectural approval and signage. When they took over this property, they decided that the property which is now PC(3) zoned in the city of Palm Desert, that they want to comply with all of those regulations rather than relying on those conditions of the development agreement except for a couple of things and those were very minor and he might fold on some of those, but one of them was height and it didn't have anything to do with the buildings because their buildings would only be about 35 feet high which is permitted in the PC(3) zoning. The one thing he thought he was going to ask for was a height higher than was permitted in the city for the parking lot lights. The ones in the Price Club/Costco center and the ones in the Home Depot were about 28 feet. The ones in the city are 18 feet. Mr. Drell said that the city allows commercial lights to be 30 feet. Mr. Carver said that was fine; he had been worried about the size of this and the energy requirements that would be taken up if they had the very short poles. He said they have 70 acres of property that go from Dinah Shore to a street called 35th Street and 35th Street was exactly half way from Dinah Shore to Gerald Ford, so it was half a mile of frontage along Monterey. The 70 acres would have at completion approximately 700,000 square feet of retail. The biggest tenants they have thus far was Sam's and they were the instigators of this and they would be 153,000 square feet. Sam's had merged with Pace and took over their store in Cathedral City. Their lease has around three more years. That store had always been poorly located and was undersized and Sam's wanted to compete. Sam's would be on the very north end of the development. Next to Sam's would be a Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart had an expansion in it so that the total square footage of that building upon completion would be 223,000 square feet. Those were the two biggest tenants they had for the center at this time. This 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 ~` project had parking for 3,700 cars. It was way over parked. It was parked to a point where it was 5.5 in many places. In the field of parking in front of Sam's the spaces were ten feet. The designs they came up with were strictly working drawings of what they wanted to do and the other problem they had was how to make this a gateway. That was where they needed help because they have been struggling with the corner and how to make the entrance coming into Palm Desert something different. Something they could say was great. However, they have two big power poles at the intersection and they were trying to figure out how to make that part of what they are doing and how to incorporate those into the design of whatever they do. The site plan was for a project not set at all in stone. He said that when they first went to the Retail Committee, they said no service station on the corner, no building on the corner that was blocking it, so they changed the plan. They moved the service station away from the corner, but they needed to figure out what will go there that would make this all work and at the same time not become a block to the visibility of some of the buildings in the back. The other thing that was very interesting about this property which was hard tow to describe was that it was coming downhill and there was a 60 foot drop from one end to the other. The other issue was shopping carts. They had to be on level ground and couldn't be on more than a 2% slope without real problems. So they would step the different pads down. He explained that there would be some points along the street where on some of the buildings along the street they would just see the roofs. It would stair step down, but they would be two big steps because there would be 15 feet between the Wal-Mart parcel and the parcel above that. They would have a bank and his idea was to have bougainvilleas along this bank going up the side of this because they would have other areas where they could use this same kind of treatment with their trellises where the fast food businesses were located that would hide the cars that would be going around the drive up. He said they have some elevations they had been playing with and showed them to the commission. He stated that they were strictly just the beginning look. He also noted that they showed on the upper part the articulation of the buildings so that it wasn't just one big flat fascia. There would be trellises and walkways that move around. He said this was a huge project and was one he was still 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18. 2001 struggling with and his purpose in coming before the commission was to ask for some help. He hoped to be able to talk to the commission again before filing a formal application. He didn't want to develop this by committee, but on the other hand he wanted input so that when the application comes in they will have heard from everyone. He was doing the same thing hopefully with the City Council. He was trying to have this so that they do it right. He's been in the city a few years developing property and he wanted to make sure this one comes out the way it should. He asked for any thoughts. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he appreciated Mr. Carver coming to the commission and giving them an opportunity for input so they weren't just reacting to something he had already spent a great deal of time and resources developing and thanked Mr. Carver for doing that. He thought it was a great start. One of the things that would be important to him was that the overall design give a feeling of spaciousness, particularly along the Monterey corridor. He said that the Home Depot was an example of what would be the exact opposite to what he would have in mind. He would take responsibility even for the Marriott Timeshare on Monterey. He thought it was beautiful but was a little bit claustrophobic and he thought they allowed it to be a little too close to the street. So he thought as they entered the city, what he would like visitors to have was a feeling of desert openness. That was possible with design and could simply be a matter of locating landscaping or parking spaces more toward the street so that the structures weren't right up in their faces. Architecturally the renderings were very interesting. His experience was that they started out with something really interesting and really nice and then it got a little blander and by the time it goes up they have something like the Home Depot blank wall look on Monterey. He encouraged the applicant to stay with this kind of a theme. Mr. Carver said he was going to need the commission's help there with Wal-Mart and Sam's. Commissioner Jonathan said he would get it. Mr. Carver said he was coming to the commission before Wal-Mart and Sam's have said to go ahead and do it. He was hoping that ' when that time came and they say they want to change it, the 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18 2001 commission will have seen some of the ideas they had initially. He said he could leave one with Mr. Drell to show their initial intent and if they try to move them away from this area, he could get some support. He said that as a developer he was kind of at their mercy. Commissioner Jonathan said that ultimately it was a question of how badly they wanted to be located in this city and Palm Desert is pretty demanding in its standards, but not unreasonably so and other developers, tenants and stores seemed to find a way of living with it and prospering from it because it does have its advantages to the retailer. If he was coming into the city and was looking at Costco and Home Depot and the way they look and then looking at Mr. Carver's project with the way they hoped it would look, he would rather take a left into Mr. Carver's project than a right into the others and hopefully they would understand the economics there. Commissioner Jonathan also stated that the feature on the corner was critical. Whether he developed water, rocks or something else, that was critical. Mr. Carver stated that they have been working with the artist the City retained to do the overpass wall that they would be putting in the Monterey median and he has some ideas. They were thinking about bringing him onto the architectural team and try to tie in with what is happening there, but it is pretty modern. They would see it great from the air, but he wasn't sure about the view from cars. But it might work and he might be someone they could use to work with them on that corner. Commissioner Jonathan said that it didn't have to be something too elaborate to be visually pleasing. He has seen spaces that with proper landscaping give a pleasant feeling when looking at it. So when he said something that was pleasing, he didn't mean it had to be elaborate or expensive. Regarding the power poles, he didn't know if they wanted to move in the direction of an assessment district or whether there were other ways to handle it financially, but if they were undergrounded and gone, it would obviously be better. His final observation was in terms of circulation. It was a little more mundane than these other issues, but circulation would ultimately be important as well. Not just for the customers but also for the suppliers so that they don't bump into each other and they don't run into problems like at Mr. Carver's other center 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 i on Monterey where people have to cross traffic lanes in order to go from their cars into the stores and issues like that as well as ingress and egress. When they talked about this scale of a project, it was almost like a mini city so they have to deal with traffic. Mr. Carver agreed. He explained that access on Dinah Shore was limited so it was eliminated from in front of Sam's. There was no driveway out there so cars wouldn't be clogged up going in and out of that driveway. There would be a signalized entrance part of the way down some 500+ feet from Monterey that also helped that out. He said they also suggested another signal on Monterey into the development. The one at 35th was a requirement of the development agreement that the City signed that the City would put in. The other two signals on Monterey were already in place, but they thought this other signal would loosen up that number of cars going in and out of one exit or one entrance and would be helpful. Mr. Drell asked why Mr. Carver didn't want access from Dinah Shore into the project. Mr. Carver said that they didn't want cars backed up in front of Sam's. Mr. Drell noted that traffic problems were typically solved by dispersing traffic to as many points as possible. They shouldn't force them all out to Monterey when there was another arterial. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out there was one access on Dinah Shore. Mr. Drell agreed there is one, but not one next to Sam's. Mr. Carver said they knew they were only going to get one signal, so they wanted to have one that made sense. Commissioner Jonathan said that could be reviewed and indicated that the City has an excellent staff in traffic and engineering. Commissioner Jonathan stated that in terms of circulation, the other problem with the Home Depot center was that they have loading docks right where the greatest level of traffic and pedestrian traffic is. If they could be more creative like Lowe's that has a separate area for car loading and if they could be creative that way it would be very effective. rril 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 to' Mr. Carver said that they have taken most of the loading off of this back street they were calling Market Way for now which was adjacent to industrial property to the east, so all of the property east of this is industrial. They thought that was the least amount of traffic and they had two entrances for loading off of that street. Commissioner Campbell asked about the gas station. Mr. Carver said the gas station had been moved. Sam's wanted to have a gas station to compete with Costco. It even had a different shape and the plans changed hourly. What they were worried about was if it was anything like Costco, the backup to this would cause congestion into that driveway and in order to avoid that they realigned it east and west rather than north and south. Chairperson Lopez said it would be nice if they were able to coordinate the corner design with the other corner so that they had a nice entrance into the city that would be choreographed. He liked the idea of the theme shown on the plans. Mr. Drell noted that when Wal-Mart wanted to locate on Country Club, he was skeptical that it would be approved so he asked for anything he could possibly imagine and it was at a time when cities were paying Wal-Mart millions of dollars to come into their town. There wasn't a single request, architecturally or site planning, that they didn't acquiesce to in attempting to get their plan approved. It was denied 5-0 anyway, but they didn't hesitate to do what was requested. Commissioner Campbell thought it would be a great project with the bi- level grade and would be camouflaged a lot from Monterey. Mr. Carver said it would have a lot of interest to it because of the change in elevations. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were going to have enough landscaping. Mr. Carver said he was sure they would. He told the commission that he had an idea on the landscaping. When the commission was talking about employee parking on a previous project, he would meet all the landscaping requirement and then he would double up the trees. All the employees would park under the trees and that 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 would get them away from the buildings. They could create the employee parking just by the fact that it was cool and he planned to do that. Commissioner Finerty asked how many fast food restaurants he was planning. Mr. Carver said there were four on some of the plans, three on others, but four would be the maximum. Commissioner Finerty asked if he was requesting drive-thrus. Mr. Carver said yes. They were within that area near the freeway that allowed them. They also provided for the 30% park-like atmosphere with a dog area and that kind of thing. It was in addition to their regular landscaping. Commissioner Finerty asked what tenants he might be looking for. Mr. Carver said they haven't gotten that far. Sam's and Wal-Mart were the only ones who have given them commitments. Commissioner Finerty told Mr. Carver that she has looked at a lot of Wal- Mart's and she hasn't seen one Wal-Mart whose architecture pleased her. She said that to come into the gateway it would have to be a very special project in order to motivate her to vote for it. She wasn't particularly thrilled with a variety of fast food restaurants and drive-thrus. Right now she was participating on the General Plan amendment committee and she was hoping to possibly remove the drive-thru use. She wasn't a proponent of drive-thrus in the city. She was also less than thrilled with a lot of fast food restaurants. She was pleased to see that Mr. Carver moved the gas station. That was critical. Lots of landscaping was always nice, but in centers this large it was really critical that it be well maintained. That was generally a problem that followed after a project is completed. She encouraged Wal-Mart and Sam's to continue on the same path with the type of architecture Mr. Carver showed the commission. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Carver had any idea how long it would take to build something like this out once it was approved. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18. 2001 r. Mr. Carver said they were targeting it for the first or second quarter of 2003 to open. He noted that might be pretty ambitious. They didn't know what their CEQA problems might be or what might pop up with a challenge to any of that, so they weren't yet certain that was what their schedule would end up being. He said it might be premature to bring it to the commission at this point, but he thought it was good idea to start introducing it to the commission and said he'd like to bring it back after he has made some changes and figured out how to do some of these things and let the commission see it again before he formally submitted it. He thanked the commission and staff for letting him speak. Action: 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 - (September 6, 2001 ) Commissioner Finerty stated that they talked a lot about schools, libraries and land use. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (September 17, 2001 ) Commissioner Finerty said that although she didn't attend the meeting, she was told that the intersection of Kansas, Hovley and Oasis was still under review. Plans for the regional park on Country Club would be available soon. Basically the Project Area 4 Committee has accomplished all of the major projects they set out to do in 1995 and there were just a few items remaining with regard to undergrounding utilities and some drainage projects r 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18 2001 which were funded and would go forward. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a time table for the park on Country Club. Commissioner Finerty didn't know. Chairperson Lopez asked about the school. Commissioner Finerty said that a school would now be part of the park area and there would be five acres that would be shared. G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. o PHILIP DREL Secretary ATTEST: JI FEZ, C"anirn- rson P m esert Pg Commission /tm 38