Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1002 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION �.• TUESDAY - OCTOBER 2, 2001 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp 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 Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 18, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated there were no pertinent September 27, 2001 City Council items. 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. TT 30269 -CAIN COMPANIES/HACKER ENGINEERING, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a five-acre parcel into 16 single family lots located on the west side of Shepherd Lane, 1,600 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Alvarez noted that public hearings items A and C were similar subdivisions. Item A was a request to subdivide five acres into 16 single family lots. Tract 30269 was located on the west side of Shepherd Lane 1,600 feet south of Gerald Ford and 660 feet west of Portola. All 16 lots would exceed the 8,000 square foot minimum. He noted that it was just south and west of RDA-owned property. To the east was the property which received conceptual approval for a Jewish Federation Community Center. All properties in this location were zoned PR-5 which allowed a maximum of five units per acre and was designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan. The 16 lots would access Shepherd Lane from a cul-de-sac running east and west similar to other tracts in the area. He explained that this tract 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 was unique because it would come off at the end of Shepherd Lane and Shepherd Lane would tie back into Portola. He pointed out the site of the proposed Jewish Federation Center and explained that half-street improvements on the tract map side/east side would be provided. If the precise plan was approved for the Federation, they would be required to provide improvements to the west side and the north side of Shepherd Lane. The minimum lot size was 8,900 square feet, the maximum 13,509 square feet, and the average 10,929 square feet. Perimeter walls would be constructed on all sides of the project. On Shepherd Lane there would be a 20-foot setback from face of curb to perimeter wall which would allow a meandering sidewalk and landscaping. The Architectural Review Commission approved the preliminary landscape plan at its September 11 meeting. The homes would go back to ARC for approval. The tract map met the PR zone requirements and was consistent with the General Plan. It's physical improvements met the requirements of both the Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance and the California Map Act. The density would be 3.2 which was below the maximum allowed. For CEQA purposes, staff recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and that the commission accept the findings of approval of the tract map as presented, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Campbell noted that a revised plan was distributed to them and asked Mr. Alvarez to point out the differences. Mr. Alvarez explained that the only change on the tract map was with the elevations of some of the pads due to the fact that Shepherd Lane needed to be raised. The applicant worked with the Engineering Department to adjust a foot to a foot and a half in height for the pads along the north side. The design and location of the lots were the same. Commissioner Campbell asked if the lots were going to be raised or lowered. Mr. Alvarez said they would be raised somewhat, but would not be significantly higher than the property to the north. The property to the north was owned by the Redevelopment Agency and potentially could be a golf course. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that the lots couldn't be raised more than six inches. Mr. Alvarez concurred and explained that was why the applicant submitted the changes now since they couldn't be changed more than six inches after approval. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Alvarez knew the price ranges of the homes. Mr. Alvarez didn't and indicated that question could be asked of the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a schedule for the improvements of Shepherd Lane. Mr. Alvarez said it would be incrementally improved as each development occurs. This development would provide the connection Ulm 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 from Portola to their site and half-street improvements. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the developer was required to build out Shepherd Lane all +�+� the way from their cul-de-sac to Portola. Mr. Alvarez said half-street improvements on their side and a half-street connection on Shepherd Lane which runs east and west to Portola, a connector road to the site. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Shepherd Lane wasn't built out, so he was asking if this building moved forward next week, what happened with Shepherd Lane. They were isolated and didn't have access if Shepherd Lane wasn't built out. Mr. Alvarez said they would have to have access from Portola to this site until the rest of Shepherd Lane is constructed. Commissioner Jonathan asked who was going to build Shepherd Lane and when. Mr. Alvarez stated that Shepherd Lane would be developed as developers come in - incrementally. Commissioner Jonathan asked what would happen if this developer was ahead of the rest of the developers and how this site would get access. Mr. Alvarez said this site would get access from Portola. Commissioner Jonathan asked who would build Shepherd Lane from Portola to this development. Mr. Alvarez said it would be the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan reiterated that they would build it out all the way to Portola. Mr. Alvarez said it would only be a temporary connection. Mr. Drell explained that they would build a minimum two-way 24 or 28 feet of asphalt portion of the road and wouldn't be putting in the curbs and gutters and everything else. The road would have to be completed by the adjacent property owners. He said it created incentives for properties to build contiguously from the main road. The City had not been convinced in this situation to step forward and facilitate the development by installing the road itself. The other way done in the past was through assessment districts. But the property owners have never come to the City and asked for that or organized themselves to get it done at one time. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was possible that this property could end up with a temporary, not fully built out, roadway with Shepherd Lane from this site to Portola as its only access and then be waiting for an indeterminate amount of time for the road to be built out. He said he was asking if they were creating a situation where there would be less than adequate circulation and it was depending on some future development that isn't necessarily going to happen. Mr. Drell said that the City felt a two-lane road was adequate circulation. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it was only connected to Portola, not continuing on. Mr. Drell said that it didn't meet the Fire Department's requirement for secondary access for dead ends over 600 feet. Commissioner Jonathan was also concerned about circulation for the Jewish Community Center if it builds out as well as the project the commission would consider later in the meeting. He said he could foresee the possibility that art 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 they could end up with less than adequate roadways and they were depending on future projects to build out to facilitate the completion of those roadways which might or might not happen. Mr. Drell said the solution to that was to either direct the Department of Public Works to either inquire about the interests of those property owners in the assessment district; it was always the City's goal to try and get the beneficiaries of the roads to pay for it initially, or to investigate the alternatives for getting the entire road built out at some point in time and not wait. As long as there are unbuilt parcels, there would be substandard gaps. Chairperson Lopez asked if there was a time line for the Jewish Federation to build their site. Mr. Drell said staff hadn't heard from them since the Planning Commission action. It was his understanding that they were in a fund raising mode. They had retained an architect. He thought the Jewish Community Center had less of a problem. They have frontage and they could probably get adequate circulation directly to Portola as an interim if necessary. Chairperson Lopez asked if their development would be required to build out the remainder of the connection to Portola as well as the portion in front of them on Shepherd. Mr. Drell said that was correct. Chairperson Lopez noted that they would have a full road. Mr. Drell said that it would only be a full road when the City built out its half. Typically in these situations when a real problem does develop relative to the pace of development, the City has stepped in in one fashion or another either through taking the initiative in creating an assessment district or doing the work to solve the problems. It had yet to come to that. Chairperson Lopez said not to hold up this project, but in the commission's conversations from the beginning there was a concern as to the time line of finishing the road out and he would like the City to take a look at it in the future. Mr. Drell said that there would be a report back at the next meeting on all the alternatives of how to finish out this road. Commissioner Campbell asked if Shepherd Lane would go through the City- owned property to Gerald Ford or if it would end there and then start again with the lots on the north. Mr. Alvarez said that Shepherd Lane would terminate and not go through the RDA property. It would start again at Gerald Ford. Mr. Drell said that at the present time it was not RDA's intention for the road to go through. Depending on the future use of that property, whether it was a golf course or something else, right now the thinking was that it would be a golf course. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. for 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 MR. DAVID HACKER, Hacker Engineering, stated that they were the engineers on the project for Cain Companies. He said they agreed .n1 with the conditions provided by staff. Regarding the questions raised, he explained that the grading was adjusted to fit better with the Jewish Community Center. The street was deemed too low, Shepherd Lane was too deep into the ground at 12 or 13 feet deep, and by raising it three feet it would provide better access to not only their site, but also to the proposed driveway to the Jewish Community Center. They met with the City Engineer and staff and agreed that this would be a better design and that was why it was revised. Regarding Shepherd Lane, with the 28 feet out to Portola Avenue, Shepherd Lane would go up to the north boundary of their tract and then due east to Portola along the Jewish Community Center. As a comparison, he pointed out that in the Bighorn Canyons project the majority of the streets were 24 feet wide. The reason for that is because there is no parking allowed. This would also be the case for Shepherd Lane. There would be no parking allowed on the portions not fully developed, so that might put their minds at ease. It seemed to work well in other projects where they have put in 28 feet in width. They even did industrial subdivisions with giant trucks and the streets were about this width and worked fine. He hoped that information would put the commission's minds at ease. Regarding the Jewish .r Community Center, it was moving ahead and he had talked with their architect, Mr. Fine, and he told them they planned to go forward with their project. So when their project is done, their side of Shepherd Lane, both the north and south portion and the east and west portion, would be fully improved and that would help ease the situation with any traffic there. He noted that the applicant was also present. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Hacker could answer questions about the price range of the homes. Mr. Hacker said no, Mr. Cain could address that question. MR. BERNIE CAIN, President of Cain Companies, 1223 Wilshire Boulevard, #802 in Santa Monica, CA, stated that with regard to price range, they were doing marketing studies right now on product, but estimated they were looking at a $300,000 to $350,000 price range. That fit well in the area and within Palm Desert in that proximity. t 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell stated that she had no problem with this development and made a motion for approval. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff would follow up with an analysis and report on the circulation and streets. Mr. Drell concurred. 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. 2095 approving TT 30269, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 01-16 - PALM DESERT COMMUNITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to allow expansion of the existing church facility by 25,760 square feet (choir area, classrooms and multipurpose room). Property is located at 47-321 Highway 74. Mr. Smith stated that the request was for approval of expansion of the Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church. The site is approximately three acres on the west side of Highway 74 between St. Margaret's Episcopal Church to the south and Indian Creek Villas to the north. The church backs onto the storm channel. The proposed expansion located on the north side of the existing site included a proposed choir area, classrooms and offices and a multipurpose wing or building. With the expansion of the church, the issue came down to parking. Mr. Smith said the applicant, through revision of the site plan, was able to maintain the existing 311 parking spaces onsite. While they were deleting 24 parking spaces, through revision of the site plan 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 on the south side of the site, they were able to get another 24 spaces, so there was a net change of zero. Based on sanctuary size, the church has a ..■ parking requirement for 200 spaces. Public Works has been long aware of ongoing parking problems at the site, particularly on Sunday mornings and to staff it was critical that the amount of parking not be decreased. Additionally, a condition by Public Works requires the applicant to have a parking analysis or study done and that would "piggy back"with the Planning Department condition requiring a parking management program to be approved by staff following the completion of the parking study. He showed the commission plans showing the view from the north looking south and pointed out the location of the multipurpose building and classrooms. He said the architecture had been given preliminary approval by the Architectural Review Commission subject to modification to the west exposure facing the channel. That would be done through the working drawing procedure. He noted that the applicant had a model showing the total site and asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the commission heard discussion earlier about a shared parking facility between St. Margaret's and this church. He asked about that. Mr. Smith said he thought that was part of the earlier discussion on the Homme Park site. When that plan was eventually approved, it didn't have a single large parking area, but parking spaces in .■n groups of three and four spread around the site which basically precluded that type of use. Mr. Drell asked if Commissioner Jonathan was referring to a parking structure. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Mr. Drell stated that they would have to ask the applicant about that. When they initially identified a parking problem, their response wasn't that they were going to build a parking structure, it was to find more spaces on the ground. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the parking standard for churches was based solely on sanctuary size. Mr. Smith said that has been the City's practice in all the other church expansions the City has looked at unless it was obviously going to impact parking during peak usage. Commissioner Jonathan asked if a new church was going to be built, if the general standard was strictly based on sanctuary size. Mr. Smith said the standard was one parking space for every three seats. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any references for office use or school use. Mr. Drell said no. The reason was because on Sunday when the peak period is, everyone is in church and the only people not in church are children who might be in their own special service, but they had come with their parents. That was the reason why the ordinance was written that way. There weren't divergent uses between the classrooms and the sanctuary at the same time. Commissioner Jonathan agreed. He was i 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 trying to understand why there was a parking shortage that this church was tam apparently experiencing if they are way over the requirement based on the ordinance. He asked if the standard was calculated improperly. Mr. Smith thought the standard was probably created in the 1970's when one space for every three seats was adequate. At his church he knew one space for every three wouldn't be enough because everyone arrived as singles or twos at the most. Mr. Drell said where there were families, it was appropriate. In a community that has more aging parishioners with fewer children, in addition to being very popular churches, they probably fill themselves to a greater capacity on a regular Sunday basis than most churches do. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on the new choir area and its use. Mr. Smith said he would defer that question to the applicant. Commissioner Campbell asked about Mr. Conley's comment from the Sheriffs Department regarding a deceleration lane into the project. She asked how staff felt about that. Mr. Smith explained that there is an existing signal. Public Works did not request a deceleration lane. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the conditions called for Public Works to do a study on the parking problem and then hopefully that study would be the basis for measures which would be included in the parking plan. He asked if this project was approved, why the church would agree to do something later that might be detrimental to the parking and/or costly to them. Mr. Smith explained that the parking study would be done by an outside consultant of their choice in consultation with Public Works. That would then give the City a basis as to how they should address the parking problem. In discussions with the applicant today, they did not have an issue with it. Commissioner Tschopp said there was nothing that said they would have to implement what the study came up with. Mr. Smith said there was. It was in the Community Development conditions requiring approval of a parking management plan that will be based on the results of the parking study. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the church was willing to take the risk that the parking study plan could entail some elements that might be expensive to do or impose on the church certain conditions. Mr. Smith said that was correct. There was a certain amount of uncertainty, but the church was going to present to the commission a list of parking mitigations they are looking toward. Commissioner Tschopp said that it wasn't just the parking, but the ingress/egress in that area on Sunday mornings, which is pretty bad. He asked who paid for the police up there and if it was something the church did. (Someone from the audience confirmed it was the church who paid for it.) ,No. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MW MR. CHANCY LOT, the architect on the project, 44 Lake Shore Drive in Rancho Mirage, said that they were all for a parking plan. There were more ways of establishing logical parking than just parking cars. They were looking into a possible shuttle approach on heavy days, even to the point of valet parking. That would ensure controlled parking. Those were things they wanted to look into. They were starting on their parking management plan. Like many other areas, the church congregation was made up of people who live in gated communities like Sun City and Palm Desert Greens. There was a great potential for having shuttle services or ride pools or combinations to service the church on heavy traffic days. Along with this, they would agree with a deceleration lane. It was a safety factor and they would be very pleased to see it come in. Going past the next driveway to the north and then allowing that driveway into the apartment/residential area, they could use the deceleration as well as the church. He noted that they were also a school, not just a church. They thought it might be wise to consider this as a small school zone. The traffic on Highway 74 moves quickly. They did have the police there and they were there doing their job and it had been very ..rr satisfactory so far. One time they were talking about looking at the park area on the other side of the wash and there was some consideration to using it as a secondary parking area that they could access across the bridge in that area. He didn't know if that was closed yet or not, but it was something to keep open as a potential option. There were a lot of ways to mitigate a parking crush. They were in the middle of doing their study and as an architect, he has done a lot of parking studies himself, and they have yet to do more studies on this parcel. When they did the study to recoup their lost cars, they immediately developed on the south lot just by turning the parking 90 degrees. It was much more effective and much more efficient. He said they haven't taken that step on the west side or east side of the street. Those were also angle parking spaces and he would be looking at it. He thought they would continue and would always want to continue to find ways to improve the parking because there was nothing worse than pulling in and getting to the church on time and no place to park and the traffic out on the street could be dangerous. They would continue to make these studies. 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 r.. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was any discussion of a shared parking facility with the church to the south. Mr. Lot said to his knowledge that had been there as an informal handshake situation. Kind of an old-fashioned way of doing it and he thought it would be nice if they continued to do that. He asked what would happen when St. Margaret's needed that parking and they were aware of that as a concern. They wanted to be self-sufficient. He said that anything required by code was minimum, so the parking required by the church is the minimum as established many years ago. He thought it should be reviewed, especially under certain circumstances. He said they had more, but even on heavy days it wasn't enough. So they could see that they needed more than the minimum. They would continue to try to find ways to mitigate that with the shuttle, the valet and those kinds of approaches to ease those heavy days. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the seating capacity was of the sanctuary. Mr. Lot said it was 600. He noted there was some talk of how to increase the number of seats in the sanctuary because they didn't want to find themselves turning people away and end up having two or three services. There were physical ways to increase the seating along the side aisles of the church, but they would have to look at parking. That was why he wanted to continue to see how many cars they could find to park that would allow them to think in terms of adding more seats. But they would only do it under a proper plan to make it work and alleviate the heavy traffic. Chairperson Lopez asked for clarification on how the multipurpose room would be used. Mr. Lot said there would be youth programs there, some music, service programs, as a meeting room, and maybe volleyball. It wasn't necessarily made up for that, but it could physically be used for games. There could also be some music shows. One of the popular things going on in the youth church was a lot of music and this would be able to accommodate that demand better than what they currently have. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 Chairperson Lopez asked what the seating capacity of that room would be. Mr. Lot said around 300 loose seats, not fixed seats. They would be folding chairs that could be stacked away and stored. Chairperson Lopez asked if there were any plans to pipe in services to that particular room on Sundays. Mr. Lot said it was possible. They would have a sound system. They were also concerned because when there is a sound system there is a noise factor and they would insulate the perimeter walls and the ceiling to take care of the transmission of sound to stop it from going outside. They wanted the sound inside to be properly designed so that they could get good sound within the space. They were very much aware of that. One thing mentioned on the west wall, they were talking about possibly putting in a cross there like the east wall of the choir room. They would repeat the same idea. A comment was made in an earlier meeting with the Planning Department that the wall was kind of plain and the houses looking down might like to have something more than that. In addition to that they would have a textured block, not just a plain block wall, and that would be architecturally pleasing. That would be continued around the west wall and they would probably do something with an incised cross in the wall to break up the so-called blank wall. Commissioner Campbell asked if the get togethers in the multipurpose room were planned during Sunday services. Mr. Lot said no, only if there was overflow when they might not be able to seat everyone. But it would only be related to how many cars they could park there. It would be limited by that. Commissioner Campbell asked how many services they have on Sunday. Mr. Lot said during the summer months, one. Now it was two and the pastor confirmed they would be having three soon. He noted that this was a rather successful church. That was one way to spread out the parking, by having more services. There was greater traffic at some services than others. But they have people coming down from the northern states and from Canada that start coming here this time of year. The church plans additional services to accommodate that. z 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 tow Commissioner Campbell noted that the more services they had, the less parking problem they would hopefully have. Mr. Lot said they knew this happened and was why they were looking at ways to mitigate it. To develop a shuttle plan, possibly have a valet, something they have never had before but it was something they knew worked. They have been to programs at theaters and hotels where the valets take the cars to park and they were parked stacked in there very tight. They could begin to do that too because the attendees in the congregation wouldn't be doing the parking if they had valet. That was one thing they were considering. They could add spaces by doing that. He said they had begun a study to see the number of cars they could add just by instituting the shuttle program. Just by getting 15%, 20% or 25% of the people agreeing to use the shuttle system. They might not all want to go back home, but somewhere else. Only a percentage would use it. But even when they do that, 15%to 30% utilizing it would gain quite a few parking spaces. They thought that was a potential option. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or low OPPOSITION. MR. RICHARD KITE, 71-205 Thunderbird Terrace in Rancho Mirage, addressed the commission. He said that as a member of the Board of Trustees of the church, he was asking the commission to support this project. This project had been in the works for many years. They started doing the design about 10 years ago when they recognized the need for more facilities for their children, pastors and other recreation activities. He said parking was a major concern to them. They would not want to do this expansion and not be able to facilitate all their members corning to church on Sundays. They were totally committed to providing whatever parking the City required and he felt this project would be a great asset to the city. It was something they felt they should do now because their church is growing. He didn't think they anticipated using the main recreation area at the same time as the sanctuary. It would be very rare they would have meetings in the larger multipurpose room at the same time as the sanctuary, so he didn't think they would be bringing in more cars unless the architect said they really weren't going to have the space in the parking lot to do that, to offer too many other programs at the same time as they would utilize this on Sunday. The rest of the facilities tow 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 would be used during the week when they didn't have a larger sanctuary in use. He asked the commission to support the project and thought it would be great architecturally for the area and great for their church. MR. PETER STURGEON, 73-185 Somera Road in Palm Desert, stated that he is the Chairman of this project. He said they looked forward to the commission's approval. He reiterated that it has been in the planning stages for many years. They have had over the years a tremendous preschool running Monday through Friday at the church and for many years have had a waiting list. Their children right now currently play outside on these very hot days and it was a concern to them that they were getting overheated. One thing they were looking for was a covered area for them and they felt the multi-use area would be very beneficial. He said the new classrooms would also be used by the young children of Palm Desert. He said it was a nondenominational school. They had children not only from the Christian community but the Jewish community. As far as a project for the community of Palm Desert, they felt this was an excellent one that would serve not only the seniors in the community, but the children. They were asking for support. They also didn't feel that parking was that big of an issue. On Christmas and Easter mornings it was an issue and maybe three or four Sundays throughout the season when they have a lot of visitors. But when people see the parking is filled, they come to the later service. It wasn't as big a problem as one might think. He thanked the commission for the opportunity to speak. MR. DOUG GERARD, 77-664 Carla Court, stated that he is the Pastor of the church and thanked the commission for the time given to them to present this vision which had been on the hearts and minds of the church leadership for eight or nine years. They were at a time to address the needs in the area for children to play, for youth to have an area to gather for study and music as well as a great location for adult dinners. In response to one of the concerns, from his perspective there wouldn't be anything running concurrently with a worship service on a Sunday morning within the multipurpose room. If they were, they would be in trouble with him because they were supposed to be in worship. As they grow in size, the way to address that were increased numbers of services. As they get into the peak season and those months of year, they run a 7:30 a.m., 9:15 a.m. and an 11:00 a.m. service. They have begun to add that second worship .�i 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 service earlier in the fall to address the need for overcrowding. They have also talked about the possibility of adding a Saturday night service as well. That would be helpful and would get the Sunday golfers into worship. He thanked the commission for their attention and appreciated their consideration and hoped for approval of their project and the proposed plan. MR. BILL HARRIS, 40-640 Ventana Court in Palm Desert, informed commission that he is the Parish Administrator for St. Margaret's Episcopal Church. He said he wasn't there in opposition to the project. They thought it was a good project. They were concerned about parking. They would like to be included in the parking study because it affects both of them. They lose 25 to 50 spots on Sundays during the season through the back road that comes through that they need to recapture for their church. Special days like St. Margaret's Day or Christmas, the Presbyterian Church puts the word out that there is no parking in their parking lot and they then have plenty of spaces at that time. They were concerned about the parking. They were also concerned about the multipurpose room. As of tonight they said it could hold 300 seats and that they could pipe the service in, which would then make it a 900-seat church which could pose a problem. He said they too were faced with a parking problem and were looking at three services and if they could work together up on the hill he thought they could utilize the parking. He said they offered their land for the Presbyterian Church to dig into because of the grade and build a parking structure and they hadn't gotten a response on that. It would be a two-story structure that they both could share. The Presbyterian Church would have the lower section and St. Margaret's would have the upper section. He said they weren't opposed to the project and would like to see it, they just didn't want to see any parking spots lost and the same conditions should apply to them that applied to St. Margaret's when they stood before the commission asking for approval. Those included that the church and school could not operate at the same time, except on special occasions, which they had a recent use for on memorial Friday and they ended up using every bit of parking up that way for their interfaith service. The Presbyterians loaned St. Margaret's their lot and they parked there, in the neighborhoods, and all over Highway 74 to accommodate everyone. So they wanted to open their arms and doors to them and work with them and if they were willing to work with St. Margaret's, they felt this could be an excellent project. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 Pastor Doug Gerard readdressed the commission. He said that he has been in communication with Father Robert Sertain on a number of occasions with regard to working on the parking situation. Father Sertain told him that they have several individuals from their leadership that were involved in looking at parking and his church also had several individuals looking at it as well and they were ready and willing to sit down and meet, so Father Sertain and he had indeed chatted about what kinds of things are open and available for the both of them to try to address the parking situation that they face especially during the peak season. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty commended the church for their great attitude with regard to their parking problem. They realize they have one and were more than willing to work in the direction of trying to solve it. They all understood that members of the church wanted to be able to park and get them into the church for the activities. It appeared that the proposed building uses would be impacted primarily on the weekdays and that was a positive. The parking management plan would assist all parties and she believed that they basically needed to deal with the problem on Sunday mornings. She two suggested that staff work with the applicant regarding the deceleration lane and that it be reviewed again by Public Works. She said she would like to see a condition that would say what Pastor Gerard alluded to, that there wouldn't be anything running concurrently in the multipurpose room so that everyone would be in the sanctuary so that they didn't have a problem with the parking. It was true that an increase in the number of services would help the problem and a Saturday night service was an option. With that she was in favor of the project and noted that a parking problem was a good problem to have. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He said it appeared that the parking situation was unaffected during the week, so they were down to the weekends, particularly Sundays. There his concern was that the multipurpose room not be used for additional worship seats. He could envision the possibility that as some churches do, they hold a separate worship service for youth. When children reach the ages of 16 and 17 they do drive, so that would create additional pressure on the parking situation. He would be more comfortable if as a condition of approval they specifically prohibited additional seating for worship purposes during the time that the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 main sanctuary is also being used for worship. He didn't want to get to 900 seats without improving the existing parking. He also thought it would be helpful and he commended St. Margaret's for offering to participate in the parking study, because there could be opportunities with the two churches adjacent to each other to create synergy that would help everyone involved, so their participation was welcome. Commissioner Campbell agreed with the other commissioners. She thought that more services would be helpful to eliminate the parking problems. She also suggested adding to the conditions of approval not to use the multipurpose room for services on Sundays or have any use in that multipurpose room during Sunday services. As Mr. Harris pointed out, St. Margaret's Church had a special service at the church while school was in session, so maybe that could be a condition of approval to not have any services, church and school, at the same time except on special occasions. Otherwise, she was happy that both churches would work together to address the parking problems and she would leave it up to staff to see if those should be added on as conditions of approval for the multipurpose room and the church and school not operating on the same days, as well as the deceleration lane. She was in favor of the project. tow Commissioner Tschopp stated that the architecture was consistent with the existing structure and fit well into the neighborhood. He said this was one of those terribly great problems to have. Two well-known, respected institutions in Palm Desert vying for parking on a Sunday morning, every community should be so lucky. He appreciated St. Margaret's proposal to be included in the parking study. He thought it was a joint problem and would be a great thing to look at the whole area there to try and mitigate that parking problem on the heavy usage days. He liked Mr. Lot's idea of the City taking a look at the deceleration lane. Highway 74 on Sunday mornings when people were arriving or getting out was a hazard and he thought there were things they could do to help alleviate what could be a potential problem and would be a good step on the City's part. While the joint participants were at the meeting, he also thought that once the traffic study was done, he would like to see a joint committee of the churches to get together to mitigate the problems. It sounded like they were working that way, but he would like to see them formalize it in some way and really address it that way. He would like the City to take that parking study and use it to revise and retook at the code. Times have changed, who was using the churches had also changed and it would be a great time to hopefully mitigate problems in the future if we were lucky enough to have such successful churches side by side. He thought the 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2. 2001 multipurpose room would be a great addition to the church. He wanted to see them look at the resolution to prohibit the use concurrently on Sunday ..� mornings unless the applicant shows that they have mitigated potential parking problems. That way they would not need to come back to the commission, they could just prove to the City that they have mitigated the problems. He said hopefully the church would be successful enough that they would fill that portion up too. If they had done that by mitigating the parking problems that could be done through the staff without coming back to the commission. He said it was a great project and a good addition. Chairperson Lopez agreed and asked for a clarification as to whether they wanted to include in this as a condition of approval the use of the multipurpose room or leave it to staff. Mr. Drell said that the commission could give staff the direction that the problem has to be addressed in the parking management plan. In the absence of any significant improvement in parking, it would be none. To the extent they could mitigate the parking, there could be some use. To a certain degree the implementation of the parking management plan would be something they would see when it happens and how successful it is, so he thought they would be moving cautiously in terms of granting any sort of special expanded use as they observe the effectiveness of the parking management plan. mow Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't have any problems with that in terms of giving staff direction with a condition in regard to complementary use of the multipurpose room, like babysitting services, etc. However, he did feel strongly enough that the exception to that would be additional seats for worshiping. In that event he wanted the commission to review it so the one exception within that condition would be additional worship capacity concurrent with the existing worship service. Mr. Drell agreed that staff would have as much concern with any sort of social function there because once they have multiple services, someone could come to the 7:30 a.m. service and then they could have a reception afterwards for those who have already been to the service so they could be using it and going to services at the same time. The problem with multiple services is if someone goes to one service and didn't leave or leave in time for the people coming into the second service. Then they had both sets of parishioners there at the same time. The other thing staff would be looking at in the parking management plan was insuring that from one service to the next they would make sure everyone there for one is gone before people start showing up for the next one. 18 ..o MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 Chairperson Lopez agreed. It would be wonderful if the church was that successful and he hoped they were and that all their services were full, but the parking situation would be escalated if people stayed, they would have traffic coming and going and it builds upon itself and they were all concerned about that for the well being of everyone going in and out of the church and the traffic along Highway 74 which moves very rapidly. He agreed that they needed some type of condition or emphasis on the fact that they would like to monitor the use of the multipurpose room as it pertains to overflow or additional seats for services whether it be on Sundays, for special events or on holidays. They could look at that as part of the parking management plan. Mr. Drell suggested that the parking management plan have provisions which would ensure that the use of the additional space would not compete with the parking demands of the sanctuary. Chairperson Lopez said that other than that, overall the project was done well. He thought they should look at the deceleration lane, that working with St. Margaret's was vital for the success of this whole area and the growth of that area and utilization of the church and its facilities. He wasn't sure if there was a need to look at having a school zone. There is a traffic light. He thought it was a great project that would do well. He asked for a motion. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would make the motion adding Mr. Drell's language to the conditions as well as looking at the deceleration lane. 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. 2096, approving CUP 01-16, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. TT 30275 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT/HACKER ENGINEERING, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a five-acre parcel into 16 single family lots located on the west side of Portola Avenue, 1,000 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2. 2001 Mr. Alvarez noted that this tract map is similar to the previously discussed one. The location of this map is on the west side of Portola 1,000 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive. Access to the site would be via a 28-foot wide paved access from Gerald Ford which would connect to a tract approved earlier this year, Tract 30087. Full improvements along that tract would be implemented and then the extension from the south end of that tract to the proposed tract and a single cul-de-sac extending to the east. He stated that the lot sizes meet the minimum requirements. It would be a 16-lot single family subdivision on five acres and the density would be 3.2. He said they would look at the possible alternatives for Shepherd Lane. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVID HACKER, the engineer on the project, stated that he was representing World Development. He concurred with the staff recommendations and was present to answer any questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. J Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2097, approving TT 30275, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case Nos. PP/CUP 01-21 and TT 30314 - COLLEGE BUSINESS PARK PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design/Conditional Use Permit for an office/industrial center consisting of five buildings and a five-lot tentative tract map for a 6.10 acre site located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive east of Cook Street, 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 Mr. Smith noted that the site was generally flat and bounded on the north by `r a future storm channel and the railway. Across the street to the south was the future campus of Cal State with a main driveway coming out toward the center of the site. The proposed project was for an office industrial complex, five single-story buildings 26 feet in height. They range from 12,000 to 17,000 square feet. On the six acres there was a total of 73,000 square feet. Phase one would consist of the three northerly buildings, Buildings A, B and C. The two front parcels would be developed later. The site had been developed with three access points to Gerald Ford Drive. The fully signalized intersection in the center. On the easterly limit was a driveway that would be shared with the property to the east. He indicated that at a future meeting the commission would be reviewing a proposal for 20 acres to the east. Due to the limited number of signals anticipated along Gerald Ford Drive, staff would be requiring this applicant to provide access through and connection to the property to the east. The driveway at the east limit which would be shared with the property to the east would be right in and right out only. There would be no break in the median on Gerald Ford. At the westerly limit there was an exit only from the project. On Buildings A and C the rear area of the buildings would be gated off but that didn't impact the circulation necessary to afford access to the project to the east. One of the Public Works conditions required specifically that the access be provided down the main center driveway. The typical parking standard for warehouse and limited office use is two spaces per 1,000 square feet. This plan provided 3.34 spaces per 1,000. That would allow a greater amount of office space to be located and staff would have to track the uses to assure compliance. He felt it could be done. Regarding the architecture, he described it as desert contemporary. He said it has been given preliminary approval by ARC for all three buildings. They weren't all the same. He indicated that the project includes a tentative tract map to create five lots and each building would have its own parking field and common driveways which would be required to provide mutual access. The project meets all the planned industrial code requirements which is the zone applicable to this site through the development agreement adopted as part of the Wonder Palms plan. As part of that plan the matter was previously assessed for CEQA purposes and no further documentation was necessary. He recommended approval, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Smith to show on the map where the west end egress driveway would be located. Mr. Smith did so. He explained that the property to the west already had an athletic facility processed for it. Mr. Drell said he would like to add a condition for the identification of the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001_ Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee of $600 per acre. moo Commissioner Jonathan asked what the purpose was of gating off Buildings A and C. Mr. Smith said he assumed it was for storage purposes. The rear of all three buildings had overhead doors in them backing onto the railway and he thought it was a matter of security. Commissioner Jonathan noted that ARC granted preliminary approval. Mr. Smith said that he missed their minutes and asked if there were any notable comments. Mr. Smith said the project was before ARC at two meetings. They dealt with the buildings separately. He said that it was remarkably unnotable. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the interpretation of the parking. The property is zoned Service Industrial but there was a Wonder Palms master plan on it. He asked exactly what the zoning was. Mr. Smith said it was Planned Industrial, not Service Industrial. Commissioner Jonathan asked if under Planned Industrial the parking requirement was two spaces per 1,000 square feet. Mr. Smith said depending on the use it could be higher, but the use proposed, warehouse with office use, was two per 1,000. Commissioner Jonathan said that was as long as office use was limited to 20%. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that what staff had done was interpret that to provide or mean that when there is more than two per 1,000, that then allowed a greater use of office proportionately. Mr. Smith concurred. ..r Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was addressed in the ordinance or if it was interpretive. Mr. Smith explained that it has been a long standing policy in the department. Mr. Drell stated that there was no specific parking standard for the PI ordinance. The parking standards that apply in the PI were the same that apply in the SI and they were used specifically. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't recall seeing the proportion of office space that is allowed determined on the basis of parking being provided. He knew that office was limited to 20% under SI, but he wasn't aware that if someone provided more than two per 1,000 that would get them more office use. Mr. Drell said it had nothing to do with SI or PI. It had to do with the specific uses that were designated on a piece of property. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the designated use was for this property. Mr. Drell said it was a combination of office and industrial. He indicated there have been a number of buildings built in the SI zone that were built as office buildings and parked as office buildings. He thought Commissioner Jonathan's was like that and just like Commissioner Jonathan's, he designated it to be office and parked it accordingly. Commissioner Jonathan concurred, but indicated that what he was seeing before them now was not specifically industrial or office. Mr. Drell said that was an administrative problem. Commissioner 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 Jonathan explained that the reason it was a problem for him, and they could discuss this later, was that if they were going to call this a warehouse building, he was okay with the architectural aspects, but if they were going to say that it is primarily (83.5%) office, then he for one would not be okay with the architectural aspects because he would then be looking at it as an office complex which he held to a higher level. He asked if they knew what the use would be and if it would end up being 83.5% office use and if yes, they needed to look at the architectural aspects as an office and if no, they should have a condition that says this won't be 83.5% office and limit it to a level they find acceptable. They should define it as an office project or warehouse industrial project. Mr. Smith said that the plan showed it to be limited office/industrial at 20% and they pointed out as every other building in the service industrial area that has extra parking, they have allowed office expansion in those situations. Commissioner Jonathan said that under staffs interpretation, this project could end up 83.5% office use. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HENRY CASDEN, 846 Mesa Grande Drive in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said they planned to build three buildings (A, B and C) as industrial buildings. They were intended to be industrial. The buildings in the front might ultimately be industrial or they might be office. If they were office, they would comply with the office parking regulations and they would design office buildings. He would not give them an industrial building and make it into an office building. He said if they noticed the quality of the architecture, these were high end, well designed, architecturally articulated industrial buildings and were not the usual boxes from certain architects. He specifically did not design that because he didn't want to build that and he wanted to give the city a high class high quality product and that was what he intended to do. Also being sensitive to the fact that they are across from the university, which was a benefit to his project and he wanted to benefit the university by having them have a product that is aesthetically appropriate. As to whether or not they would build office buildings on the front two buildings, he didn't have a clue because he didn't know what the world was going to be like next year or the year after. His crystal ball was clouded a couple of weeks ago. So he was concerned right now to just make sure they get the three buildings up and leased to good quality tenants and the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2. 2001 details of the product they would build would be aesthetically very pleasing and the detail on the buildings were specifically in his opinion ..r excellent and he thought they would be pleased with the product he would turn out there. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was impressed with the architecture. Since they would build the three rear buildings first, she asked what he proposed to do on pads D & E until they were built on later. She asked if they would put the extra parking in now or if it would just be a grassy area. She wanted to know what they would be looking at. Mr. Casden said he would build the infrastructure required to give access to Buildings A, B and C. He would put on the pads of D and E wildflowers or grass, whatever he was permitted. He was not going to build those until the world became a sunny day. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that all the parking would be provided even though the two buildings would not be built. Mr. Casden said he would not put in any parking around those buildings because it wouldn't be appropriate until they decided what kind of building they would build. ..r Commissioner Campbell asked about the area south of those buildings. Mr. Casden said he wouldn't be building that parking either until they build the two buildings. They would put in the parking for Buildings A, B anc C and the entry way, the roadways in between and the roadways coming down on either side east and west. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the building size for Buildings D and E. Mr. Casden said they were 16,000 square feet each, but they could be smaller or larger depending on what finally got built. He believed they couldn't go more than about 16,000 square feet on each building. Chairperson Lopez noted that Mr. Casden mentioned it would be a benefit to have the facility across from the university and asked why that would be. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 Mr. Casden said he was hoping that people who want to do business `" with the university might want to locate there. Businesses that may want to be suppliers or people that are inhabiting the buildings will be able to tell people how to get to them by just saying they are right across the street from the university. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the plans show a sidewalk on the frontage of Gerald Ford and asked if there was berming and other landscaping material going in there to help shield it from Gerald Ford. Mr. Casden concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked if he would go forward with that if he didn't proceed with the front two buildings. Mr. Casden said he would landscape the front along Gerald Ford notwithstanding they were not building the front two buildings. What they would get was the front landscaping on both the east and west side of the main entry, the main entry, all the hardscape necessary to allow the roadways and then the landscaping around the buildings. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the material being shown on the roadway entry. Mr. Casden said it would be a form of tile and brick. It was actually going to be more European looking. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was very impressed with the project and it would be a great asset to our city. She noted that Mr. Urrutia (the architect) does a wonderful job. She was in favor. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Campbell. She stated that this is an appropriate project for the location. Commissioner Jonathan said he would concur with regard to Buildings A, B and C. The architecture was very appealing for service industrial use which the applicant indicated the use would be for Buildings A, B and C. He 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 concurred with his fellow commissioners with regard to those three buildings. However, he foresaw that Buildings D and E would end up being offices and the thought the architecture for two 16,000 square foot office buildings was not adequate. His suggestion was that they separate the application into the three rear buildings and limit those uses to the normal industrial use which allows up to 20% office but deal with the two front buildings separately when the applicant has determined the actual use and if the actual use is office/warehouse, then the architecture stands and the office space would be limited accordingly. If it turns out that the use is strictly office for those front two buildings, then they needed to revisit the design, architecture and scale. Commissioner Tschopp believed it was a good project and liked the architecture. He thought it fit very well. It blended in with the project to the north and offered good shielding that way. The use of the buildings in the front for office use with the college going in across the street would probably make more sense and add a little more attraction than a standard warehouse or other types of buildings of that nature. He was in favor of the project and thought it would be a good addition in that location. Mr. Drell explained that those buildings on Gerald Ford had not yet been designed, so there was no architecture for them yet. He indicated that the commission could ask to see them when they come back. Technically, those two buildings weren't before the commission and had not yet been designed. Commissioner Jonathan said he misunderstood that because he thought the presentation indicated that they were looking at five buildings. Mr. Drell said it was only the three buildings. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that there had been no design submitted for the front two buildings. Mr. Casden confirmed they haven't designed Buildings D and E yet because they didn't know if they would be industrial. He clarified that the three buildings in the back were industrial and if they built office buildings in the front, he would not give the city that design for office buildings. They didn't need to worry because he would solve that himself. They would get a different design for an office building. These were designs for industrial buildings and that was the three buildings he was giving them. If they elected to build industrial buildings on D and E, then they would design them as industrial buildings. If they elected to build them as office buildings, there would be a different d f 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 design for office buildings and he was sure Mr. Urrutia would be able to figure it out. Commissioner Campbell asked if at that time the applicant would be coming back for approval of the two front buildings. Mr. Casden explained that they would be going to the Architectural Review Commission for whatever those buildings would be and for that specific purpose. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the request, which indicates that it is approval for a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for an office industrial center consisting of five buildings was not really for five buildings. It was a precise plan of design for three buildings. Mr. Drell said that there was architecture for three, a site plan for five. It would be up to the commission if they wanted to see the completed two buildings at that later date and they could make that a condition of the approval. At this time all they had was a site plan for five, no architecture for the two front buildings. Depending on the demand, those buildings probably couldn't be any bigger, but they could be smaller. Commissioner Jonathan said he was suggesting exactly that. That they look at the architecture and the use of those two ` o buildings before they go up. Chairperson Lopez concurred. He thought the renderings and architecture in front of them for the three rear buildings looked great. This would be a major intersection to what they hoped would be an outstanding university site in the future and he was originally concerned about the use of the land across the street being warehouses, but he knew it was zoned that way and understood that, but he thought they owed it to themselves and the community to be given the opportunity to review the architecture of the two front buildings and if they ended up being warehouses, then architecturally they were fine, but if it goes to office use, the commission should have the opportunity to look at that presentation as well as how it fit into the rest of the project in terms of parking, etc. He wanted to see it incorporated into the conditions that they have an opportunity to review the front two buildings and have them come back and that the precise plan for five buildings could remain with that condition. Commissioner Jonathan agreed it could remain, but if it converted to office, the applicant might want to break those two buildings into groupings of four or six buildings, so the precise plan might change. But if they wanted to submit this as is for now, subject to the commission's review of the use and architecture of the two front buildings, he would find that acceptable. Chairperson Lopez concurred. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2001 Commissioner Campbell stated that she would modify her motion to add a condition for when the developer was ready to come back for Buildings D .. and E, that the Planning Commission would review the architecture and use. Commissioner Jonathan seconded the motion and reiterated that he did find the architecture wonderful for the approved use and if it goes the way of office buildings for the front two buildings, there was hardly an architect in town that could do a better job than Mr. Urrutia and the city and the project was in capable hands. Chairperson Lopez concurred. Commissioner Tschopp added that when looking at industrial buildings, the applicant had done a great job of designing industrial buildings across from the campus and he commended him on that. Chairperson Lopez called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2098 approving PP/CUP 01-21 and TT 30314, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. ..i E. Case No. PP/CUP 01-19 - MULVANNY G2 ARCHITECTURE/ COSTCO WHOLESALE, Applicant Request for approval of a Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit for a 15,510 square foot addition and parking adjustment to allow elimination of 47 parking spaces. Property is located at 72-800 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Drell explained that the request was to continue this matter to October 16. The commission also received correspondence from Joe Walters, the owner of the balance of the project, the underlying owner of Petsmart and those other buildings. He has some problems with the expansion that staff was previously unaware of and hopefully they would be getting some conversation going between him and Costco to see if they can resolve it by the 16th. a 28 "' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing PP/CUP 01-19 to October 16, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. PP 01-09 - KERR PROJECT SERVICES/McDONALD'S CORPORATION, Applicant (Continued from September 4 and 18, 2001) 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 noted that the applicant wasn't present. He explained that they received some correspondence from their attorneys where they have made some statements about the City's obligation to approve their project for various reasons. Although it didn't say that, he believed this was a request for a continuance. Given the complexity of their letter, he recommended a continuance to the next regular meeting. He wanted to go on record that relative to responding to some of their comments where they have asserted that this project has already been approved by virtue of the master plan and to remind them that the project approved was for a 2,500 square foot restaurant and that this application was for a significant expansion of that restaurant and it was the expansion of that restaurant which created the concern. In the original plan with 2,500 square feet and their pad, there was sufficient area to accommodate what they believed to be the intent of the ordinance. The pressure was put on the site created by both the additional square footage and the additional parking required by the square footage which was the source of the problem. As far as staff was concerned, they were asking for an amendment to the original master plan by virtue of their expanded restaurant and didn't believe they were obligated as they state. That went for the environmental review as well. Staffs initial feeling was that if they could address the intent of the original master plan they could make a consistency finding with the original environmental review of the master plan. If in fact they can't come up with a plan that does that, then it represented an amendment to the master plan and that would deserve an additional CEQA process. Hopefully they would have their discussion with the applicant and be able to resolve this by the next meeting. rr.. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2. 2001 Chairperson Lopez asked if there was anything from the applicant requesting a continuance. Mr. Drell said they weren't here and they were asking for a meeting, so it was hard to say. Mr. Smith said that in the staff report, property owner Dave Osman was going to present some revised proposal and the McDonald's people who called him that afternoon said they were not a party to that revision and that he'd be getting a letter to that effect, which is what staff received around 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Jonathan noted that on the other hand, the attorney's letter seemed to be in a hurry for approval because on the second page, the attorney seemed to indicate that by some operation of law the project was approved because they passed the September 15 deadline. Mr. Erwin stated that was his comment, but the City disagreed with his interpretation of the Permit Streamlining Act. Mr. Drell said he could get his decision if that was what he wanted. Commissioner Jonathan said that's part of the discussion and was one option. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would be inclined to deny the request. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was any problem if the commission wanted to deny the project since they were going through the public hearing process and the applicant was given the opportunity to be present. They hadn't requested a formal continuance. Mr. Drell said he in essence was holding the delay in the process over their heads. Commissioner Jonathan said that on one hand they were saying it had expired, on one hand they were saying they wanted to meet and on the other hand he didn't know why they were hearing from an attorney. Commissioner Finerty noted that in their attorney's opinion they were already approved. Commissioner Campbell noted that the attorney didn't reference the 2,500 square feet. Mr. Erwin recommended that the commission continue the matter to the next meeting. He agreed that they did not specifically request a continuance. The attorney had not appeared before on this matter, but it would at least give them an opportunity to meet and put forth their position, assuming they would do that. Mr. Drell said that the assumption was that they were asking for a meeting, which was obviously going to have to occur after this Planning Commission meeting. That presumed that this would be continued. If a decision was to be made at this meeting, there would be no time for them to meet after. The substance of their letter was in essence asking for a continuance pending this one more meeting. Mr. Drell noted that the commission was not compelled to grant a continuance even if they asked for it. Chairperson Lopez heard what the other commissioner's were saying, and they could deny it and let the appeal to the City Council, but he would rather see it continued to allow them to discuss it. Mr. Erwin recommended at the first part of the next meeting having a closed session to discuss what he considered to be the threat of litigation and they could discuss the Permit mri 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 Streamlining Act. Commission concurred. Mr. Erwin said that if the attorney was right, and Mr. Erwin thought he was wrong, but if he was right, the commission didn't have to act because he has his approval. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that the City didn't approve the project that was being requested. After further discussion, Commissioner Tschopp noted that the second paragraph from the end indicated they were basically looking for an October 16 continuance. Commissioner Jonathan said in an abundance of consideration to the applicant, he would allow a continuance, but he wanted the record to note that the applicant should be aware that Palm Desert is a small, friendly town and their approach was to work with applicants to make things happen in a proper way and the applicant might be advised that the attorney from out of town would be better served to understand that. Chairperson Lopez noted that the public would remain open and asked for a motion. Action: Upon the advice of the City Attorney, it was moved by Commissioner Campbell,seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, continuing Case No. PP 01- 09 to October 16, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. 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) vow 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2 2001 XI. COMMENTS mod None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: JIM Z, b(aiFmA0A1on P m Desert PlaAninla Commission i /t 32