Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1016 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - OCTOBER 16, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell two Sabby Jonathan Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the October 2, 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the October 2, 2001 minutes. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated there were no pertinent October 11 , 2001 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 29489 - WARNER ENGINEERING, Applicant Request for approval of a one year time extension for a tentative tract map for a one lot subdivision for 470 senior residential units previously approved as part of the Portofino project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PM 24255 Revision No. 2 - THOMAS S. NOBLE, Applicant Request for approval of revised Tentative Parcel Map 24255 for 173 +/- acres located east of Monterey Avenue and south of Dinah Shore Drive, 34-100 Monterey Avenue. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 Mr. Drell explained that the applicant requested a continuance to November 20, 2001 and a copy of the applicant's letter was distributed to commission. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing Case No. PM 24255 Revision No. 2 to November 20, 2001 . Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PP 01-08 - PRESTNUKSIC ARCHITECTS FOR KLAFF REALTY, Applicant (Continued from July 17, August 21 , and September 18, 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 indicated that staff's initial recommendation was to table this item and readvertise. Subsequent to writing the report staff was notified by the applicant that they were redesigning the project and it was unclear when they would be ready. He said they could try one more continuance. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it had to go back to ARC first. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they should continue it to an uncertain time. Mr. Drell said they could just continue it and then staff could readvertise because staff was uncertain when the redesign would be ready. Commissioner Finerty asked if they should just move to table the item. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for a motion based on the staff recommendation. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion tabling this item and directing staff to re- advertise the public hearing once the applicant is ready to proceed. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP/CUP 01-19 - MULVANNY G2 ARCHITECTURE/ COSTCO WHOLESALE, Applicant (Continued from October 2, 2001 ) 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 stated that the applicant requested a continuance to November 6, 2001 . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing PP/CUP 01-19 to November 6, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP 01-09 - KERR PROJECT SERVICES/McDONALD'S CORPORATION, Applicant (Continued from September 4, September 18, and October 2, 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 said that staff met with the applicant and their attorney and discussed what they felt the City's position was relative to the current plan and explained that it is in nonconformance and inconsistent with the approved master plan 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 approved for the center. All of the meetings before the Architectural Commission and Planning Commission were all an attempt to modify the project and bring in into consistency with the master plan. Staff also suggested other ways they thought they could satisfy the intent of the Freeway Overlay Ordinance. Staff had not yet heard back from them. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution of denial, subject to modifying the findings to make them more explicit. He recommended adding the wording that therefore, the precise plan is inconsistent with the approved master plan for the project, City Council Resolution No. 99- 14, and staff recommended adoption of the resolution of denial because of noncompliance with the approved master plan. Mr. Hargreaves added that the commission received a letter at the last meeting where McDonald's took the position that their project had already been deemed approved pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. The Permit Streamlining Act time lines all run from a definitive CEQA action and in this case there had been no definitive CEQA action so those time lines had not yet begun to run and in his opinion has not been deemed approved at this point. Mr. Drell said that while there was a CEQA action on the original master plan, the fact that this project is not consistent with that master plan, there has not been a CEQA action on this proposal. In essence, based on their current request, they are requesting an amendment to that master plan and an amendment to the conditional use permit, therefore, all of those would trigger a new CEQA process. Chairperson Lopez indicated the public hearing was still open. Commissioner Campbell noted that the McDonald's attorney said it was approved, but he never mentioned that the master plan approval was for 2,500 feet. She asked if he was aware of that. Mr. Drell said he emphasized to their attorney in their meeting that he basically would not be having this problem with the approval process if the plan was consistent with the design which was approved in the past. This was a significant amendment. All the meetings before the Architectural Commission and the Planning Commission were a result of trying to create consistency with this amended plan. By their absence it appeared they were choosing not to offer any alternatives that could get them into consistency. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp asked if the City had received anything else in writing from the applicant asking for a continuance other than the October 2, 2001 letter. Mr. Drell said no and informed commission that when they left last Friday's meeting, he asked them if they had any ideas what their plans were for Tuesday. They said they were talking about that and would be in touch. Staff had not heard from them, either in writing or orally. Chairperson Lopez asked if they should have answered the correspondence in writing or in some other manner or if they were following protocol. Mr. Drell said that they responded to them at the last meeting which was reflected in the minutes. Instead of trying to adjust their problem, they brought up this argument which staff did not feel was applicable. They also weren't at the last meeting. For whatever reason they have chosen not to participate. Commissioner Campbell asked when the last meeting was that staff had with them. Mr. Drell said it was last Friday. Chairperson Lopez stated that the public hearing was still open for anyone who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would make a motion to deny the proposed project. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as amended. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2099 denying Case No. PP 0 1-09 as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 r.. IX. Closed session under Section 54956.9 (b) Threatened Litigation in connection with Case No. PP 01-09. Mr. Hargreaves stated that this was placed on the agenda in case there was a need to discuss this in closed session. Given the commission's action, it wasn't necessary at this time. X. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of Shepherd Lane Improvements Mr. Drell noted that the commission had a report that talked about the available options. The most traditional one would be to create an assessment district. The assessment district would probably take about a year to set up. In the meantime they would have developers developing. The alternative was for the City just to act and build out that connection. It was for approximately four parcels and would need a 28- i.. foot street at a cost of about $225,000. That would take some time as well because such a program wasn't in the Capital Improvement Program and would have to go through the process and funds would have to be reallocated from some other project to do that. The last option was to continue on as before. To a certain degree it depended on how quickly development proceeds and if there was a stall. Commissioner Jonathan asked what happened if a parcel that is not adjacent to one already approved comes along. Mr. Drell said they would have to put in the extra area necessary to connect. That had already happened and properties that were not contiguous had to put in extra areas of street. From an equity point of view, if they had organized an assessment district from the very beginning that might have been the way to go. He said they would only assess it against the undeveloped parcels. It also depended on whether they could have a way of paying off the assessment if someone did the work before the assessment was instituted and the work was done by the City. From an equity point of view, an assessment district ultimately provides the most chance that no one gets a win fall and no one gets an extra burden. Commissioner Campbell asked if the City paid for it, if it would be billed to the developer when the developer comes along. Mr. Drell said no, that couldn't be done. Once it was in, they couldn't after the fact force reimbursement. There was an ordinance 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 that provides a mechanism for those agreements, but they were purely voluntary. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Drell knew the plans for development of the other four parcels. Mr. Drell said no. Until the streets were completed, as an example Commissioner Jonathan asked if the lots on the south closer to Frank Sinatra, that would be their single point of ingress and egress. Mr. Drell said that some of those cul-de-sacs that front on Portola have an emergency out to Portola. So in those areas there is a secondary emergency access. Commissioner Jonathan was talking about the normal driveway. Mr. Drell confirmed there was only one in and out. Commissioner Jonathan said his concern initially was not creating a situation in the long term that would have a lack of proper circulation. Another solution would be to let the development take place and hope that the timing worked out but at the same time define a point where if development stops because of the economy or other reasons, then they go to one of the alternatives and create an assessment district or the City finish it up so they didn't have a bad circulation situation. Mr. Drell said that when development occurred, they wouldn't reimburse the City for the 28 feet. They would build out the remainder of the improvements which is the full width of pavement, curb and gutter and everything else. They would build that as part of their development. Just like when other noncontiguous parcels come in, the City didn't make them put in full improvements, they only had to put in that minimum 28 feet to get access with the assumption that the other projects would finish out the streets. Commissioner Campbell noted that Shepherd Lane would go from south to north and then make an exit on Portola. She asked what would happen with the other approved lots to the north. Mr. Drell said he believed that the development on the north would be putting in full improvements from Gerald Ford to their property. Then there was another one directly south of that. Commissioner Campbell asked what the City would do with their own property. Mr. Drell said he has asked that in the past because if that property wasn't going to be a golf course and it became residential, they needed some connections into that area and were running out of opportunities to get them as these parcels develop. Hopefully through the General Plan's update they would resolve whether this would be a golf course. There was discussion with the owner of the Desert Wells country club property to the west of possibly trading for land west of Portola for land that we own so that we have better geometry for a golf course. It was a fluid situation. He said they get a new perspective developer of that property about every two weeks. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 r.. He noted that there were all sorts of different ideas from the General Plan Committee members on how that area should develop. Commissioner Campbell asked if they should just go ahead and wait a year to see how many things come in. Mr. Drell said that the Fire Marshal is satisfied as long as we have created these emergency access points to Portola, a second way for them to get in. Chairperson Lopez asked about the lots that didn't have emergency access. Mr. Drell confirmed that they would access through their neighbor's streets since they are public streets and wouldn't be gated. Commissioner Finerty asked if they would want to review this again in six months. Mr. Drell said yes, they should keep an eye on this. As an example, he said that Deep Canyon north of Fred Waring, the City finally stepped up and did it. Commissioner Jonathan said what they were really saying was continue with Alternative 3 which required full street improvements, but look at it again in six months to see if the development of Shepherd Lane is progressing. Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion, continuing with Alternative 3 and reviewing it again in April of 2002. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Drell stated that there was one add on item for commission comment. In order to discuss it, there needed to be a four-fifths vote of the commission to add it to the agenda. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adding the discussion item to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Drell explained that the request had to do with the property located at the westerly end of Fred Waring south of Moller's. Prior to the whole Ahmanson plan and creation of the Desert Crossing Center, this property was zoned Service Industrial. As part of the Ahmanson plan, that property owner requested through Ahmanson that it be rezoned to PC-3, like the Desert Crossing property. That was done. The current applicant would like to build mini warehouses on the property which isn't a listed use in the General Commercial zone. There were two options. The commission could determine that mini warehouses are acceptable in the 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 1 PC-3 zone, but the cleaner option would be to rezone it back to Service Industrial, which is the same zoning as Moller's. From a staff point of view, the use is probably appropriate. That parcel probably did not have a lot of great potential as a retail use and they did have a proposal that was approved a long time ago for a family fun park with miniature golf. He asked for the commission's thoughts. Commissioner Campbell asked if the proposed use was for a self storage facility. Mr. Drell said that was correct and noted that it wasn't a listed use. Commissioner Campbell asked for confirmation that there would not be a manager onsite. Mr. Drell explained that the commission wasn't approving a project, the applicant needed some guidance on how they could make their application, either as a conditional use within the PC-3 zone which was a stretch, or just having him reapply for the previous Service Industrial zoning, which was more of a straightforward zoning and which was what the property was zoned until the property owner asked for it to be changed. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were just being asked to give informal guidance or take a formal action. Mr. Drell said a determination of use would be a formal action, a minute motion, making that finding. If the commission believed it is a sufficiently similar use to those in the PC-3 zone and that they would consider a conditional use permit application under that zone, the applicant could apply under the PC-3 without a zone change. Mr. Drell confirmed that a determination of use didn't require a public hearing. Commissioner Tschopp asked for and received clarification on the location of the property. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that if it was left PC-3 zoning, they would only need a conditional use permit. Otherwise the zone would have to be changed back to industrial as it was originally. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked what would be located on the property east of this. Mr. Drell explained that as part of the Ahmanson deal, the City received all of the hillside area south of Painters Path, with the exception of this parcel which was retained by the owner. This was really the only parcel west of Painters Path that the City doesn't own. The City owns everything above the toe of slope. Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that there is no residential view into this property. Mr. Drell said no. The City owns the property east of it. Moller's owns the property to the north and east of it. Beyond that is property owned by the California Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Drell said that the City's property is zoned Open Space 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 .w so there wouldn't be any homes looking down on it. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the applicant in his letter states that he is looking at approximately 70,000 square feet gross for the storage. The PC-3 zone doesn't allow storage and he asked if there was a code that stated how much storage could be put on a property this size. Mr. Drell said that to get 70,000 square feet, he would probably be asking for two stories. MR. STANLEY COOK addressed the commission. He explained that there is a 30-foot wide Coachella Valley Water District easement running through the middle of the property. It necessitated them putting in multiple buildings. He said facing Fred Waring would be very attractive and behind it there would be a two-story building. Then they would skip over the 30-foot easement and there would be another building in the rear invisible from the street. The idea would be a combination of one and two story buildings. He said they need the space for the drives and they didn't want to block any views. He showed the commission an aerial. Mr. Drell stressed that storage is not a listed permitted use in the PC-3 zone so there wasn't any guidance for it since it isn't a listed use. He said the PC-3 zone includes, but is not limited to, supermarkets less than 20,000 square feet, department stores, banks, variety stores, professional offices, restaurants (except drive-thrus) and general retail uses, amusement, recreation establishments including but not limited to theater and amusement arcades. That is the purpose of the zone. The one exception is the Freeway Overlay Zone near the freeway which allows mini storage. Otherwise, it is not a listed use in the zone. Commissioner Jonathan noted that 2.2 acres is around 100,000 square feet. Mr. Cook said it was roughly 96,000. Commissioner Jonathan noted that 70,000 square feet would be 70% coverage, it would be roads, access, landscaping, etc. Mr. Drell said it would have to be two stories. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 .04 Mr. Cook stated that the footprint would be smaller because they have double stacks. If they put in roughly 30,000 feet on a second level, then they would only be covering about 40,000 feet of actual footprint. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he had doubts about multiple buildings, some being one story and some being two. Mr. Cook explained that right now, the center building would be the largest and it would be almost like wagons in a circle. It would be up against Moller's. There would be a building along Painters Path and then another since they would have to skirt around the large easement. Then in the rear there would be another smaller two-story building. The buildings in the front would be single- story. Perspective wise coming up the street, he didn't think they would see any of those buildings. They would blend into the mountainside. Mr. Drell stated that the commission wasn't considering any specific design and none of their actions would endorse any specific design. Commissioner Jonathan said he was just asking about the size. He asked if Mr. Cook explored other uses for the property. Mr. Cook said that is all he does. Resco develops it for their own use and it would actually be developed as a Shurgard, a large real estate development trust, and he builds for them and they were partners. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that self storage was the only thing his company does. Mr. Cook concurred. He said his understanding was that the property has been on the market for quite some time. Mr. Drell explained there was a problem for a long time because the property owner wouldn't sell it, he would only lease it. That was the problem the dentist who wanted to build the amusement park ran into. Commissioner Campbell asked if he was now selling it. Mr. Drell thought that owner was deceased and his heirs were selling it. WAO 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 Mr. Cook said he wasn't sure. It was in a trust and he deals with brokers. Chairperson Lopez pointed out that the alternatives would be to keep it PC-3 and a conditional use permit. Mr. Drell said his recommendation would be for a change of zone to Service Industrial. For the use to go in PC-3, the commission would have to make the findings that the use is sufficiently similar to the uses that are listed and would consider them in the same category and upon reflection, he felt the cleanest way to go was with a change of zone. The change of zone would be processed with a proposed plan. The downside would be if the developer received approval, bought the property and then didn't build the project and two years from now someone might want to build a restaurant there and then they would have to change the zone back again. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was another option. He thought that PC-3 was an appropriate zoning. He drives by there once in a while and he was struck by how secluded it is and thought from a planning standpoint that they would be able to exploit that feature of the property. To him it was a wonderful location for a restaurant or an outdoor monument sculpture museum or something like that. He noted that there was a pet hospital on Highway 111 in Rancho Mirage that was similarly situated. There were so many uses that could take advantage of that unique location right up against the hillside that he wouldn't like to see it used for something so utilitarian. He said he was open to discussion, but his initial inclination from a planning standpoint was that this wouldn't be the highest and best use of that property. Mr. Drell clarified that the commission also might not necessarily look favorably on a zone change either. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He was inclined to think it is zoned appropriately and should develop into something like a retail, restaurant, outdoor, perhaps a small version of the Gardens on El Paseo use. Something that takes advantage of the environment there. It is a beautiful location, very quiet, very secluded and very peaceful. Mr. Cook said that nothing so far has happened like that at least not within the last ten years. He said he was sent a big package from the title company about the Ahmanson plan which he assumed was defunct. One of the advantages of self storage is he said it would not generate traffic. He said it was a benign use in one sense. He understood what the commission was saying, but `w 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 1 3 .ri a disadvantage of that from a developer's standpoint is that there wasn't traffic or drive-by customers being stuck back in that corner. Proceeding down Painters Path behind Desert Crossing, that street didn't go anywhere. It serviced the channelization along the mountain behind it and ended up back in the parking lot in the corner at Desert Crossing, so. it wasn't a through street. There was another couple of buildings on Painters Path and Highway 1 1 1 and there were some empty restaurant buildings there that were for lease. From a practical standpoint, it would be tough for someone to go on that site and put together something that will work economically. That was the issue, unfortunately. He said he thought they put together something there that would be architecturally very acceptable. He said his architects have worked with staff. Upon questioning by the commission, Mr. Smith indicated there were self storage uses under construction at Country Club near Harris and one was approved next door to the post office. Mr. Cook said it was that same architect. He said there was a stigma to what mini storage used to be. If they drove around the Coachella Valley they could see the different generations from 30 years ago forward. He said they pride themselves on building the best stuff out there. It was easy to say now, but it did have to get through ARC and the City process. He was willing to do all of that. Alternatively, there was the possibility that the property would just continue to sit there. That was the owner's problem more than anyone else, but he would like the opportunity to bring it through to see what they could do. Commissioner Tschopp said to some degree he shared the concerns. It was an important piece of property between two shopping centers. It was tucked away, but sits between two regional shopping centers, one of which has struggled over the years. The owners of that shopping center spent lots of money trying to figure out ways to get traffic in and out of there. Despite the success of some of the business there, businesses on Painters Path have not been as successful as they'd like to be. He believed that synergy was extremely important in retail and there was a need to generate additional traffic into retail areas. So he 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 agreed with Commissioner Jonathan's comments there. At the same time he acknowledged that it would be a tough spot to fill any time in the near future. It might be a possibility for fill in. If they did look at a self storage use, the architecture would be of extreme importance and probably a higher standard than in any other part of the city. Mr. Cook said he agreed and that was their strong suit. They were willing to spend the money to make it that much more acceptable. They needed to be accepted by the community around them in order for them to be customers. They didn't want something that people resented because they wouldn't come. They tried to go a step up in the type of people they service. He said there were two ways to do this. They could go out and buy the cheapest land available in an industrially zoned area and try to put up as much square footage as possible and inexpensively as possible. They do the opposite. They go after parcels and try to put the nicest stuff on there and build a minimal amount to make it work economically. In the long run they thought they could get higher .. rents and a better clientele. He welcomed the challenge of trying to satisfy ARC and the Planning Commission. It wasn't an issue to him to try and spend the time and money to do that. He understood and agreed. They could kind of see this piece from the intersection of Highway 111 and Painters Path. It would meet people's eyes coming down Painters Path to turn into Desert Crossing as well as from the center's parking lot across the street. Mr. Drell said that in either case, Mr. Cook would have an opportunity to make an application regardless of the decision. Obviously if the message from the commission is that they aren't willing to favorably consider an application that would discourage the applicant a bit. Mr. Cook said he assumed there was another path he would have to follow and go in for a formal application. Mr. Drell explained that either way, he would have an opportunity. But what he was hearing was that it would be a challenge. They weren't just talking about form and process, but substance in terms of what the appropriate land use should be and whether the commission was willing to give up on the opportunity for it to develop as more of a retail resort 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 customer oriented facility, not an industrial type facility, regardless of how good it might look. Mr. Cook commented that as a destination use, it was in a tough spot. Which was why he thought it was still vacant. Mr. Drell said they understood that. He noted that he has been to nice restaurants in Hawaii and other places that were quite remote and they sometimes made it if they were extraordinary enough. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. She recognized that it is a remote area, but she didn't think that industrial was the appropriate use and a storage facility wasn't in the city's best interest. Chairperson Lopez said he used to visit that area a lot. He hasn't been by there in a long time, but he remembered a sports bar, billiard club, etc., and it seemed like Moller's has been there forever. Going by the aerial, he thought it would be tough for a restaurant operator to operate from that area, and he was looking at a restaurant, but there were a lot of other uses that could go in that area. But he thought it would be a better use than a storage area. It was one of the last few areas in that area where they had an opportunity to create something neat down there like a park or something else. It was difficult for him to think about dedicating it to a storage facility. He thought there were better uses than storage, but wasn't sure it would be a great location for a restaurant. He would rather keep it PC-3. Commissioner Campbell also stated that she was in favor of keeping the current zoning. She commented that it would be nice to have it residential and use those acres for some beautiful homes with the mountains right behind them. They wouldn't have to keep it retail, but she wasn't in favor of changing the zoning right now to storage. Commissioner Jonathan noted that sometimes they had to take into consideration if they should approve something now and settle or risk letting it be vacant property for a long time. Here it was less of an issue in his mind. It was part of the beautiful mountain scape. It wasn't a trashy, empty parcel in the middle of everything else developed on 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 Highway 1 1 1 or Fred Waring, so it didn't bother him to wait for it to be developed into what he hoped would be a better use. He knew that wasn't what Mr. Cook wanted to hear, but it was better for him to know it now. Mr. Cook said he has already spent the money on doing the environmental surveys and spent a considerable amount of money getting to the point that they deemed it buildable by them. They couldn't just look at a piece of property and determine it was acceptable, they had to do their due diligence. The only other thing he would say to them is that there is a service that would be provided by this use to not only the surrounding residential, but to the surrounding retail. This would allow them additional storage space for whatever needs they might have for seasonal needs. To look back at what has happened historically on Painters Path, the mix of attempted restaurant-retail back there and office use, he believed something could be put there that would please everyone architecturally. In terms of coming back in as a residential piece, he didn't know if there had ever been an application to rezone it �... to residential, but if that was viable, it would be like him coming in with an unlisted use and giving it a shot. Apparently that hasn't happened, so he didn't' know how realistic that would be. He didn't know how many people would want to live there and look at the back end of Office Depot. He said he was obviously biased and had a particular point of view, so he was struggling to figure out how to make it work and seem palatable, although he understood their point of view. The only thing he could do was make a promise that it would be acceptable in final form. He thought it was a viable use. He noted that there was only one other storage facility in Rancho Mirage that was about 15 years old and it was up against the mountain and was full. For any where else in Palm Desert they had to go into the small industrial area off of Cook. That was an older industrial area. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there would be a brand new facility off of Hovley. Mr. Cook concurred and noted that there would be another off of Country Club. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 Mr. Drell thought that Mr. Cook had received feedback about the proposal. Mr. Drell requested a minute motion to determine that at this location that the current PC-3 zoning is appropriate along with a strict interpretation as to the permitted uses. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, determining by minute motion that the current PC-3 zoning and use interpretation is appropriate. Motion carried 5-0. XI. 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 - (October 4, 2001) Commissioner Finerty noted that the committee talked about land use. There are about 1 ,000 acres left and they were discussing whether to continue down the path of resort/ golf course/hotels, or if they should look at more high density. Mr. Drell clarified that there is around 1 ,000 acres of residentially zoned property and more like 1 ,800 acres total, basically the area north of Frank Sinatra. Commissioner Finerty explained that they needed to keep in mind potential housing for the university. There were very diverse views so they would be looking at that issue at many more meetings. 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) 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XII. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan noted that when a building is approved there is a color palette approved. He asked about the building at the southeast corner of Fred Waring and Monterey which was recently repainted. He asked if it went through a staff approval process. Mr. Drell said no. The problem is that they didn't need a permit. Most of the actions were enforceable through the building permit process by withholding issuance of a permit. When people do things that don't require a permit, it was a little more difficult. Staff could pursue it if the commission directed them to. There had been a lot of concern about it but basically we would probably have to cite them for amending their precise plan which included an architectural review and a color palette. Mr. Drell said he didn't know who the owner was but if it was the direction of the commission, they could get in touch with them and pursue it. Commissioner Finerty noted that the color didn't blend in and was inconsistent with the surrounding .. area. Commissioner Campbell said the only advantage was that the signs were gone. Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure if the signs were coming back. He thought the owners thought the color was going to look nice. They put in some nice desert landscaping in the front, so their motivation was positive. He noted that a lot of people look at colors inside buildings under florescent lights and that green might have looked grayish, but not under natural light. Commissioner Jonathan thought the color was only the beginning of the problem. There wasn't any contrast or architectural interest. Commissioner Finerty concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that ideally he would like to see a quality architect add something to it. He wasn't sure if it was a significant enough corner to get the City's participation or RDA along with the owner. Mr. Drell said they could give it a shot. Commissioner Finerty thought they should give it a shot and explore it. Commissioner Jonathan felt it needed a major redo. Commissioner Finerty thought it looked better before it was painted. Chairperson Lopez said they could see if they could work with the new owner or go the route of what was approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Mr. Drell said that sometimes people call and staff will say they'd like to see it and typically most people would do it. This time it was suddenly there. Commissioner Jonathan requested that staff explore the issue and have an informal discussion with the owner. Mr. Drell 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2001 i f s 1 agreed and said he would work with them to see what opportunities there were to work with them to enhance the building. Xill. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adjourning the meeting. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary BEST: JI —,LOPEZ, C air a on Palm Desert PI nin Commission Am i 3 20