Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1204 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 4, 2001 • 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Diercks, Engineering Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the November 20, 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the November 20, 2001 minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION .. None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-32 - RCSH OPERATIONS, INC. (Ruth's Chris) and SCHMID INVESTMENTS L.P., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to consolidate two parcels into one. B. Case No. PMW 01-27 - NIZNICK ENTERPRISES, INC. and BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver for a lot line adjustment to enlarge a parcel at 100 Lantana View (Bighorn). C. Case No. PP 00-11 - KENNETH KATZ, VANESSA KATZ and WILLIAM BROZ, Applicants Request for approval of a one year time extension for the precise plan of design for a 64,521 square foot office complex on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 300 feet west of Fairhaven Drive, 72-600 Fred Waring Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the purpose was of the lot consolidation for Ruth's Chris. Mr. Smith explained that they needed to consolidate the two lots for setback purposes to eliminate the center property line. 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 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4 2001 .. described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PP/CUP 01-19 - MULVANNY G2 ARCHITECTURE and COSTCO WHOLESALE, Applicants (Continued from October 2, October 16, November 6, and November 20, 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 explained that staff distributed copies of the ARC minutes of November 6, 2001, which was the last time this item was discussed at length by them. He noted that there was also a meeting with staff and the applicant last Wednesday and it was his understanding there was discussion at that point relative to the conditions being recommended by the Public Works Department and the applicant was now in agreement with those conditions. He said that commission had a copy of the October 2, 2001 staff report with the draft resolution and conditions. He stated that staff was expecting a letter today from the property owner to west, but it had not yet arrived. Mr. Drell explained that he spoke with that property owner on the phone and he was told �.. they came to an agreement and he was going to fax Mr. Drell a letter confirming that, but right now he only had the oral confirmation of an agreement. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. KIM STEVER, Costco Wholesale, 999 Lake Drive in Issaquah, Washington, 98027, concurred that they met with staff last week to discuss the items that were brought forth and they were in agreement with the conditions. She said that she did have a letter from Joe Walters, the property owner, and they came to a signed agreement. Mr. Walters had indicated to her that he would have someone for him in the audience. The only item that they discussed with staff at the last meeting was wording that they asked to be stricken or reworded and that was in Public Works item five first paragraph. She said they had asked if they would strike the words "but not limited to" and that was the only item. Mr. Drell acknowledged that request and stated that the wording was what staff wanted in the condition. The additional language discussed included those necessary improvements to accomplish the conditions. Apparently Public Works had a concern taw 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 that there are a lot of little things that have to be done to accomplish the big things described there, so they wanted to make sure those were included, but the only things that were included were those associated with the listed conditions. Ms. Stever said the other item was that they wanted to go forward to ask City Council for credit toward the signalization fees. She said they hoped to work with staff on the parking mitigation plan and showed the commission an exhibit outlining the location of the required employee parking. Part of the way they have implemented this at other warehouses is through staff meetings and meetings with their employees where they presented them with the site plan and tell them where they need to park and part of that was done visually by going out and seeing that their employees are using the stalls. If they have 70 to 100 employees and they aren't using the stalls designated, it was a pretty good indicator that they weren't following those rules. She said there were 85 stalls in that area. Commissioner Finerty asked if they came up with any plan to deal with the problem of RVs blocking other vehicles from entering into the gas station. Ms. Stever said they discussed with staff opening the area a little wider and staff seemed to think that would be a fairly decent solution, widening the entrance to keep people from backing out. Commissioner Finerty asked how the RVs would negotiate the turn. Ms. Stever thought that if it was wider they would have better opportunities to get into the queuing positions. Commissioner Finerty asked if Ms. Stever had discussed this with Public Works to see how much wider it should be. Ms. Stever said they discussed an additional 10 to 15 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked when she would anticipate starting and completing that work. Ms. Stever said it would be done at the same time as the warehouse addition. Commissioner Finerty asked if she would mind that being added as a condition of approval. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 tow Ms. Stever said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the purpose of the agreement with the property owner to west. He noted that staff said that the minutes were distributed to commission. It was clarified that they were passed out just before the meeting started. Ms. Stever said she would describe it. She noted that some of the conditions had to do with improving the intersection. They needed some additional land on that side of the property, about 12 feet, so the agreement was to acquire rights to that land to widen it. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Ms. Stever said that there would be 85 spaces available for employee parking. Ms. Stever concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many employees were typically working there at one time. Ms. Stever said it was more than adequate and generally there were 50-80 at `. any one time. She noted that the warehouse manager was at the meeting to confirm that. Commissioner Jonathan asked if at peak periods during the holiday periods it was possible it would go over the 80. The warehouse manager spoke from the audience and indicated that if the business grows enough, they would provide offsite parking and negotiate with the adjacent land owners to go off site. Commissioner Jonathan asked what kind of agreement was here that it would be designated parking for employees and what kind of implementation and enforcement program they intended to use. Ms. Stever said that one idea they discussed was perhaps fining employees for not utilizing the parking. Also, having the spaces numbered. Another idea was through a record keeping program. They could have a card with the employee's name, make and model of their car, license plate number, etc. She said it has been pretty strict for them and they haven't had any problems implementing this type of program in the past. %W 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2001 Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that this has been implemented at other locations. Ms. Stever concurred that they have very similar programs. She confirmed that there wasn't a program in place now because they had adequate parking so they never had a need. But they have this at other locations where parking is a bit tighter. They also have it at their home office because they have a warehouse at the corporate location. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that they didn't have a plan at this time. Ms. Stever clarified they have some ideas on how to implement it and were hoping to work with the Planning Department. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't have a problem with the application. There hadn't been any significant problems out there, but the issue in his mind that was a potential concern was the parking. He thought that occasionally there was a parking problem now, cars are stacked to go into the gas station and occasionally there were times there were parking spaces roped off for retail activities. However, through an adequate implementation and enforcement program for employee parking, that could be an effective means to mitigate the problem. So he would be in favor of the application conditioned on: 1) a written plan for implementation and enforcement of an employee parking program. He didn't want to hold up the application, but he wanted to see it at some point since this technique was being used more and more often in the city. 2) Whether it was through a condition or methodology, he felt the commission should have the ability in a year or five years to come in and take Costco up on their offer which is if this isn't working and parking is not adequate, then they have to seek other mitigation measures such as offsite parking which has been done at other locations. With those two requirements he would be in favor. Commissioner Finerty concurred with Commissioner Jonathan and thought that Planning Commission Condition No. 9 would address the parking plan and she would also like to see a copy. She also recommended as Condition No. 10 that the driveway to the gas station be widened by 10 feet to 15 feet. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4 2001 i•. Commissioner Campbell agreed with both commissioners. She noted that any time she has been there she didn't see a parking problem. Sometimes she didn't find spaces close enough to the store, but there was adequate parking. She also agreed with the addition of Condition No. 10 and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Tschopp thought the applicant met the conditions and the concerns expressed at the last meeting with working out the problem with the neighbor. He thought the implementation and enforcement of an employee parking plan would work as outlined in Condition No. 9. He added that in other areas where there have been problems with employee parking, sometimes rewarding employees worked. He also thought the intersection concerns the commission had at the last meeting had been addressed and was also in favor of the project. Chairperson Lopez concurred with the other commissioners. He thought it was appropriate for the conditions to include a written plan for the employee parking to make sure the gas station entrance is widened to mitigate some of the traffic problems that occur there. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2104, approving PP/CUP 01-19, subject to conditions as amended to include revisions to Condition No. 9 and addition of Condition No. 10 to the satisfaction of City staff. Motion carried 570. B. Case No. PP/CUP 01-17 - ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, Applicant (continued from November 6, 2001) Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit to amend the master plan of development and approve a precise plan of design 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. Smith explained that this matter was continued from November 6. At that time the applicant had not concluded his review through the Architectural Review Commission. r.� 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2001 I The applicant obtained ARC preliminary approval of the gas station and convenience store portion of the application. Mr. Smith stated that the property is located at the northwest corner of Gerald Ford and Cook Street. He noted that in 1997 there was approval of a development agreement for much of the area at the north end of the city on either side of Cook Street. In June of this year the City Council approved a master plan of development on the north side of Gerald Ford immediately west of Cook Street providing for the service station site they were reviewing tonight, an 88-room Hampton Inn which has been approved but hasn't commenced construction, and a future restaurant use on the westerly side of the hotel property. At this time the applicant was requesting approval of a precise plan of design for an auto fuel station and c-store which would include the sale of beer and wine. The second part of the application was for a conditional use permit to amend the master plan of development to expand the auto fuel station's site pad to the north for a future drive-thru restaurant. The expansion of the master plan would add some 29,994 square feet to the north side of the service station site immediately west of Cook Street. They didn't have an end user for the drive-thru restaurant. That site plan provided for a 2,685 square foot drive-thru restaurant with a 1,520 square foot play land. Twenty-five parking spaces were shown. Mr. Smith explained that the fuel station was provided for on the master plan at the corner. The fuel station includes a 3,600 square foot c-store which has a parking requirement for 20 spaces and the plan provided for 25 spaces. He noted that the site plan provided for the necessary connections to the Hampton Inn site and to the property to the north. The pump island had been oriented with the narrow end toward Cook Street with the access point just northerly of the pump islands. Mr. Smith indicated that the architecture is contemporary and received a positive response from ARC. He explained that similar architecture was carried onto all four sides. The pump island canopy has a series of solar panels located on the top. Commissioner Jonathan asked if those would be visible. Mr. Smith said they would be visible from above, so they could be seen from the overpass. As noted previously, ARC granted preliminary approval of the architecture which did not include approval of the sign. The sign would be looked at further. Regarding the master plan of development amendment, staffs review on it concluded that the site plan for the fast food restaurant did not meet the ordinance requirements for usable open space and for parking, therefore, staff was unable to support it at this time. Specifically, the fast food site plan provided the 31% landscaped open space, however, there was insufficient usable open space as required in the Freeway Commercial Overlay District. This provision would require a common usable area of some 4,500 square feet. At this point the major usable area would be the play land at approximately 1,520 square feet. Relative to the c-store and fuel station, it complied with the ordinance and existing master plan of development, it received preliminary approval from ARC and staff felt 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4 2001 •. the findings for the precise plan of design on the fuel station and c-store could be met as outlined in the staff report. That aspect of the application was reviewed for environmental purposes as part of the original master plan and part of the original development plan. The project would be assessed the mitigation fee for fringe-toed lizard purposes at $600 per acre and depending on the project timing, it might be subject to additional mitigations required by the Coachella Valley Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan which is currently being prepared. Staffs recommendation was to continue the request for the amendment to the master plan of development to allow the applicant to work with coming up with more usable open space on the plan and approve Case No. PP/CUP 01-17 for a fuel station and c-store with the sale of beer and wine, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the entrance to Cook Street would have right-in right- out access. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the 23-foot height was the canopy height. Mr. Smith explained that the canopy is 18'6" and the c-store is 23 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was single story. Mr. Drell said that the height was for parapets to hide the mechanical equipment. Typical commercial buildings were close to that height. Mr. Smith noted that the roof-mounted equipment on the c-store was a point of contention '�► and they raised it to screen it as much as could be done. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the northerly site is the portion that Mr. Smith was suggesting be continued and the applicant was considering a fast food restaurant. He asked if the development agreement had a current designation for that site or if it was left open. Mr. Smith said it was part of the Freeway Commercial Overlay District which provides for drive-thru fast food restaurants. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that in terms of a precise plan, the commission would not be changing the existing use to fast food use. Mr. Drell said that the current development agreement has very generalized use descriptions which were consistent with the zoning designations. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on where the almost 30,000 square feet were being proposed. When they said added on, he wanted to know if it was being added onto the current application or if the applicant intended to acquire it. He asked for clarification on what staff meant when saying the applicant wanted to expand the site. Mr. Smith explained that the existing master plan was approved last June with three uses: the fuel station/c-store, hotel and then a future sit-down restaurant. So the applicant was requesting to expand the master plan. Chairperson Lopez asked if there was enough property there to accommodate another 30,000 square feet. Mr. Smith confirmed there were 30,000 square feet there. Mr. Drell also noted that there were huge amounts of vacant area around the corner and it was all owned by a single property owner. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there was some construction activity going on 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 z across Cook Street from there and they had the right lane closed off and a big bull dozer was doing some stuff. He asked if that was completely unrelated to this application. Mr. Diercks explained that it was a storm drain project that would eventually affect the whole intersection and was a separate project. Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was open and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CRAIG YAMASAKI, 4 Center Pointe in La Palma, California, informed commission that he is the Zoning and Development Manager for BP Arco. He stated that he was pleased to be at the meeting. At the beginning of his career at Arco in 1985 he said he was assigned the Coachella Valley and was told to find a location in Palm Desert. At the time Palm Desert had never approved a convenience/food store/gas station 24 hours selling beer and wine and he recalled telling management that he was as welcome as a nuclear toxic waste dump. And he was pleased to report that it only took three and a half years to get it approved and he had so much fun he thought he would try again. He indicated that he has tried to find another location in Palm Desert. About the only place he could find was out in the north 40 at this intersection. He tried in r vain to work almost every quadrant of that intersection and the closest he ever got was the northwest quadrant. The one thing that always stood in his way, and he literally tried for five years toward the end of his career to acquire this piece of property, was that because it was because development in the area was in its embryonic stages, he was never able to get someone to let him buy just a portion of the property. It was not until development came toward the freeway and there was ample interest from other tenants that could provide the necessary economic components that would make this a reality. The reason he was telling the history was that he was more or less trained on how to be a real estate representative in this city. He was taught not to come to a city, especially one like Palm Desert, with an attitude of "don't you know who we are" and "you're lucky we're here to put one of our facilities in." They worked hard to find out what is expected and then try to come up with something even better than that and that is what he had learned from Palm Desert. He said he and his development team have attempted to approach this development with that attitude. The further challenge they had was that unfortunately today, even with the additional development that has occurred in this area, the piece of property available to them is considerably larger than that which they would prefer to buy. Their standard modus operandi was to just buy what they want. In this case if they wanted to pursue this location, it was necessary to acquire a much larger portion. He said they struggled to earn a unanimous recommendation 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 from ARC after much challenge set forth by them. He said this particular facility is unique in that it is the first iteration after British Petroleum's take over of Arco in that this is the footprint of the building as a global design. He stated that management admonished him to never ever bring something this expensive or complicated to them again. He told them they should expect no less than Palm Desert. Mr. Yamasaki stated that in this case the trouble he had, which he normally wouldn't, was with the staff recommendation to postpone or continue the approval in concept of a fast food restaurant at that location. That was extremely detrimental to their project and if they were faced with that, the real estate manager had to go back to top management and say, "I've approved this site based on the economics of being able to at some point in time sell this project to a fast food restaurant." He said that the economics did not work on this project if he had to absorb the multimillion dollar cost of acquiring more than two acres for something they were only going to use a little more than half of. That was a concern. He said that he was hoping after the commission had seen the project they developed that the commission would feel that they have worked hard to earn an approval on this and the conceptual development. Having worked with the city, understanding and knowing the city, he felt perhaps there was another concern that wasn't expressed in the staff report and that was that the fact that the thought of fast food restaurants in Palm Desert is simply not on the high point list of any member who governs how this city is being run, but grudging it was given consideration. He said he actually saw it in print so those people who have less than optimistic feelings about this were able to dig down deep and push that green button a few years back. He noticed it was still sitting there vacant and he wanted the commission to know that anyone who would bring a project forward of the fast food variety would have him at their side hovering over their shoulder and perhaps being here when they bring it forward because he had a hunch that unless they were willing to make the sacrifices he knew all of the commissioners would expect from them as an applicant, they didn't have a chance. The only thing he was asking of the Planning Commission was to allow them a chance. He believed they have brought a project forward to them that is worthy of consideration as a c-store and gas station, but because of the unusual circumstances and the acquisition of the larger piece, he was more or less handcuffed to this fast food project whether he liked it or not. He couldn't read the future. If the commission was disposed to continue this project, he would be disappointed, but he would try to find a way to raise the comfort level. If the commission continued it, it would be because they didn't do the job he believed they ought to in convincing them that they as a company, as the land owner of this parcel, realize what it takes and that they weren't even close to getting approval. He believed that 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 i some of the hesitancy he could see in terms of approving something even in terms of concept was one, because it has never been done before; two, because it wasn't the kind of development Palm Desert associates itself with; and three, they might not be convinced that he as an applicant would know what was necessary to earn their way to actually have the first drive-thru fast food restaurant in the city. In conclusion, he said he would distribute letters that he has obtained from people like Buford Crites, ,lean Benson, Dick Kelly, and Pat Conlon, and while they weren't aware of his project this evening and by handing them out he wasn't suggesting that they supported this project in any way, he just wanted to demonstrate to the commission that he has worked long and hard to earn a reputation in this community as someone who is attempting to be the kind of applicant they wished to have instead of the kind they often had. (He distributed his letters of recommendation to the commission, copy on file in the Department of Community Development.) In conclusion, he said they would be happy to demonstrate the technical components, but he put his architect under the severest instructions that they needed to meet or exceed the requirements on the northern component of their project. He said he listened to one of the commission members questioning the panel on the solar canopy, something he wasn't prepared to or in a position to offer to the city as part of their solar canopy. He stated that it is something British Petroleum has taken an initiative with because they want to develop solar energy and positioned themselves as a green fuel company. He said that at the time they had what he thought weren't the most attractive solar panels. With the impetus his company has to have this project be the first global alliance British Petroleum/Arco AM PM of this design, he told them this should be a flagship and got permission to use the special photo electric components which are tinted glass. What they would see in the actual building permit proposal would not be the panels that look like air-conditioning filters, but the canopy itself would be curvilinear, they would be able to look up through it to the sky, and it was like a tinted glass dome that extends over the canopy. He said the built cost was going to be nearly $1.5 million, so this would be something unique and if there was any hesitation about the height of their canopy or its look, he assured them it would be spectacular. If one could ever love a gasoline canopy, this would be the one. Commissioner Finerty asked what type of fast food Mr. Yamasaki was anticipating. Mr. Yamasaki said it would be the finest variety. They would be selling snack items and sandwiches of the variety seen in AM/PMs, but the new concepts , people that work on the interior component were developing things that in his 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4 2001 tow opinion were a cut above the fare of what they have been offering. Even though he believed there was going to be a tremendous improvement in the quality of the food that would be offered, it was not likely to be considered a fine dining experience, but sandwiches, snack items, sodas and milk, small grocery items typically found in a convenience food store, but they would be better quality. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that he wasn't looking for something like a McDonald's, In and Out Burger, Carl's Jr., Starbuck's or Dunkin' Donuts. Mr. Drell clarified that the question wasn't the use of the c-store, but the fast food for the north portion. Mr. Yamasaki said that from an economic standpoint because of the price of the land it would be a Class A fast food type such as McDonald's or In and Out. He believed that there were a number of fast food restaurants out there that have the wherewithal financially to earn a place in that northern hemisphere. There were a less number that have the wherewithal to earn their way into Palm Desert's planning matrix. So long as he could go to his management and say in concept a fast food use would be allowed provided that they pass muster that would be what he would hope for. tow Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Yamasaki understood that right now they weren't meeting the requirements of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone. The fast food restaurant wasn't adequately screened nor was there usable open space. Mr. Yamasaki explained that it was only last week that they became aware of that and that it was a deficient component. Having said that, he didn't want the commission to think that Mr. Smith intentionally blind sided them, but since this was a relatively new thing, and he thanked Mr. Smith because he had worked diligently to help them get to the point they are now, the focus has been on the AM/PM portion and to Mr. Smith's credit when he did find out there was a deficiency he let him know immediately. Mr. Yamasaki said he got his elves busy on that and they did a design that hadn't been officially submitted. He also said that Alex Cuevas, their architect was present, and he wanted to officially go on record that they apologized to Carolyn Miller who graciously agreed to stay long beyond normal business hours to meet Mr. Cuevas, but he was in traffic and was running late. He called and left a message which he was afraid she wouldn't get until tomorrow. tow 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 a Commissioner Campbell noted that she wasn't that familiar with fast food and asked if the play area was a necessary component for a fast food restaurant or if it was mandatory. Mr. Yamasaki said that he was pleased to say that he spends less time at them, but he knew that on those occasions he does visit them there are a few that have playgrounds. It was certainly an interior thing, maybe attached to the building. The requirements set forth by the Palm Desert Specific Plan would be unique to most fast foods in general. Commissioner Campbell asked if he would be able to eliminate the play area to add that area to the usable open space. Mr. Yamasaki said that Alex Cuevas had redrawn the plan and would present it. Mr. Cuevas addressed the commission and showed the plan for the fast food restaurant concept. When he found out they had to show how it really worked, he spent the weekend putting the plan together. He stated that one of the biggest concerns Mr. Smith had related to the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone District where it talks about landscaping and usable landscaping, which was not demonstrated on the previous layout. The plan he presented to the commission showed the 30,000 square foot property with 30% landscaping, which was about 9,000 square feet. He said they were providing about 12,000 square feet of landscaping for this site. The required usable open space is 5,900 square feet, almost 6,000. What they were providing is 6,100 square feet. They were meeting all of the requirements of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone District. There were also some requirements for parking. The size of the building is approximately 2,900 square feet, which is a typical McDonald's, Burger King, Carl's Jr., or one of those buildings. The requirement is 29 parking spaces and he was providing 29 parking spaces. As well, there was another requirement for seven parking spaces for the queuing lane for the drive-thru and he was providing those seven. The plan he showed the commission had those elements provided. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the usable public space was usable open space. Mr. Cuevas said yes. On the 2,140, right on the front of the building and side to the south, that area could be the play area and it could be considered also usable. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 �+ Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the requirement for usable open space was actually about 4,500 square feet. Mr. Cuevas said the way he understood it, it was 50% of the 30%. He confirmed that 30% was about 9,000 and 50% of that would be 4,500. He stated that because he was providing over 11 ,000, he was giving 50% of that 11,000. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification as to whether the requirement went up as the total landscaping goes up. Mr. Drell said no. If the applicant provides excessive landscaping, the open space requirement didn't go up. Looking at the plan, Commissioner Jonathan asked if the actual provided usable open space was 1,351 square feet, plus the 2,140, plus the 2,644. Those three areas comprised the usable open space. Mr. Cuevas said that was correct. In the 2,140 square foot area, that could be the play area. He indicated that when he talked to Mr. Smith about how this could be used, it was actually mentioned in the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone under landscaping dog park, kids land or picnic area. The way he saw it, right in front of Cook, that could be the picnic area where people can sit when 141W they're traveling toward Phoenix because they have a ditch there for retention and they would put in a wall right in front of it so people could sit and take a break. On the back there is a four-foot high wall there to screen the lights from the cars going through the drive-thru. That could be used as the dog area since it is away from traffic. Commissioner Jonathan asked how customers would access that area. Mr. Cuevas said there was a walk area behind the wall. Commissioner Jonathan asked for confirmation that it couldn't be accessed directly from the restaurant. Mr. Cuevas concurred. He said they didn't want it because they would be going across drive-thru lane traffic. Mr. Drell said that theoretically there also could be an arrangement with the hotel for their guests to access it from their parking lot. Mr. Cuevas agreed and said they could have a straight access. i.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 Mr. Yamasaki pointed out that his architect handles the technical details and what he refers to as a ditch is actually a heavily landscaped park-like setting for the streetscape and there would be tables there. Mr. Drell said he wouldn't mind recommended conceptual approval as long as the conceptual approval included an understanding that the precise plan would be expected to comply with all of the established requirements of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone. The fact that the zone exists allows them to apply for a precise plan which meets the standards of the zone. To acknowledge that as far as this approval he didn't believe was a problem. Since they were just presented with this plan, staff wasn't prepared to say that this plan was the right one and as long as it was known that all of those aspects of the zone will apply, they could receive a conceptual approval. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments and/or action. Commissioner Campbell stated that she liked this project. She was in favor of the convenience store and gas station. She said she would like to add Condition No. 23 as has been placed on other convenience stores that there be no public phones outside the building because that creates loitering which should be prevented. Regarding the fast food component, she thought this was a good area to have a drive- thru. She knew that staff was requiring additional landscaping to the north which shouldn't be a problem for the applicant. Her previous question about the play area, if it wasn't required, she suggested keeping it an enclosed area but an open grassy area. The plans appeared to provide adequate open area and if it wasn't a problem for the applicant that 2,100 square foot open area could be open and grassy because more people would be able to use it instead of just children going through the play equipment. She was also in favor of the fast food area. Mr. Drell asked if there would be a public restroom in the c-store. Mr. Yamasaki said there would be two. Commissioner Campbell said that the last one she was in was a place that prepared sandwiches and had pizza and she was very impressed. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the applicant had done his homework and did a good job and he commended them for that. He hoped that when it ultimately gets built 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2001 it was close to the beautiful drawings. Sometimes when things are built they don't quite resemble what was approved. He didn't think that would be the case here and thought they would do the drawings justice and looked forward to that. He thought the circulation worked, the design was beautiful, all the planning elements were appropriate, so he was generally in favor of the project and thanked them for providing ample parking. Sometimes that was a battle they had to fight and he appreciated that they didn't with this project. Conceptually he was in favor of the fast food use there. He thought that their challenge was not so much to keep fast food out of the entire city boundary, but to designate areas where the use is appropriate and they have done that, and then to insure that what is developed as a fast food restaurant is done in a quality manner. Part of that endeavor is to insure that they don't get boxed in and that there is adequate landscaped areas. Based on the discussion, the applicant had a full and clear understanding of the requirements and they wouldn't get blind sided, nor would any potential tenants that they talked to. He hoped that when they did have a specific tenant that they didn't hear from them or the applicant asking any exception because he felt very strongly that the requirements in place were appropriate. They had proven that it is possible to meet those requirements and still make the project pencil out for everyone involved because the commission understood that necessity as well. He was in favor. He also noted that he didn't have a problem with public phones and thought they were a public service. He didn't think that particular area was a loitering area and he would be more concerned if it was in the middle of a residential area. He didn't have an issue with the phones and didn't know if Arco was in favor of them. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that the college is in close proximity. Commissioner Jonathan noted out that not everyone has a cell phone. Mr. Yamasaki stated they would be happy to comply either way. He has actually seen an evolution and quite often the ones using the phones now are using them for legitimate purposes. Commissioner Campbell noted that they could be located inside the building. It would be a little different from having people hanging outside. Mr. Yamasaki said they would be happy to comply with any recommendation on that issue. He informed commission that Arco has the strictest no loitering policy. Commissioner Jonathan said that he is in favor of what has been presented and thought that Mr. Yamasaki had done a fine job. He agreed with Mr. Drell that this plan might not be the most appropriate without further review, but the applicant had proven that it is workable, so conceptually he would include approval for the fast food use. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 Commissioner Finerty stated that she was sure that her fellow commissioners and staff never thought they would see the day that she would be in favor of a fast food drive- thru, but this was a project that was well designed and that has taken into consideration all of the needs that the city requires. Conceptually she would be in favor of the fast food. But as Commissioner Jonathan stated, they would be held to the highest of standards with no exception. She appreciated Mr. Yamasaki's cooperation with the City in keeping these high standards. Commissioner Tschopp concurred with the other commissioners. He agreed that the architect had done a great job and conceptually showed that it could work. He thought that they were hearing loud and clear that the future user's attempts to modify or ask for exceptions might not be warmly received. Chairperson Lopez also concurred and congratulated the applicant on the homework that was well done. He thought the project, the c-store and gas station, was wonderful. For the fast food, until the presentation, he was going to ask for a continuance on it but he thought that they had proven that it was something that could conceptually work there and was the best place for it. He thought it would be a huge success with the proximity of the university. He also agreed with the commission that when the fast food use applicant came before them asking for changes, it would be carefully scrutinized. He asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff and including conceptual approval of the drive-thru and the phone inside the building. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2105, approving PP/CUP 01-17, subject to conditions as amended allowing public telephones only on the inside of the building and including conceptual approval of a fast food restaurant. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. PP 01-13, Amendment No. 1 - CARL VOCE and ROBERT RICCIARDI, Applicants Request to amend previously imposed conditions and thereby delete the requirement to dedicate property, design and fund the 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 installation of a cul-de-sac on San Juan Avenue north of Alessandro Drive, 73-700 Alessandro Drive. Mr. Smith explained that commission received a copy of the site plan in their packets. The request was to amend previously imposed conditions. In July the Planning Commission approved a precise plan of design for an office complex on the property located on the north side of Alessandro between San Pascual and San Juan. Public Works Conditions 4 and 5 refer to a cul-de-sac on San Juan Avenue north of Alessandro. Condition 4 requires the applicant to dedicate appropriate right-of-way and cash payment in lieu of the cul-de-sac and Condition 5 requires the design of the cul-de-sac and approval by the Fire Marshal. Mr. Smith stated that at the meeting of July 17 there was no discussion on the cul-de-saccing of San Juan Avenue. It was not discussed during the public hearing and the applicant did not bring it up, nor did his representative question it at that time. On September 6, outside of the appeal period, a letter was received objecting to the conditions and that letter was the basis of the amendment request. Mr. Smith indicated that commission received a copy of the letter with their staff report. Mr. Smith stated that the Palma Village Specific Plan has policy statements in it, one of which provides that local streets should be closed or modified to discourage non-local through traffic when it is consistent with public safety, sound circulation planning and the wishes of an effected neighborhood. Mr. Smith said that Public Works Department, in a memo dated November 13, felt that it was implementing that policy when it presented the conditions requiring the cul-de-sac. This is an instance when they have the Planning Department on one side of this issue and Public Works on the other. Planning staff did not feel the policy in the Palma Village Plan had the intention that every local street would be closed or modified, but rather where specific streets are impacted to a significant degree, they should look at closure or modification. They did that at Monterey and Acacia where they modified the intersection to restrict traffic flow northbound on Acacia and at San Jacinto and Alessandro behind Arco just west of Portola. San Jacinto was closed due to traffic trying to bypass the intersection at Alessandro and Portola. Staff didn't see the same level of problems on San Juan Avenue. Planning staff felt closing San Juan would put unnecessary pressure on other north-south streets in the vicinity. In this instance closing San Juan might create more problems than it actually solves. Public Works staff felt the dedication should be required and it was approximately 500 feet and payment to construct the improvement at some point in the future. They did agree that they should 4MW 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2001 have specified a time limit that they could use to decide whether to implement it or not and they were suggesting that they would have to make a decision on whether to actually install the improvement within five years, otherwise the dedication and payment would then be returned to the applicant. The plan distributed to the commission had the arc of the future cul-de-sac marked on it in red. Ironically that was the exact area where commission, in response to a request by a neighbor across to the east, imposed a condition requiring additional or enhancement of the landscape treatment in that area. So if they were going to go ahead and put the cul- de-sac in, they would effectively take out most of the opportunity to accomplish that goal. The applicant requested that the conditions be amended to delete the requirement to dedicate, design and pay for the cul- de-sac on San Juan. It was Planning Department's position that the commission should amend Conditions 4 and 5 of Public Works Department, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2083, deleting the requirement for property dedication, design and cash payment of the cul-de-sac on San Juan Avenue. He said that Mr. Diercks was present to address Public Works' position. Mr. Diercks said that Mr. Smith basically iterated everything that was involved with the cul-de-sac. He said it was Public Works' stance that the right-of-way and money for construction of the cul- de-sac should be set aside. They weren't sure if it would ever be constructed. It wouldn't be looked at as one cul-de-sac at a time, but as a series of cul-de-sacs within this residential area. It wasn't just a one-shot deal. He wanted to point out that if the commission rescinded these conditions, they couldn't get it back, so the possibility of putting in a cul-de- sac in the future would be gone. If push came to shove, they wouldn't push for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Drell pointed out that to implement this cul-de-sac, they would have to buy right-of-way from the adjacent residential property owner. They still had the ability to do it. They would just have to pay for the right-of-way instead of getting it for free. Mr. Diercks said he wasn't aware of that. Mr. Drell said that according to the plan, as much of the cul-de-sac was on the residential property owner's side for it to work. He wasn't sure if that property owner understood that the cul-de-sac was going to take part of his property as well. Mr. Drell said he was the guy who wrote the Specific Plan and he had the idea of cul-de-saccing these streets 17 years ago. Since then, where they have had similar office buildings adjacent to residential neighborhoods, they have not had a significant problem created by those office buildings from traffic. There had been problems with insufficient parking and where there wasn't any street parking. He said there are two theories on traffic. One theory is to isolate streets with cul-de- 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4 2001 %W sacs and then concentrate them on collectors. The other was to keep as many streets open as possible so that the traffic that exists gets distributed, so no street gets overly impacted and no street is completely empty. When looking at the circulation plan for this area, going down the side streets isn't really convenient to get someone anywhere with the exception of the first one, San Jacinto, and as cars stacked up on Portola, they saw this opening and used it. These other streets are far less obvious and far less useful for anyone to use as a cut through. If they start closing one, they just push the traffic on either side to streets that aren't closed, which meant they would have to close those and push all the traffic onto the one not closed. Ultimately some group of property owners get impacted overly and others get a wonderfully quiet street. In this case it was staffs feeling it is best to keep these streets open since they don't provide an obvious advantage for someone to cut through and that allows the distribution of traffic across a wide variety of streets where no street would be overly impacted. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would still be a driveway in that location if there was a cul-de-sac. Mr. Smith indicated that the original plan had two driveways going out to the east. The plan that was circulated has one driveway to the east now, so they would still have one driveway. The tow plan shows that both the driveway and cul-de-sac can be accomplished. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the draft resolution has the elimination of the required cul-de-sac to allow for additional planter area. Given the request of Public Works, he asked if there was a way to have both. A planter right now to screen the area but still some options down the road if it is decided that the cul-de-sac is the way to go. Mr. Drell asked Public Works why the bulb was offset so that it looked like there would be a greater impact on the residential property to the west then on this property in terms of where the curb ends up. He thought the curb seemed to be further into the front yard of the west side. He asked if the plan he was looking at was inaccurate. Mr. Diercks said it looked the same to him. He said it should be centered on the centerline. Mr. Drell said that there was a question that if there was a sidewalk, then the entire area for the planter would be eliminated. If there was no sidewalk, there was probably room for the trees because it looked like the new curb was only two or three feet in from the old curb at that point. Mr. Diercks believed that the existing curb lines remained as is on both of the streets. With the cul-de-sac, the center of the bulb was probably 10 to 12 feet inside from the existing curb. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they proceeded without the cul-de-sac 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 today, if they could install the planter and then when a cul-de-sac was necessary, install it in the future. Mr. Drell didn't think they would want to go to the expense of planting large trees there and then tear them out for a cul-de-sac. Once the site plan is modified to provide for it, they weren't going to come back later and redo the parking lot so they could use the area. Either they have to assume that the dedication occurs and that the cul-de-sac is going in and would not landscape it as if it wasn't. They might put in shrubs, but not 24-inch box trees in an area they might rip out in five years. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a sidewalk outside the bulb, because if there wasn't and he didn't think one was necessary, then most of the planter area was still available. Mr. Diercks noted that typically there is a six-foot sidewalk from the curb face. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the sidewalk was unnecessary and was eliminated, then most of the planter area would remain available. Mr. Diercks concurred. He said there is about five to six feet. Commissioner Jonathan thought that answered the question on whether or not it could be done because most of the planter area would still be available. Chairperson Lopez noted that the request was to eliminate Public Works Conditions 4 and 5 concerning the cul-de-sac and what he was hearing from Public Works was that they were not pushing for the cul-de-sac and Planning wanted to eliminate it. Mr. Diercks concurred and said that Mr. Drell wrote the report and it was Public Works' interpretation that he wanted a cul-de-sac at that location and at a number of locations. That wasn't the case now and Mr. Drell wasn't pushing for it, so Public Works was not going to push for it. It was something they could live with or without. Chairperson Lopez asked if the original presentation had a cul-de-sac there. Mr. Drell indicated it didn't, it was just within the condition. The exhibits they saw didn't show a cul-de-sac and the plan did not anticipate a cul-de-sac. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CARL VOCE, 545 Via Media in Palos Verdes Estates, California, addressed the commission. He pointed out the landscaping area, the location of the driveway and indicated that they planned to plant three large trees since the neighbor requested screening of the parking lot. If they did the cul-de-sac, the trees could not be there. He said he agreed with the recommendation. Another thing brought up was traffic. If they have a cul-de-sac, the people who go north would all go on San Pascual. All the traffic 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 would end up on San Pascual and he didn't think it would be fair to load up that street. He said he talked to a lot of the neighbors and they didn't like that. If there was another hearing, the whole neighborhood would be against the cul-de-sac. On San Jacinto he noticed that there are some barricades and he suggested that if in the future it was necessary to block the street, they could install a barricade like that one. It would be an easy thing to do and they wouldn't have to build a cul-de-sac or buy land from the neighbor. He wanted it eliminated and thought a cul-de-sac would do a lot of harm to all of the neighborhood. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request. MR. ERIC BALZAR, 44-750 San Pascual, said it was odd to be present in agreement with everyone. Their concerns were traffic and 17 years ago there was discussion of cul-de-saccing San Pascual because the taxi company does the servicing of its vehicles on the corner. The cul-de-sac interested him and he said the thought behind it was interesting because San Pascual goes through to Fred ``" Waring. They get a lot of traffic, unnecessary traffic, and rather high speed traffic. San Juan doesn't go to any thoroughfare. It was a couple of blocks long. The phone company was a mess with a semi truck on the street there that has been there for years. They moved it when the street was resurfaced, so he knew it could move. Their parking lot is seldom used, so that wall could be pushed back to get room for a cul-de-sac. Rather than waste everyone's time, they thought it was superfluous and not needed and if they wanted to put a cul-de-sac in they should do it on San Pascual for all of them. MRS. BELVA BALZAR, 44-750 San Pascual, said she also had a letter from another resident of San Pascual, Betty Crawford of 44- 560 San Pascual. Her note said she wanted the plans for the cul-de- sac at San Carlos and San Juan rescinded. San Pascual is way too busy now and they did not wish to see more traffic going up and back from Fred Waring or from Alessandro. Mrs. Balzar concurred with the note from Ms. Crawford that they didn't need any more traffic on San Pascual. r.. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 2001 Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval without the cul-de-sac. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving 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. 2106, approving PP 01-13, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (November 21, 2001) Commissioner Campbell stated that the committee discussed sites for art in the Palm Desert corridors. 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) 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2001 H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Diercks was going to report back to the commission on the Vintage traffic matter. Mr. Diercks said that they talked to the Sheriffs Department the next morning. He said they hadn't talked to The Vintage directly, but Mr. Greenwood was talking to The Reserve. He concurred that he would get back to the commission regarding the Portola service entrance to The Vintage after talking with them. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: J OPEZ, a4nin son P I Desert PlaCommission /tm %MW 25