Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1106 �1•�'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Dave Tschopp Members Absent: Sabby Jonathon Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Planning Associate Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary Gail Santee, Senior Office Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Consideration of the October 16, 2001, meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to approve the October 16, 2001 minutes. Motion carried 4-0. rrr GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 i V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell reported the City Council affirmed the Planning Commission's approval of the Starbucks project on October 25, 2001, following an interesting hearing which included a contingent of people in opposition from the Jensen's Center. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-26 - FEDDERLY & ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge lots 3 and 4 into one lot for property known as APN 627- 273-003 & 004, 73-825 Larrea Street. B. Case No. PMW 01-29 - WILLIAM WOODWARD STUART, TRUSTEE, Applicant .ter Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge lots 76 and 77 of Tract Map 25296-1 in Bighorn Country Club. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Lopez advised that 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. R G:\Planning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 r.r A. Case No. PP/CUP 01-17 - ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit to amend the master plan of development and approve a precise plan for an auto fuel station, c-store including sale of beer and wine and drive-thru restaurant on a 2.27 acre site at the northwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 74-950 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Drell reported the applicant was still working with the Architectural Review Commission on what might be one of the more creative gas/service station designs, but it hasn't been finalized yet. The applicant is asking that the case be continued to the Planning Commission's December 4th meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing Case No. PP/CUP 01-17 to December 4, 2001. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. CUP 97-10 Amendment #1 - RICK MURO, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to allow a 3,552 square foot expansion to the existing 22,000 square foot health club facility located at 74-824 Lennon Place. Mr. Alvarez stated this item was an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit which was approved in 1997 as CUP 97-10. The CUP allowed a 22,000 square foot health club facility at 74-824 Lennon Place. The applicant is requesting an amendment to add 3,500 square feet which will take place at the east end of the building within the adjacent space which previously was used by the both the applicant and the owner for personal storage. An exhibit of the proposed expansion had been distributed to Commission members in their packets and was displayed at the meeting. In order to provide more space to facilitate larger separation between equipment and machines, some re-arrangement of spaces will take place within the interior of the space and 3,500 square feet will be added. The existing aerobics room which is now located at the west end of the building will be relocated to the east end within the new expansion area. The child care facility will be relocated to the current aerobics room at the G:\Planning\Tanya Monroelwpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 west end. Cardio equipment within the gym will be relocated and separated from the gym equipment within a new space. The former child care facility will be turned into administrative offices for the employees and staff. In terms of access and parking, which was the primary concern in 1997, access will remain the same. Parking is available both in the front and the rear of the building. With the expansion at the east end, ten spaces will be deleted which will bring the total number of available parking spaces down from 158 to 148 spaces. In 1997, 90 spaces were approved on the site and 68 spaces were allocated as on-street parking spaces. With the deletion of the ten spaces, 148 spaces will be available. Staff has reviewed the project in terms of its actual parking demand over the last three years, Pinnacle Athletic Club has been in operation. This has given staff the opportunity to see what the actual parking demand is. Staff has gone out there during peak periods and during the month of October which is the beginning of our season. On pages 3 and 4 of the Staff Report, the results of those on-site visits at various times of morning, noon, afternoon, and evening were outlined. The counts indicated there was a range of between 50 and 80 parking spaces which were occupied out of the 148 available spaces. Staff has had an opportunity to get a good feel for what the demand actually is. On page 7 of the Staff Report, there is a parking analysis which was done by the applicant in 1997 and was updated to today's current allocation of spaces within the health club. The analysis basically indicates what the maximum utilization of all the areas within the health club and how many parking spaces could be demanded at any one given time. That analysis showed between 100 and 112 spaces could be required to accommodate the health club. From the staff's parking counts, the health club uses quite a bit fewer parking spaces than the utilization of analysis shows. Mr. Alvarez reported back in 1997 the adjacent property owner to the west, Mr. Lupo, was on record objecting to the project with concerns about parking and compatibility would be an issue for this health club in this location. Staff spoke with Mr. Lupo on October 31 st and he indicated that to his surprise the health club has been a good neighbor and he has had no major problems with them. One issue he raised in a letter that followed was that from time to time club members would park in front of his tenants' spaces. That issue has been resolved. The applicant, Mr. Muro, has agreed to install appropriate signage in front of Mr. Lupo's parking spaces to prohibit the parking of club members within that adjacent property. G:\Planning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Staff is comfortable that this minor addition will not create significant additional parking demands as the intent of the expansion is to create more space within the general gym area between machines and equipment. With that, staff will conclude and recommend approval of the project subject to conditions outlined on the draft resolution. Mr. Alvarez pointed out another reason why staff feels the request is acceptable for the health club to expand. Mr. Muro is opening another health club facility in La Quinta. Twenty percent of his current members live in La Quinta and it is expected they will relocate to that facility. Commissioner Campbell noted under the original conditions of approval, Condition Number 12, stated "The applicant shall provide a parking attendant to direct club members to designated spaces and away from adjacent properties and fire lanes." She asked if Mr. Muro ever had one or was that ever necessary. Mr. Alvarez responded that to his knowledge it was not necessary. He has been out there on numerous occasions. The attendant has not been there, probably because it was not necessary. Commissioner Tschopp noted on the conditions for permit which apply to this as well as other cases that come before the Commission, the street provides 68 of the 148 spaces. It is predicated that the existing near-by businesses are all closed by 5:30 p.m. He asked what happens if the nature of the street changes down the road, what happens if there aren't enough available parking spaces. Mr. Drell stated that once the applicant implements the permit, once he does his improvements, we cannot add additional conditions. Compliance could be reviewed with existing conditions, but you could not add new conditions. Mr. Drell continued that if there are other businesses that are also open at night that would be competing for the parking spaces, chances are those would be things like restaurants and other uses that would also have to apply for conditional use permits. They would have to go through the same examination - are there enough spaces available that would be in competition with this use. If there are not, then they wouldn't approve those uses. Chairperson Lopez indicated the public hearing was open. The applicant, MR. RICK MURO, 79-195 Nuevo Drive, La Quinta, stated this request was nothing more than their relocating some of their equipment. The child care facility is one of the most popular aspects of the facility and that doesn't create any additional parking requirements. He noted the adjacent property is owned by Waste Management so the propensity of having additional or competing GAPlanningUanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 businesses in the area is very, very low. They won't be selling to restaurants or the likes. Commissioner Tschopp stated the parking study was done in October which is the off-season. He asked, percentage-wise, if his business increased during season where the numbers would be off significantly. Mr. Muro responded about 20 percent. Mr. Alvarez's and staffs' observations have been excellent and are right on. They are about 20 percent less in the summer time. He stated their requirements would probably be about 100 spaces during season. Commissioner Campbell noted the only letter the Commission had was from Mr. Lupo, so no one else in all this time has ever come to the applicant with any complaints or the City would have known about it. Mr. Muro responded that all the worries they had at the beginning about having a parking attendant have not been an issue. One of the things they have the ability to do with their membership agreements is to direct where people can and cannot park. That is part of the regulations of the facility. If and when they do, and occasionally they have had people park in front of Country Club Mirror & Glass, they call the applicant and the situation is rectified. It's very simple and they've been working well with their neighbors. Commissioner Chairperson Lopez asked the applicant if he was comfortable with the condition that he provide the signage for the neighbors. Mr. Muro responded yes, he felt it was reasonable. Chairman Lopez asked if there were any individuals in the audience who wanted to step forward to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this item. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell stated she would move for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as amended. Motion carried 4-0. Move by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2100 approving Case No. CUP 97-10 Amendment#1, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 C. Case No. PP/CUP 01-19 - MULVANNY G2 ARCHITECTURE AND COSTCO WHOLESALE, Applicants (Continued from October 2 and 16, 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. Smith asked if the Commission would like staff to go through the request's presentation. Costco is requesting approval of an amendment to their existing Conditional Use Permit to add 15,510 square feet and the parking adjustment to eliminate 47 parking spaces on the site. The property is located at the northwest corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore. The site plan on display showed the proposed addition on the west side of some 14, 670 square feet and a smaller 840 square foot addition at the entry vestibule at the southeast corner of the building. In the area of the west expansion, 47 parking spaces would be eliminated if the project were approved. Currently, there are an existing 134,280 square foot warehouse business with 838 parking spaces, a ratio of 6.24 spaces per thousand square feet. Code minimum is 5.5 spaces/thousand square feet. The proposed addition would result in a building area of 149,790 square feet and 791 parking spaces, a ratio of 5.28 spaces/thousand square feet. A net shortfall of 33 spaces. The applicant has provided a parking survey which was distributed to the Commission previously. This showed a peak-hour occupancy rate that ranged from 52 to 70 percent Monday through Saturday. Mr. Smith noted with the lower number of parking spaces, those percentages would have gone to 55 to 73 percent. The larger building area will allow for additional merchandise and services. Whether it actually attracts additional members and hence, need for additional parking, would not necessarily be the result. Staff does not feel that even if there were an increase, it would not be significant. Staff conducted a parking survey over a series of days in late August/early September. At that point, the observation was that the east parking area was absolutely empty. They went out there several times and each time those spaces were always available. Along the east side, there are 54 parking spaces. This is the area east of the building and north of the front of the building bounded by Monterey Avenue to the east. There are an additional 21 spaces on the north side of the building. G:\Planning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Mr. Smith stated staffs first suggestion to the applicant was to place the addition on the east side. Unfortunately, there is a major water main that runs through there that will preclude it. Given the location where the expansion can go, the idea was how to make those 54 and 21 parking spaces useable. How can particularly employees and/or customers be encouraged to park there. That will become part of the recommendation. He indicated the architecture had been reviewed and given preliminary approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Findings for approval were outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Staff's recommendation was to approve the request subject to the applicant providing a parking management plan to the satisfaction of the Director. The idea of the parking management plan would be to create a mandatory employee parking lot on the east side of the building, perhaps with carport structures to encourage employees to park in this less-than-desirable area. How they go about making the parking useable, staff is open to suggestions. Mr. Smith continued that if those spaces could made useable, staff could support the requested parking adjustment. He stated the Commission would recall in its previous hearing on this matter on October 2nd, a letter had been received from the property owner to the west and north. It is staff's understanding that Costco representatives and representatives of that owner have been meeting today with a view to coming to some type of agreement on how they can affect an agreement to allow this expansion to proceed. Mr. Smith was advised just prior to the Commission's meeting that they had not yet arrived at a solution or resolution of the matter at this point, but stated the Commission should hear from representatives from each side as they were present before deciding which direction to go - to approve it conditionally or perhaps continue the matter if more time is needed for them to arrive at a solution. Chairperson Lopez asked to be shown where all the parking places are located on the site. Mr. Smith indicated the majority was in the front field with existing parking to the west and parking to the east with a few to the north. The ones to be deleted will be on the west adjacent to the building. Chairperson Lopez asked where the proposed parking management plan would be. Mr. Smith responded the spaces staff observed as being available were located along the east side of the building. The idea would be to make those spaces desirable and useable. Commissioner Finerty asked if desirable and useable would lend itself to some type of coverage such as a carport or shading. Mr. Smith responded yes, stating that when he was out there in August, it would GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 have been desirable to have one's car parked under the shade. But staff was open to other suggestions. Commissioner Campbell asked where the employees park now. Mr. Smith responded there was no designated area. He noted the applicant's representatives may be able to clarify that. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the 840 square foot addition to the entry vestibule was just an expansion and not a movement of the vestibule Commissioner Campbell stated that was usually where the carts were kept. Chairperson Lopez indicated the public hearing was open. The applicant's representative, MS. KIM STEVERS, Costco Wholesale, 999 Lake Drive, Issaqua, Washington 98027, was present on behalf of the company. She responded to the question about employee parking stating that on other sites where the parking has been tight, they have worked with their warehouse managers who work with the employees to designate a particular area on the site. Typically, the sites are designed with sufficient parking. She introduced the Palm Desert facility's warehouse .. manager, Mr. Sylvester. The options they would propose would be to have the warehouse manager work with his employees and have them use the spaces in the back. The second solution they would propose is to actually sign the area. They would tend not to want to do covered parking as a solution. They would rather work with the employees and staff. Chairperson Lopez asked her to describe the expansion. Ms. Stever stated they were primarily adding sales area, improving some of the interior services. The entrance vestibule is being widened. MS. TERRY KIM, Mulvanny G2 Architecture, 1110 112th Avenue NE, Suite 500, Bellevue, Washington 98004, took the floor. Ms. Kim explained in the expansion area the main addition would be to provide additional sales floor for additional merchandise. Also, they would be improving the hearing center, the optical, and providing a larger photo center. They would also be providing a larger entry vestibule as there is a lot of traffic going through there. By lengthening it, it would create a better entrance and exit for all the warehouse members. ' G:\Planning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Commissioner Finerty stated it struck her as odd that on page 2 of the staff report, Costco reports that February, March, and April are their busiest months of the year. She frequents Costco and it seems that December ought to be in there. She asked how they arrived at February, March, and April being busier than December. MR. PHIL SYLVESTER, 78305 Grainger Terrace, Bermuda Dunes, 92201, responded that they had been requested to provide a series of months that were the busiest portion that they thought would be the greatest occupancy of the parking lot. December as a single month, but primarily February, March, and April over an expanded period of time has a greater traffic pattern. December is the busiest single month. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many spaces were on the east and west sides of the building. The applicants responded there were 75 spaces on the east and north sides of the building and about 90 stalls on the west. Chairperson Lopez noted there was mention in the staff report of discussions between the applicant and another party regarding a resolution to some of the problems. He asked for a general feeling of how those discussions were going or if there was a possibility of a resolution. Ms. Stevers responded that a few hours prior it was her understanding there was a verbal agreement on a price for the additional 12 feet for the lane; they were still in negotiations on a sign that needs to be relocated. There is a tentative verbal agreement, but nothing in writing. Ms. Stevers stated that speaking of the negotiations that have been going on between Costco and Joe Walters, the property owner to the west, on Condition #6, under Public Works, bullet #1, they were wondering if there would be a way to, in the event that something changed with the negotiations and they did have further difficulties, if there was some type of language that could be added to this bullet that wouldn't tie their occupancy to getting this improvement completed - maybe bonding for that scope of work or that type of thing. Mr. Drell responded that yes, mainly because we are in essence requiring that they acquire real estate they don't own and they can't compel the seller to sell to them. Typically, that's a pretty hard condition to put on someone. They are willing to pay the cost, but they can't compel someone to sell, so he had no problem with either a bond or cash deposit of what we feel is a reasonable value for the condition. Then, the City would have the ability to force the owner to sell to it. The way it is now, the other property owner has kind of a gun to their head because they have to perform and they have no way of compelling him to perform. So we can change it, we can add "or 1 G:\Planning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 equivalent bond or cash deposit as approved by the Director of Public Works." Ms. Stevers introduced their Traffic Engineer, MS. SERENE SANDELLA, Kim Lee Horn & Associates, 2100 West Orangewood, Suite 140, Orange, California, 92868, to discuss some of the requirements on Monterey and to offer an alternative proposal. Ms. Sandella stated there were several items related to the conditions of approval that addressed traffic concerns outlined on page 4 of the Planning Commission resolution, under The Department of Public Works. Item #2 talks about paying the signalization fee prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Moving down that page to the first bullet, Item #5 where the applicant is required to convert, to modify that signal to 8-phase operation and then indicates that those costs may be credited towards the required signalization fees. Her question was is it really required that they pay the fees at the time of grading only to have those fees credited back. In some other municipalities, once you pay the fees, you don't get them back. Certainly the cost of the modification will exceed, if she understands correctly, that the signalization fee is 50 cents per square foot, then the cost of the modification will certainly exceed those fees. Mr. Drell stated that if the crediting was approved, they tow wouldn't pay it and get it back. They would commit to doing the signal and if it is estimated at more, then that's what you do. Ms. Sandella stated that ties to the next question because the end of that condition does say "subject to the approval by the City Council". Does this whole item go to City Council or simply the crediting of .... Mr. Drell responded the crediting of the fees would have to go City Council. That is a waiver which is not automatic. Ms. Sandella noted there were two bullet items that related to traffic improvements. Ms. Stevers had mentioned that there were third parties involved in Bullet Item # 2 - Widening shoppers' lane - so that item has been addressed. Question, clarification on Item #3 where it says "extend the existing northbound left-turn pocket on Monterey to a length of at least 300 feet plus 120 foot transition". They had had a conversation with Mr. Greenwood about other options. That is obviously a pretty major improvement out on a public street. As he explained to them, his concern was two-fold: That traffic coming northbound on Monterey Drive and turning left, wanted quickly to turn into the first driveway and that traffic mixed with traffic coming southbound on Monterey Drive that also in some cases wanted to turn in, but in some cases wanted to continue straight. He pointed out that because there are two left turn lanes there and many of those people are destined for the first driveway GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 1 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 �a that they do not queue up equally in both lanes, but more to the inside lane, filling that lane and then sometimes in the busy season, overspilling the pocket and blocking through traffic. One of the options that Costco would like to propose is to either through either physical or striped modifications extend the right-turn pocket median to preclude these northbound people from turning first into the driveway and use signing to direct them to the main driveway. That would give traffic in both lanes more weaving distance to get over and make the right-hand turn into what was intended to be the main driveway anyway. There was another discussion about another option, but they decided that this is the one they would like to propose rather than extending the left-turn pocket. One of the reasons for that is that while extending the left-turn pocket may provide a little additional storage in the left-turn pocket, it doesn't take away from how busy this entrance has turned out to be as people head both for the gas station and take the first opportunity to get into the Costco parking lot. Mr. Diercks stated that he and Mr. Greenwood had reviewed the plan and were not in complete agreement with the applicants' thinking for two reasons. First, by extending the right-turn area all you are basically doing is moving the problem from one intersection down to the next. It's not that great of an improvement. Secondly, the people who are coming southbound making a right and then trying to get in the left-hand lane to pull into the movie theaters on the south side have to come across three lanes of traffic in a very short period to get into that left-turn pocket. The extension of the left-turn pocket on Monterey provides a better solution. Ms. Sandella added that their thoughts on the second point, that traffic coming southbound on Monterey then couldn't start their weave over to the other left-hand turn to get into the south side until they get past the median feature. Their thought process was that it would force more of them to continue south and turn into the driveway that is available to them off of Monterey Drive. They were wondering if there were a mechanism by which this could be tested to see if it works and alleviates the congestion and the significant turning movements at this driveway. What is the mechanism for implementing a test situation like that? Mr. Drell responded that unless this case is going to be decided tonight, there will be several weeks to discuss with the Public Works Department to figure out how that could be done. Obviously, those floppy barriers could be put up temporarily to try do that. This is probably a discussion that has to go on with the Director of Public Works and his staff to figure out how we can do that. It is a possibility. We have tested things before. This would probably be a fairly easy thing to figure out whether it helped or not. GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Chairperson Lopez stated another observation would be that the success of the gas facility creates a tremendous backup from the right-turn access into the gas facility. It backs all the way out onto Dinah Shore. This creates a backlog of the turns coming off the freeway exit as well as the left-hand turns off Monterey which from his perspective is one of the biggest traffic problems out there during the prime seasons of February, March, and April as well as any weekend. He asked the applicant how they could address that situation. Ms. Sandella stated people were turning into the first driveway from two different directions and many of those people are immediately destined for the gas station site. The two mixed together cause congestion that backs onto Dinah Shore Drive. This was mentioned in one of the conversations with Mr. Greenwood. Costco has run into congestion around the gas station before and has implemented either temporarily during the busy season or in some cases if it is a continuing or ongoing situation, has implemented peak gas station queuing measures. Ms. Stevers stated they had experienced some success this past summer with their gas prices and have had a few warehouse locations where they have had to implement a queuing management plan. They have had Operations staff from corporate headquarters go down and meet with the local managers and work with them to find a solution on how to queue people in and out of the gas stations. It has been fairly successful in most of the warehouses. In looking at this one, they have worked with their architects and their engineers to come up with similar situations. She presented a site plan overlaid with a queuing plan that had traffic weaving through the parking lot. This would be at their extreme high-volume times where they are backing up the streets. They would ask their gas attendant to close down some of the parking stalls and depending on how much traffic they have to mitigate traffic and loop them around into the site. Mr. Drell asked about closing that access entirely. People only use it to enter and rarely to exit. Is it just inherently a bad place for people to be coming in. Force everyone to the main entrance where they will disburse and you eliminate the stacking problem and everything else. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that what really blocks the entrance into the gas station are large RV's that cannot negotiate the turn from Dinah Shore into the gas station. The attendants have not addressed that. Even if there are spots available where other cars could go to the pumps, the RV because it cannot negotiate the turn because everything is so backed up precludes everyone else from getting into the pumps, consequently, it tends to back up further onto Dinah Shore. The parking management plan should specifically address where RV's should go so they don't block the GAPlanningUanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 entrance. Ms. Stevers stated that was something they could work with their warehouse manager on and training their attendants when they see an RV turning in to pull them up to the front positions to get them out of the way. It is a training issue. Commissioner Finerty stated there needs to be a way that the RV's can enter and easily negotiate the turn. Mr. Drell stated these were all good ideas, but we weren't going to redesign the facility here. These were ideas that could be taken back to the Public Works Director and have a meeting with the Traffic Engineer and see if a variety of solutions could be discussed and tested to see how they work. Ms. Stevers stated that in regards to closing the access, they would prefer not doing that at this time. However, they would certainly work with staff to come up with alternate ideas. Commissioner Tschopp asked what the procedure was if they were being asked to review this, but don't have a traffic plan at this time or it is in question. Is the Commission being asked to refer this to the Traffic Engineering Department to come up with solutions. Mr. Drell responded yes, because what was being discussed were conditions the Engineering Department is applying to this expansion. Are they reasonable conditions and are they the right ones to address the problem. One thing the Commission might want to deal with is it satisfied with the on-site situation with the expansion versus the parking. If it feels the parking problem is insurmountable, then there is no point in discussing the details of traffic mitigation out on Dinah Shore. If the Commission cannot resolve that, all the other conditions become mute if it isn't going to approve the project at all. The other problems are existing problems that probably don't have a lot to do with this expansion. Do you feel this expansion is appropriate given the parking situation. Commissioner Campbell asked if the Commission approved the expansion, then the traffic problems for the gas station wouldn't be coming back to it. Mr. Drell responded the Commission could indicate in a kind of preliminary vote, kind of a minute motion, saying yes there are at least three votes in support of the expansion and some direction relative to the parking solution so the applicant knows it is worthwhile for them to pursue the far more technical conditions relative to the traffic mitigation. Mr. Drell stated the whole thing would still be brought back to the Commission, but if it wasn't willing to accept the parking solution then there is no point in talking about the other mitigations. Commissioner Tschopp stated some of the mitigation measures being talked about for that corner to approve the expansion of the building appear fairly radical. We've heard closing an entry, we've heard extending a right-hand turn lane that would force more people into the GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 main entry. In his mind that doesn't work because there is already a problem with the main entry. Closing the entry or changing the traffic pattern there may not be acceptable to some neighbors who haven't been noticed that this may be part of this. How do we pull all this together if we are looking at an expansion here. Mr. Drell responded that we were not in a position to approve a plan relative to all these traffic things. Our assumption is that we can experiment with some of those solutions without irrevocably.... each solution has its benefits and drawbacks. Of course, one could argue, that this is a problem that is inherent in the existing store which isn't going to go away and this is an opportunity for us to fix it. If we don't approve anything, then we have no opportunity to fix it. There are some situations when you can never fix it. The store seems to work fine. He goes through the intersection every Tuesday evening during high traffic flow and it may not be perfect, but it is part of the price of the success of the center. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Diercks if there was any accident history out there - has it been a hazard. Mr. Diercks responded that nothing that is real noticeable. Mr. Drell stated it might be a hassle but there isn't carnage on the roadway. We are trying to fine tune a very busy place as best we can. He wasn't sure it was going to get any worse or better if we don't approve this expansion. Chairperson Lopez noted there were several conditions that are associated with the request this evening. Some of those are conditions that raise questions that come up with solutions that create more questions. For instance, if you decide you want to re-direct traffic, the first thing you say is that you'll close down parking spaces. Well, that's another issue regarding available parking and we are talking about parking issues tonight. There are things that as this continues will raise other questions. One of the options we have tonight is to go through the process and if there is a recommendation for continuation to go through these particular items and conditions as they pertain to traffic and concerns that the Commission has, knowing that the remainder of it might be OK. The expansion might be alright, the proposal for a 33-space shortfall might be OK, the conditions regarding associate parking and employee parking recommendations might be fine, but there is truly a concern regarding some of the conditions attached to this that create suggested solutions to the traffic around there. Obviously, in the world of retail, you expand so you can increase your business by increasing your average check or adding more customers. By adding more customers, you add more volume, more traffic. He felt they continue through the process and continue with the public hearing and the Commission will come up with its recommendations at the end and the direction it would like to see the applicant go. GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Chairperson Lopez asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to this item. MS. KAREN MITCHELL, introduced herself as the representative for Joseph Walters and JM Madiera, the property owners adjacent to Costco. She stated that Joseph was contacted on October 31 by Costco and he is very willing to make this work, they just need a little more time to come to an agreement. There is the issue of the land cost which she had not received the verbal agreement phone call yet, but they were almost there when she last spoke to Joseph. Also, this is a developed pad site that is next to the drive so there is the issue of relocating the monument signage, the landscaping, irrigation, curbs, and those are the other items that are still in negotiation. He is willing and both parties were in communication during the day, but hadn't yet concurred. He had voiced a concern regarding making sure the expansion does not encroach into the no-build area which was listed in the CC&R's. They had received a verbal that it does not from Costco and they are going to issue a letter to that effect. In closing, she stated that if anything does happen with the traffic issues, they would like to be kept abreast of that and be involved somehow or noticed so that they can attend and be a part of that discussion. A Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and ask for comments or recommendations from the Commission_ Commissioner Finerty stated that in view of all the concerns, she felt it would be best to continue the case and get the issues the adjacent property owner has dealt with, give the applicant a chance to work with Public Works and get through some of these items that were being discussed. She asked that the applicant come back with some sort of parking plan that would include a form of covered parking because that would be the best way to entice people to park there. If Costco feels there is another type of plan that would work better, what would that plan be. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Finerty's statement, but would also be in favor of all the addition to the building even though the plan has a 33-space shortfall. All the other solutions should be taken care of and looked into. Commissioner Tschopp favored a continuance just to address some of the issues that have been raised with the next-door neighbor and to get clarification on exactly what we want to do with the traffic. He is not opposed to the building expansion because a lot of the parking on the east and north sides has been either under-utilized or not utilized at all. In GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 talking to some adjacent property owners and managers out there, the west side is hardly ever used. With some proper traffic plan and an enforced employee parking plan, the 33 spaces could be picked up. Increasing square footage hopefully would increase the number customers, more traffic, therefore he would like to see the traffic mitigation problems addressed now. Chairperson Lopez concurred with the continuance stating it would be an appropriate action. He conveyed to the applicant that he did not have a problem with the plan as far as expansion is concerned and the parking situation as long as there is a viable plan, or at least a plan the applicant feels will be followed by the employees. If they can utilize those spots on the east and north of the project to park the employees, in his opinion, they would have no problem as far as approval on the project itself. However, it is appropriate to continue it so they can have a healthy conversation regarding the traffic situation that exists around that area as it continues to grow, hopefully, with the applicant's continued success, we can at least go back and try to fix what is currently there. He goes down to that area quite a bit on weekends and the intersection is pretty hectic, especially now that prime holiday time and season are approaching. We want to take into consideration of where the opportunity is improve the situation, not only for the applicant but also for the other merchants that are down in that area. Chairperson Lopez stated the public hearing remained open and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing Case No. PP/CUP 01-19 to November 20, 2001. Motion carried 4-0 D. Case Nos. PP/CUP 01-22 and PM 30342 - ART JORDAN on behalf of SGH PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for an office/industrial corner consisting of eight buildings and an eight-parcel parcel map for a 19.39 acre site located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Smith reported the property was located on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive, some 1,720 feet east of Cook Street. At a previous meeting in ..► October, the Commission approved the plan on a 6-acre development to the west. This property is immediately east of that 6-acre site. In the GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 packets, a revised tentative parcel map was distributed showing five lots instead of eight lots. The four lots that form the westerly half of the this development have been turned into one lot and it is staff's understanding that the applicant has decided he doesn't need to have the ability to sell off various pieces in the future. He is going to retain it as one development and as one unit the four buildings which make up the westerly half of this project. In total, you are looking at a 19.4 acre site. It is generally flat and bounded on the north by the railway and the future storm channel. Across the street to the south, you have a future phase of Cal State. The property is covered by the Wonder Palms Master Plan which designated the site as part of Planning Area 4 with land use emphasis for industrial/business park and gives it a zoning equivalent of P.I. - Planned Industrial. The proposal is for an industrial/office complex consisting of eight two-story buildings, 30 feet in height. Phase One is the westerly end, approximately one-half. The four westerly buildings range in size from 12,160 square feet to 41,540 square feet. In that first phase, there will be a total of 130,680 square feet. The second phase, located at the easterly end, will be the mirror image. The first phase has been designed with three access points. One at the west border where it abuts the property to the west. Those two properties will share an ingress/egress. As well at that point, the two sites will connect in that you will recall that part of the approval on the previous application for the property to the west, the signalized intersection in this area is located at the mid-point of the westerly development. It was required that that owner grant onto this owner the right to left-turn movements in and out of the site at that point. Therefore, there is a requirement for an easement to connect the two sites. In total across the entire 19 acre site will end up with five access points. One at the extreme west end which is shared with the property to the west; one at the east end which will be a shared access with the parcel to the east; a center access point which is shown at the easterly limit of Phase One. That access point will be right-turn in, right-turn out and left-turn in - there will be no left-turn exiting at that point. That is not a signalized intersection, but will have the protected left turn movement in. Mr. Smith stated the parking standard for a development of this type is two spaces per thousand square feet. With that standard, you are limited to a maximum of 20 percent office area. The presented plan provides 3.42 spaces/thousand square feet and meets the code. The architecture for the four westerly buildings is desert contemporary with extensive use of tilt concrete panels in a tan-to-brown range. The architecture has been given preliminary approval by the Architectural Review Commission subject to modification on the proposed glass. Mr. Smith indicated he had received GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 that afternoon a proposal on the glass type which will be going before the ARC next week. Relative to the parcel map, he noted it is now for five parcels instead of eight. The project meets or exceeds the P.I. code requirements. Findings for approval of the application are outlined on Pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report. For the purposes of CEQA, the matter has been previously assessed. He indicated staff had met that afternoon with the applicant to discuss at length a series of Public Works conditions. A revised list of the Public Works conditions were distributed to the Commission members. Mr. Smith's recommendation was to delete the conditions relative to Public Works contained in the draft resolution in the Commission's report and insert the conditions shown in the revision. Mr. Smith proceeded to go through the changes for clarification. Public Works Condition #1: added retention area shall be accommodated by widening the mid-valley channel in accordance with the drainage study for this project. Widened area of the channel shall be offered for dedication to the City. Condition #2: Leaving in the first sentence and taking out the remainder. Condition #12, second bullet point: changed to read ,. "Installation of one-half width of a raised median island along the project frontage. The project may provide a cash payment in-lieu of construction for the required median island." Condition #13: at the end of the first sentence "a maximum of 40' in width or as determined by the City Engineer." In the last sentence, reference to 33.3% was deleted. Mr. Drell explained that Condition #13 refers to the fact that relative to this easement there has to be cooperation between this property and the adjoining one. Both of them have the same condition on them that they grant each other these easements. If they cannot come to an agreement on their own, they have to come back to the City and it will impose something. Mr. Smith continued stating Condition #16 had been deleted. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to step forward. MR. WES BALMER, Balmer Architectural Group, 2111 E. Highland, Phoenix, Arizona, addressed the Commission, stating his appreciation to the staff for resolving most of the issues they had. Chairperson Lopez asked members of the audience who would like to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to step forward. There were none and Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for comments or actions from the Commission. GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Commissioner Campbell moved for approval subject to inserting the revised Public Works conditions of approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving Case Nos. PP/CUP 01-22 and PM 30342 subject to including the revised Conditions of Approval. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2101 approving Case No. PP/CUP 01-22, subject to including the revised Conditions of Approval. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS REQUEST BY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN FOR FUTURE CVWD PROJECTS IN PALM DESERT. Mr. Drell explained these are mundane improvements that CVWD has to do in the normal operation of their system. Under their operating regulations, they have to get determination by the City of Palm Desert that they are OK. Staff has reviewed them and found them acceptable. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, determining by minute motion consistency with the Palm Desert General Plan future CVWD projects as described in the August 27, 2001, CVWD report. Motion carried 4- 0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (October 24, 2001) Commissioner Campbell reported at the last meeting the entire commission went over some goals as to what and where they wanted to go ahead and have some art in public places placed within the City. They picked out some specific sites which they are now going to take to the General Plan Committee whenever that particular subject comes up. GAPlanning\Tanya Monroe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2001 B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) �.. C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE -(No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (November 1, 2001) Commissioner Campbell reported discussions had centered on land use. Mr. Drell stated they would be organizing a tour of some of the sorts of alternative housing and subdivision designs being contemplated. He is currently getting information from the various builders now. It will hopefully be within the next two or three weeks, sometime before the next meeting. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (October 23, 2001) Commissioner Finerty reported they had been reviewing on-going projects. 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) XII. COMMENTS None. XIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adjourning the meeting. The motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. PHIL DRELL, ecretary ATTEST- OPEZ, C i man m Desert a ing Commission /gs G:\Planning\?anya Mon roe\wpdocs\GAIL\PC110601.min 21