Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0219 ��•�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 19, 2002 '� - 7:00 P.M. - ClVIC CENTER COUNC)L 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 Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan r"" Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Senior Management Analyst Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the January 15, 2002 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to approving the January 15, 2002 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. ti. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 .rf V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent January 24 and Februa�y 14, 2002 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 00-23 - LAKESIDE PROPERTIES, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension for a mixed use commercial complex located on 2.35 acres on the southeast comer of Cook Street and Green Way Inorth). Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner ' Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion � carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. PM 29888 - KENNETH KATZ / WILLIAM BROZ, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map to create three parcels to accommodate a previously approved three building office complex on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 325 feet west of Fairhaven Drive, 72-600 Fred Waring Drive. 3 � � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 �.. Mr. Smith explained that the request was to create a three-parcel parcel map. One of the parcels would be for condominium purposes. Back in 2000 the Planning Commission approved and recommended to City Council an office complex on this site. Mr. Smith stated that the map would not alter any physical aspect of the approved precise plan. Access, parking and landscaping would continue as presently approved. Staff was concerned that the map might record prior to getting the project off the ground and they would be left with three owners or two owners with no one taking the initiative to proceed so there is a condition applied which would limit the recordation of the map until the time a building permit has been taken on it. As well, staff circulated to the commission an updated condition, Public Works Condition No. 12, which was requested by the applicant and was acceptable to Public Works. With that amendment, he recommended approval of the map, subject to conditions. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. �, MR. KENNETH KATZ, 77-587 Ashberry Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Katz had any comments. Mr. Katz said no, they are satisfied. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Katz was comfortable with the staff recommendation. Mr. Katz said he was not only comfortable, he was totally in favor. He said their intention is to build out the first two front buildings and at the same time develop all of the parking related to the church and all of the infrastructure and subsequently finish off the back building. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this item. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. �n. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 Action: it was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 21 10 approving Case No. PM 29888, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. PM 30486 - REAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map to create a total of four parcels to accommodate the existing Albertson's building and three additional undeveloped pads along the east side of Deep canyon Road north of Highway 1 1 1 , 74- 580 Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Smith noted that the property is at the northeast corner of Highway � 111 and Deep Canyon. The Planning Commission approved the Albertson's center in 1995. At that time it included development on three pads with a total of 21 ,000 square feet along the east side of Deep Canyon. The owner did not process the parcel map at that time and was requesting to do so now. Mr. Smith stated that it would not alter the access points, the parking, or the landscaping. Staff received a letter today from Mr. Godecke across the street expressing issues relative to the elevation of the properties. Mr. Smith stated that the sidewalks in the parking lot are in place and wouldn't change. That would be the elevation. Regarding advertising signage on the windows and placement of dumpsters and if they would be visible from Deep Canyon. Mr. Srnith responded that there would be signage on the fronts of the buildings facing Deep Canyon just like the other businesses that front on Deep Canyon. There would be an additional dumpster placed in the parking area to the east of these buildings. He didn't believe that would be visible from Deep Canyon. Regarding sidewalks, currently there are no sidewalks along the entryway access to Albertson's. He spoke to the applicant this evening and the obvious place for the sidewalk was on the southerly side of the north parcel when it would develop. There are two driveway accesses from Deep Canyon. It made more sense to put it on the north 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 r.. side of the north driveway because that gave a straight shot into Albertson's as opposed to coming in at the southerly most driveway because it would dump someone into the parking lot, which is a busy parking lot. It wouldn't serve any purpose and would dead end them into a parking lot. With that, staff recommended approval of the map as conditivned. Commissioner Campbell noted that there are plans before ARC now and asked what the proposed use would be. Mr. Smith got out the plans. He explained that the matter went th�ough Architectural Review last Tuesday and there was concern about the street elevation. At that point it did not have a glass element to it. The architect provided staff with a revised plan this afternoon. It provided for spandrel glass in the elevation facing Deep Canyon. Mr. Smith said he didn't have the elevation with him of the parking lot side, but it was of the same character. Commissioner Jonathan asked what kind of use they were talking about. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant would have to address where he ` is headed with that and noted that this is the same applicant who did the other multi tenant building on the other side of the parking lot with Starbucks and Dairy Queen. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification that the only issue before the commission was the parcel map. Commissioner Campbell asked if it would be coming back to the Planning Commission after ARC review. Mr. Smith said no. The pads were approved as part of the original approval in 1995. He noted that the Architectural Review Commission meetings were open if anyone would like to attend. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHRIS SCHULTZ, Nickerson and Associates on behalf of the applicant, 68-955 Adelino Road, stated that they have reviewed the conditions and accept them as written. He asked for any questions. �r.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 Commissioner Jonathan asked what kind of uses they were looking at for the pads. MR. ROB SANFORD, Real Property Associates, 50790 Mango in La Quinta, informed the commission that he wasn't sure at this time. He confirmed that he has some ideas, but didn't have any leases signed. Commissioner Jonathan asked what kind of potential uses he was looking at. Mr. Sanford said there would be some food and the rest would be retail. He anticipated three to five tenants, but probably four. He wasn't sure at this time. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were limitations set forth in the precise plan for the center regarding restaurant versus retail use. Mr. Smith stated that the City has a typical 20% limit. Total square feet was 82,000, so they didn't have anything close to 20,000 square feet; 16,000 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that included this side of the center. Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked what the size of the building would be. Mr. Sanford said 7,712 square feet. Commissioner Campbell asked for the building height. Mr. Sanford explained that the main frame of the building is 22 feet. One section is 24 feet and that excludes three towers that go up a little higher than that. Commissioner Campbell asked if they go up to about 30 feet. Mr. Sanford said yes. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 �.. was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan thought the parcel map made sense and moved for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbetl, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 21 1 1 approving PM 30486, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-O. C. Case No. CUP 02-01 - CHURCH OF CHRIST PALM DESERT, Applicant �.r Request for a conditional use permit to allow a church to operate from an approved 6,000 square foot office building on the south side of Parkview west of Joshua Road, 72- 415 Parkview Drive. Mr. Smith explained that in September of 2001 Planning Commission approved an office complex on this property. Two medical office buildings. He indicated access is from the east end of the property on Park View. The easterly most building would be around 9,000 square feet and occupied by Dr. McLachlin, a local dentist. The second building was approved as a 6,000 square foot medical office. At this point there was a request to approve the use as a church facility by Church of Christ Palm Desert. He stated that it was the applicant's intention to originally go in and occupy about half of the area, approximately 3,027 square feet. The rest of the space, the remaining 3,000 square feet, would be leased for office use. It is their intention that within five years or so they would hope to be large enough to occupy the entire 6,000 square feet and eventually sell the building and move onto another bigger site , elsewhere in the community. The Church operates on Sundays between 8:00 a.m. and noon and between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. They also do � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 fellowship meetings on Wednesdays between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Mr. Smith stated that churches are permitted uses in the O.P. district subject to issuance of a conditionaf use permit. The use of the property for the church on the days and hours mentioned would not overlap with the other building on the site. He said it looked like a good mix of use on the site. The plan before the commission showed 160 seats in the sanctuary area. He was advised at this time they have been having 54 people per service. There was plenty of growth in the plan before them. The parking lot plan for the entire property provides 86 spaces. Code allows three seats per parking space, hence, total permitted use could go as high as 258 seats. Mr. Smith said it was a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. Staff's recommendation was to approve the request, subject to conditions. The condition was that the occupancy not exceed 258 persons. Commissioner Campbell asked if the building before them was the same as they previously approved architecturally. Mr. Smith ihought they had added some trellis work to it or were in the process of adding some trellis work. It needed to go back to Architectural Review for final approval and there was a condition on it to add some additional trellis work around the entries. Commissioner Campbell asked if otherwise it was basically the same building. Mr. Smith agreed that it was very similar. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith's calculation of the parking availability was based on the entire complex, the parking lot for both buildings. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a limitation or restriction against the other building's use on Sunday or Wednesday nights or whenever services are held. Mr. Smith said no. Commissioner Jonathan noted in staff's recommendation Mr. Smith was indicating that approval of the conditional use permit would contain a condition limiting the maximum use to 258 seats. Divided by three that was based on the total 86 parking spaces, the total available on site. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan said that if there wasn't a restriction against the other building using the parking lot, he was asking why Mr. Smith would conclude and recommend that the limit be based on the assumption that the full parking lot is in fact available. Mr. Smith said that the basic use is on Sunday and the alternate use is on Wednesday evenings. It seemed that ' the dental office in the other building would not be operating during either 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 �.. of those times. If they just wanted to limit it to the parking associated with this building, then they would bring the number down to 162. There would be 36 parking spaces at three seats per space, 108. Commissioner Jonathan noted they want 160 right now. Mr. Smith said no, they only want 54 right now, but they showed staff a plan that has up to 160 persons. Commissioner Jonathan said that the application before the commission was for initial approval of up to 160. Mr. Smith said the application actually didn't specify a number. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on what ihe commission was being asked to approve and the staff recommendation. Mr. Smith said that staff's recommendation was for 258 based on the total site. Commissioner Tschopp noted that some time ago there were a couple of other churches before the commission that were having some difficulties with traffic congestion and he thought that was based on the same formula used here. The commission had asked the Planning Department to take a look at this issue at churches and asked if there had been any progress on that. Mr. Drell said that the problem was at that particular � church due mainly to multiple services where they had overlap, people coming and going and a huge sanctuary at the same time. They could arbitrarily say that because this town has more retired people and fewer kids that they should have more of a two to one than three to one requirement, but they were going to be looking at the whole Zoning Ordinance when we finish the General Plan, but staff had not done anything specifically on it. If they wanted to be conservative in this case and go with what they are showing, somewhere in between, that was 160. In all likelihood chances of during those off hours having significant other parking is remote, but if they wanted to approve simply what they have on their plan, 160 some seats in the interim, then if they want to expand further, they could come back and we would know the dynamics of that center and their congregation to see if it constitutes a problem. Commissioner Jonathan asked the status of Building "A" and if it is owned by the dentist. Mr. Smith said that at this time the whole property is owned by the dentist. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the intent was for the dentist to own and occupy Building "A." Mr. Smith concurred. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it would be appropriate to ask the applicant to condition the approval on having sufficient spaces available �... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 .di and not using offstreet parking. When this first came before them, he remembered the neighborhood being concerned about parking in the neighborhood. He asked if it would be appropriate to have the applicant to state if there is a problem with parking in the neighborhood that they will take mitigation measures to take care of the problem, such as car pooling, etc. Mr. Drell believed that the project is designed to be walled off from the neighborhood and didn't think there was even pedestrian access. Commissioner Campbell said that was correct. Mr. Smith noted that there will be a fire access, but it will be closed other than for fires. He indicated that the permit for that is under review at this time, so the wall would go in ahead of the rest of the project. Mr. Drell stated that they could add a condition which limits the number of seats and says they must institute a trip reduction program if their demand exceeds that. It is never anticipated how successful a church might be. At this point in time it wouldn't be a bad idea to limit it to something lower than their capacity so that if it becomes a wonderful attraction to the citizens of Palm Desert, they will have an opportunity to review it before it hits that point. � ..� Chairperson Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. LEWIS BISHOP, the architect and trustee for the Church, said he could answer questions on both ends of those issues. He said he found it wonderful that they were worrying about how many cars they would put into the parking lot because over the last few years they haven't had ihat problem. Current activity includes about 54 people per Sunday. During summer, their activities are 35% to 40% of their winter activities. They have a modicum of growth, but he didn't think they would come back to the commission at some date in the future for some considerable amount of tirne. He said the plan says that the building is adequate to accommodate some rental space because they do not need the total amount of square footage that the doctor got approved in the plan that was approved earlier. They are currently occupying ; approximately the same amount of size as they presently do in the community building located in the Civic Center park. He said they � would be very amenable to saying that if they exceed 160 seats ; �./i 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � or some other number, if they were to take the parking number and muftiply it by two instead of three, he thought they wouid come up with 192 or even a little less and said that they would have to come back to the commission for approval for anything more than that, then they would be amenable to that kind of a condition. The other issue with access and parking in the neighborhood, in looking at the doctor's plans and how they were developed, it appeared that it would be very difficult for someone to park in the neighborhood and climb a six and a half foot fence on top of a berm full of sticky bushes in order to go to church on Sunday. He thought that issue would be a little bit moot and that the walled area of the property is pretty severely restricted including the wall on the commercial sides over eight feet tall on the commercial side. It precluded anything other ihan using the property. Since they use the property on very off hours, the logic of keeping mixed uses together so that one didn't impede the other and things worked together seemed to be a good idea. In addressing the architectural issue, they did make a couple of small � changes to the building in order to accommodate different entrance pieces. They have two entrances on the south side of the building facing the parking lot that are trellised in the same manner as Dr. McLachlin's building. Then they had another trellis on the east side of the building that would be the location of their entrance into their section of the building. With those additions and a couple of minor additions and removal of a couple of roofs and cleaning up a little bit of the outside, the architecture will remain as the commission approved earlier. Commissioner Jonathan said he agreed that compatible and complementary uses are ideal. His concern is to ensure that is what in fact happens. The potential problem is that they don't anticipate that the dentist is going to use the office on Sunday, but things have a way of changing. He remembered the days when banks weren't open on Saturdays. Things had a way of changing. Furthermore, it might not be a dentist in there next year, it might be an urgent care facility that is open on Sundays. Those are things that the commission had to be concerned about. He noted that the building itself apparently has 36 spaces that are allocated to it in the parking lot using the current formula. :�.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 �� a Mr. Bishop said that in general that would be correct. He explained that they are in the process of purchasing the pad and a right to use the parking lot. The right to use the parking lot is a 100% right to use all 86 spaces. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood that there was probably a reciprocal access. Mr. Bishop concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that in terms of when they approved the project and run the calculations there are 36 spaces allocated in concept in terms of being available for the users of that particular building. The rest of the spaces are then considered available for the users of that particular building, but the rest of the spaces are then considered available for Building "A." If they assume 36 spaces, multiplied by three, that results in 108 seats that would be permitted without exceeding the ordinance standard. His thought was to possibly approve tonight seating ' up to 108. Then, if and when they are able to secure an agreement with � the other building owner for x number of years, that building would not be used on a Sunday. For example, he personally wouldn't have a problem expanding the capacity to whatever number of additional spaces are available all the way up to 258 if that was the case. Mr. Bishop said he thought he made it ctear. That is their arrangement. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he had an agreement that the owner and user of Building "A" would not occupy his building on Sunday. Mr. Bishop said that was correct. That agreement is in escrow and he couldn't bring it before them because he didn't know he had to tonight, but he said that agreement is part and parcel of their agreement to purchase the property. That they have exclusive right to the parking lot on Sundays only. Wednesdays they didn't and they didn't have any other activities during the week that would require them to even exceed the 36 cars. He didn't think they have any disagreement on anything other than Sunday use. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 ti.. Commissioner Jonathan asked how long that agreement would run or if it is an actual recorded restriction against the property. Mr. Bishop said yes. Commissioner Jonathan said that even if there was a sale of the property, the new user would be bound by that. Mr. Bishop said that was his understanding of the agreement. And it was part and parcel of their agreement to purchase the property, to have exclusive right to the 86 spaces on Sunday morning. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the owner and occupant of Building "A" would not keep office hours on Sunday. Mr. Bishop said that was correct and they anticipated that might be a difficulty so Dr. McLachlin and he both agreed they should have that ability to cross use the facilities to benefit them both. �rr Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff was aware of that agreement since he didn't see that come up in the report. Mr. Smith said he wasn't aware of it. Mr. Bishop said he didn't give it to staff. He said they still haven't purchased the property. They were waiting grading to be completed and a buildable pad. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the approval were to be conditioned on the consummation of that agreement that would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Bishop said absolutely. He thought they might still have to go back to ARC with final things and he wouldn't have a problem with that. Chairperson Lopez asked about the services on Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. `.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � Mr. Bishop clarified that there is one service at 9:30 a.m. The other times were to prepare for service and the balance is fellowship and bible study. He noted that there are a lot of activities in different kinds of churches in the valley and those were good for everybody, but their particular church doesn't have any instrumental music so they have no desire to disturb anyone on Sunday. They sing only. So they were kind of a quiet church in that regard. In case anyone would have concerns in that regard, they do not do anything but sing on Sunday. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this item. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tschopp said that with Mr. Bishop's clarification of the parking situation and given the complementary uses of the buildings, he was in favor of the project with the condition on the parking. � Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the condition would be a written, binding agreement recorded against the property that has a restriction of no use of Building "A" and the entire parking lot is to be available for the church on Sundays. Commissioner Tschopp said as long as the church occupies it. Mr. Bishop indicated that the condition would be on the use of the building as a church facility. If the church maintained ownership of the facility and it reverted back to its professional existence, the condition would revert back. He asked if that was okay. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked for and received clarification that the maximum seating would be 258 seats. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Tschopp moved for approval and it was seconded by Commissioner Campbell. Commissioner Jonathan concurred, but stated that at some point staff needs to conduct a formal study or at some committee level study it 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 w. because they weren't sure three seats were relevant any longer and didn't know the last time it was looked at. He didn't think they needed to look at whether other uses are crowded as much as just conduct a statistically accurate survey of when cars show up for church or temple and how many occupants are in each car. The average could be closer to two. Chairperson Lopez called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion ca�ried 5- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 21 12 approving Case No. CUP 02-01 , subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. i.. D. Case Nos. PP/CUP 01-23 and DA 02-01 - TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC./MIKE FILING, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit and development agreement to construct a 12-unit senior citizen apartrnent project in the R-2, S.O. zone on the south side of Santa Rosa Way east of San Pascual Avenue. Mr. Smith explained that the property is currently vacant, fairly flat and a flag-shaped lot on the south side of Santa Rosa, 262 feet east of San Pascual. The property is zoned R-2 S.O. The Senior Overlay is in place on this property. The applicant is requested to proceed under that code provision. The proposal is to create a driveway off of Santa Rosa to 12 covered parking spaces. On the northerly end of the lot parallel to the driveway there would be an additional four visitor spaces. At the south end of the property there would be a total of 12 two-story studio apartment units. Six on either side of a pond/water feature. The project would be gated at the street and enclosed by a six-foot block wall. Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval to the �.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 building elevations. It was a process that went on for several months, but they finally arrived at the last meeting with an acceptable architecture. He said he could pass along the colored elevations if the commission wanted to see them. Mr. Smith explained that in the Senior Overlay District the number of units is based on a people per acre basis based on the size of the property. The property is permitted up to 15.33 persons. Code prescribes 1 .25 people per studio unit which permits the maximum of 12 units relative to parking. If the project is limited to persons aged 62 and over, then it has a parking requirement of one space per unit. There a�e 12 covered spaces plus four open visitor spaces. Findings for the approval of the precise plan/conditional use permit were provided on pages three and four. Relative to the development agreement, the commission had a copy of the draft agreement which would need to be executed by the applicant. It would require a provision of a lower and moderate income unit with controlled rents and maximum income levels for persons occupying those units. For purposes of CEQA the project is an infill situation and is a Class 32 categorical exemption. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the balconies were on the exterior perimeter. Mr. Smith said they were on the interior overlooking the water feature. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the entry was from the interior and asked for and received clarification on the location of those balconies. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE FILING, 77-384 Miles Avenue in Indian Wells, addressed the commission. He pointed out that with the site layout it had been a difficult site to develop and create an environment that he relished to provide for senior citizens, which is an environment within because the environment on the outside really isn't overly appealing. He wanted this designed so that people would focus their attention to the inside, hence the water feature and the serenity that will produce. He said he was a little disgruntled when he sees senior apartment complexes where they come down a pathway and they turn two feet to the left to the front door and two feet right to the front door and that was about it for the � separation. By having the two story project and separating the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 `.. buildings as far as possible and still provide a little bit of a backyard, he thought they had been able to create what he envisioned as a very desirable project for seniors. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was going to be gated at the entrance. Mr. Filing said yes. He wanted to provide security for the elderly and provide a covered parking arrangement. It would have an elevator and would be for people aged 62 and older. He could envision them sitting outside and had even created an arbor effect in the back of the water feature so that people could congregate out there to enjoy the serenity of the moving water and the peacefulness of the backyard. Chairperson Lopez noted that these are two story buildings. The second story would access the courtyard area. He asked for clarification on the access. � Mr. Filing said that there was actually an elevator building at the entrance that will have stairways going up to an upper balcony that will surround the inner side of the court to each unit. Then there were stairs in the back that any one of those units could exit out to the back and enjoy that patio. He said that each unit is only approximately 25 feet wide so the entire length of the three buildings on one side would be 75 feet. In the elevator buildings would be a downstairs mechanical area as well as a laundry facility. There would also be another laundry service area upstairs so people could take care of what they need to do on the floor on which they live. He also created a patio effect opposite the front door so that people would come out of their front door, cross the walkway and enter a little patio area that might be screened at waist height to give it a little bit of privacy. They could sit out there for dinner or breakfast and still enjoy the water feature they were attempting to create. It was the same thing upstairs. The walkway upstairs had a protrusion of about six feet on a semi circle that would give the upstairs people the same amenity of enjoying that water feature. He didn't expect more than two, but more likely one person per unit. It wasn't like there would be a lot �.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 of people sitting out on their balconies, but it would give them that opportunity. Commissioner Tschopp asked how access to the gates would be activated. Mr. Filing said they hadn't made that decision yet, but each unit would probably receive a transmitter and there would also be an area to drive up and press a number on the gate if they forget their transmitter or a password to get in. There would be an intercom system for guests to get into the gate. There would also be a walk-in gate. He stated that he contacted numerous neighbors to get their opinion of the proposal and he received some nice recommendations on both projects. He didn't know if the commission wanted him to submit them individually. He had at least five copies. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Filing was comfortable with all the ' conditions of approval. � Mr. Filing thought they were fair. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. MR. HARRY SCHMITZ addressed the commission. He indicated that he has a financial interest in this property. Mr. Filing is the builder and the new owner. He stated that he has known Mr. Filing for about 25 years. Mr. Filing started out as a very fine home builder in Indian Wells. Mr. Schmitz thought this was a quality project. He informed commission that he also talked with some of the neighbors. They were very pleased with this project and they felt it would be a great asset to that neighborhood. He believed that Mr. Filing received a letter from the immediate owner of the single family residence in front of this project. The gentleman was very much in favor of ii. He also noted that he built some units across the street a number of years ago and this would definitely be an asset to the neighborhood. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 `.. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell thought that the project had been well thought through and she agreed with Mr. Schmitz that it has been very well done and would be an asset on that street. She moved fo� approval. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the ARC history seemed rather contentious. At one point it had almost a unanimous vote to deny it as recently as December. Then there was a turn around, but ultimately it passed on a very thin margin. He asked if staff could give the commission a better sense if the problems were truly resolved or if there were any lingering issues from a design standpoint. Mr. Smith explained that back in November-December they weren't as far along with the revisions to the architecture. The applicant had indicated that he felt he couldn't get any further with Architectural Review, so he asked for the denial so that he could appeal it. An appeal was filed. Prior to it being scheduled at Council, he met with the applicant and asked him to give it � another shot with Architectural Review and it took three more passes at Architectural Review, but they arrived at an acceptable plan to the majority of Architectural Review. There were still some people who had some reservations, but by far they had improved the project significantly from the point it was at in November-December. Commissioner Jonathan said that ihe concerns that remained weren't minor, but they didn't seem to be broad conceptual concerns of whether this style or motif was appropriate. It seemed to have more to do with details and window trimmings and those kinds of issues. Mr. Smith said that was right and it was more of a matter of timing of the approval than the approval. If they looked at the minutes of January 12, there was support for the project, but they wanted to see the details before they gave the preliminary approval. The applicant came back on the 26th and received the approval. There were still a few things that were going to be worked out in the working drawing stage and that didn't set well with two members. Commissioner Tschopp thought the proposed project would be an : improvement to the neighborhood and would fit in very well. On a side note, he didn't think this project would have any problem, but when they �.. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 ' talked about gated communities, although this was smaller than others, there have been problems experienced at other gated communities where they have stacking of cars into the streets and it would be nice for them to take a look at similar communities or other developments to make certain the gates don't cause traffic problems on the streets. He didn't have a problem with this project, but he thought it would be something good for staff to take a look at. Mr. Drell said that ihey typically require stacking of two or three cars and turnaround areas for bigger projects. This was small enough and the amount of in and out traffic should be light enough that they didn't anticipate a problem. Public Works especially looks at this very carefully. Commissioner Campbeli said that with this particular project also, there is 18 feet from the sidewalk to the gate. Commissioner Tschopp agreed that with this project it didn't seem to be a problem. Chairperson Lopez asked for a second to the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2113 recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 01-23 and DA 02-01 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case Nos. C/Z 01-07, PP/CUP 01-24 and DA 02-02 - TOPMAN BUILDERS, INC./MlKE FILlNG, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-3 to R-3 S.O. (Senior Overlay►, precise plan/conditional use permit and development agreement to construct of a 10-unit senior citizen apartment project on the west side San Rafael 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 `.. Avenue 370 feet south of Catalina Way, 44-555 San Rafael Avenue. Mr. Smith said that this case was similar to the last case, but also had a change of zone to add the Senior Overlay to the existing R-3 zoning. He explained that the property is vacant. It is located on the west side of San Rafael. It backs onto the recently approved Karcher office building which will front onto San Pablo to the west. This property is smaller than the previous one so it has a limit of ten units. !t has a limit of 14.5 people. The applicant has chosen to approach it as a ten-unit project with six studios and 4 one-bedroom units. Parking area most immediate to the street and at least eight of the units along the west side of the property and a two-unit structure to the left of the elevator building just off of the parking lot on the south side. He said that similar to the previous case it will be a gated community. There are ten covered parking spaces for the ten unit project. It is limited to age 62 years and older. In 1985 the City assigned the Senior Overlay to much of the Palma Village area. Staff did not include it on the R-3 properties because the benefit it bestows is so ,� limited that they didn't expect anyone to use it. Seventeen years later they have one gentleman wishing to use it. Staff saw no problem with applying that zone change. It effectively gives the applicant two additional units and both of them would be controlled units. He stated that the remainder of the report was the same as the previous one and recommended approval. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE FILING, 77-384 Miles Avenue in tndian Wells, addressed the commission. He thought that staff gave a good summation. He said this was another difficult lot configuration to t�y to develop this uniqueness he is trying to create. He said it took a while to arrange these units so that they have a south view, hence, they're situated on the north side of the lot looking primarily to the south, except the units standing alone next to the elevator building. They look southwest. Then to still be able to incorporate the water feature idea. He thought this would turn out very successfully and people that have looked at it feel the same way. They would like to keep working in this neighborhood and keep upgrading with w.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 these projects and still continue this River Run feeling to develop a nice atmosphere for the seniors. He said he was right on the edge of that category. This was privately gated and has a little better arrangement for vehicular movement ingress and egress because it would have two separate gates. One to get in, park, go around the aisle and then come out ihe other side. Plus they could do a pretty nice job on the landscape of that island which would help diffuse the street impact with the buildings. It wasn't a major street impact because the buildings are perpendicular to the street, so again he was trying to create an environment within for the people living there. He thought this would be a really view-oriented project not only for the serenity of the environment they are creating, but also the view out of the mountains. He thought it would be really acceptable. He also thought that whole neighborhood once they see what they are doing, more and more people would come forward and sta�t doing the same thing. He said he would like to do it all, but they couldn't afford to do it or didn't have the time, but they would like to do a couple of these a year and eventually end up with a really nice product throughout that area of the community. Chairperson Lopez asked for an update on the landscaping plan. Mr. Filing informed commission that he needs to meet with the Landscaping Department. That was never finalized in architectural landscaping review. He indicated that he would meet with staff next week to finalize it. He stated that there was some concern about the amount of usage of the water for what they want to do so he needed to get a mo�e definitive requirement from them. Apparently there is a rule that allocates water features as usage of water, so unbeknownst to him, who has done water falls and water features, he was unaware of that, so they need to work with staff to see what they are going to do with the final improved landscaping plan. He hoped they would do that next week. He thanked the commission for their attention and consideration. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposai. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 �r.. � MR. HARRY SCHMITZ, P.O. Box 3992 in Palm Desert, California, addressed the commission. He informed the commission that he has a financial interest in this parcel also. He stated that he has attempted to develop it in different ways over the years, but nothing seemed to work out for him. This particular project is absolutely an enhancement to the neighborhood. He talked to some of the neighbors there. Two owners of units across the street wholeheartedly endorse this and he believed that Mr. Filing had a letter to that effect. The owner of ihe property immediately south has eight units and she wrote a lovely letter totally endorsing the project. She reviewed the plans very carefully and thought this would be a real asset. They also had a letter from the Fitzhenry Funeral Home. He sent in a fax supporting the application after reviewing the plans. He said they have a quality project and a quality builder. It is relatively low density and just for the sake of the record legally, he said he has some documentation back to the 1980's he believed where this property was zoned S.O. At least the City sent him documentation to that effect. But just for the purpose of the record he wanted to leave that option � open should it appear they would have to argue it. He said he certainly supported the rezoning application if in fact they were incorrect. He thanked the commission for their time and public service. He appreciated it. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for comments or action from the commission. Commissioner Jonathan said that like the previous case, this would be a desirable addition to the neighborhood and was an innovative use of space. He liked the design. It had adequate parking, good landscaping, and interesting features. He moved for approval. Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Chairperson Lopez also commended the applicant, staff and ARC for long hours of activity, work and input on both of these projects. He thought they were wonderful additions to the community and he thought through continued efforts it could have been something that passed them by and � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � s it was before them now and he thought it was a great project. He was in favor and called for a vote on the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2113 recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 01-07, PP/CUP 01-24 and DA 02-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. Vesting TPM 24255 (Amendment No. 2) - THOMAS S. NOBLE, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to Tentative Parcel Map 24255 to allow: 1 ) the addition of a "vesting" designation to the existing tentative parcel map; 2► the addition of 17 +/- acres located at the east end of the parcel map on the north side of Dinah Shore; and 3) allow the reconfiguration of the existing parcel map by reducing the number of lots from 35 to 33. Property is located east of Monterey Avenue, south of Interstate 10, 34-100 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Alvarez noted that this particular project is located along Monterey generally south of Interstate 10 and along Dinah Shore Drive. This is a parcel map that was approved in 1992 as part of the County as Tentative Parcel Map 24255. A development agreement was also put into place for this property. This property was annexed into the city in 1992. The original map created about 100 lots, both commercial and industrial zoning designations. In February of 2000 the applicant came before the commission and received approval of Amendment No. 1 which essentially reduced the number of lots from 100 to 35 parcels. No zoning or land use designations were changed. He pointed out that the industrial lots are generally located along Interstate 10, along a new street and the commercial parcels would then be located on Monterey and Dinah Shore. At this time the applicant is requesting three items. The first request is 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 �.�.. to create a vesting designation for this parcel map. The vesting designation essentially freezes the development standards in place at this time. If the map is approved and development standards are changed in the future, if the vesting designation is put in place the applicant would have a vesting right to proceed under the development standards and policies in place now. This amendment would also add 17 acres at the east end of the site. This portion of the map would tie into the existing map. The addition of 17 acres brought the total acreage up to 190. The map also reconfigured some of the lots. Lots generally located along Interstate 10 were subdivided a little further. He said they have a latest revised map which was distributed. It had some minor changes to the ones the commission �eceived in their packets. Those changes added a couple more industrial lots and generally the lots went from 35 to 37 lots. As part of this map, the commercial lot at Monterey and Dinah Shore would go from eight lots to a single parcel and that parcel was identified as parcel 29. Mr. Alvarez explained that the City currently has an application on file for that parcel. It is a commercial property which proposed about 700,000 square feet of commercial use. The Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review that project at a later `""' date. With those three things specified in the staff report, including the vesting designation, the reconfiguration of the lots, and the addition of 17 acres, new conditions of approval were outlined. Those conditions were specified in the conditions of approval. He said there was some discussion with the applicant when he received the original set of conditions. Staff tried to address those conditions which were still in question by the applicant. The questions and responses were outlined on pages three and four. He said that if the commission had any questions, he would try to answer them. He believed that with these modified conditions of approval, the map was consistent with the intent of the City's ordinances and standards. He reiterated that no land use designations would be modified and the map is consistent with the General Plan. For purposes of CEQA, he said this particular map falls under the original Environmental Impact Report prepared by the County of Riverside. No modifications to that were proposed at this time. Mr. Alvarez recommended approval subject to the conditions. Mr. Drell stated that he would like to make a modification to Public Works Condition Number 16 relative to the issue of sidewalks. The statement says the construction of sidewalks in an appropriate size and � 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 ; � � configuration. It is anticipated that sidewalk will be eight feet wide and adjacent to the curb. Mr. Drell said that a project that has already made its way to the Architectural Review Commission has sidewalks that are meandering. He recommended the sidewalk be eight feet wide and as approved by the Architectural Review Commission because they need not and probably would not be adjacent to the curb. Commissioner Jonathan asked what would happen to Dinah Shore with ihis project. He asked if it would connect to Portola. Mr. Drell explained that as a requirement of the existing development there is a provision that when the applicant builds Dinah Shore the City is required to extend Portola to it. He stated that this is still under discussion in the General Plan ihat Portola would in some configuration turn perpendicular to I-10 and become an overpass to i-10. Dinah Shore will intersect Portola and would probably continue as a street southeast within this industrial area. That street would eventually swing down and hit Frank Sinatra near the hotel/restaurant project approved next to Cook Street. He confirmed it is Gerald Ford next to Cook Street. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that buildout would occur concurrently with the buildout of this project so that Dinah Shore wouldn't just end at that line. Mr. Drell said that was correct. They have a contractual commitment to extend Portola when the developer builds Dinah Shore up to it. Chairperson Lopez said that the conditions listed in the staff report, he asked if they were agreed upon or if they were still issues. Mr. Alvarez believed there might be one or two outstanding issues and the applicant could address those with the commission. At that time staff could try to answer any commission questions. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TOM NOBLE, 7 Hillcrest Drive in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said that Mr. Alvare2 was correct that there were a lot of issues and now they are down to very few now, so they had made some real progress. He informed commission that one reason he was bringing this map back now is to establish phasing. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 r.. They decided to go ahead with phase one being the service industrial properties. Phase two will be parcel 29, the commercial portion. In order to get started on the industrial, while there is environmental work being done on the commercial portion, they decided to come in with a phasing map to be able before phase one to start those improvements. One thing he stated that he would ask for was further clarification that the work that goes along with phase two be clearly delineated in the conditions. For instance, there was one condition that requires medians in Dinah Shore and Monterey. They would like it to be more clear that the median in Dinah Shore is part of phase one and the median in Monterey is part of phase two. It was clearly implied and he thought that was everyone's understanding, but when the conditions are cast in concrete he thought they should be a little more clearly laid out. He said there was also some language in Condition 7 that requires a parcel map be submitted for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. He said that he raised that issue with Mr. Gaugush and Mr. Gaugush's response was that the submittal for checking is required. He said they could �"" read it either way, but he wanted to read into the record that the actual approval in hand wasn't necessary for the grading permit. Often a grading permit could be had and then the approval of the actual map itself could come at a later date. He thought that was everyone's understanding but he wanted to get ihat out in the open. The same went for the Monterey median going with phase two and the Dinah Shore median going with phase one. He said they did have a major issue as to the installation of a median in Dinah Shore. That issue and the sidewalk question were not a part of the original conditions. They had been imposed by staff with the request for the phased vesting tentative map. He said he still has his doubts as to the advisability of a median on Dinah Shore. It seemed to him that with the type of use they are going to have here would preclude some of the ability to use the median for stacking purposes, but he said he wasn't a traffic engineer and would defer to staff's opinion on that. But he would like to have it clear that each phase has its own median component. Mr. Noble stated that regarding the sidewaik issue, when Mr. Drell put this into the conditions he brought up the issue that they have `.. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � � already submitted and had approved one project in this service industrial property. They have been through Architectural Review innumerable times and one of the things they kept sending them back was for a redesign of the sidewalk to be undulating both up and down and sideways to have it fit with the landscaping. He thought that worked better and they were conditioning the landscaping in the CC&R design guidelines to be patterned after the Desert Willow project which he thought worked great with this sort of thing. It was desertscape and the sidewalks were a component of that. It seemed to him that would be better accomplished with the landscape plan at the building permit stage for each one of these developments as opposed to trying to put it all in before they know where curb cuts are and before they know the design of the buildings as they go forward. He requested that the sidewalks be as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. The eight-foot width was fine, but he thought it would be more appropriate to have them designed and approved in conjunction with each building. As far as the extension of Dinah Shore, Mr. Noble wanted to make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding. He has the obligation to extend the pavement of Dinah Shore to an extension of Portola Avenue and they were prepared to that. He said they would rather do it sooner than later because it would help their project enormously. They had a number of ineetings with staff and there was still some uncertainty as to the meeting point for Dinah Shore and Portola. He didn't want to represent that would be done exactly at the same time as they extend Dinah Shore. They would prefer to do it that way, but staff had basically indicated that until the design of the Portola extension and the flyover of the freeway are complete, it is premature to do it and they would rather have them wait until that is designed. He thought that would be done as part of the General Plan process within the next few months. But it may or may not be concurrent with what was going on here. 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. a 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 r�.. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't hear any comments from the applicant that were contrary to the staff report. Mr. Alvarez indicated that his understanding was that the last remaining issues that were outstanding had to do with getting clarification on the sidewalk issue and he thought they agreed upon that. Another issue was with the phasing and he thought they could work that in to say that Monterey would be part of phase two and Dinah Shore as part of phase one. Mr. Drell concurred. He also pointed out the clarification that to the discretion of the Director of Public Works, grading permits may be issued prior to recordation of the final map. He explained that technically the map just allowed them to sell real estate. As far as the City is concerned, he didn't have to sell any real estate. We want him to put in the improvements, so he didn't think we were going to hold him up on the improvements. The issue on the sidewalks was based on a concern that over time if we wait forever for each parcel to put in their piece of sidewalk we might be waiting 15 or 20 years depending on the economy before the sidewalk is fully functional. We have that situation and then people ask what we were thinking about when we allow little pieces of sidewalk here and there. He said there is a desire to have a bike path system that will be �`"" somewhere in this vicinity along the channel. They had considered having it go behind the projects, but this particular location will be sandwiched between railroad tracks and an industrial parking lot and wouldn't be that attractive and probably the streetscape on Dinah Shore with the meandering sidewalk and the desertscape wo�ld be more attractive. Staff's concern was that at some fixed point in time, whether it is when the road goes in, or maybe five years from now, that sidewalk is completed. And not necessarily waiting forever for the last few parcels to get completed. He understood somewhat of the inconvenience of putting it in beforehand, but on the other hand they don't want to wait 20 years to see it completed. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an opportunity for compromise that once 30% or 40% of the project has been built out that all remaining sidewalks must be put in place. Mr. Drell said it could be covered by a construction bond and some time period, whether it is five years, or eight years. Some time when they know the sidewalk will be completed regardless of the pace of the development of the individual lots. � 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Drell if he had any indication of what the timing might be of Dinah Shore being extended and the Portola entrance being done. Mr. Drell said his understanding was that they are contracting for much more intensive traffic engineering in this area to try and nail down where and how Portola will connect as part of the General Plan. He hoped it would happen within the next six months. He explained that the biggest issue was not what is happening on the city's side, but where they can land the overpass on the other side. Staff's intention was that within the next six months we should know. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any idea of when they would have Dinah Shore completed. Mr. Drell said that once we know the geometry, then Mr. Noble will build Dinah Shore and we will build Portola at least up to Dinah Shore. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that would be one year or five years. Mr. Drell thought it would probably be less than five and hopefully not more than one or two. Mr. Diercks said it is a vital link for this whole development to be able to go from Portola to Monterey. Mr. Drell thought it would be even more vital for the traffic study for the big commercial project to have alternative ways getting in and out of it. The goal was to keep as much traffic, local commercial traffic, off of Monterey as we can. Mr. Noble stated that regards to the sidewalks, they were getting a much better response to this property than anticipated in terms of interest in contracts being written. He concurred that having a walkway/bike path through there is important and a five year period would be more than enough. He had no problem whatsoever in completing it within that time and they would see whatever pieces are done in the next few years with an absolute outside date of five years to be completed would be fine. Another thing he wanted to mention was that his development agreement requires the City to bring Portola up to meet Dinah Shore. It was an absolute obligation on the part of the City at the time they were prepared to bring Dinah Shore to meet Portola. They have had a very easy working relationship with staff and they indicated that they would do this when the City decides when the configuration should be, but it was something that needs to be done. He stated that he has been representing to people who are interested in this � property that it would be done sometime probably within the next 30 M(NUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 �... year. He was hoping they could meet that schedule. He said they were going to stay on top of it and try to get it done as quickly as possible. Commissioner Jonathan asked if five years as an outside limit worked for the City. Mr. Drell said yes. Commissioner Jonathan said that going back to his original comment, he thought they were in agreement on the conditions. For clarification purposes, Mr. Drell suggested that the understanding would be that it would be five years from the issuance of the grading permit. Mr. Noble requested five years from recordation. Mr. Drell agreed. Chairperson Lopez asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner �""' Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 21 15 approving Vesting TPM 24255, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case No. PP 01-OS - PREST / VUKSIC ARCHITECTS for KLAFF REALTY, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a precise plan to allow the construction of a single story 12,000 square foot retail/office building located at the northwest corner of EI Paseo and San Pablo Avenue. The site is also referred to as 73-41 1 Highway 1 1 1 or EI Paseo Square. Mr. Alvarez noted that this project was before the commission in October of 2001 at which time it was tabled. A couple of issues that arose were � 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � parking deficiency and two story on the corner of San Pablo and EI Paseo. Back in October this project was much more intense. It consisted of a couple of restaurant buildings along Highway 1 1 1 , a two-story office building at the corner of San Pablo and EI Paseo, it had an underground subterranean parking structure, it consisted of remodeling of the existing retail on EI Paseo, and a remodel to the existing retail on the north side of Office Max through demolition of that retail. Mr. Alvarez said that based on those issues that arose, the applicant scaled down the project significantly. Now there was a single story, 12,000 square foot building at the corner. The restaurants had been eliminated and phasing had been proposed for this project. The current plan that the commission was reviewing consisted of a site plan of phase one and two combined. The parking lot had been drawn as a remodel with 90 degree parking spaces. Regarding original comments made back in October, Mr. Alvarez said that this property is in need of significant revitalization. It is one of the older shopping centers in the city and is part of our Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. He said the specific plan adopted in 1987 was adopted to promote economic and redevelopment in these areas to create : projects that are both economically and aesthetica(iy pleasing for our city. � M�. Alvarez explained that in the staff report the different phases were outlined. At this time phase one would consist of the single story building at the corner. He said that the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the architecture. It is in essence the same style and motif of architecture scaled down to single story. The setbacks were still addressed with the 2:1 ratio at the corner being met. In terms of setbacks and height, the building conforms to the current ordinance. Mr. Alvarez said the applicant informed him that he met with the Redevelopment Agency today and he could relay that conversation to the commission. The applicant's hope was that the Redevelopment Agency would participate so that they can bring this parking remodel in as part of phase one and bring it into almost complete conformance. In the staff report, he indicated that if the parking lot is remodeled, they would have a parking deficiency of one space with a total parking of 241 and 242 would be required to meet the current ordinance requirements. From an economic standpoint, if the applicant cannot secure financial resources, the project would remain with a 15-space deficiency. Back in October the project came in with a much higher square footage and around a 44- space deficiency. Staff's recommendation at that point, and it still 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 r�... remained the same but with a smalier deficiency, was ihat they have parking spaces at ihe Gardens on EI Paseo parking structure which was built to accommodate solutions like this where they are nearby and will promote economic revitalization. Staff felt comfortable with either scenario. One, which is without the remodel at this point and with the remodel at a later point that parking can be accommodated at the Gardens on EI Paseo. In essence that was the intent of those extra spaces built by the City. In terms of ingress and egress, Mr. Alvarez indicated that the property's only change in circulation would be on EI Paseo. There would be a single ingress off of EI Paseo. Right now it was an ingress/egress. That would allow westbound vehicles on EI Paseo to enter the project and then circulate back out onto San Pabio or Highway 1 1 1 . Mr. Alvarez felt they addressed the main concerns which included parking to some degree. The two story building was reduced to one story. He stated that this is a great project that could create a link from east EI Paseo to the west creating a pedestrian friendly environment along EI Paseo, eliminating the current parking lot, and basically promoting the revitalization of this �`" shopping center. He indicated that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared for this project. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Campbell noted that the plan didn't show the addition to the existing older building to the east. Mr. Alvarez thought that there were two site plans that were distributed to commission. Scenario one phase one and then phase two. He said that phase two would have included the addition. He confirmed that there would be an addition. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that with that addition they would be losing a green area. Mr. Alvarez concurred. He had a picture of the elevations and showed both EI Paseo and San Pablo. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the situation was with the phasing and the parking lot and the vertical versus horizontal layout. He asked what was being recommended here. Mr. Alvarez clarified that staff was recommending that Planning Commission recommend to the Redevelopment Agency that they participate in doing the remodel of the parking lot. By doing 90 degree parking, they pick up some spaces. The current configuration uses a different angular layout which was really not � 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � functional. Staff was recommending that the commission approve the project with the recommendation that parking be done as phase one. Commissioner Jonathan said that he could live with that kind of a recommendation because that was a use issue and this is a precise plan, but he thought in Mr. Alvarez's report he was asking the commission to recommend that Redevelopment Agency funds be used to do that. He said that was outside his area and he didn't know what their priorities are or how they work in terms of setting priorities and using their resources. He asked if they could cut that part out and just look at the land use aspect of it. Mr. Drell said they were looking at two separate actions. What they were suggesting as a separate action was that the commission encourage the Redevelopment Agency to consider assisting the developer in accomplishing and facilitating the redesign of the parking lot which as a result of the scaling down of the project the economics could no longer support. But they didn't want this project to not happen at the corner if the economics didn't work, so they wanted the project to occur either way. We would rather get half a loaf than no loaf. We would like to get the whole loaf and would like to encourage both the applicant and the � Redevelopment Agency to work together to get the whole loaf, but we didn't want to sacrifice what staff felt was going to be a great improvement on the corner if initially economics don't work to redo the whole parking lot. In essence staff has a duo recommendation in that respect. Commissioner Jonathan said that what concerned him was that there was a potential that just the building on the corner would go up with nothing else ever happening (Mr. Drell said that was correct) unless the commission's recommendation was to make the reconfiguration of the parking lot a condition of the approval along with a recommendation that if that was appropriate that RDA take a look at it. But regardless, they could condition the project on the reconfiguration of the parking lot. Mr. Drell said the commission could do that, although that wasn't what staff was recommending. Commissioner Jonathan said that there was a possibility that they could end up with another building without ever seeing the reconfiguration of the parking lot and asked if that was deemed appropriate by staff. Mr. Drell asked if his feeling was that they f would lose the "hammer" on the applicant if they let them go that way. # rl 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � Commissioner Jonathan said that reality could dictate that it just wouldn't happen. Mr. Drell said that was correct and was a good point. He indicated they could require it and see what happens. Commissioner Jonathan said that if RDA didn't look at it favorably, the applicant could come back to the commission for an amendment. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the parking requirement was based on a parking requirement of four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. He asked if that was appropriate for this type of center because he knew they have different uses going in. Mr. Alvarez indicated that the uses going in would be general retail which is four spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. Mr. Alvarez called attention to a condition staff added. If phase one goes through and the reconfiguration doesn't happen, a condition was added that requires employees to park at the Gardens as part of their lease agreements. Chairperson Lopez asked if that was only a requirement of phase one. Mr. Alvarez concurred. He said they would be short one space. �"' Commissioner Campbell asked for and received clarification on which parking scenario they were looking at. Mr. Alvarez said that it was scenario two in terms of the parking lot layout. Commissioner Campbell said that with the way it was shown on the drawing it was only short one space. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JEFF FORSYTHE addressed the commission. For the record he stated that their address moved to 122 South Michigan, Suite 1 ,000 in Chicago, Illinois, 60603. He said their plan this year is to try and build a new 12,000 square foot building and they would like to accomplish the redesign of the parking lot. He said they met with the Redevelopment Agency and they seemed favorably prepared to hopefully assist them with it either in the form of funds for the parking lot or facade grants for some of the existing � buildings which they consider phase two. They were trying to work that out. Adding the redeveiopment of the parking lot as a condition, he would like to t�y and accommodate that but he didn't 1..r 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � � know if it was going to be feasible. Their goal is to get the building done this year and then next year remodel the other building with the 1 ,400 foot addition on the end. He said they were talking about the lessee on the Office Max space. He would like to put a storefront on the other side and they would like to put in some improved landscaping in there and remove some of the eucalyptus trees and make it more pedestrian friendly as well. So they had a plan for phase two in the works. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they had given up the idea they had of remodeling the businesses on the north side of Office Max. They had talked about eliminating some of those spaces. Mr. Forsythe said that the economics didn't make sense any more and there was a lot of demand on Highway 1 1 1 . But to demolish what they call Building "C" and lose those tenants they decided not to do that. Commissioner Tschopp said that at one time there was a building shown � between Coco's and the new building. Mr. Forsythe confirmed it wasn't feasible. It took up too much parking and Coco's needed it. Commissioner Campbell asked about the Office Max retail that isn't part of the project. Mr. Forsythe said that they own a 7,000 square foot strip. He pointed out what was leased to Office Max. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would still be adequate parking in the lot with that additional 7,000 square feet. Mr. Forsythe said that the square footage calculations in this proposal are greater than the leasable area. If they were talking about being short one space, he came up with about 3,000 square feet. He confirmed that the 7,000 square feet were included already in the calculations for the parking spaces. He said they ; 36 MtNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � were trying to find some creative solutions to possibly access Lupine and the Lupine exit. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they see the reconfiguration of the parking lot as integral to this application and place that condition, he heard ihem say they want to move forward pretty rapidly and if economics don't work out with them with RDA, he wanted to know if it worked for the applicant to have a delayed implementation of the reconfiguration of the parking lot. Mr. Forsythe said that they could restripe the parking lot to accommodate this number of spaces. Could they put in upgraded lighting fixtures and this amount of landscaping? Probably not. It was more an aesthetic issue than the restriping. Commissioner Jonathan said he was only one person on the commission, but for him that was as important as the number of spaces. He thought that when someone looks at the whole center and people up and down San Pablo, people are looking not only at the building, but the entire r`"' com lex. It looked ra p gged partly because of the parking lot. Mr. Forsythe agreed and indicated that they want to tie into the EI Paseo feel. Commissioner Jonathan noted that if the rest of the commission saw that parking lot as that important, he was looking for a way to make it work for the applicant if RDA doesn't want to step in. His question was if delaying the implementation of that particular condition impacted him or if it didn't matter. Mr. Forsythe said it would definitely help give them some extra time, but for this type of plan with this much landscaping they still had to justify the cost somehow. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished 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. �... 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � Commissioner Campbell stated that she likes the project very much and liked the previous proposal with two stories. She also indicated that she would not vote against it just because of the ingress only access on EI Paseo into iheir parking lot. She always felt they wanted to have people going in and out. All the other entrances will be ingress and egress, but when driving on EI Paseo and trying to see into the shopping center, all they have is a one-way tunnel. But she wouldn't turn down the project because of that. She said she likes the project the way it is with all the landscaping and if that required any help from RDA, she was in favor of requesting their financial assistance. She also commented on the condition of the existing parking lot. Commissioner Finerty agreed with Commissioner Campbell. She thought the first project they brought to the commission was outstanding as was the current proposal. It was a huge improvement and she wouldn't have a problem with making a recommendation to encourage RDA to participate in the parking remodel. She thought it would benefit the entire city. The project looks like it would belong on EI Paseo. She was really ; impressed by it and wanted to find a way to make it work so that they � could move forward with phase one and phase two. Commissioner Tschopp thought that staff addressed the parking problem, the 18-space deficiency, the proximity of the Gardens on Paseo parking, and the structure that can be used for employee parking. He thought that the building itself as p�oposed would be a great addition. He too thought that it was a tired looking center. He also liked the original plan last time. It would also have done for Highway 1 1 1 what it was going to do for EI Paseo and that is close a gap and put something good there. Seeing that would not happen he thought this was a good start and he would also encourage RDA to take a look at assisting the center. He was in favor of approving the proposed project without the added condition. Commissioner Jonathan concurred with the comments. He saw the reconfiguration of the parking lot as important enough to condition approval. Along with recommending to RDA to step in and take a serious look at this, he thought that the center needed not just a new building which is what they could end up with under phase one, but it needed to have the parking lat upgraded to match the quality of the a�ea, � particularly EI Paseo. To him that was critical and he would place that 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 �.. condition along with recommending to RDA to facilitate that. His thought was that if RDA looks at it and determines that it isn't the best use of their resources, the applicant was welcome to come back to the commission and say they gave it a try, that plan didn't work and give them another plan to consider. Chairperson Lopez concurred with Commissioner Jonathan. He wanted this project to happen. That it is a great use for this area, it is a tremendous project and would be beautiful, but he believed that what was vital to this was fixing that parking lot and making that parking lot part of what they need to have and as part of phase one. He was concerned that there might be the construction of that first building and the parking lot on San Pablo didn't look very good, so he would also like to suggest that particular item along with the recommendation to RDA that they consider the request. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner `.. Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Tschopp voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2116 approving Case No. PP 01-08, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4- 1 (Commissioner Tschopp voted no). H. Case No. PP 01-28 - HUGH JORGENSEN for ALBERTSON'S EXPRESS, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 1 ,989 square foot convenience store and a fuel station located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Hovley Lane East (42-185 Washington Street). Mr. Alvarez explained that the request is to construct a 1 ,989 square foot convenience store and fue( station located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Hovley Lane East. This particular property is ��.. 39 MfNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 ; � �.r�i located within the Albertson's shopping center. It consists of two parcels one of which is currently used as a parking lot area and one which is vacant and landscaped with turf. The property has frontage on Washington. It is one of three remaining undeveloped pads in the shopping center. He pointed out that to the south the commission approved a retail building and south of that was the Jiffy Lube facility. He said this particular request is a precise plan and conditional use permit to construct a convenience store with adjacent parking, fuel pumps in front and a new reconfigured parking lot on the south portion of the parcel. This property has been reconfigured. Mr. Alvarez explained that there is an ordinance requirement for service stations to be separated 500 feet. By switching the uses, the parking on the south and the structure on the north, the 500-foot separation could be met. He stated that the convenience store is set back 50 feet from Washington and the fueling canopy setback 60 feet from Washington. Both met the minimum setback requirements for the district. The convenience store has a maximum height of 20 feet six inches. He indicated that canopy was lowered to about 19 feet and eliminated the majority of the roof mass. � Mr. Alvarez showed the commission tF�e building elevations. He noted � that the convenience store and fuel station canopy used architectural elements found in the shopping center. Colors and materials were also consistent. He also indicated that Architectural Review Commission approved the architectural design. In terms of landscaping, the whole site would be relandscaped to meet the city's landscape requirements in terms of drought tolerant, water efficient materials. Mr. Alvarez stated that the building meets all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance including the separation requirement of 500 feet. He indicated that the closest service station would be the Chevron Station to the south. Setbacks, height and parking were also addressed in the staff report. They looked at the parking as a whole for the shopping center and 5.5 ratio is required for regional shopping centers. The project meets the requirements including some revisions to the existing site. These particular parcels would lose some parking, but the overall shopping center is to code in terms of the parking requirement. He stated that one thing that would happen as part of this project is that currently the center has some parking spaces that back out directly onto the drive aisle. Those parking spaces would be eliminated to reduce some congestion that occurs as people back out and others have to wait to cross north � and south. All of the parking faces the interiors of the drive aisles and 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 V meets the criteria of the ordinance. Mr. Alvarez reiterated that this project meets the criteria of the ordinance and is consistent with the General Plan. With the conditions of approval, the project is consistent with the shopping center and the city's overall intent. For purposes of CEQA, Mr. Alvarez stated that this is an infill project on an approved pad and the overall shopping center was assessed as part of the County's approval of the shopping center. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Campbelf asked Mr. Alvarez to go over the circulation. 1f someone enters from Washington by the bank, she asked exactly how cars would maneuver through the site to get gas. Mr. Alvarez explained that if entering from Washington, they would enter along the drive aisle, make a left and they would have two options of where to enter to get gas. He clarified that both openings were two way and allowed for both ingress and egress to access the fuel pumps. He said that all the drive aisles are two-way. Commissioner Finerty asked if the City Council had given approval to have a police substation in this center. Mr. Drell believed that they have � leased a space. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that they have a convenience store with close access to 1-10. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HUGH V. JORGENSEN, 40-845 Ceniennial Circle in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said that they worked with Architectural Review on the project and did the modification. The main question was on the canopy and they reduced the height of it to make it look a lot smaller and increased the thickness of the columns so that it wouldn't look so spindly and had some mass. He said at the present time they were finishing up with the landscaping as per code and working with the Landscape Department to get this correct. He said they worked on the signage and on the canopy they had the logo and Albertson's Express on the building. He said they kept the lettering as small as they could. It was a 12-inch letter for the Express. �.. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 ; Mr. Drell explained that signage was not a particular issue to this commission. Mr. Jorgensen informed the commission that it has the blue tones that the Albertson's logo has and the Express for the "x" is red and a red line below it. He said that the type of architectu�e he tried to keep compatible with the existing center. He showed on the map the location of the uses a�d the configuration of the canopy to see how much lower it is and removed the mass they had before. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. KEN WILLIAMSON, 72-890 Caliandra, passed out a synopsis of some of his concerns and some pictures of the existing location and some showing Costco's traffic problems. He informed commission that he has been in the service station business here in Palm Desert for about 30 years. About five years ago Chevron came to him and said that the piece of property he leased at Highway 1 11 and Plaza Way they wanted to convert to a food mart. If he wanted to stay, his rent would increase from 58,000 to S 16,000 per monih or he could give up his lease. He gave up his lease. He took all the money he had and purchased the facility at 77-920 Avenue of the States and Washington Street. The Chevron station in this shopping center. That was his main concern for security of his future. He wasn't aware of this project going on at all until he was reading the Public Record about three weeks ago and saw there was a public hearing tonight about the approval of this project. He was quite concerned that he had never heard about it and no one in the shopping center had heard about it. He decided to do something and took some pictures and put together a synopsis of his concerns. The retail fueling business has changed in the last couple of years. He said that gasoline marketers and mass marketers were a big player. Most of them were awed by the Costco situation. They are pumping between 500,000 and 600,000 gallons a month and with eight fueling positions. This proposed project would have six fueling positions. ' If they were to pump half of the fuel as Costco, it would be a 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 �r.. disaster to get in and out of ihis project. The ingress and egress were from the rear and all of the traffic would have to come off of Washington, into the parking lot and then back out the same way. He noted that some of the pictures he took were of the existing parking lot. As it is right now, the parking lot was being used as somewhat of an arterial to get from Avenue of the States to Avenue 42 and it was quite congested as is. There hadn't been enough consideration given to the possibilities of congestion and what this may cause, if the project is as successful. He said the mass marketers mass low price and high volume. High volume creates that much more traffic. He thought there would be a tremendous congestion problem. The fact of the convenience store he thought was somewhat redundant. Here is a company selling the same products in the convenience store as they do in their grocery store 400 feet away. He didn't know what the City's position is, but he didn't know whether the city needed two fueling stations 500 feet apart. He said it might sound a little personal, and was, but he thought it was something that should ` be considered because there was definitely a consideration that had to be made because of the congestion that would be created. MR. JOHN MARCOTT of Tate and Associates, Incorporated, 290 Bobwhite Court, Suite 220 in Boise, Idaho, addressed the commission. He said they are a consultant for Albertson's. He worked on many of these projects for Albertson's throughout the southwest and west. He wanted to address some of the concerns regarding the location and traffic. He stated that Albertson's concept was that in today's market they had to be as competitive as possible. A lot of the larger retail chains were getting into gasoline. Albertson's was concerned about where they would place a gasoline station on its site. They are first and foremost concerned about the parking in their own parking lot. If there is a site such as this where there is a pad that is in very close proximity to a main store, they will explore their options with the owners of the property and then consider whether or not to build a site such as this one. They want to add service and that is basically what they are doing. He said that yes, they do sell the same products within the gas station fuel center store as in the . main store. However, they all knew that they all frequent �.. 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � convenience store gas stations and a lot of times they just stop for gas and go. Other times they will buy sodas, snacks and lottery tickets. So Albertson's concept was to add one more service for their customers. They also have looked at traffic very carefully. The Institute of Traffic Engineers in its current handbook does not address gas stations within shopping centers; however, there is a study that the ITE was about to publish that shows that 46% of the customers of a gas station within an Albertson's shopping center, 46% of the customers to the gas station are already shopping at the store. Yes, gas stations do increase traffic on the street, they just attract cars and business. However, a full 92% of the customers to that same gas station are already passing by. Only 6% from that study diverted to come over and add traffic to that area to go to that store. He also pointed out that Albertson's was not a Costco. Albertson's prices its gasoline within the local market. The only time they would see a significantly lower gas price is during their two-week grand opening period when they are trying to introduce themselves to the community and entice people in to see what they have. Typically they would be within one or two cents of the prices down the street. Regarding Commissioner Finerty's concern about convenience stores, one of the things that Albertson's does is connect their convenience stores with a data line and a pneumatic tube. Periodically throughout the day the manager will flush cash out of the c-store back to the main store and it drops conveniently next to the safe and is put into the safe in the main store. So they did have that concern because convenience stores are a target a lot of times for criminals. He asked for any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or actions. Commissioner Jonathan asked what staff's take was on having two gas stations 500 feet apart. He knew that was the ordinance, but as a general land use issue, he asked if that was something that is compatible with a community's needs. Mr. Alvarez indicated there is one service station located 500 feet to the south and the next one was a couple of miles away. He didn't know if the area needed another facility. Mr. Drell stated that we have a standard that says we don't want concentrations 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � of service stations and that is why there is a 500-foot separation. This one just happened to be right outside 500 feet. They drew a line and it was beyond that line. He remembered back in 1980, 1976 and 1973 when they were very happy to see gas stations with gasoline. It was his understanding that there is an allocation per station and the more stations a community has, the more gasoline the community has. Other than the aesthetic one, our job wasn't necessarily to decide if there were too many. They didn't limit the number of women's shoe stores on EI Paseo. In this case they do set up some parameters that do limit competition to a certain extent, but they drew the line and this was beyond the line. He said he was kind of surprised that Chevron didn't get an exclusive when they bought the pad. A gas station is a retail store just like any other and a canopy is just a covered place where people park. If they could make it look nice, it was not significantly less attractive than a parking lot without a canopy. Cornmissioner Campbell asked if a convenience store was necessary. Mr. Drell said that they don't decide if it is necessary or not. It is a retail store � and we don't decide whether there are too many sun glass stores or shoe stores. We let the market decide what sort of products they are going to sell. He personally liked the convenience when he didn't want to wander around in a big supermarket. That was a market decision. Cornmissioner Finerty stated that although she liked the aesthetics and thought that ARC did a very good job on recommending the improvements and Albertson's implementing those improvements, she thought it was the wrong site for this type of project. She frequents the Albertson's center and Savon Drugs at least three times a week and this center is a disaster to get in and out of. It is extremely crowded and it didn't matter if someone came in off of Hovley or off of Avenue of the States, negotiating through the parking lot is extremely difficult and they had to be very careful. She didn't think adding this type of a use would be in the center's best interest. She thought it was too crowded right now and couldn't imagine putting in something like this where people would be in and out, it would add to the congestion in trying to get back out, probably more so on Hovley. And now they would have people that are exiting Albertson's holding up people trying to get to the parking lot or down further into the center and they can't get out to get onto Hovley due to that. She didn't think the center is very car friendly or pedestrian �r.. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 friendly and something needed to be reworked as far as the layout in order to support a use such as this. Commissioner Campbell stated that she concurred. She goes by Hovley three times a week and tries to make a right turn onto Washington and there are people coming out of that parking lot and cross Hovley to make a left turn, which is very close to the corner. She agreed with M�. Williamson. Sometimes she cuts across the parking lot to go to Avenue of the States to avoid Washington. The few times she has been in the parking lot it was a mad house. People didn't really know where they were going. She didn't know if it was striped properly, but it was always congested. That is why if they were going north on Washington, there used to be a left lane to go inside the parking lot but they closed it because of the problems. Commissioner Finerty noted they also widened Washington. She didn't think this was a good location. Commissioner Tschopp stated that he would be abstaining. Commissioner Jonathan said that he shared the concerns that were raised. They were trying to make this work, but it was hard to make a square peg fit into a round hole. It almost worked. He was reluctant to deny it and listened to staff's comments about not blinking twice about putting stores up and down EI Paseo or restaurants next to each other, etc. He was kind of persuaded about that issue. The question was if it worked traffic flow wise and he could see the problems, but that was a pad approved for development and he wasn't sure there wouldn't be a problem no matter what. If that center is bad, it's bad. They had similar problems with the Monterey shopping center and he didn't think the problems of the center should be cast onto this particular application. There could be another use and still have the problem. He shared the concerns. Chairperson Lopez said he has a couple of concerns. He thought that aesthetically it looks great. He was concerned about the convenience store part ot this. When someone goes in to get gasoline, they go in, get gasoline and leave. It would create some traffic issues and that was a concern he has. He said he doesn't frequent there often, but when he has it was interesting getting around the parking lot. He was also curious why a convenience store was necessary to be in that location as well as 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 r.. the gas station, but it was concerning the traffic and use of it. The comment regarding Costco and the sales, it was a price driven situation there. People go down there because gas is 20 cents less per gallon then it is anywhere else around town. That obviously created a lot of issues in that area. He always thought competition was good and that could at least justify some of the flow of the traffic. He could see traffic going from the store to get gasoline. They are already in the parking lot any way. Yet with a grand opening of 10% or 20% reduction on prices they would see right away if this was going to be a headache or not because people would go there in droves because of the prices. They would drive that demand with the prices and that would create a traffic situation. He was not unlike the other commissioners in that he wasn't sure this was the right location. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission's desire on this. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that a continuance wouldn't help, so she would move to deny the project and urge the applicant to find another location in our city. Action: � It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, instructing staff to prepare a resolution denying Case No. PP 01-28. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). Chairperson Lopez asked Mr. Alvarez to talk to the applicant and inform them of their options and next step in the process. I. Case Nos. C/Z 01-05 and PP 01-27 - HUGH JORGENSEN for MATINEE TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and change of zone from R-2 7,000 to O.P. (Office Professional) to convert three single family dwellings into professional offices and parking lot. Project includes relocation of existing Guadalupe Avenue cul-de-sac 120 feet east of its present location. New cul-de-sac will be in front of homes at 73-050 and 73-051 Guadalupe Avenue. The project is located at the west end of Guadalupe Avenue at Monterey Avenue, 73-026, 73-031 , 73-040 and 73-041 Guadalupe Avenue. '�.. 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 Mr. Smith explained that as they have done in three or four other examples to the north, they are looking at relocating the cul-de-sac, creating parking in the existing right-of-way and on one of the lots, the lot being the northwesterly most lot. The three existing homes would be converted to a more office environment in their architecture. Access would be from Monterey Avenue. There is an existing turn pocket that aligns with this access point. One lot would be parking and there would be parking in the right-of-way. They would relocate Guadalupe to the east. He stated that this complies with the provisions of the Palma Village Specific Plan. The zoning is R-2 7,000 so they were looking at a zone change to Office Professional. That is consistent with the Palma Village Specific Plan for the development along Monterey Avenue. Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval. He said that there was more than enough parking to meet code. Staff felt this was an appropriate design of development along Monterey Avenue and it creates an acceptable transition into the residential community to the east. He pointed out where there has been a landscape buffer along Monterey for the last 1 1 or 12 yea�s. It was maintained by the property � owner to the north as part of the approval on that project. That approval � allows him to relinquish that obligation once this project gets underway. He said that right now it is a lush green area and as part of the landscape design approval process, it would become a more drought tolerant arid type of design, so they would see a change there, but it would remain a landscape planter area. At the east end of the right-of-way, the applicant showed an access gate into the residential community which the city has required in other similar examples to the north. Staff was suggesting that the applicant not bother with the gate that it just be an open area in the fence. The applicant had a petition signed by area neighbors. They requested the applicant to meet with the people at the easterly end of Guadalupe Avenue prior to them scheduling this matter before commission. He did so and came in with the petition of support. Staff recommended approval of the zone change and precise plan to allow the conversion of the buildings to office use. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HUGH V. JORGENSEN, 40-845 Centennial Circle in Palm ' Desert, addressed the commission. He indicated that they tried to 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � keep the design contemporary. They worked with ARC and did a little change along Monterey and adding a little peak on the side. They were doing the final landscaping with Diane Hollinger of the Landscape Department and would be using an arid landscaping. They were taking out the oleanders which are encroaching into the parking area. They wouid be using natural granite and coming in with some olive trees and some sumac trees, etc., low maintenance material and low water usage. He thanked the commission for their time. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there would be a monument sign to delineate the businesses in the back. Mr. Jorgensen said the only signage they would be having would be the name of the project and names. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the tenants would have signage on the building. � Mr. Jorgensen said no, there would just be an address and the monument sign. They didn't want signage all over, although he knew the tenants would fight for it later on. He wanted them to have at least something there, but right now it was just illuminated letters. Commissioner Campbell stated that it looked like a very nice project and she thought it would be quite an asset and instead of going down a corridor on Monterey, it would have an opening. Mr. Jorgensen said that they would be able to see into it and it would have landscaping and would be inviting. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Diercks stated that when Mr. Greenwood reviewed this site plan and when he noticed the left turn pocket into the site, he didn't realize it was existing and it was one of our Dick Folkers mid block U-turn sites. There ` 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � � � r.ri was a left-turn pocket in the middle of the block. He just wanted to inform the applicant that if left turns become a problem at this location, they would like to take a look and have the ability to close the left turn if it does ever become a problem. Mr. Drell said that we always have that ability. Mr. Diercks wanted to make sure the applicant knew that up front. He didn't see it ever being a problem because volumes would probably be minimal going into the site, but this was for just in case. It is on a curve and he didn't know what the landscape is in the median and ihat was something he would deal with to make sure the sight distance was there to make the turn. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2117 recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. C/Z 01-05 and PP 4 01-27, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. � IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE LIAISONS A. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson The commission discussed possible candidates and when past commissioners served. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, electing Cindy Finerty as Chairperson and electing Sonia Campbell as Vice Chairperson. Motion carried 5-0. B. Appointment of an Art in Public Places Representative, a Civic Center Steering Committee Representative, Qppointment of a ; Desert Willow Committee Representative, Appointment of a 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 � Landscape Committee Representative, Appointment of a Project Area 4 Committee Representative, Appointment of a Representative to the Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage Monterey Avenue Corridor Planning Work Group, and Appointment of a Zoning Ordinance Review Committee Representative. The commission decided they would keep their existing committee assignments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, retaining existing liaisons to their current committee appointments. Motion carried 5-0. (Art in Public Places, Sonia Campbell; Civic Center Steering, Dave Tschopp; Desert Willow, Cindy Finerty; Landscape Committee, Cindy Finerty; Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage Monterey Avenue Corridor, Sabby Jonathan; Project Area 4, Cindy Finerty; and Zoning Ordinance Review, Sonia Campbell. ` XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (January 16, 2002) Commissioner Campbell said ihat AIPP met and they discussed the EI Paseo guidelines and reviewed the Brown Act with Dave Erwin. They also talked about the EI Paseo Exhibition. She informed commission that Mr. Voulkos passed away and his last appearance might have been here in Palm Desert. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - �No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (January 23 and February 13, 2002) Commissioner Finerty stated that they discussed land use. Mr. Drell said that the committee endorsed a concept and recommended that we do some more detailed planning to draw a clearer picture of what the concept is going to be and what the �.. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2002 issues would be. Commissioner Finerty said they recommended more study on the land use. Mr. Drell said that before the whole adoption of the General Plan staff would probably bring the land use plan to the commission for comment before they actually have a public hearing on it which probably wouldn't be until the fall. They hoped to wrap up the draft text by June, then do the EIR over the summer and have the hearings in the fall. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (January 22 and February 19, 2002) Commissioner Finerty stated that in January it was just informational and the meeting today was postponed until next week. 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 The commission commended Jim Lopez for the great job he did as chair. Chairperson Lopez thanked everyone and said he was looking forward more years on the commission. XIII. 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 10:02 p.m. � ~_<.�� , (J PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: - i , , � l, ___ C �,,�. -�=- CYN HIA FINERTY, Chairpersbn Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 52