Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1104 6:00 p.m. MINUTES two PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION h 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 4, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Finerty led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez tow Dave Tschopp Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 16, 2003 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, by minute motion approving the September 16, 2003 minutes. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Commissioner Finerty abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION `w Mr. Drell summarized pertinent October 23, 2003 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 i VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Wei None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, oT prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 03-03 - RICK EVANS, Applicant (Continued from September 2 and October 21, 2003) Request for approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five units per acre) to PCD (planned community development); and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a commercial / office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37- 001 Cook Street. Said project includes 111,880 square feet of retail (including drive-thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms; and one-story garden offices totaling 122,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062. Planning Manager Steve Smith stated he had passed out an updated Resolution for the Commission's consideration. The changes were basically reflected on page 2 relative to the size of the commercial aspect of the project, which had been reduced. The number of hotel rooms had been reduced from 140 to 130. The square footage difference on the retail portion was a reduction of approximately 1,000 square feet. Several other typographical corrections had been made as well. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4 2003 He noted that Mr. Evans had given him a letter requesting some changes relative to street widths and other public works issues. A meeting had been held this afternoon with Public Works and Mr. Evans' engineer, and he asked City Engineer Mr. Greenwood to explain what had been agreed upon at that meeting. Mr. Greenwood stated that a layout had been distributed to the Commission, and it basically presented the conditions of approval in a picture format. The conditions had been revised a number of times, and staff felt it would be better to show them on a plan. Essentially what had been worked out at the meeting were minor details. He said there were several things the Commission should be aware of. One was the fact that this project does accommodate six lanes on Gerald Ford, which was a major finding of the General Plan Traffic Study, that Gerald Ford needed to be six lanes. Cook Street also needs to be six lanes, and that was accommodated as well. The free right from Gerald Ford onto Cook was accommodated, and that was shown on the plan. One of the issues that might need to be discussed was the bus bay on Cook Street. Sunline has indicated they want to see it just about where the street is labeled "Cook Street"where there was a bubble in +� the curb line on the west side on the plan. Neither the developer nor Public Works staff felt that was the appropriate spot, and it was felt the bus bay should be just south of Berger Drive. The reason was that from staff perspective, locating the bus bay within the weaving area from that acceleration lane coming off the free right and within the right turn lane for the project driveway was not really an ideal location. That location would also tend to draw pedestrians across the street mid-block, and this was not really a good idea on a street with a 50 mile an hour speed limit. Locating the bus stop south of Berger Drive would put the bus stop very near to a signalized intersection and would be a better location, and he thought the developer agreed with that. The one issue that they tried to resolve at today's meeting was the alignment of Berger Drive with the existing Berger Drive on the east side of Cook Street. He had not had a chance to review this layout presented, but the engineer said that he thinks he has it worked out. He said it looked like it was possible that this might work. However, there was one issue for the Commission to be aware of, and that was that the College has a 29-foot wide center median on Berger Circle Drive east of Cook Street. This plan reduces that nose down to about five feet. It goes from being an entry statement kind of median down to a finger of concrete. The way it was presented, there was 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 something of an impact that needs to be judged whether it is acceptable or proper. Other than that, he felt everything here was pretty straight forward with nothing unexpected. He also mentioned that the all of the improvements on Gerald Ford and Cook Street would be with Phase I of this project. Technology, Spine Road, and Berger Drive would all be completed with Phase II of this project, and this project was a multi-phase project, with two, three, or four phases. The Spine Road improvements would not happen up front, but they would happen at the first building on Phase II. Commissioner Tschopp asked whether it was incumbent on the Commission to accept the Sunline recommendation or if the Commission could make a statement that it does not feel it is correct in that area. Mr. Greenwood responded that he felt staff could work with th3m. He said it was an interesting situation because it is the City's Public Works Department that locates the bus turnouts, and Sunline locates the bus stops. It has happened where the bus stop has not been located at the bus turnout, specifically on Washington Street, although generally they do follow the bus turnout with a bus stop. Mr. Drell noted that it was his understanding there is not currently bus service at all on Cook Street. Mr. Greenwood responded that there was service to the College on a very limited schedule. Mr. Drell added that apparently Sunline picks up almost no one. He anticipated in this area that the level of service and location of bus stops will change significantly as it develops and as the demand develops. It will probably not be known entirely where the appropriate bus stops are until that happens and we see the final design of the University on the other side and the final design of the rest of the master plan that is going to occur to the south. In the interim, it was best to wait and see what makes the most sense and once there actually is a route designed to know which side of the street, where it's going, etc., before a lot of permanent street improvements are made. Mr. Smith noted that the City Attorney's office was working on an amended development agreement which will incorporate most of the findings contained 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 in this resolution. That was still coming, but it would be presented to the Council as part of the recommended action. Mr. Drell stated that one of the unresolved issues was reconciling the parking supply relative to the medical offices, and the applicant had agreed to reduce the medical office entitlement down to meet the parking supply, and it was now in compliance. Staff and the applicant believed there will be joint use efficiencies that will occur once the project is completed between the office use and the retail use based on their differing peak demands. Mr. Smith said that meant Condition #11 would be amended, which had provided for the 30,000 square feet of medical to verbiage that staff will work on relative to what Mr. Drell outlined. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Smith to review again what Phase I will entail. Mr. Smith stated that basically it was the project at the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford. %W Mr. Evans indicated that Phase I was about 50,000 square feet of office and about 45,000 square feet of retail. Phases II and III they had not been able to predict when they may happen. Those phases matched the parcels and were tentative parcel maps. They tried to keep the whole thing in concert. He said a question was asked by Commissioner Tschopp at the last meeting what happens if the hotel phase happens before Phase II or III, and he said that would trigger the completion of any and all the Spine Road and Berger and Technology. He said they had to be cognizant that there may be a demand for it to go ahead further earlier, which the adjacent land owner may require. He said this was what they thought was the best way to reflect on what Phase I would look like and then let Phase II trigger the rest. Commissioner Tschopp asked whether ARC had given approval yet to this project. Mr. Smith responded that portions had been approved, the retail portion, but not the hotel. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the left turn from Cook Street into the center, asking whether it would hurt or change any traffic patterns on Cook Street. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 4 Mr. Greenwood responded that this was one of the items that had a lot of discussion, and he felt they had an acceptable situation presented here. Upon question by Commissioner Tschopp as to how many cars would stack up on Cook Street to make the left turn, Mr. Greenwood responded that he did not have the dimension for the driveway into the project, but he thought it was about 200 feet long, and this would accommodate about eight cars. Mr. Drell said that once the center is built out and people understand how it works, you will see people entering from the back, turning onto Berger, and driving along the Spine Road as opposed to winding your way down Main Street with your car, which will not be easy because it is being shared with pedestrians. The easiest way to get to the parking field is to go the Spine Road and then straight down the aisle that takes you into the main parking field. The advantage of this project was that it has six driveways, which is unusual. As an example, Desert Crossing effectively has only two driveways, and the mall effectively has three or four. With so many ways to get into this project, the idea was that people will ultimately disperse their access so that one of them should not get overloaded. Commissioner Lopez expressed concern with the eight-car stack-up on Cook Street in Phase I and said he could foresee that as being a problem because it could back up right into the intersection of Berger, although Berger will not be an intersection until Phase 11. Mr. Greenwood stated that the left turn off Cook will be the only access just during Phase I. Assuming this project moves along reasonably quickly, the traffic volumes on Cook Street were currently relatively low, so capacity is very good. He said he could not imagine we would ever see this turn lane stacked up with eight cars within the next four or five years. Within that time it was anticipated that Spine Road would be built, either by Phase II of this project or by some other surrounding project. He said he felt it would be a comfortable situation there, assuming the timing worked out. Mr. Drell said we might want to have some contingency relative to Berger. Mr. Evans stated in devising this plan, they looked at the question that was brought up, and their feeling has been that the right turn, the queuing lane that was agreed to with Public Works, was more than adequate to deal with the Phase I traffic for three reasons. The traffic on Cook Street during that period of time was not at the anticipated 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 r.. five-year level, much less the 20-year level, which was what the design was for. Number two, the traffic that is queuing up from Gerald Ford will have an alternate ingress off of Gerald Ford, so that traffic will be picked up by the Gerald Ford entrance with a right turn in. Basically, the accommodation for that right turn in and that queuing that was referred to, there is traffic generated from 1-10 as opposed to traffic generated from the regional roadway system. Commissioner Lopez stated that he was referring to the left-hand turn in, going north on Cook Street, into Phase 1. Mr. Evans said going northbound on Cook Street was the reason they felt they were providing adequately because the queuing and stacking in there is not going to be a huge factor. Commissioner Lopez said he hoped this would be so successful and would be such a destination. He said the developer was going to go through the first phases of success where everyone wants to come and see what this is, and he was concerned that because of that, in the early stages, the access `..► off Cook Street and the left turn should be given some consideration as to how many cars can stack up on there. If this is a successful place, it's Saturday afternoon, and it's prime season in the Valley, there will be more than eight cars stacked up. Although Cook Street can handle the traffic, we're talking about a left hand turn, and he felt consideration should be given to that. Mr. Drell asked whether it would make sense to have a contingency that if that problem does, in fact, occur, it would trigger at least development of Berger up to that driveway so you at least get access off of Berger. Mr. Greenwood responded that this would be fine. Mr. Drell stated that it could be determined by the City Engineer if significant traffic congestion is occurring. He added that if that is actually occurring, then Phase II is not long to follow. He said it was very likely that Berger and the Spine Road might get built with Phase I in conjunction with the development of the infrastructure for the balance of the master plan. Commission Tschopp asked where exactly the median was that was discussed by staff for decrease. r.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 a Mr. Drell responded that it was north of Berger, and it was one of the mod restricted right turn in, left turn out, median control structures. It would allow northbound to go left turn in but did not allow northbound left turns to exit. It was adjacent to the only access off of Cook Street, and it was approximately mid-way between Berger and Gerald Ford. Mr. Greenwood said he also wanted to make sure the median on Berger on the College side does not get lost in this discussion. He wanted to make sure the Commission understood the change to median island was to reduce it from the current 29 feet in width. In order to make the streets line up with the land plan, that median nose will have to be reduced down to five feet wide for a length of 100 feet. It goes from being a major entry statement at the College to being just a ribbon of concrete. He said there was a push and pull between those land uscs on the south edge of the project and this median on the College side. It seemed strange to tie those together, but that was what was happening. Mr. Drell stated that Berger was a private street, and the ability to do that was contingent upon agreement by the University, and he did not believe this r; latest design had been run by them. Chairperson asked Mr. Greenwood what he would recommend on the other side of Berger and said the City wanted to have a grand entrance to the University. Mr. Greenwood agreed and said what was being presented was the five-foot nose. He asked the Commission what it wanted. He asked if it was acceptable to go across the street to this entry statement and make a major change there or attempt to do that in order to make these roads line up, or if an attempt should be made to do that in some other way. Mr. Drell said the plan showed two through lanes on Berger, and he asked why that was the case. Mr. Greenwood responded that what was really wanted there was two left- turn lanes and one through lane out of the College, with space reserved in case there is a heavy traffic flow, and a second west-bound through lane could be added. j g 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 tow Mr. Drell said we do not want to encourage a heavy flow across Berger because that is entering a residential neighborhood, and he did not think there should be any contingency or encouragement of a heavy flow into that residential neighborhood. He said the Spine Road was just a two-lane road with a bike lane, and he did not know why we would ever want to have a cut- through situation to a residential collector. Mr. Greenwood stated that was why we want to do it as one lane now. If the volume develops to where it is causing a traffic problem, we would have the ability to go to a second lane. Mr. Drell asked if having just one through lane would change in any way the geometry of that median. He said he felt it was not only unnecessary but undesirable to have two through lanes, and traffic should be discouraged from going there at all costs rather than accommodating it. Mr. Greenwood responded that a lot of variations of this intersection had been seen, and there may be other ways to do this. tow Mr. Drell asked if the extra footage by having just one through lane could be added back to the median. He said the primary destination for people leaving the University is either going north or south, and it should not be going through the residential neighborhood. Traffic through the neighborhood should be limited to people whose destination is that neighborhood, and that should be handled by one lane. The purpose of the Spine Road was to service the residential area, not to relieve congestion at that intersection. Mr. Greenwood responded that his concern was that Spine Road has an as yet undetermined amount of residential development scheduled, and without a traffic study, we don't know what that volume will be. He said his gut feeling was that one lane was ultimately tolerable and probably at a pretty good level of service. The difficulty was in the geometry, making the right lanes line up with the right lanes across the street, and it was more an issue of geometry than traffic volume. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any concerns that if Spine Road becomes a priority road, traffic trying to make turns would back up and create more problems on Spine Road. He said he felt that would impact what happens at the corner of Cook and Berger. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Mr. Greenwood said staff anticipated that the intersection of Spine and Berger would have some kind of control, probably a stop sign. Technology and Spine would probably be stop controlled all the way around, and at those stop controlled intersections, it may be necessary to widen it out and provide a second through lane and a left turn pocket or right turn lane, depending on what the movements are. He said a preliminary traffic study had been prepared by one of the developers in this area, and it showed the volume on Spine Road at about 5,000 vehicles per day, based on very rough projections. Even if they are off by 50% and it is 10,000 per day, that can be accommodated by a two-lane road. He said the 5,000 per day assumed no cut-through traffic, and it was just the volumes generated within this section of land. Assuming there would be some cut-through traffic, the volume could be higher. He said in staffs discussions with the developer, it was agreed at a staff level to optimize Gerald Ford and Cook and make them really nice arterial streets with excellent capacity and scale Spine Road more to the local collector it is intended to be, so it should be able to handle the traffic we want to be on that road. Gerald Ford and Cook Street will be able to handle the traffic we want on those roads. Mr. Drell added that there would be additional right-turn lanes at the intersections to handle the potential stacking that would occur at those locations. Commissioner Tschopp stated he felt this will be a successful project, and at build out there will be many people coming north on Cook. Given that the main entrance is at the Berger intersection, traffic will enter the project on Berger. The first driveway to the right takes you down the main street area, which is not really conducive to traffic or to get to the center parking aisle, so they will probably then proceed on to Berger and use Spine Road to come in through the back. That will add a tremendous amount of traffic, and he asked if that was adequate planning to meet those needs. Mr. Drell said the peak traffic coming in and out of the residential area will be in the early morning and late afternoon, while peak traffic coming in and out of the center will be more midday. It is important to balance all the various considerations, and staff felt this was the appropriate solution. There will be a lot of traffic coming from all directions to this project, and the idea was to have enough driveways throughout the project so that dispersion of that traffic should avoid any impact in any one location. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Tschopp felt the entryway into the University was a good statement that needs to be made and kept as it is. Given that we do not have an existing Berger Drive yet, is there any way to work with the west side of Berger Drive as opposed to serving the existing Berger Drive. Mr. Greenwood responded that this can be done. A side effect was that it would really affect the land plan for this development. Commissioner Tschopp asked whether Berger Drive was laid out right now or if constraints were being imposed because there are two separate owners on opposite sides of the street. Mr. Drell responded that on the west side, there was technically one owner right now. He said there was no land plan on the south. If whatever we do involves or requires any modification of the College side, a discussion will have to be had with them to figure out how that will be accomplished and whether they agree to it. He said the idea was whether there is room to expand the curb at the College to the south a bit to preserve that median. �•. Mr. Greenwood said the difficulty was that it was the west-bound through lane that needed to be lined up. The problem was that Berger Drive on the east side was a very unusual design with a 29-foot median island, and it was hard to match up to that without duplicating that width exactly. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was open, and she asked that applicant to address the Commission. MR. RICK EVANS, 57745 Interlachen, La Quinta, said he felt most of the open issues had been discussed, and Mr. Smith had brought to the Commission's attention the letter he had submitted today which addressed certain adjustments in the resolution which subsequently his engineer had further conversation with Mr. Greenwood. He felt the had probably resolved all of the open issues from his standpoint, with the adjustments being made to the bus stops and the suggestions and recommendations from that angle, the changes on Gerald Ford and Cook Street, the new hundred-foot radius at the intersection of Gerald Ford and Cook, and to varying degrees a lot of the adjustments made in this project over the last couple of months. He noted that at their last meeting, Berger was not on center on the east side of Cook Street. They went back last week and redesigned that end of the tow project to squeeze as much as they could out of it to line it up. He said they 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 had a four-foot dimension they needed to make up in order to align with the east side, the University side, of Berger. That process lost them ten hotel rooms and 1,000 square feet of space in those two retail buildings in order to preserve the parking. They also created an additional buffer of another ten parking spaces. They wanted to go in a little over-parked from Code because things happen. A lot of changes and adjustments had been made, they worked well with staff, and they appreciated all of their input. He said Berger had been a moving target since they began this six months ago. From their standpoint, they had made it as wide as they possibly could without having a detrimental effect on the project. He offered to answer any questions. Chairperson Campbell said she would be interested in knowing exactly where the drive-thru restaurants would be. Mr. Evans responded that three were included on the plan. There were two on Cook Street, one on the south side of the entry, one on the north side of the entry, and one on Gerald Ford. Chairperson Campbell asked what kind of buffer there was going to be between Cook and the restaurants. Mr. Evans responded that one of the buffers added on Cook Street was on Pad #3, which had a buffer from the driveway with landscaping and enhanced paving. He said when they implement their landscaping program, they felt they would need to analyze even further to ensure that there is the right landscaping effect. Most importantly, there is no window on that side, it is the exit, and there will not be stacking standing there all the time. There will just be exiting cars from the drive-thru entrance. On the other side, they reversed it so that the drive-thru is on the right-hand side of Pad #4 so that when people pick up their product, that area is buffered from a lot of the view of the street. Mr. Drell said in the northern one, the one on the north side of the Cook Street entrance, the drive-thru lane does not go around the building, and it is just a circulation aisle in the parking lot. It leaves the building both engaging front and back both on the main street and on Cook Street. Where we have building engaging those streets, there is no buffer necessary at all. sod 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Tschopp noted that traffic going into Pads 3 and 4, using drive-ups, then empty back out onto Main Street. He asked if that would impair pedestrian traffic or impact that in any way. Mr. Evans said no and added that they had designed it to be two cars more than what the McDonald's scheme is for acceptable stacking, and he believed that number was eight. He said that was the most difficult case in their experience. Commissioner Tschopp stated that when the cars exit, they will exiting out onto the main street. Trying to increase and promote pedestrian traffic, he asked if the applicant had a concern that that traffic exiting the drive-ins are going to impact the pedestrian or come in conflict with that. Mr. Evans responded that they did not anticipate that to be an issue. He said while there would be exiting there, they felt it queues very nicely with the surface level of the restaurant, whichever one it happens to be, and the queuing will be, just by design of a fast food restaurant, metered in a way that allows the traffic to not stack up on the parking lot and allows adequate �•► separation. Also, that is a two or three mile an hour situation there, it is not a speed situation. Upon question by Commissioner Finerty, Mr. Evans responded that the plan had always been to have some kind of enhanced paving in the plaza. She asked if any thought had been given to locating the main restaurants at the entrances instead of focusing on the entrances both on Cook and Gerald Ford with fast food drive-thru's. Mr. Evans responded that they had them in several places, although they opted to have them this way because experience had shown that the restaurant people really did not have a big need for the main entrance locations. He said down at restaurant Pads 1 and 2, they have a very good proximity to the entrance off of Berger, and they were designed to service that end of the project as well as the hotel and some of the local traffic. He said they saw even more restaurants at the main plaza corner. Commissioner Finerty asked if that meant Pads 1 and 2 were sit-down restaurants, and Mr. Evans agreed. He said he saw one as being a three meals a day restaurant (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), which would be something like Mimi's or Coco's. He saw the one next to it as being somewhat more limited in service, probably lunch and dinner, perhaps 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 y something like PF Changf s or Macaroni Grille. He said they envisioned the locations at both sides of the plaza at the corner of Gerald Ford and Cook to be sit-down restaurants, probably two meal a day restaurants. Commissioner Finerty said in her mind the corner of Cook and Gerald Ford was the main entrance, and there would be a sit-down restaurant on each side. Mr. Evans agreed. She said that meant there would be four sit-down restaurants and three fast food restaurants with drive-thru's. Mr. Evans agreed this is what would be at those particular locations, although he did not necessarily feel it was limited to that. He said that was what they saw at this point. He said Retail #1 and #2 were designed as multiple-tenant buildings, and they saw the lineup of merchants in these two buildings as going from three to four thousand square foot restaurant down to a one thousand square foot salon. He said they had actually intended and designed the two low pavilion buildings to be restaurants, and they expected them to be able to operate with a patio that is not only out in the plaza but also their own patio. They had operable doors, and they expected those doors to be opened and closed in inclement weather. The concept was that on a day that is beautiful, they will be able to open those doors to allow diners to sit outside. On a day where it is windy, rainy, or too cold, those diners will still be able to have a nice dining experience. Commissioner Finerty noted that a few meetings back discussion had been held about the parking plan and the medical use, and the applicant said he was not going to let all the medical use get in the way of the project. She noted that the medical area had been reduced so that the applicant will be in compliance with the parking. She asked if the applicant could live with Pads 3 and 4 not being drive-thru's and not having that exception that would require expanding the freeway overlay zone to allow drive-thru's. Mr. Evans responded that this would be a very difficult thing for them. The financial model for this project really requires it. Also, the leasability of any more retail on this intersection in the foreseeable future was rather difficult to predict. A lot of it depends on the growth in the neighborhood, and they had tried to adapt themselves to the idea that not everything that is there today will be the same thing that is going to be there tomorrow. A plan was shown last time that included the expansion. They saw a building that replaces a parking lot, and that becomes below grade parking. They also saw these fast food pads, 15 to 20 years from now, as going away and becoming more intense retail uses. Part of that was not only an economic WAO 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 hardship on the project today, but in the future it would eliminate perhaps the ability for them to grow the project in the market rate condition that it needs to be able to grow in in the future when they anticipated the University to be more and the neighborhoods to be bigger. Commissioner Finerty said the applicant talked about one of the nice things about the project being the fact that one can walk everywhere, and the purpose of Main Street was to have both the cars and pedestrian-friendly use. She felt that was inconsistent with wanting three drive-thru's. Mr. Evans appreciated what she said but said we also have to recognize the market condition, that this is a freeway-oriented site, becoming less so in the next two to six years. He said he felt as the developer that he had to be very cognizant of market conditions that make a project financially viable. They also had to have a good merchandising mix for the project, and they saw that as a very important aspect. While fast food was a very important aspect today, it may not be as important in 15 years. Commissioner Finerty noted that in Palm Desert, there are really no drive- w. thru's, and most fast food restaurants are walk-in. She said they are rather successful and that there is probably every fast food restaurant known to man in the City except for I n-n-Out. Mr. Evans said he would not have recommended doing this kind of a project with this idea on Highway 111; however, this is 1-10, and they were a freeway-oriented project to a certain degree. This project will have three customers: those generated by 1-10, those generated by the neighborhoods, and those generated by the office workers. Being able to accommodate people in a multi-faceted way was an important aspect to a project like this. Not being able to accommodate them for a quick meal was a big loss for a project like this. Chairperson Campbell said with regard to the drive-thru, she really did not understand why it was so important to have drive-thru's. She said it was okay to have fast food, but she did not know why a drive-thru was needed. She felt it took the same amount of time to park and go in to get the food as it did to drive through. She said when she travels, she can go to a fast food restaurant, but she would rather go in so she can use the restroom. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 j Mr. Evans agreed with Chairperson Campbell and said he would rather go in himself, but he felt they were in the minority. A good example was Starbuck's, which is starting to create drive-thru facilities. He said they had just met with the Starbuck's people last week on this and another project, and the answer was that 30% of the customers are now using the drive-thru because they are in a hurry and they want something quick and they believe that is the quick way. He said most people think of drive-thru restaurants as being like McDonald's and Burger King. The fast food business is changing, and as you read the paper you see how they are working hard to change. McDonald's is starting to create better meals than they've ever created before, so they cannot be put in the genre of lousy food like we did even two years ago. They have to be put in the genre of they expect that they will do a better job and be a better product. But there is that customer who wants to swing in and swing out and get the job don-c and go on to their next spot. He said they had looked at this project to try to blend a lot of uses. The office use is an important blend for them. This is not a Wal-Mart center or an Alberton's center. He said they looked for traffic generators when they put together the merchandising scheme. The office product is, in fact, a traffic generator. The hotel product was, in fact, a traffic generator. The residential was also a traffic generator, as was the highway customer that is quick on and quick off of the highway, and that was a very important aspect of the WWI project because there will a lot of people getting on and off that freeway to go to the gas stations. Medical office was high on their list, but it was not so high that it should jeopardize the project. He said they had come in with a recommendation with the encouragement of Mr. Drell and the staff to say they currently are approximately 37 cars over-parked according to Code. That was not enough to provide the required parking for the medical office, but it was enough to provide the required parking for about 20,000 square feet of the 30,000 requested. On the medical office, if the project quantity of medical office rises and falls on available excess parking, that is a fair way to deal with the issue of the six to one parking ratio. Chairperson Campbell said she wanted to make sure the hotel would be built and not have the project stop with Phase 1 without the other phases being built. Mr. Evans said he felt Phase 1 was a done deal for them as long as the Commission is willing to accept it on its merits. The hotel phase was not a current phase, and they did not have a transaction with a hotel. They had activity on Phase 1 that is different than the hotel. He said they did not plan j 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 for the hotel to be built and have nothing else built. They did not see it as the first thing that happens on the project. He said he felt the phasing plan shown was indicative of that. The one thing they could not predict was whether the hotel phase would be built before Phase 2 or 3 with the office and/or the rest of the retail. It was possible that may happen and trigger Phase 2 before the rest of the office and the rest of the retail. Given that and market conditions and the housing being planned around them, he did not think there was going to be any delay on the whole thing. He said they were being very cautious, conservative, and fair. They also conceded the fact that right now the right thing for the comer is the project that is Phase 1. As time goes on and more people are in the neighborhood, Phase 2 and Phase 3 will become attractive as the market conditions improve. Chairperson Campbell said she did not want to see just Phase 1 be built and the rest be left barren land, with somebody else needing to come along and take up where this applicant left off. She said she hoped this would not happen. Mr. Drell added that the problem was that right now it is in the middle of nowhere. He said what you don't want is for a project to be over built initially beyond what the markets can suppori, and then the whole thing collapses. By definition, the project will have to grow and evolve as the neighborhood grows and evolves around it. The greatest appeal of the project is the Main Street. Today it is a freeway-oriented project because that is where the traffic is generated. The Main Street becomes attractive when residents and the University start growing up around it. To a certain degree, what happens at Desert Willow is going to be a determinant. If we get those hotels built in Desert Willow, suddenly there is a greater mass of customers in the neighborhood. Upon question by Chairperson Campbell, Mr. Drell responded that the Commission is not voting on Phase I, it is voting on the master plan for the whole project. Probably the only indeterminate aspect of the project right now is the hotel. Mr. Evans is not a hotel developer. He has provided a pad for the hotel, but that is something that would have to come back to the Commission. Or if there was any significant change in any of the phases as they were to be built, those would also come back to the Commission. The Commission was voting on the whole project. We are in an optimistic business and always assume that the plans we approve will get built, although there is never a guarantee that anything gets built. He believed this 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 was the right project for this location given its unique market g p � g q variety of demand. It was very likely that as Phase 2 and Phase 3 evolve, they will be different than the Commission was seeing now, and in those cases, they would come back to the Commission. MR. MIKE MARIX, 128 Vista Monte, Palm Desert, said they owned the balance of the property here. He supported Mr. Evans' program. He had once concern and said he had not seen the site plan for some months. This was the first update he had see, although that was his own fault. When the project was first discussed, the hotel was going to be in the middle of it. Discussion was held relative to view corridors and heights. The hotel had now been moved, and he had some concern about a 35-foot building adjacent to residential directly west of it. He said they had not yet established the elevation directly of those residential pads to the west, but he would not like to see the view be the third floor of the hotel. He asked the Commission to consider this in the course of approving grading plans and the like. Mr. Drell said he believed in the master plan submitted, directly west was the park and the public facilities. One of the reasons the park was there was a significant need to take up grade for the shopping center since it has to be relatively flat. He said the grading plan showed a significant grade, and he thought the residential pads could be 20 or 30 feet above the grade of this project. An interesting architectural problem was how to deal with rooftop equipment of all the buildings, given the fact that the residential lots will be considerably higher. How that rooftop equipment is screened is a different problem than we are normally used to where we're looking at eye level. Mr. Marix added that he does support this project and felt it would be complementary to what they are going to do. So far they have had good talks and sensitivity about adjoining uses. MS. KIM HOUSKEN, 73-237 Somera, said she was not well-versed in this project, although she had read up on it a bit. She was intrigued by the idea of a Main Street and felt it was a great idea. She felt a pedestrian friendly area was a wonderful idea, especially with family restaurants. She concurred with Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Finerty that it seems a contradiction to have fast food restaurants where you're encouraging people to stroll. Mr. Evans himself said this was not a speed situation turning onto Main Street, but "fast" meant "speed" and people wanted to get in and get 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 out. The location was a major entry into the City, and she questioned whether this was something we want to have coming into Palm Desert. In her mind, when she heard the term fast food, she started to think about strip malls and nail joints, and it goes downhill really quick. In terms of this major entrance to the City, she felt it should be carefully thought out as to what will be put there. She added that there still seemed to be a lot of questions, including about what kind of restaurants, and she thought of Denny's when hearing about a three meals a day restaurant. She did not think this was the kind of restaurant that should be out there. With regard to the hotel, she was not sure what type there would be—would it be like a Motel 6? She added that there were a lot of unanswered questions, and with the General Plan still be amended, it would seem prudent to continue this case until we see what direction the City Council will take with the General Plan. Chairperson Campbell declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Finerty agreed with the last speaker that this is an intriguing project, and it was an interesting concept with the Main Street. As we have gone through the process, this was something she would like to see. %NW Unfortunately, she could not support it at this point for a number of reasons. She had never been particularly thrilled with the architecture, and she understood that the applicant had changed architects. This project, because of all the little stores packed together, was the opposite of the big box concept, but the architecture to her reminded her of a bunch of little boxes. She said she knew there were no landscaping plans yet, and we really do not know what the hotel will look like, and Architectural Review Commission was still looking at it. With regard to the height issues for the hotel and retail and requesting exceptions for a 34-foot height, she was not seeing where the benefit of anything architectural was helping with the extra height, because it still looked like a bunch of little boxes to her. She was concerned about the entire surface being dg, and she was not convinced that would hold up and work. She was appreciative of the fact that the applicant had come into compliance with the parking. Her main objection was the gateway to the City, and this would not be her idea of a gateway as the main entrance to Palm Desert: a) because of architecture; b) because of the fast food. She was not a fan of fast food restaurants and had never supported fast food drive-thru restaurants with all the applications that had come before the Commission, and she could not do so now. She understood with the Wonder Palms agreement Pad 5 was already allowed for the drive-thru; however, Pads 3 and 4 do require an exception that she could not support. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 t She said it was hard for her to live with all the fast food restaurants, and 44 making them drive-thru's on top of that was an intolerable situation. Palm Desert has done well without drive-thru's, and she thought that was an image she would like to see continue. Additionally, the locations of the fast food restaurants, Pads 3, 4, and 5, right at the entrance, again that would not be what she would want to see when you enter. That was not her idea of a gateway to Palm Desert, which has that resort atmosphere so that when you enter somewhere you're not going to see this fast food on both sides as you enter off of Cook. If changes could be made to accommodate her concerns, she felt it eventually could be a nice project, but for right now, she would not be able to support it. Commissioner Tschopp said this project was on a very busy intersection adjacent to an Interstate, and across the street from a university that will grow to some significance over time. He said he felt it would be a mistake on the part of the Commission to tie the developer's hands and tell him what types of restaurants and businesses to put inside. He felt the market would require fast food restaurants. He said he was not enamored with the location of them, but in looking at the plan he was not sure where else they would go. The market does require fast foods, and many years back in college, he remembers they ate fast food. He felt this was convenient to the College and to the Interstate, and he did not have a problem with that. He thought the entryway was actually beautiful. Standing in the intersection looking up through the project, he felt it was a good look for that area, and he felt the developer had done a good job given the environmental constraints that are out there, including the wind. With regard to the architecture, he felt it could work out there. Overall, he felt the plan was compatible and was consistent with the current projects out there and with the proposed development. He felt it would be a good fit and hoped it would work the way it has been envisioned with the Main Street walkway, etc. If the Commission were to approve it, he would like to have the conditions to mitigate any problems that occur on Cook Street with the left-hand turn lane, why we only have Phase 1 included, and he would also like to make sure we maintain the median to the College's satisfaction across the street. He felt an entry into the College as well as this project needed to be a statement and should be maintained. Commissioner Lopez said he also saw this a little differently from the standpoint of the overall project. The medical office and the lines for parking and the reduction and limitations of that, it was his understanding we would log 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 r.. have to reword Item #11, and he asked if that was something that needed to be done this evening or if it was something staff would work on. Planning Manager Steve Smith said he had some language that could be used. Commissioner Lopez said he would look to staff to make that appropriate change. The development agreement Item #12 would need to be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to anything else being moved forward on this. The concerns regarding the hotel developer were concerns he also had, but he also knew that we are in an environment right now where hotels are not developing. With few exceptions in our community right now, hotels are doing terribly, and this destination resort usually lags one to two years behind what happens normally in the normal hotel environment. It takes a little bit longer for the recessions to hit here, and it also takes a little bit longer for them to move out. He did not know what would go there, but he would rely on Architectural Review to make sure the project looks great. Experience told him that there is a chance we will be sitting there with that property the way we're looking right now at Desert Willow. It has been there �••• forever, and no one has jumped on it even for one dollar, so it could be a challenge for the future. He believed the concept was correct and the location was good. The usage of restaurants across the street to help support the people who would be staying in that location was fine. Knowing where the project will be located, he said there was a need and it made sense for fast food drive-thru in Phase 1. He would really recommend that in the future phases we carefully take a look at Pad 3 and see if that makes sense. That particular pad has the opportunity to have a negative effect on the entire project as it pertains going down Cook Street. Pads 5 and 4 he felt were pretty well hidden. Overall, he felt it looked fine architecturally. With the proper changes on some of the conditions of approval, he felt good about it. Chairperson Campbell said she liked the project very much and felt it was a great entrance to the City. Her only comment would be in regard to the fast food restaurants. She did not mind Pad 5 because it did not seem that it would have more through traffic like Cook Street has, but she had a problem with Pad 4 being a drive-thru restaurant. She agreed with Commissioner Lopez on Pad 3 and did not feel it should have a drive-thru restaurant. She really did not like the drive-thru on the corner of Dinah Shore and Monterey VMW and felt it would look terrible. As far as everything else was concerned with 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 the parking and the medical buildings, she did not have any problems with that. Mr. Drell said what he heard was that there were three votes in favor of fast food on Gerald Ford and maybe the fast food on the north side of the entrance but not on the south side of the entrance. He asked if there was a good elevation of either of those Cook Street fast foods, and he felt perhaps if the Commissioners saw a very specific view of what it might look like form Cook Street, it might change their minds. The fast food on the north side of the entrance should look no different than any other store because the drive- thru aisle is not differentiated. He said the one on the north side of the entrance was not circled by the aisle and was just a building next to a parking lot and an aisle in the parking lot that people drive through, which they do all the time in a parking lot. Commissioner Tschopp asked if when the Commission approves a pad for a restaurant, they are saying it cculd be a drive-thru. Commissioner Finerty stated that drive-thru's are not allowed in the City. Mr. Drell responded that this was not true. The City has a specific zone which specifically allows it at major intersections next to the Interchange. Commissioner Tschopp said it was his understanding when the Commission approves a restaurant pad, it is not stating that it has to be something like a Ruth's Chris and it could be a Taco Bell 2. Mr. Drell responded that we do not have the ability to approve tenants. Land uses are approved as well as physical development. Commissioner Tschopp said if the problem with Pad 3 is with the drive-thru, hopefully the architecture could handle that or perhaps see if the Commission wants to look at eliminating the drive-thru on that pad, leaving it as a restaurant pad and stating that it wants the architecture to be compatible with the rest of the center. Mr. Drell responded that he was sure it would be. The issue was what level of approval does the Commission want to confer. The Commission can confer any level it wants. It can require that the drive-thru's, which the i Commission has not yet seen elevations of, be brought before the 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commission. The problem Mr. Evans has is that to finance the project and start the project, he has to know he has certain tenants of some sort, and that is based on what he expects to get from certain drive-thru restaurants. He asked how the developer could ease the Commission's mind as to the final appearance of those at this stage. Mr. Evans said they had endeavored to put together a balanced project, not slanted in one direction or the other. Their experience said that the neighborhood that is going to be around this project would fully utilize all the uses that have been planned. As mentioned by Mr. Drell at the last meeting, when they started working on this corner, they were working solely within the Wonder Palms development agreement, which really was 11 acres of this project currently. They were encouraged by staff to abandon the idea of a gasoline station and four fast food pads on the six acres, and they encouraged them to look at something that had a lot more vision attached to it. They endeavored to pull together a project that had balance, that met conditions, that was unusual. He said this was an unusual and upcoming area, a growing area. They endeavored to create balance of the project, not only visual balance but also merchandising balance. There were a lot of different customers out there. They were not like himself and Chairperson Campbell where they go to a fast food restaurant not for the drive-in but for the food and for the relaxation and a spot to relax for a bit before getting back on the road. He said there are people who go to fast food restaurants because that's where they like to go, while there were people who preferred to go to a sit down restaurant. There were people who do all different kinds of things. This is a big project in a big corner. They felt the fast food in this case offers great balance. He said what he would be willing to do, if it was of any interest at all, was to have Phase 1 approved and deal with the fast food pad on the Phase 2 portion of the site as a future question that would have to come back for approval rather than taking it off the site plan. Perhaps the market condition would change for the developer in that time period and make more sense to do that. He said his experience showed that across the street from a brand new university, across the street from brand new middle income, young families, near a freeway, across from the Hampton Inn, down from the Courtyard, down from the Residence Inn, there was a big demand for this kind of product. He felt that while the Commission was correct in saying it is not in many other places in the center of the City of Palm Desert, they recognized that, and it was not a debate nor reason for them to justify anything. They were looking solely at market conditions and saying that from a market condition standpoint, financing of this project 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 standpoint, it is an economic hardship on them to knock those fast food pads out. Commissioner Finerty said it was not the fast food pads, it was the fast food drive-thru's on Pads 3 and 4. Mr. Evans said there were not that many restaurants in the market. If those were made into sit down restaurants, their experience was that those locations they want on the plaza, where they want this really nice, easy dining, comfortable restaurant on the plaza, were not going to be there. Commissioner Finerty said if the drive-thru were removed, they could still have their Burger King or whatever, it just would not include the drive-thru feature. Mr. Drell said part of the reason the freeway overlay zone was created which allowed drive-thru restaurants was to provide the property owners in Palm Desert the same ability to attract restaurants and commercial as the property owners on the other side of the freeway in the County. Given a choice of locating their In-n-Out Burger on the north side of the freeway or the south side of the freeway, they're going to go on the north side if it means giving up the drive-thru on the south side. The other issue he felt was important was that what we're suggesting Mr. Evans do in terms of design of this sort of project was unconventional. This was not a project that lenders are used to seeing. It doesn't have the big anchor. It doesn't have an Albertson's, Wal-Mart, Target. This is an unconventional project that a lender will have to be creative to finance. What they will be looking for, in the absence of a Wal-Mart or Target or Albertson's, is what they call "credit tenants". Who are the sort of tenants that we know will be successful? If they are not as successful as Mr. Evans, what sort of tenants are we sure will be successful that will at least additionally carry the project. That is why there are so many projects with gas stations on the comer. When lenders see the gas station, they say well the money he might not make or the time it takes to develop success for the rest of the project, he will be able to be carried along, in essence, by the gas station. That is why almost every project you see has a gas station or a bank or a big box. The things we find most attractive about this project are the things that scare most lenders. They want to see what is familiar, what they know will be successful. What they know will be successful is a gas station or fast food. They know that can carry the project, especially in the beginning, and that will induce them to lend money on those 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4 2003 `w aspects of the project for which they are more uncomfortable, which are those aspects we find most intriguing, most exciting. Unfortunately, in the financial community, you can't have one without the other. This project has pretty much rejected most of those things, the big box, the gas station, the drug store, the supermarket. It will need something of known financial value that the lender can hang his hat on, and what is left is the fast food restaurants. Over time, he felt those parking lots that support the drive-thru can disappear, mainly because their value as frontage on Cook Street will be far more important as a building. Hopefully by then this project will be a great success. Commissioner Tschopp said as he understood the rest of the Commissioners, they were not opposed to restaurant pads going there. They were opposed to the drive:hru's. To offer some type of compromise, he asked if we could require that the drive-thru's be sufficiently screened by vegetation, with the specifics to be left to the Architectural Review Commission to ensure that the drive-thru's and the plantings are sufficient to screen them. i••• Commissioner Finerty said when the Wonder Palms ordinance (No. 838)was adopted back in 1997, the City Council at that time had no drive-thru's, and the one area that they decided could have drive-thru's was this freeway overlay zone. They set down different criteria that needed to apply. These criteria do talk about screening with landscaping and that the menu boards be screened and out of public view. But they also said that drive-thru restaurants should be limited to the portion of the property north of Gerald Ford Drive. That is where Pad 5 is covered, but Pads 3 and 4 are not, and that is why exceptions were needed. Mr. Drell said that there was no question that doing the project would require an amendment to Wonder Palms. But he believed the freeway overlay zone was applied here as well as to Monterey and Washington. He said it was a given that the standards of Wonder Palms were being modified to fit the geometry of this project, mainly because it was determined that while the Wonder Palms plan showed most of the commercial frontage on Gerald Ford, there was no disagreement that it was more appropriate to be on Cook Street. The issue came down to design, and it could either be left up to the Architectural Commission or the Commission could require that it come back here to determine whether the requirements for the architecture and landscaping are satisfactory. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Finerty said Mr. Evans wanted a decision at this meeting, and the Commission does have the ability to make its decision now. Mr. Evans could then take it to the City Council, which is where it needs to go anyway. Mr. Drell stated that development agreements do need to go to the City Council. Commissioner Finerty said that rather than waiting for ARC to look at something or to show the Commission what the drive-thru's are going to look like, the applicant might as well get all that stuff and take it to the City Cou ncil. Mr. Drell said he would suspect that the Council will want to see those pictures before they proceed as well. They w'll want some assurance, even if it is a generalized standard, that this is the standard that the final project will have to meet. They will need some visual representation of how those drive-thru's are going to look. Chairperson Campbell said she would feel comfortable having the fast food on Pad 4, which is adequately screened, but no drive-thru. For Pad 5, she would feel comfortable raving a drive-thru fast food restaurant. With regard to Pad 3, that was something that would come back with Phase 3. Mr. Drell said that there would be no guarantees, and the applicant, if he had a fast food tenant there, would have to come back and go through the process. Commissioner Finerty said that the only drive-thru then would be what Wonder Palms calls for, and that is a drive-thru on Pad 5. Upon question by Mr. Drell, Chairperson Campbell said she did not want a drive-thru on Pad 4 because it is right there on the Main Street. Mr. Drell said it would not look any different than a sit down restaurant at that location because the building abuts the street and it is adjacent to a parking lot. The fast food aisle is no different than an aisle in a parking lot. Chairperson Campbell said we will have to go ahead and see how it is adequately screened. Also, we have been talking about the University Village, and the people in the University and in the neighborhood will be riding bikes. She asked if bikes can go through drive-thru's. .ai 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4 2003 r.. Mr. Drell said right now there is no neighborhood, there is no University, and there are no bicycles. There will be bicycles five to ten years from now. Unfortunately, the project cannot wait for that in order to get financed. The project has to respond to today's market and then be able to evolve into tomorrow's market. If we cut it off at the knees, it will not respond to any market. Chairperson Campbell said if there is a drive-thru on Pad 5, you are not impaired by all the parking that you have on both sides of the Main Street. It seemed it would be easy in and easy out, whereas on Pad 4, it is a little more complicated. When you are driving out, you go into all of the parking area. Commissioner Lopez said when you look at Pad 4, the people pull into the driveway as they would to park their car and go into a fast food restaurant. However, instead of parking,they pull up to a window, get their food, and pull out. That is where he felt this was unique and where it was different. If it is well-bermed and landscaped along Cook Street, there really isn't any difference being a fast food restaurant or being a fast food restaurant with a �.• drive-thru. He said this was not a drive-thru that goes around the building and becomes exposed as it does on Monterey Avenue. This is going to be situation where they are adequately sheltered, and they are really in a parking lot. They just happen to drive up to a window in that parking lot, get their food, and leave. On Pad 5, that is really not an issue. With Pad 4, he did not think it was a situation where you will have an unsightly view of cars lined up as you do on Monterey. He said he felt it was important to get Phase 1 off on the right foot. After that, everything else will fall into place. Pad 3 in Phase 3 probably won't even be there because it wasn't in the beginning. The early plan did not include a Pad 3 in Phase 3, it was a parking lot area. He said perhaps part of the compromise could be to approve Phase 1 tonight, with the other phases and the hotel to come back to the Commission for approval. Mr. Evans said it was difficult at this point to envision that there will be a building there. The only thing that could be conceivably different is that they could find a tenant that would go there that really wouldn't need or want a drive-thru. What they were suggesting in the master plan concept, that particular pad would have to come back to the Commission for further approval based on their ability to justify a need. To disenfranchise all of the phases from what they were presenting would really put an unusual burden 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 on them, and they could not go out and market anything without their entitlements on this. They were phased, but they were master plan phased. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be advantageous if the Commission voted on the entire project tonight as presented, and then the applicant could take it to the City Council. Mr. Evans responded that this was not spirit in which he came here tonight and it was not the spirit in which he was talking. Mr. Drell said the suggestion was that the southern pad for the fast food would, in essence, be put on hold, and there would be no approval for that. He said there was no debate about the office plan or about the balance. It was already understood that in terms of the hotel, all we're talking about is the location of a hotel. The hotel will have to come back when it is finally designed by the hotel developer. To go a step further, it would be acknowledged that there will be a fast food restaurant on the north side of the entrance, but the Commission wants to see the design prior to it proceeding to be assured it is complying with the requirements of the Wonder Palms plan. Commissioner Tschopp agreed with Commissioner Lopez about Pad 4 and how that drive-thru is just an extension of the parking lot to some degree and does not have the flavor of a true drive-thru. If he understood Mr. Evans correctly and the concerns of the Commissioners on the drive-thru, we are looking at a master plan here, and he would hate to see the whole thing held up because of the drive-thru on Pad 3. Perhaps it could be approved subject to, if Mr. Evans wanted a drive-thru on Pad 3 at a later date, he would need to come back for conditional approval on that. Chairperson Campbell said agreement had been reached on that, but they were now talking about Pad 4, which is the problem. Commissioner Tschopp restated that this is a unique development, and the Commission should feel very fortunate to have this type of development coming into the City on a very viable corner. There is a lot of big box development going on in this valley, and there are a lot of big boxes still looking for places to play. He said he would hate to see an opportunity like this go down the road because we got hung up on a drive-thru that can be adequately shielded from the road. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Tschopp moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the master plan as presented, with the amendments to mitigate the traffic concerns on Cook Street that may arise, that the median be maintained on the Berger side of the street, that if the applicant desires a drive-thru on Pad 3 he would need to come back to the Commission for a conditional use permit, and that Pad 4 be adequately screened from the street so that the drive-thru is not visible from Cook Street. Motion was seconded by Lopez. With a vote of 2-2, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT, the motion FAILED. Mr. Drell stated that because the motion failed, the Commission could forward this case to the Council as no action or it could be continued to the next meeting when there will be five Commissioners present. Upon question by Commissioner Finerty relative to his preference, Mr. Evans responded that he prefer having the matter continued. Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be a hardship for Mr. Evans if the Commission continued it to the first meeting in December. She said if Mr. Evans got his decision then and had all of his pictures, he could go to the City Council the first meeting in January. Mr. Evans agreed. Commissioner Finerty moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this matter to the meeting of December 2, 2003. Motion was seconded by Campbell and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT. Chairperson Campbell reopened the public hearing. Mr. Evans asked if his understanding was correct that the drive-thru issue was the only question to resolve. Commissioner Finerty responded that this was not the only issue from her point of view. She noted she had listed her issues, and whether Mr. Evans chooses in that month's time to address them was up to him. Mr. Evans offered a suggestion that the drive-thru be eliminated on both Pads 3 and 4 and let those be restaurants, whether they be fast food or not. If they have a user that is going to require drive-thru, they can come back for some kind of conditional use permit on that pad. He suggested that in order to keep this ball moving, they would go back and work on the drive-thru element and bring it back to the Commission at some point in time for the purpose of the Planning Commission's approval of the master plan of the 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 project and Phase 1, that the drive-thru be taken off the table with regard to Pads 3 and 4 and let those be sit down restaurants for the moment and come back and justify that as a condition at a later date and time if necessary. Commissioner Tschopp said what the applicant was requesting was that he amend his motion to include Pad 4 not having a drive-thru, and if he wanted drive-thru's on Pads 3 or 4, he would need to come back to the Commission for special approval. Mr. Drell noted that the maker of the motion for continuance would have to make a motion for reconsideration. Commissioner Finerty moved to, by Minute Motion, reconsider. Motion was seconded by Chairperson Campbell and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT. Commissioner Tschopp moved to amend his prior motion to include that Pads 3 and 4 be approved without drive-thru's and if the applicant wishes drive- thru's on those pads, he will need to resubmit for a special consideration. All other portions of his previous motion would remain as previously stated. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Finerty stated that she would now support it; however, for the City Council, she would still like her other comments of concern to be forwarded. Mr. Drell stated that with regard to Commissioner's comment about the architecture, he believed the project needed a distinctive signature, which is not yet there, and he thought the applicant understood that. He said he felt the applicant was looking for enough encouragement that the project is a reality to make that effort. He felt the architecture would evolve, especially as the tenants start coming in. Part of the signature of The Gardens was the arches, but the other signature is Tommy Bahama, so the tenants start creating the character, which you don't see in the drawings right now. Mr. Evans agreed and said in the meeting with ARC, it was their intention to work on those elements and improve on them. He said they were searching for the right way to do it because they had a focal point at the plaza, the gateway, and they had worked really hard on 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4 2003 getting it together. There needed to be some studies on it that they were aware of, and ARC was aware of them, and they had agreed they would work on it. Chairperson Campbell declared the public hearing closed. Chairperson Campbell called for the vote, and the motion carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (with Commissioner Jonathan absent). It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2231, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP 03-11 and DA 03- 03, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (with Commissioner Jonathan absent). %W B. Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from September 16, October 7 and October 21, 2003--8:30 a.m. meeting) The following is a verbatim transcript of this Public Hearing: ScKey Sonia Campbell, Planning Commission Chairperson DT Don Thompson PD Phil Drell, Director of Community Development CF Cindy Finerty, Planning Commissioner John John Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research JL Jim Lopez, Planning Commissioner Sc This morning we had our General Plan meeting at 8:30, and we are again going to go ahead and have it this evening. There are people in the %WW audience who haven't had an opportunity to speak when we were talking 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 r regarding the Portola thruway. And so the public hearing is open, and I will ask...anyone who is in the audience right now who wants to speak in regard to that may do so right now. Now you may stand up. DT I was here this morning, and thanks for picking up where we left off. I didn't want to have to sit through three more hours of that. I kept slapping myself to keep myself awake most of the time. SC Can we have your name and address for the record, please. DT My name is Don Thompson. I live at 43-845 Portola Avenue here in Palm Desert. The blue card I filled out said I was speaking about the rezoning of Portola. I didn't know whether it's going to be rezoned or whether it's going to be something else happen to it. ; can speak in general terms for the first five houses north of Portola. Five of us are all together in agreement. We like the area. We would like to stay in the area, and we're going to remain in Palm Desert one way or another. But we're willing to go for rezoning or changing Portola traffic. But we would appreciate somebody doing something on this so we can make some plans for ourselves. This afternoon I went home and I wrote a thing. I'm not much of a speaker, so I wrote this , out. I put it something so you can look at it later if you want to. I have a suggestion for a solution for the Portola and Fred Waring intersection. I have never heard anybody say these particular things. I'm not an engineer. have no expertise except common sense, and I'd like to propose the following. If only two cars in the right-hand lane heading south on Portola at Fred Waring decide to proceed straight ahead, as allowed, they will block every car behind them from turning in the right-hand curve onto Fred Waring. These blocked cars frequently back up further than the intersection of Rancho Road and Portola and most times a lot further than that, even approaching back toward Rutledge. Today at 2:30, right after I got home, I went out with a camera and I took pictures of the intersection. In one case, two cars blocked the turn. Those two cars proceeded straight ahead on Portola, heading up toward 111. Instantly, there were ten cars, one right after another, turned right on Fred Waring. No problem because the light was with them (inaudible) to turn on. My suggestion is if only the first five homes on Fred Waring were removed, and that includes mine, it would allow the City to widen the street another 30 feet if it needed to put in one or even two right-hand turning lanes into Fred Waring. There'd be no way for any car to block any other car from turning as soon as they reached the corner. Taking only those five homes now would be a lot less expensive than in the 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 future, and sometime in the future it's going to have to be done. Something's got to be done there. And it would make a vast improvement immediately. Furthermore, if in the future Portola were to be widened, this part would be finished and we would all have the benefits of a more efficient traffic flow for the period of time from this point on. I also believe that the smooth turn might encourage more people to turn onto Fred Waring, thus avoiding the two-lane congestion further south on Portola. Taking 30 feet for the widening of those five lots would leave the City a 75-foot wide, 325-foot long section for landscaping, meandering sidewalks, or whatever, and would be relatively inexpensive to maintain and at the same time speed up traffic and clear congestion approaching the corner. And that's all I have to say except that we would appreciate an answer so we can make plans. Okay? Thank you. SC Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Anyone else in regard to Portola from this morning's meeting? Okay. We'll resume the public hearing for the General Plan after we hear Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515, and DA 03-03, Rick Evans, Applicant. �• FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF PUBLIC HEARING A, CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL CONTINUED WITH THIS MATTER AS FOLLOWS SC We'll go ahead and resume the public hearing. And we have Case No. GPA 01-04, Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto, City of Palm Desert, Applicant. This is continued from September 16", October 7th, and October 21 st, and an 8:30 meeting this morning. And request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto. The public hearing is open, and this will be pertaining to the EIR. Did you want to make any comments, John? PD We have a couple of things. On the General Plan, we've never talked about the park and rec element. I don't know if you want John to... CF We have a plan. PD Okay, great. CF Just sit tight. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2003 3 SC Okay. PD Okay, thank you. SC Okay, the public hearing is open for the EIR, and we're going to go ahead and take testimony from the audience in regard to that. So, did you want to say anything, John, at the beginning? John I just want to make a note that the comment period for the EIR ended yesterday and that we received only a handful of comments, but some of them warrant some very careful consideration. So we can prepare responses for those and have those hopefully ready for your meeting on the 18`h. SC Of the next meeting, okay. Thank you. Okay, anyone in the audience? The public hearing is open for any type of testimony on the EIR. Seeing none. CIF I would move to continue to November 181h at 8:30. JL Second. a�1 SC All in favor. All said "aye" SC All opposed. None. Motion carries. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion, continuing Case No. GPA 01-04 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report as it relates thereto, to November 18, 2003. Motion carried 4-0, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. VAR 03-01 - CENTENNIAL HOMES, Applicant Per Planning Commission direction on October 21, 2003, presentation of a resolution denying a request for a variance to allow the reduction in the minimum lot depth from 100 feet .r1 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4. 2003 to 96.8 feet for one lot and allow a reduction in the minimum lot width from 90 feet to 73 feet at the rear property line for one lot of Tract No. 31346. Chairperson Campbell noted that this item had been withdrawn. B. Request for consideration of a street right-of-way vacation for San Pablo Avenue south of Catalina Way. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, by minute motion, determining that the subject right-of-way is in conformity with the City's General Plan. Motion carried 4-0, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES `•. A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES No report. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE No report. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE No report. XI. COMMENTS None. 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4 2003 XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adjourning the meeting to November 18, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. Motion carried 4-0, with Commissioner Jonathan ABSENT. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. PHILIP DRELLI Secretary ATTEST: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /mg y y 7 UW 36