Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0305 �1��� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 5, 2002 +�•• � - 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER .� . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � �. .� * � .� * * * � � * * * � * * * � � � � �. ,� � � � * � � * �. � .� � � � «- � ,� * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. tl. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CAtL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Dave Tschopp i.� Members Absent: Jim Lopez 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 February 19, 2002 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the February 19, 2002 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0. t�.. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � � � V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell indicated there were no pertinent February 28, 2002 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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, o� in written cor�espondence delivered to the � Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. 4 � A. Case No. CUP 97-16 Amendment No. 1 - WALGREENS CO., Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to allow the existing Walgreens Drug Store to operate 24 hours per day at 44-830 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith explained that Walgreens was requesting an amendment to their existing conditional use permit to operate 24 hours per day. He reminded commission that in 1997 and 1998 when the Planning Commission reviewed the precise plan request for construction of the store originally, it was a long, drawn out, complex process with a lot of input from the neighborhood, members from Architectural Review, Planning Commission and City Council. At that time staff was not prepared to get involved in trying to defend a request for a 24-hour operation. There was a condition placed requiring operation from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. They were given permission to operate their drive- j � � 2 ,,,,� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � through 24 hours for prescription purposes. At the time staff was reviewing this, the issues had to do with site planning, access, traffic congestion, traffic infiltration into the residential community to the east, architectural concerns, and others. He said that basically staff felt that time has proven that they were correct that ihe project would not have a significant impact in those respects. Staff was now prepared to look favorably upon the 24-hour operation request. The one problem staff could foresee would be if by going 24 hours they started having loading activities in the later hours. Condition 12 of the original approval prohibited delivery hours between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and that requirement would remain in place. Staff was also concerned about the area east of the project. Staff hoped that the original landscaping plan would have accomplished more. A new landscape plan called for the addition of several large canopy type trees along the east side. He said he went over the new landscape plan with the store manager who was present at the meeting, Mr. Hyman, and he seemed agreeable to its installation. There was a condition that would �,,,, impose it as part of the commission's approval. For CEQA purposes, Mr. Smith stated that the request was a Class 5 Categorical Exemption. Staff recommended approval of the application and asked for questions. Commissioner Campbell noted that in the original conditions of approval the prescription window was to be open 24 hours a day. She asked if they had to honor that. When she goes to the drug store, it is closed at 6:00 p.m. The drive-through window and the pharmacy were closed. She asked if they had to honor that and if the commission approved 24- hours a day for store hours, if that drive-through had to be open 24 hours. Mr. Smith explained that the request at that time was for permission to do it. He didn't think there was ever anything from staff's perspective ihat made it mandatory that they actually utilize it. Commissioner Campbell stated that was the purpose of it; to have a 24- hour drive-through window. They hadn't been honoring it. If their request is for 24 hours for the store, she asked if the drive-through window for the pharmacy would also be open. Mr. Smith said that the conditions would allow for that. Mr. Drell indicated that the applicant could answer that question and explained that conditional use permits put limitations on activities. They couldn't force people to do that. Commissioner r"' 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 ; Campbell pointed out that the whole purpose of it was to allow Walgreens to have the drive-through pharmacy open 24-hours. Mr. Drell didn't think at the time that they wanted it to be open 24 hours. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that they did want the pharmacy open 24 hours. Mr. Drell reiterated that conditional use permits put limitations on activity and said it was difficult to force them to operate to the maximum limit that we give them permission to use. That was a business decision that he thought was always within their prerogative in terms of those conditions. He suggested that the question be directed to the applicant. Chairperson Finerty o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. SHAWN HYMAN, 68243 Posada Road in Cathedral City, addressed the commission. Commissioner Campbell asked the applicant if the commission granted approval to be open 24 hours seven days a week, if the store would be open 24 hours or if the store would close at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Hyrr�an said the store would be open 24 hours, seven days a week. Commissioner Campbell asked if the pharmacy would also be open 24 hours. Mr. Hyman said absolutely. Commissioner Campbell asked why it wasn't now. Mr. Hyman explained that with the physical layout of their store it didn't work to only allow the pharmacy to be open and not the store. There was no barrier between the pharmacy and the regular sales floor. He indicated that the drive-through is open during their store hours right now, with the exception of Saturday and Sunday when they have restricted pharmacy hours. They are open , Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and on Saturday 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 �.. and Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. If they were allowed to be open 24 hours, they would be open (store, pharmacy, and drive- through) 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campbell said that she was very disappointed when she went there to pick up a prescription and the pharmacy was closed. She didn't see a problem with traffic and liked the store very much. She stated that she could not see a problem with the store being open 24 hours a day as long as the pharmacy was also open 24 hours a day. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He noted that all of the hard work and efforts put in when this application first came before the commission had proven to be a good investment. The concerns that existed at the time had been effectively mitigated. He thought Walgreens had proven ;`, to be a good neighbor and was in favor of granting the amendment to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Tschopp and Chairperson Finerty both concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resotution No. 2118 approving Case No. CUP 97-16 Amendment No. 1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. PP 02-01 - LEWIS BISHOP for CPC COMPUTER PAYROLL COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design to construct a 15,029 square foot office building located at �."' 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � � � .� the southwest corner of Washington Street and Delaware Place. Mr. Alvarez explained that the property is located at the southwest corner of Delaware Place and Washington Street. The property is zoned Office Professional. He indicated that the one-acre property to the west was also zoned Office Professional. To the north was a Tot Stop day care and preschool. To the south is a multifamily residential project. To the east was under the County of Riverside's jurisdiction. Mr. Alvarez stated that the request was to construct a 15,000 square foot professional office building. He noted that the property is currently undeveloped. The proposed building would be two stories with a maximum height of 25 feet. The square footage for each floor was broken down and shown on page two of the staff report. He said that this particular building was a payroll service. The company provides for payroll services for many businesses within the valley. Mr. Alvarez indicated that this particular project as designed would have many beneficial features and would provide access to their clients. He stated there would be two access driveways located on Delaware Place. The eastern driveway would have a one-way ingress leading underneath a porte cachere structure. There would be a window for pickup and delivery. He pointed out the location where payrolls would be available. The vehicles would then travel out to Delaware, make a loop and go back out to Washington. Mr. Alvarez stated that the site plan in the commission packets showed the driveway relocated at the west property line which would allow for future dual access with the property to the west. l� terms of building setbacks, Mr. Alvarez said the proposed project would meet the setback requirements. A condition was placed in the resolution requiring the building to be moved four feet to the west to accommodate the minimum 12-foot setback from property line and to meet the 1 :1 setback to height ratio on Washington as well as the 2:1 setback to height ratio on the corner. In terms of parking, Mr. Alvarez stated that this project would provide 59 offstreet parking spaces and 51 were required to meet the 4/1 ,000 required for office use. All parking spaces within this project would be covered under carports. < 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 i.. Mr. Alvarez reiterated that the building would be two stories high with a maximum height of 25 feet. He said this met the requirements of the Office Professional zone and the setback requirements were also met. The building had been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and received preliminary approval including the landscaping. (The material and color sample board was passed around.) He said the building would have stucco exteriors with some earth tones and a flat roof structure. As conditioned, the proposed project would meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned for office use and the Genera! Plan designated this as an office use. He said it is consistent with adjacent properties and as conditioned would meet all the requirements. Staff prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and recommended approvai with the conditions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report on the front page indicated that the request was for approval of a precise plan to design a medical office building and asked if that was a typo. Mr. Alvarez said yes and apologized. He clarified that it was strictly professional office � use. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the application exceeded the ordinance for the parking requirement based on the 15% reduction. He noted that in the report Mr. Alvarez indicated that the business currently has 33 employees in a 5,000 square foot building. If they extrapolated that out and said that now they would be in a 15,000 square foot building, he asked if they could envision 99 employees and if so, if 59 parking spaces were going to be enough. Mr. Alvarez said that staff had discussions with the applicant and there was a letter at the end of the staff report which indicated that in five years they could reach 60 employees. In those discussions the applicant indicated this is a computer-based business in that some employees come in at different hours, some employees work from home and come in on off schedules, but the applicant could be asked to address that issue on the working hours and utilization of the property if it reaches a 60-employee maximum as indicated in their letter, Commissioner Jonathan stated that this is a concern because he has had some experience with other computer-oriented businesses and they tend to just create cubicles and really pack the employees in so it created an unusual parking demand beyond the normal 4/1 ,000 office professional use. They could talk to the applicant and perhaps build in some kind of a condition or limitation �r.. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 .■rl similar to what they have done in other situations. He asked if Mr. Alvarez was persuaded that it wouldn't be an immediate problem and maybe more of a long term issue if they encounter the kind of success they were hoping for. Mr. Alvarez replied that staff had been persuaded. It wasn't an issue now and he and Mr. Drell talked about this in terms of having an office building parked at 4/1 ,000 and that is the minimum requirement. He said perhaps they could set some criteria for employees, but asked if there was a basis for us to do that. Mr. Drell indicated that �ight now other than for medical use there was no provision to require additional parking over 4/1 ,000. He said has thought about amending the ordinance. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he has personal experience with the City Council where Council didn't hesitate to require more parking than the ordinance. Mr. Drell disagreed. He said they didn't approve specific tenants. They were approving a building. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. Mr. Drell said that the way the ordinance is now set up, they have never in his experience required more parking because the applicant � didn't even have to tell the City who their tenant was going to be. They � could just say they are building an office building and there was no ""'� requirement that they had to describe their tenant. He said that parking requirements are an average of what is typical. For a great restaurant, the parking requirements aren't adequate. For a lousy restaurant, there was twice as much parking as they need. The standard was something in the middle. He thought our biggest problems were probably these single uses in a multiple use building. Typically there were varying tenants, some of which were above average and some below average and they typically evened out. In single use buildings they almost had to rely on the judgement of the tenant and, unfortunately, they didn't always use good judgement. In this particular case, if they have a parking problem, they have a severe problem themselves since Washington doesn't allow street parking any longer. There was virtually no overflow potential. Like when a tenant outgrows his building for other reasons, they move when it becomes a hassle. One of the things they once thought of was having the ordinance somehow set an occupancy level. But at the present time the ordinance did not have any provision to do that. They thought about how to do it and after they finished amending the General Plan they would try to include that. ; a 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � Commissioner Jonathan said he thought the requirements were "minimum" requirements. Mr. Drell said no. As a generic question, Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Drell if he was saying that the commission didn't have the capacity or authority to require any kind of parking, height or other issue that is more liberal than the ordinance. Mr. Drell said they could always provide exceptions to say they could have less than what was required, they weren't minimums. They were minimums, but they were the standards. He said the City Attorney could add to that and said they didn't even have to tell us the identity of their tenant much less how many employees they have. They are building an office building. Mr. Hargreaves stated that if they had clear evidence that parking was not going to be adequate under CEQA, they probably had the ability to mitigate that kind of a problem to address CEQA problems above and beyond what the ordinance specifically requires. But the real issue is, in the long run we don't know who the tenants will be. Mr. Drell indicated that we have separated out medical use and they could start becoming �„ more precise and define other sorts of uses in such a way that this use would be identified as being in excess. Just like when a medical use comes in, there is a conditional use permit process to be discretionary as to whether or not we will allow the use to go in. He said we could get more precise in describing types of office uses. For example, when State Farm wanted to take over one of the buildings on Monterey, they knew they needed seven spaces per 1 ,000 square feet. Commissioher Jonathan suggested that another category to consider would be computer intensive businesses. Mr. Drel( concurred and added telemarketers. Commissioner Jonathan said that the two experiences he had involved a billing company and a fending company/mortgage broker. In both those instances they just created small desks and chairs and those people were on computers and phones/headsets and that was it. He said he didn't mean to belabor the point with this application, but he thought it was relevant. Commissioner Campbell stated that she also had some of the same questions. She asked if Computer Payroll would utilize the whole building, the first and second floors. Mr. Alvarez said that was the intent �. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � � � at this time. But they couldn't require that since it is an office building. They could lease to another business if they wanted to. Commissioner Campbell said that this would change the parking situation if they were going to have 60 employees, utilize only 7,000+ square feet, then there wouldn't be adequate parking if they didn't utilize the whole building. Mr. Alvarez said that was a potential problem. Commissioner Campbell asked what would happen then and if they would have to come back for a conditional use permit to lease the second story. She asked what would happen if the second story was leased to a medical use. Mr. Alvarez said that medical use would require a conditional use permit in this particular building because the parking was strictly for professional office. Commissioner Campbell said that meant we didn't know if they were going to utilize the whole building. Mr. Alvarez said they could ask the applicant. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the driveway would run parallel to Delaware. Mr. Alvarez said it would run perpendicular and pointed out the location on the map. ' Chairperson Finerty o�ened the public heanng and asked the applicant to � address the commission. MR. LEWIS BISHOP, the project architect, 44-645 San Onofre Avenue in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said the comments were very interesting. He said he always found it enlightening to come to Planning Commission meetings. He stated that he wanted to address the concerns and informed commission that this is an owner occupied building. The intention of the project is to accommodate the growth of the business over the next five to seven years as near as they could project. Any business was subject to all the vagarities of the marketplace. But their current staff level at 33 requires more space. He said if they could see the 5,000 feet they are currently in, they are somewhat packed in like sardines in some areas. They need the space in order to occupy and do their standard business. Their business is very diverse and didn't constitute a boiler room or a large scale computer intensive phone type business. That is not what they do. He said many of the functions they do are tax related and 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 �.. accounting related which he knew Commissioner Jonathan could relate to. Consequently, they didn't get a four-foot desk, they had to have something a little more than that in order to be able to process what they do. They needed the square footage to be able to accommodate them and conduct their business. He also stated that part of the two-story program was to allow for the discretionary separation of certain business operations so that some things were public and some were not. Then they wouldn't get the distractions and the upset of the public or their clients coming in and upsetting all of the people when they come to take care of one of the pieces of business. He said he also wanted to address the parking situation discussed earlier. He stated that they have 59 spaces, so they had enough to accommodate the 60 people. They also had a garage that accommodates a rather large motor home, but they had enough parking and there was a little extra parking if they were to consider parking on the new joint usage driveway that is out of the way. i,,,, They could pick up another three cars without any undue difficulty because of the building configuration. He thought from a standpoint of practicality, it was an important concept to approve a building and not necessarily a particular use, one that is not a specified use as defined in the zoning code was pretty standard for all of them. They had to live with those regulations and if the regulations weren't sufficient to take care of the needs that they have in the city, then they needed to address the whole parking issue in a different vein. They tried diligently to provide for a lot of extra interaction with staff in order to bring the project to this level. They had been very helpful and cognizant of all the rules and regulations that have changed since they started the project last fall. He hoped the commission would look kindly on their application and asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that they would be utilizing the whole building. Mr. Bishop said yes. As far as the operation of their business, they had several different levels of things they do so some of the �" 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 i} ] � square footage was devoted to things like circulation and conference rooms which would not be occupied full time. The amount of office usable space the business intends to use was probably around 10,000 square feet for production, personnel and those kinds of uses. There was a kitchen unit for the employees, a small bar and kitchen assembly on the second floor and a lot of other uses in the building that the owner has the opportunity to use that wouldn't be in a standard office building. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Bishop said that it wasn't anticipated that the maximum number of employees would exceed 60. Mr. Bishop said it was up to the vagarities of the marketplace. They anticipate that 60 would be a pretty big number. That was a lot of people in that building and if they looked at the number of square feet required for some of the individuals and some of the departments, they could do it but it wouldn't be a pleasant place to be if they got above 60 or 65. He said they weren't looking for � anyone to condition them to that either because they might be able to find additional parking in some other locations if that would be required of the owner at some future date. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he was conside�ing placing a condition that in the event that the number of employees exceeds 60, that the applicant come back to the commission for an amendment of the conditional use permit to allow the continuation of the business. But there might not be a problem if people were ridesharing, etc. Obviously if the business went over 60 employees, there could be a problem. But if they were up to 70, 80 or 90 employees, which was consistent with their current ratio, and if they were implementing other measures such as ridesharing, utilizing public transportation, or working at different hours, if they came before the commission and it was determined that there wasn't a problem, then it wouldn't be an issue. If Mr. Bishop's expectation was that they really wouldn't go beyond 60, he assumed that wouldn't be a problem. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � Mr. Bishop said it would be a problem because they weren't asking for a conditional use permit. They were only asking for a precise plan. Commissioner Jonathan corrected that he meant to say condition of approval. Mr. Bishop said that the condition of approval was based upon the O.P. zone and they comply with ail the regulations currently in force in that zone. He didn't know how they could make them live with a different regulation. Commissioner Jonathan said they didn't, but they were there to either approve or disapprove the application. That was the purpose of communicating back and forth. Mr. Bishop said he understood that. He would find it very hard for an owner of a business to say that. He thought it was just like ;�,r, Walgreens who didn't have their drive-up drug store open 24 hours a day even though that was allowed. He would find the same analogies. Whatever is good for everyone else is good for them as well. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant was confident that the number of employees wouldn't exceed 60, why the owner would be concerned about that kind of a condition. Mr. Bishop said they couldn't predict what will happen in 7, 8 or 9 years in the future. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that he was hearing something different now. He was saying that there was a real possibility that the number of employees would exceed that. Mr. Bishop said he just couldn't predict what the business would do over the next 10 years. o""" 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 = � � Commissioner Jonathan said that the answer was he didn't know. It was possible it wouldn't exceed 60 and it was possible it would. Mr. Bishop said that was correct. He didn't know and didn't know how to predict what a business was going to do. They could be wildly successful and have to build another building a year from now and that would be great for all of them. That was the way he looked at it. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with him. Mr. Drell said that an alternative to having them come back would be to simply say that if employment exceeds 60, they must submit and implement a rideshare program. Commissioner Jonathan said he wouldn't even want to do that if there wasn't a problem, but that was an option and they couid discuss it. Mr. Bishop said that alternatively the condition could be a little looser than that. If they wanted to apply something that said that � when the employees exceed a specific number, that the program � be provided to the Planning Department that would indicate some mitigation because they might buy another piece of property, there might be an option for other things, or they might all have electric cars that would fit on a postage stamp. He didn't know the possibilities in the future. There might be other options available to them that they aren't aware of right now. Commissioner Campbell said that if they have 60 employees and 10 visitors per day, it was likely to go up to 9 5 in five years so they would be talking about 75. Mr. Bishop said that they were really talking about another item, too, that all 60 employees would be there all at the same time. In any business there were options that occur that were different from what we would normally expect. If they went to other businesses, they would see that not necessarily all of the spaces were occupied. There were other options including flex time and other conditions and they could have 100 employees and only 40 of them in this building and they would have to come back and ' 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � offer a program to mitigate something that didn't occur. That was really the kind of thing he was talking about. So they were trying to be as cognizant of the future as they could without putting huge limitations on the development of the project. Commissioner Campbell wished them a lot of luck and hoped they had more than 60 employees and they had to build a bigger building. Mr. Bishop said they did, too. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the applicant would have any problem if parking on Delaware was not allowed tor the business. Mr. Bishop didn't believe it was allowed now. He talked to the transportation department and didn't believe there was any way they could park on Delaware effectively. The street was very narrow and the occupants across the street at the Tot Stop have a rather extreme schedule with a lot of cars coming and going out � of there. He thought anyone in their right mind would not necessarily want to park on Delaware. He said there might be a hammerhead at the west end of the neighboring property that is produced and there might be a place for other cars on the street that could be created in the future. Commissioner Tschopp clarified that he wasn't saying it was something that should be taken up, but Mr. Bishop was right about the number of children at the Tot Stop. Mr. Bishop said that if they looked at the site plan they have two driveways, one was 14 feet and one was 22 feet in its final form. He said maybe one car space on Delaware would be all they could pack in there. There were some other possibilities. If they resiricted the access into the drive up, there was another four cars that could park there. Like at a bank, the porte cachere was pretty much covered up with cars during the day. There were lots of other options the business has. ''� 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � � Commissioner Tschopp indicated that he wasn't so much pointing out that the applicant might be the problem, but they could see the whole area as it develops that there could be a problem if there was parking on residential streets. So down the road if Delaware wasn't available for parking, he asked if that would be a problem. Mr. Bishop said no. He said that currently Delaware is blocked off and they couldn't go further than the west end of their property anyway. Commissioner Tschopp said he also had a question about the RV. It was indicated that it would be used for the business. Mr. Bishop said that was correct. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was truly a business RV or if it was just a place for the RV to be parked or stored. Mr. Bishop stated that it was his understanding that it is a training � facility and they go out to people's places and use it in that manner as well as using it for their own personal use. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it was primarily for business use. Mr. Bishop concurred. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Fine�ty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of the project. As she said earlier, if they were going to have 60 more employees, they have to build another building. Since it was more computer oriented, she understood that not everyone was there all at once and being in retail, she noted that sometimes there were no customers and sometimes there were ten. She moved for approval. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 `..• Commissioner Jonathan said that he favored the project. He had serious concerns about the parking situation given the fact that the applicant indicated that they intend to occupy the building with a similar business as the current one and that the current business has 33 employees in 5,000 square feet. As he mentioned, if they carried that out to 15,000 square feet, then they had almost 100 employees with only 59 parking spaces. He could foresee a problem, but didn't want to be obstructive with regards to the application because overall he thought it had merits. So the solution proposed by Mr. Bishop and Mr. Drell would be effective and that was to add a condition requiring that in the event that there are in excess of 60 employees, that the appiicant be required to come back to staff and present an acceptable plan of mitigation, whether that involved other property for parking, flex hours, whatever the case might be. With that condition, he would be in favor of the application. Commissioner Tschopp was in favor of the project and he thought it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. He stated that he didn't have a problem with the parking as it stands right now. The applicant �, meets all of the parking requirements as set forth by code. He was sure the applicant was hoping for some efficiencies in the labor force so they could gather more business with fewer employees over time. With any business, they had to monitor the number of employees they have and the number of spaces they have available so they didn't inconvenience their customers. So he would say that this business was probably no different than any other business that comes under this code and he thought it would be unfair to the applicant to state that they couldn't grow beyond a certain point. If they were going to take that plan of action, he thought they would need to look at the entire code and at other businesses that come before them. The applicant for the most part had to park on their own property. They didn't have any other places to go so they were not going to let that become a problem that would negative(y impact their customers or their employees getting to and from work and needing a place to park. He didn't see that as a problem. He thought the owner would take matters into their own hands to alleviate potential parking problems down the road and thought it would work out fine. �"" 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � J Chairperson Finerty concurred with Commissioner Tschopp. She didn't see parking as a problem. She thought that the applicant had been very forthcoming in describing the business and what they see as their potential growth and if parking became a problem, they could always relocate the RV. She asked for a motion. Commissioner Campbell moved for approval with the conditions as presented by staff. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2119 approving PP 02-01 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no). ; r.�il IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PP/CUP 01-28 - HUGH JORGENSEN for ALBERTSON'S EXPRESS, Applicant Per Planning Commission direction, presentation of a resolution denying a 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). Chairperson Finerty asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3- 0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2120 denying Case No. PP/CUP 01-28. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (February 21 , 2002) Mr. Drell said that the committee dealt with more elements and they would be coming back to land use next month. In addition to ` dealing with all the interest and controversy over the north area, they would be looking at a few remaining unresolved areas including the Alessandro Alley behind Highway 1 1 1 , especially around Walgreens and Portola. He noted that at one time they looked at Portola and tried to redesignate that with a street widening and would be looking at a few of those items and hopefully wrap up the fundamental issues by June. E. LANDSCAPE COMMtTTEE - (February 26, 2002) Chairperson Finerty said she wasn't able to attend the meeting, but according to the agenda they discussed landscape renovation at the Portola Community Center and roadway alignments at Highway 11 1 intersections. Mr. Drell indicated that we will be losing more of our medians, which was sad news. Basically the roadway alignments would be extended to six lanes and in certain areas we will unavoidably lose medians and some parkways or at least significantly narrow them. F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) � 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5 , 2002 � � G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan stated that he has been attending Planning Commission meetings for many years and it occurred to him that Ms. Monroe had been here that whole time. He said he had been thinking about it and wanted to say that she did a great job and he wanted to say thank you on behalf of the Planning Commission. He thought that the Council shouid either read these minutes or be given a note from the Chairperson and be told that the commission really appreciated all the fine work. Commissioner Campbell suggested requesting a raise for her. Commissioner Jonathan said he would leave that to the Council but he wouldn't oppose that. He didn't know if the minutes were enough, but he thought they should know they have an exemplary person hefping � them out. Commissioner Tschopp said he would second that and for the � time he has been on the commission, he appreciated her help. Chairperson Finerty concurred. Ms. Mon�oe sincerely thanked them for their comments. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p. . . .�, PHILIP DRELL Secretary ATTEST: l�l� L f 1 �,C `i-- !--� � u� , �. �k' � �(,%� CYNTHIA FINERTY, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California /tm : 20