HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 06-69 PP-CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04 Ernest RamirezCITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: City Council review of the Planning Commissions decision approving
a precise plan of design and conditional use permit to allow a new
Jiffy Lube oil change facility with a variance from Section 25.28.060
allowing a reduction in the required "daylight triangle" setback from
43'8" to 24' and a variance from Section 25.56.400 allowing service
bays to front onto a public street. The property is located at 74-180
Highway 111.
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT: Ernest Ramirez
668 Pacific Coast Highway #517
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
CASE NOS: PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04
DATE: May 11, 2006
CONTENTS: Recommendation
Executive Summary
Background
Project Description
Analysis
Draft Resolution No. 06-69
Legal Notice
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2381
Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 21, 2006
Comments from other departments
ARC Notice of Action
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt the findings and adopt Resolution No. 06-69,
affirming the Planning Commission's decision approving PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR
05-04, subject to conditions attached.
Executive Summary:
The property is located on the corner of Highway 111, Cabrillo Avenue and Alessandro
Drive. In December of 2004, the Planning Commission and City Council determined that
Jiffy Lube type business could be an acceptable use in the C-1 zone, subject to
Staff Report
GPA 05-03, C/Z 05-04, PP 05-25 and TT 33719
Page 2
May 11, 2006
approval of a conditional use permit. In February of 2005, a precise plan, conditional
use permit application was filed to allow a single -story, 2,048 square foot Jiffy Lube oil
change facility with a variance from Section 25.28.060 reducing the required "daylight
triangle" setback from 42' to 24' and from Section 25.56.400 allowing service bays to
front onto a public street.
The project went through architectural review six (6) times to achieve a design that
would enhance the site and draw attention away from the service bays. The current
building and site plan design draws attention away from the service bays. Lowering the
building height to 12' to comply with the 24' setback requirement will eliminate the
strongest architectural features of the building creating less desirable design making the
service bays more noticeable. Furthermore, to accommodate the building design as
proposed the daylight triangle requirement eliminates 19% of the build -able lot area
making the project infeasible. On March 21, 2006, the Planning Commission approved
the proposed project on a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Finerty opposed. The
commissioners that voted in favor of the project believed that the site and building
design would enhance the area.
Discussion:
I. BACKGROUND:
A. Property Description:
The commercial zoned (C-1) property, totaling 13,469 square feet, is
located on the corner of Highway 111, Cabrillo Drive and Alessadro Drive.
A Texaco Gas station use to occupy the site has been demolished.
B. Adjacent Zoning And Land Use:
North: R-3 (4) / Apartments
South: C-1 / One El Paseo Commercial Center
East: C-1 / J & E Automotive
West: C-1 / Miraleste Co. Real Estate
C. Determination of Use:
In December of 2004, staff presented to Planning Commission and City
Council a request for a determination of use to allow a Jiffy Lube type
facility in the C-1 zone as a conditional use. Both the Planning
Commission and City Council determined that Jiffy Lube could be an
acceptable use in the C-1 zone, subject to approval of a conditional use
permit.
Staff Report
GPA 05-03, C/Z 05-04, PP 05-25 and TT 33719
Page 3
May 11, 2006
D. Sections 25.28.060 and 25.56.400:
Section 25.28.060 states that corner lot buildings shall be setback a
minimum of two feet for every foot of building height and shall not
encroach into the daylight triangle.
Section 25.56.400 states that automobile service bays shall not front onto
a public street.
E. Planning Commission:
On March 21, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the
proposed project, on a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Finerty opposed.
Commissioner Campbell stated that the building design would camouflage
the bays and would complement the One El Paseo building across the
Highway 111. Commissioner Tschopp stated that the property is a difficult
site and the project would be a great improvement without a negative
impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Tanner concurred with
Commissioner Tschopp and said the project would be a tremendous
improvement. Commissioner Finerty thought the property was too small
for this use and thought that the ordinance for the service bays not fronting
on public streets was in the best interest of the City. Chairperson Lopez
stated that the project made very good use of the property and that the
proposed landscaping and building would be an improvement to the area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan, conditional use permit to
allow a single -story, 2,048 square foot Jiffy Lube oil change facility with a
variance from Section 25.28.060 reducing the required "daylight triangle" setback
from 42' to 24' and from Section 25.56.400 allowing service bays to front onto a
public street. The facility is designed with seven (7) parking spaces, three (3)
service bays and an outdoor seating area. A driveway on Alessandro Drive
provides access to the project.
Site Plan:
The proposed building is located towards t
with the storefront facing the frontage road
wall that screen vehicles from Highway 1
property abutting the building. The outdoor
decorative concrete, three (3) flagpoles and
adjacent to Alessandro Drive.
ie southwest corner of the property
and Highway 111. A 6' high stucco
1 is located along the front of the
seating area, which includes raised
landscaping, is north of the building
Staff Report
GPA 05-03, C/Z 05-04,
Page 4
May 11, 2006
PP 05-25 and TT 33719
Setbacks and Height:
The building setbacks vary between 9' and 15' from the front (frontage road)
property line, 15' and 22' from the west side (Cabrillo), 57' from the rear
(Alessandro), and 42' from the east side yard. The wall is setback between 7'
and 11' from the front property line.
The south end of building height varies between 16'10" and 21'10" and is setback
24' from the curb. Based on the 21'10" height, the building is encroaching into the
43'8" daylight triangle requirement. The north end of the building is 14'6" high
and is setback 52' from the Cabrillo and Alessandro, complying with the 29'
daylight triangle requirement.
Access and Parking:
The main access driveway is located on Alessandro Drive. The driveway leads to
the seven (7) parking spaces and three (3) service bays. Vehicles will exit onto
Cabrillo Avenue where they can go towards Highway 111 or Alessandro Drive.
Architecture:
The building's contemporary architecture incorporates strong vertical and
horizontal elements, curved walls, earthtone stucco colors and metal panels. On
February 14, 2006, the Architectural Review Commission unanimously granted
preliminary approval of the building design.
Project Data:
STANDARD
Height
Front Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Side Yard Setbacks
Daylight triangle setback: Min of 2'
for every foot of building height.
Parking
Landscaping
III. ANALYSIS:
C-1 ZONE I
PROJECT
30'
17' to 22'
5'
9'
5'
57'
5' (Cabrillo) / 0'
15' / 42'
43'8" (north corner)/
24752'
29' (south corner
10
10
20%
32%
The proposed architectural and site design will enhance the current site and
provide for a high quality commercial project on Highway 111. The proposed use
Staff Report
GPA 05-03, C/Z 05-04, PP 05-25 and TT 33719
Page 5
May 11, 2006
is consistent with the general plan and zoning goals and objectives. The project
complies with all the development standards, except of the variances requested.
Variance:
The zoning ordinance states that variances "shall be granted only when, because
of special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this title deprives
such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification." Unlike other properties in the area, three (3)
streets surround the property affecting the building design and screening of the
service bays. Due to the property being surrounded by three (3) streets, the
service bays cannot be completely screened.
The project went through architectural review six (6) times to achieve a design
that would enhance the site and draw attention away from the service bays. The
current building and site plan design draws attention away from the service bays.
Lowering the building height to 12' to comply with the 24' setback requirement
will eliminate the strongest architectural features of the building creating less
desirable design making the service bays more noticeable.
Furthermore, to accommodate the building design as proposed the daylight
triangle requirement eliminates 19% of the build -able lot area making the project
infeasible. If the building was moved to comply with the 43'8" setback it will
encroach into the daylight triangle requirement from Cabrillo Avenue and
Alessandro Drive.
Findings for Granting a Variance:
A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in
this title.
Requiring the daylight triangle setback on this property negatively impacts
the proposed project creating a less desirable building design that will not
adequately screen the service bays and will eliminate 19% of the build-
able area making the project infeasible.
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use
of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
Staff Report
GPA 05-03, CJZ 05-04, PP 05-25 and TT 33719
Page 6
May 11, 2006
Three (3) streets affecting the build -able lot area and screening of the
service bays surround the property. The daylight triangle setback
requirement eliminates 19% of the build -able area of the property.
C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
The loss of 19% of the build -able area negatively impacts this property
and would deprive the applicant of more square footage that other
properties would be entitled to the same vicinity and commercial zone.
D. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Granting of the variance for the proposed Jiffy Lube oil change facility will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
IV. CEQA REVIEW:
The project is a Class 32, Categorical Exemption for the purposed of CEQA and
no further review is necessary.
Submitted By:
Tony Bagato
Assistant Planner
Approval:
City Man er
ACM for Devel nt Services
Department Head:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
RESOLUTION NO.06-69
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW JIFFY LURE OIL CHANGE FACILITY
WITH A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 25.28.060 ALLOWING A
REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED "DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE" SETBACK
FROM 43'8" TO 24' AND A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 25.56.400
ALLOWING SERVICE BAYS TO FRONT ONTO A PUBLIC STREET. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 74-180 HIGHWAY 111.
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-05 AND VAR 05-04:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11 th
day of May 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by ERNEST
RAMIREZ/JIFFY LUBE for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 7th day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was continued to
March 21, 2006, to consider the said request and by its Resolution No. 2381 approved
PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council
find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve the said request:
FINDINGS FOR VARIANCES:
A. Requiring the daylight triangle setback on this property negatively impacts
the proposed project creating a less desirable building design that will not
adequately screen the service bays and will eliminate 19% of the build-
able area making the project infeasible.
B. Three (3) streets affecting the build -able lot area and screening of the
service bays surround the property. The daylight triangle setback
requirement eliminates 19% of the build -able area of the property.
C. The loss of 19% of the build -able area negatively impacts this property
and would deprive the applicant of more square footage that other
properties would be entitled to the same vicinity and commercial zone.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-69
D. Granting of the variance for the proposed Jiffy Lube oil change facility will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby approve Precise Plan/ Conditional Use
Permit 05-05 and Variance 05-04, subject to conditions attached.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 21 st day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
JIM FERGUSON, Mayor
2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-69
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-05 AND VAR 05-04
Department of Communitv Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the
following conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may
be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be
presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking
areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and
Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and
which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this
condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The
final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying
among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for
various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as
periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property
Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-69
7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
8. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe -Toed Lizard,
TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
9. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a
qualified lighting engineer.
10. The applicant shall work together with the adjacent property owner to the east to
determine the height of a new block wail that shall be installed between the two
properties.
Department of Public Works:
All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to issuance of a grading permit.
3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Numbers
79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF)
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
6. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study
prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to the start of construction.
7. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electric files
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval
prior to issuance of any permits.
8. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and
the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
9. Project shall retain nuisance water on -site.
10. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature.
11. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
Ell
RESOLUTION NO. 06-69
12. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.
13. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works
and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of grading
permits. No occupancy permits shall be granted until public improvements have
been completed.
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
15. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to
the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permits for storm
water discharge associated with construction. Applicant shall contact Riverside
County Flood Control District for informational materials.
16. Driveway leading to the frontage road shall be removed and replaced with
sidewalk.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards,
CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed
on the job site.
2. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of:
a) 3000 for commercial structure.
3. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant 4"x2-
1/2"x2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
4 Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 06-69
5. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
6. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, 10, but not less than 2A106C
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A " K" type
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
7. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains
or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5'
radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive.
8. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent
detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
9. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
10. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction.
11. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2381
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN/
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW JIFFY LURE OIL
CHANGE FACILITY WITH A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 25.28.060
ALLOWING A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED "DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE"
SETBACK FROM 43'8" TO 24' AND A VARIANCE FROM SECTION
25.56.400 ALLOWING SERVICE BAYS TO FRONT ONTO A PUBLIC
STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 74-180 HIGHWAY 111.
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-05 AND VAR 05-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did
on the 7"' day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to
March 21, 2006, to consider the request by ERNEST RAMIREZ/JIFFY LUBE for approval
of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve the said
request:
FINDINGS FOR VARIANCES (ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 25.16.050):
1. Requiring the daylight triangle setback on this property negatively impacts
the proposed project creating a less desirable building design that will not
adequately screen the service bays and will eliminate 19% of the build-
able area making the project infeasible.
2. Three (3) streets affecting the build -able lot area and screening of the
service bays surround the property. The daylight triangle setback
requirement eliminates 19% of the build -able area of the property.
3. The loss of 19% of the build -able area negatively impacts this property
and would deprive the applicant of more square footage that other
properties would be entitled to the same vicinity and commercial zone.
4. Granting of the variance for the proposed Jiffy Lube oil change facility will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSI_, RESOLUTION NO. 2381
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Precise Plan/
Conditional Use Permit 05-05 and Variance 05-04, subject to conditions
attached.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 21stday of March, 2006, by the following vote, to wit.
AYES: CAMPBELL, TANNER, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ
NOES: FINERTY
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSL'iq RESOLUTION NO. 2381
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-05 AND VAR 05-04
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the
following conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may
be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be
presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking
areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and
Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and
which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this
condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The
final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying
among other. matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for
various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as
periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property
Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
3
PLANNING COMMISSIC, RESOLUTION NO. 2381 }
7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
8. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe -Toed Lizard,
TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
9. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a
qualified lighting engineer.
10. The applicant shall work together with the adjacent property owner to the east to
determine the height of a new block wall that shall be installed between the two
properties.
Department of Public Works:
1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to issuance of a grading permit.
3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Numbers
79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
6. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study
prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and .approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to the start of construction.
7. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electric files
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval
prior to issuance of any permits.
8. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and
the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
9. Project shall retain nuisance water on -site.
10. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature.
11. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
PLANNING COMMISSi,N RESOLUTION NO. 2381
12. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.
13. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works
and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of grading
permits. No occupancy permits shall be granted until public improvements have
been completed.
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
15. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to
the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permits for storm
water discharge associated with construction. Applicant shall contact Riverside
County Flood Control District for informational materials.
16. Driveway leading to the frontage road shall be removed and replaced with
sidewalk.
Riverside Countv Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards,
CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed
on the job site.
2. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of:
a) 3000 for commercial structure.
3. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant 4"x2-
1/2"x2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
4 Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
61
PLANNING COMMISSIb RESOLUTION NO. 2381
5. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
6. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, 10, but not less than 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A X' type
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
7. All buildings shalt be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains
or garden islands placed in the middle of these tum-arounds shall not exceed a 5'
radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive.
8. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent
detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
9. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
10. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction.
11. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
n
CITY OF PRIM DESERT
73`510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@pal m-deserc.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-05 AND VAR 05-04
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider a request by ERNEST RAMIREZ for JIFFY LUBE for approval of
a precise plan of design and conditional use permit to allow a new Jiffy Lube oil change
facility with a variance from Section 25.28.060 allowing a reduction in the required
"daylight triangle" setback from 43'8" to 24' and a variance from Section 25.56.400
allowing service bays to front onto a public street. The property is located at 74-180
Highway 111.
PPI CUP 146 AND VAR 0644 MAP
HI 1 1
SANANRAMO NMY
PAL IDESERTDR N
\II
1111$84NDDOJ
MeWer— snst
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project
and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community
Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
May 1, 2006 Palm Desert City Council
CITY of DESEPT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-desert, org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: March 22, 2006
Mr. Ernest Ramirez
668 Pacific Coast Highway #517
Laguna, Beach, California 92651
Re: PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its regular meeting of March 21, 2006:
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-05 AND
VAR 05-04 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
NO. 2381, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS AMENDED. MOTION
CARRIED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER FINERTY VOTED NO).
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
Philip Drell, cretary .r
Palm Desert anning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
FAIWFo o0 team /AIH
POSTED AGENDA
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 21, 2006
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, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04 - ERNEST RAMIREZ,
Applicant
(Continued from March 7, 2006)
Request for approval of a precise plan of design
and conditional use permit to allow a new Jiffy
Lube oil change facility with a variance allowing a
reduction in the required "daylight triangle"
setback from 43'8" to 24' and a variance allowing
service bays to front onto a public street for
property located at 74-180 Highway 111.
Recommended Action:
Move by _____, second by _____, approving the findings as presented by
staff.
Move by , second by adopting Planning Commission
Resolution No. approving Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04,
subject to conditions.
B. Case No. PP/HPD 06-03 - RICK SOMERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Applicant
Request for a recommendation of approval to the
City Council of a precise plan of design to allow a
10,521 square foot single family home within the
Hillside Planned Residential zone for property at
623 Indian Cove within the Canyons at Bighorn.
Recommended Action:
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
Vi. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
Vlll. PUBLIC HEARINGS
MARCH 21.2006
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising
only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing
described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
��► A. Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04 - ERNEST RAMIREZ,
Applicant
(Continued from March 7, 2006)
Request for approval of a precise plan of design and
conditional use permit to allow anew Jiffy Lube oil change
facility with a variance allowing a reduction in the required
"daylight triangle" setback from 43'8" to 24' and a variance
allowing service bays to front onto a public street for property
located at 74-180 Highway 111.
Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report and recommended approval.
Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification. The service bays front on
Cabrillo. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty asked why
they couldn't front east instead of west where there wasn't a street. Mr.
Bagato said they looked at having two drives on Alessandro and the building
would have to be pushed closer to the property line, and then there would
have to be 24-foot drive aisles on both sides which would make a less
desirable site design and wouldn't provide enough landscaping to meet the
code. Gas stations and uses like this needed to provide 20% landscaping.
Staff believed by pushing the building closer to Highway 111 and keeping a
lot of the storefront architecture there would enhance the site. Also providing
the landscaping closer to Alessandro and Cabrillo and closer to the
residential area would work better. He said the other plan wasn't well
designed.
FA
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21.2006
Mr. Drell explained the other issue was in their system. They drive through
the building and people coming from behind exit forward. They don't back
out. Mr. Bagato indicated that's why there would be two driveways, which
would take up a lot of land and asphalt.
Commissioner Tschopp asked how important it was to have a drive -through.
In old gas stations there are bays, you drive in and then back out. It looked
like there was plenty of room to back out. Mr. Bagato said that was
something they discussed early on and the applicant/Jiffy Lube felt it was
very important to them. The applicant could comment on that as well, but it
was something they talked about early in the process.
Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. GEORGE PETTIS, 36167 Date Palm Drive in Cathedral City,
came forward. He said Jiffy Lube's general contractor and architect
were also present for any specific questions relating to design. To
answer Commissioner Tschopp's questions, they were fortunate
enough that their business was good so they have multiple customers
at any time, so they stack the cars. They might have two in the bay at
any one time and they perform service on both of those cars in the
bay. In order to facilitate this, they come in and drive out. If they were
pulling in and backing out, that would back up traffic into that area.
Then they would have traffic backing up into the residential street. By
allowing it come in on the residential street and go off onto Cabrillo,
they would facilitate traffic patterns much quicker. He asked if there
were any specific questions on design.
Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Pettis said there could be two cars in
the bay, so there was a potential of six cars in three bays.
Mr. Pettis said potentially. That was the extreme.
Commissioner Finerty said it was potential enough that they didn't want the
cars to back up.
Mr. Pettis said he certainly wouldn't want it and didn't think the City's
traffic people would want people to back out, especially with the
entrance coming in on the residential street. As part of this they were
removing the driveway on the frontage road. That driveway was going
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21.2006,
away to force the customers off the Highway 111 visual and onto the
other streets. That was requested by City staff.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION.
MS. DEANNA GALE informed Commission that she works at the
adjoining property next door. She had a question regarding how the
in and out traffic would effect Cabrillo Avenue and the traffic flow on
Cabrillo, because it gets quite congested as it is at times. With the
potential to have six cars pulling out onto that street, it could present
a real traffic jam. If they had been there to see how it flows, it gets
pretty backed up at times. She thought that would be a real issue
there.
MR. JOHN MORGAN, the property owner to the east, J & E
Automotive, said he has been there for 30 years now. One thing he
needed to bring up was the water runoff. When it rains, the water
comes down his driveway from Highway 111 toward Alessandro and
he needed to be sure to have it open on both sides of the building for
the water runoff. Otherwise, it would go straight into the building. They
needed to make sure there was a natural water runoff there also. He
was okay with the Jiffy Lube next door and it was fine. He had
problems with the previous owner blocking it off and things of that
nature. That's why he was glad he was gone. But they needed to be
sure to get that in there.
As far as design, he didn't see any other way to do it. He thought it
was probably a pretty good design. But they definitely had to have
some water runoff.
He asked about a wall between their two properties. He asked if there
was going to be something between the two.
Chairperson Lopez asked if there had been any conversation regarding a
wall. Mr. Drell presumed there would be a six-foot block wall.
Mr. Pettis said there wasn't anything there right now.
Staff indicated that it could be added.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21.2006,
Mr. Pettis asked if staff understood about the water runoff. Right now
if they looked, it goes where the Texaco used to be and they still
needed to have it open. Back in the day that's how they built
buildings. They were down in a hole.
Also, he has called the City over the past six months on every windy
day because his shop fills up with sand, including today. There was
nobody coming out putting up anything around the property at all.
There was just dirt and sand blowing and that needed to be handled.
There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr.
Pettis wished to come forward to speak to the concerns.
Mr. Pettis said regarding the blow sand, it had been treated and he
shouldn't be having any more issues with it. He noted that there was
an abandoned Texaco station there. After some months, they took the
sign down and stripped it. They went through architectural review and
eventually took the building down and was vacant. He reiterated that
it had been treated and he shouldn't have any more issues with that.
He said they were comfortable with whatever the Commission wanted
them to do with the side wall. If that needed to be repaired or
replaced, he didn't know who actually owned the wall or if there was
joint ownership, but they would work with their neighbor to correct
that. He said Ernie Ramirez is their contractor and he would address
the drainage issue.
MR. ERNEST RAMIREZ, 12188 Central Avenue in Chino, California,
said they spoke with their neighbors regarding concerns with future
drainage. They would present their drainage plan through their design
engineer, who had also been made aware to look at his concerns to
make sure they don't cause any problems and alleviate some of his
problems. As long as it goes through the process and City
engineering is okay with the layout and drainage pattern, he thought
they would be okay. But they were certainly considering what he's
mentioned.
Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a question about the traffic and the
impact on Cabrillo. Mr. Diercks didn't see it as a major impact. With three
bays, they were probably talking about maybe four cars per bay and 12 cars
an hour. That was a minimal impact on the street.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21. 2006,
Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for Commission
comments or action.
Commissioner Campbell liked the design of the building, which would
camouflage the bays. Also, the design of this building right on the corner
would complement the building on the southeast corner, the One El Paseo
building, because it was also massive in height. She moved for approval.
Commissioner Finerty thought with the potential of six cars in three bays at
any time that was the clear reason as to why Jiffy Lube preferred the bays
facing west and not east. Facing east would comply with our ordinance. She
thought this lot was too small for this use and that belief was substantiated
by the request for two variances in order to make the project work. She
thought our ordinance for the service bays not fronting on public streets was
in the best interests of our city and believed it was a terrible precedent to set
for a resort city to allow the project to move forward as is. She would
definitely take a different look if the applicant was willing to have the bays
face east, which would also comply with our ordinance.
Commissioner Tschopp said it was a difficult lot and was such a great
improvement over what was there that he thought it would work very well. He
also sent his compliments to ARC. He thought they did a tremendous job
making sure they got a very nice looking building on that corner. Again, it is
a difficult lot and he believed the way Jiffy Lube works it will not have a
negative impact on the neighborhood or on the access/egress from the
service bays.
Commissioner Tanner concurred with Commissioner Tschopp. He thought
it would be a tremendous improvement. He has been in the Coachella Valley
a long time and he could tell them that when a gas station was there, there
were more than 12 cars an hour coming out on Cabrillo. He for one liked the
project and would definitely be in favor as presented.
Chairperson Lopez thought ARC did a great job and also complimented the
architect for the amount of time and effort that went into the project itself.
Obviously, they tried to convert the existing gas station and went through all
the different changes, but said the end product was one that is very
attractive. He liked the curve and the look of the building itself. He thought
it made very good use of that corner that has long been a gas station. The
landscaping of the area to the north looked great, so it would definitely be an
0
C-
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21.2006,
improvement to what's been there before and was utilizing the best they
could do with this particular location.
He thought there was a need to add a condition pertaining the wall between
the two properties. He thought they should add a six-foot block wall on the
east side of the property to the conditions. Commissioner Campbell
suggested that since it wasn't just for Jiffy Lube that it should be shared by
the adjacent property owner. Mr. Drell informed them that they couldn't
require it to be shared because the neighbor isn't asking for any permits.
Typically in these situations people doing the development build the wall.
Commission concurred. Mr. Drell asked if the wall would present any
drainage problems there, although the construction of a wall would be
consistent with the resolution of the drainage issue. Commissioner Tanner
commented on the schematics being consistent also with the design plans.
Mr. Drell agreed. He said it would be integral to the architecture.
Commissioner Campbell questioned if Jiffy Lube wanted a wall if there
wasn't a wall there now and if there had never been a wall, just a fence that
had been torn down. She asked if they should put in a condition requiring
them to install a wall. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they could modify the
condition to state a wall acceptable to the City staff, whether six feet or four
feet, something of that nature. Mr. Drell said yes.
Commissioner Tanner asked if the wall was even something that J & E
wanted. Mr. Bagato said that if anything, J & E would like a small retaining
wall. It could be an open condition to be worked out with the neighbor. He
just wanted something small because of the drainage. Mr. Drell said maybe
something just high enough to screen cars in the parking lot.
Mr. Morgan said something to divide the properties and he would
maybe like a gate. There would be times they might need them to do
repairs to go back and forth. He said that he was absolutely right
about the traffic situation at Texaco with the traffic going left and right
and this would be much better.
Mr. Drell said the wall would be mutually agreed upon between the two
parties. Commissioner Tschopp said that would be as approved by City staff.
Mr. Drell said that was correct.
Mr. Morgan said he was mostly concerned about the drainage of the
water. it needed to go around his building like it has since 1957.
I'I
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21.2006
Commissioner Campbell said the additional condition was included in her
motion. Chairperson Lopez asked for a second to the motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Finerty voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2381, approving
Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04, subject to conditions as
amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no).
B. Case No. PP/HPD 06-03 - RICK SOMERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Applicant
Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council
of a precise plan of design to allow a 10,521 square foot single
family home within the Hillside Planned Residential zone for
property at 623 Indian Cove within the Canyons at Bighorn.
Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report. He recommended that Planning
Commission recommend to City Council approval of the project. He noted
that new Fire Department conditions were distributed and asked that they
replace the ones that were included in the draft resolution.
Commissioner Tschopp asked for confirmation that the existing pad was
already rough graded to a 2,800 square foot pad as part of the Bighorn
development prior to the hillside development plan. Mr. Stendell concurred,
saying that was why it exceeds the 10,000 square foot maximum currently
in place.
Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. TYLER GAULLUADET, 2413 Camino Del Mar in Del Mar,
California, came forward. He said he was present to answer any
questions.
LV
6�
4� � �µ , CITY OF PALM DESERT �
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO:
DATE:
CASE NO:
Planning Commission
March 21, 2006
PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04
REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design and conditional use permit to
allow a new Jiffy Lube oil change facility with a variance from
Section 25.28.060 allowing a reduction in the required "daylight
triangle" setback from 43'8" to 24' and a variance from Section
25.56.400 allowing service bays to front onto a public street. The
property is located at 74-180 Highway 111.
APPLICANT: Ernest Ramirez
668 Pacific Coast Highway #517
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
I. BACKGROUND:
/�
�
Property Description:
The commercial zoned (C-1) property, totaling 13,469 square feet, is
located on the corner of Highway 111, Cabrillo Drive and Alessadro Drive.
A Texaco Gas station use to occupy the site has been demolished.
Adjacent Zoning And Land Use:
North: R-3 (4) / Apartments
South: C-1 / One EI Paseo Commercial Center
East: C-1 / J& E Automotive
West: C-1 / Miraleste Co. Real Estate
C. Determination of Use:
In December of 2004, staff presented to Planning Commission and City
Council a request for a determination of use to allow a Jiffy Lube type
facility in the C-1 zone as a conditional use. Both the Planning
Commission and City Council determined that Jiffy Lube could be an
acceptable use in the C-1 zone, subject to approval of a conditional use
permit.
STAFF REPORT �`` '
PP/CUP 05-05, VAR 05-04
MARCH 21, 2006
D. Sections 25.28.060 and 25.56.400:
�'
Section 25.28.060 states that corner lot buildings shall be setback a
minimum of two feet for every foot of building height and shall not
encroach into the daylight triangle.
Section 25.56.400 states that automobile service bays shall not front onto
a public street.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan, conditional use permit to
allow a single-story, 2,048 square foot Jiffy Lube oil change facility with a
variance from Section 25.28.060 reducing the required "daylight triangle" setback
from 42' to 24' and from Section 25.56.400 allowing service bays to front onto a
public street. The facility is designed with seven (7) parking spaces, three (3)
service bays and an outdoor seating area. A driveway on Alessandro Drive
provides access to the project.
Site Plan:
The proposed building is located towards the southwest
with the storefront facing the frontage road and Highway
wall that screen vehicles from Highway 111 is located
property abutting the building. The outdoor seating area,
decorative concrete, three (3) flagpoles and landscaping,
adjacent to Alessandro Drive.
Setbacks and Height:
corner of the property
111. A 6' high stucco
along the front of the
which includes raised
is north of the building
The building setbacks vary between 9' and 15' from the front (frontage road)
property line, 15' and 22' from the west side (Cabrillo), 57' from the rear
(Alessandro), and 42' from the east side yard. The watl is setback between 7'
and 11' from the front property line.
The south end of building height varies between 16'10" and 21'10" and is setback
24' from the curb. Based on the 21'10" height, the building is encroaching into the
43'8" daylight triangle requirement. The north end of the building is 14'6" high
and is setback 52' from the Cabrillo and Alessandro, complying with the 29'
daylight triangle requirement.
�
STAFF REPORT � �
PP/CUP 05-05, VAR 05-04
MARCH 21, 2006
Access and Parking:
The main access driveway is located on Alessandro Drive. The driveway leads to
the seven (7) parking spaces and three (3) service bays. Vehicles will exit onto
Cabrillo Avenue where they can go towards Highway 111 or Alessandro Drive.
Arch itecture:
�...
The building's contemporary architecture incorporates strong vertical and
horizontal elements, curved walls, earthtone stucco colors and metal panels. On
February 14, 2006, the Architectural Review Commission unanimously granted
preliminary approval of the building design.
Project Data:
�STANDARD
Height
Front Setback
C-1 Zt)NE
30'
5'
5'
5' (Cabrillo) / 0'
43'8" (north corner}/
29' (south corner
10
20%
PROJECT
17' to 22'
9'
57'
15' / 42'
24'152'
10
32%
Rear Yard Setback
Side Yard Setbacks
Daylight triangle setback: Min of 2'
for every foot of building height.
Parking
Landscaping
III. ANALYSIS:
The proposed architectural and site design will enhance the current site and
provide for a high quality commercial project on Highway 111. The proposed use
is consistent with the general plan and zoning goals and objectives. The project
complies with all the development standards, except of the variances requested.
Variance:
The zoning ordinance states that variances "shall be granted only when, because
of special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this title deprives
such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification." Unlike other properties in the area, three (3)
streets surround the property affecting fihe building design and screening of the
service bays. Due to the property being surrounded by three (3) streets, the
service bays cannot be completely screened.
3
STAFF REPORT �
PPlCUP 05-05, VAR 05-04
MARCH 21, 2006
��
The project went through architectural review six (6) times to achieve a design
that would enhance the site and draw attention away from the service bays. The
current building and site plan design draws attention away from the service bays.
Lowering the building height to 12' to comply with the 24' setback requirement
will eliminate the strongest architectural features of the building creating less
desirable design making the service bays more noticeable.
Furthermore, to accommodate the building design as proposed the daylight
triangle requirement eliminates 19% of the build-able lot area making the project
infeasible. If the building was moved to comply with the 43'8" setback it will
encroach into the daylight triangle requirement from Cabrillo Avenue and
Alessandro. Drive.
Findings for Granting a Variance:
A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in
this title.
Requiring the daylight triangle setback on this property negatively impacts
the proposed project creating a less desirable building design that will not
adequately screen the service bays and will eliminate 19°/a of the build-
able area making the project infeasible.
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use
of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
Three (3) streets affecting the build-able lot area and screening of the
service bays surround the property. The daylight triangle setback
requirement eliminates 19% of the build-able area of the property.
C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
The loss of 19% of the build-able area negatively impacts this property
and would deprive the applicant of more square footage that other
properties would be entitled to the same vicinity and commercial zone.
D. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
�
�.,,_,
STAFF REPORT
PP/CUP 05-05, VAR 05-04
MARCH 21, 2006
�
Granting of the variance for the proposed Jiffy Lube oil change facility will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is a Class 32, Categorical Exemption for the purposed of CEQA and
no further review is necessary.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Comm.ission adopt the findings and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. , approving PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04,
subject to conditions attached.
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Comments from other departments
D. ARC Notice of Action
Prepared by:
Q � �_ �
Tony �agat`�
Assistant Planner
Reviewed and Approved by:
,
. .i
ili Drell Homer Cro ��
Direc�tor of Community Development ACM of Comm nity Development
5
�
�.
�.
PLANNING C4MMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE
PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW JIFFY LUBE OIL
CHANGE FACILITY WITH A VARIANGE FROM SECTION 25.28.060
ALLOWING A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED "DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE"
SETBACK FROM 43'8" TO 24' AND A VARIANCE FROM SECTION
25.56.400 ALLOWING SERVICE BAYS TO FRONT ONTO A PUBLIC
STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 74-180 HIGHWAY 111.
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-05 AND VAR 05-04:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 7th day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to
March 21St, 2006, to consider the request by ERNEST RAMIREZ/JIFFY LUBE for
approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve the said
request:
FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE (ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 25.16.050):
A. Requiring the daylight triangle setback on this property negatively impacts
the proposed project creating a less desirable building design that will not
adequately screen the service bays and will eliminate 19% of the build-
able area making the project infeasible.
B. Three (3) streets affecting the build-able lot area and screening of the
service bays surround the property. The daylight triangle setback
requirement eliminates 19% of the build-able area of the property.
C. The loss of 19% of the build-able area negatively impacts this property
and would deprive the applicant of more square footage that other
properties would be entitled to the same vicinity and commercial zone.
D. Granting of the variance for the proposed Jiffy Lube oil change facility will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
. �-..
.. PLANNING COMMISSI�N RESOLUTION NO. _
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, Califomia, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Precise Plan/
Conditional Use Permit 05-05 and Variance 05-04, subject to conditions
attached.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 21Stday of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
�a
,._,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. __ �
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-05 AND VAR 05-04
Department of Communitv Development,:
The development of the property shall conform substantiaily with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community DevelopmentlPlanning, as modified by the
following conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from
the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may
be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be
presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking
areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and
Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program.
6. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and
which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this
condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The
final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying
among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for
various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as
periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property
Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
�?
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. �
8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of pubiic
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
9. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard,
TUMF, School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
10. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a
qualified lighting engineer.
Denartment of Public Works:
1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to issuance of a grading permit.
3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Numbers
79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF)
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
6. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study
prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to the start of construction.
7. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electric files
shall be .submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval
prior to issuance of any permits.
8. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and
the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
9. Project shall retain nuisance water on-site.
10. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature.
11. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
12. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.
�!
F PLANNING COMMISSICyN RESOLUTION NO. �
13. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works
and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of grading
permits. No occupancy permits shall be granted until public improvements have
been completed.
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
15. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to
the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permits for storm
water discharge associated with construction. Applicant shall contact Riverside
County Flood Control District for informational materials.
16. Driveway leading to the frontage road shall be removed and replaced with
sidewalk.
Riverside Count� Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards,
CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed
on the job site.
2. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of:
a) 3000 for commercial stru�ture.
3. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant 4"x2-
1/2"x2-1/2"}, located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
4 Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
5. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
�
r �
PLANNING COMMISSIt��� RESOLUTION NO.
6. Instali portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, 10, but not less than 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A"K" type
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
7. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains
or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5'
radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. .
8. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent
detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
9. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
10. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction.
11. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
G
CITY �F Ph��l DESERI
73-5�0 FRED WARING DR[VE
PALM DESERT, CAL[FORNIA 92260-2S7a
rEL:76o ;q6—o6��
Fnx: 760 ;4t-7og8
info�palm-deserc. org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PPlCUP 05-05 AND VAR 05-04
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Paim Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by ERNEST RAMIREZ for JIFFY LUBE for
approval of a precise plan of design and conditional use permit to allow a new Jiffy
Lube oil change facility with a variance from Section 25.28.060 allowing a reductian in
the required "daylight triangie" setback from 43'8" to 24' and a variance from Section
25.56.400 allowing service bays to front onto a public street. The prope�ty is located at
74-180 Highway 111.
/
PPlCUP 06-0� AND VAR
� � I �
s�H wuewo rwr
�
�
� -- — ----�
�
I � I
w�u�ot�wrae K
l7AT[ MWY 11.
INAP
�
�
� �
n�+.easra
�s�s�a
�aa�w�
i��i �
iY+
RIiMpESE1rTOR i
'�
�
� � •—
A
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Paim Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
Califomia, at which time and place ali interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Written comments conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information conceming the proposed project
and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community
Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Pianning
Commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHIL DRELL, Secretary
March 10, 2006 Palm Dese�t Planning Commission
�
� `..
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
( _...
�
Department of Community DevelopmenUPlanning
Attention:Tony Bagato
RE C E I���
MAY232�15
Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
PP 5-5 Jiffy Lube at Hwy 111/Cabrillo
May 12, 2005
COMMUtr'ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEHT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
The follawing shouid be considered conditions of approval for the above-named project.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shail be subrnitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. �
BONDS AND FEES
3.
4.
5.
Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of buiiding permit issuance.
A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
6. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared
by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works prior to start of construction.
7. Complete grading and improvement plans and speci�cations on electronic files shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of
any permits.
��
�- ..;, .
�,,��,
�. � .
8. Any and ail offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
g. Project sha11 retain nuisance waters on-site.
10. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature.
11. tandscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrent{y with grading plans.
12. Full pubiic improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code,
shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
13. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a
standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. No
occupancy permit shafl be granted until public improvements have baen completed.
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department.
15. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the
Director of Public Works af intended compliance with the National PoNutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges
associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control
District for informational materials.
OTHER REQU{REMENTS
16. Driveway leading to the frontage road shall be removed and replaced with sidewalk.
�
Mark Greenwood, P.E. �
av Y 1.:1��71LL' L.V V 1V !
�' � FIRE DEPARTMEN '�
In cooperation with the
California Department af Forestry and Fire Protection
73710 Fred Waring Dr. �k102 • Palm Desert, Calitomfa 922B0 •(760) 346-1870 . Fax (760) 779-1959
�y �,8 �e � Cove Fire Marshal's Ofiice
��� 73710 Fred Waring Drive #102
areas of Riverside palm Desert CA 92260
county and tl�e 760 346-1870
Cities of: ( � '
�B /��
� /sea�mnont TO:
�
Calimesa C75 "�"� S�� �uV O �'a/
Canyon Lake REF: �Q
�
coac�ella If circled, conditions aoolv to nroiect
0
Desest Hot Springs
a�
lndian Wells
�
lndio
a
Lake Elsinore
.�
La Quinta
a
Ntorceno valley
�
Palm Dese�t
�
Pearis
�
Raacho Mirage
�
San 7acinto
�
Temecula
�a oes����
Bob Buster,
Distrid 1
John Tavaglione,
Disttid 2
fim Ve�able,
Distrid 3
�oy w��,
Dishict 4
darion Ashley,
District 5
DATE; � %�j�r%�S �
��� o��'
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced project, the tire department recommends the following tire
protection measures be provided .in accordance with City Manicipat
Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection
Standards:
Tlte Fire Department is required to set a minimum tire flow for the
remodel or construction of all buildin�s oer UFC article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residaal
pressure must be availa6le before any combustible material is placed
on the iob site.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of prnviding a
gpm flow of:
1500 gpm for single family dwellings
2500 gpm for multifamily dwetling�
3000 �pm for commercial buiidings
The required fire flow shalt be available from a wet barrel Super
Hydrant (s) 4"a 2 y:" a 2'/:", located not tess than 25' nor more than:
200' from any portian of a single family dwelling measured via
vehicular travelway
165' firom any portion of a multifamily dwelting measured via
vehicular travetway
150' from any portion of a commerciat building measured via
vehicular f,ravelw�v
Water ptans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include
verification that the water system will nroduce the reauired fire ftow.
; (�.�'
�
i
�
1
' 2.
I
3.
�
5
6.
7.
I�
Craig AMtwny
Fire Chief
l .,. � .
�• .. .
��
t �.
I0.
11.
12.
- �1�
14.
15.
16.
18.
19.
20.
Please be advised the proposal project may not be feasible since the existing water
mains wil! not meet the required fire flow. ,
Iastall a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with
a 3000 square foat totat cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the
tocations of ail post indicator valves and fire department connections. Alt valves and
connections shali not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved
6vdrant Eaempted are one and two famitv dwetlings.
Atl valves controlting the water supply far automatic sprinkler systems and Water-tlow
switc6es shal! be monitored and alarmed oer CBC Chaater 9. ,
Instal! a fire alarm system as required bv the UBC Chaater 3,
Install portable fire eatinguistiers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2AlOBC
extinguisher per 3U00 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A"K" type fire
eatin�uisher is reauired in all commercial kitchens.
Install a Hood/Duct automatic fre eztinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and
orivate cooking auerations exceot sin�le-familv residential usa�e.
Instatl a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an aperation that
aroduces airborne partictes.
All building shalt be accessible by an al!-weather raadway eateuding to within 1S0' of
all port+ions of the eaterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than
24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is
required on bath sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with
parkiag on one side. Dead-end roads in ezcess of 150' shatl be provided with a
minimum 45' radius turn-around, 55' in industrial deveiouments.
Whenever access into private praperty is controlled through use of gates, barriers or
other means provisians shall be made to install a"Knox Box" key over-ride system to
allow for emergency vehicte access. Minimum gate width shall be 15' with minimum
vertical clearance of 13'6".
A dead end single access over 50Q' wilt require a secondary access, sprinklers or other
mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance shafl a
dead end over 1300' be accented.
A second access is required. This can be accompiished by two main access points from
a main roadwav ur a eme enc ate from an adioinin� develooment.
�
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
�
This project may require liceasing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of
intent detaitin� the urnoosed usa�e and occuoancv riae.
All buildin�s shali have illuminated addresses of a size auarnved bv the citv.
All fire sprinkler systems, fiaed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted seqaratety to the Fire Marshal for aaproval prior to construction.
Conditions subject to c6ange with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when
buildin� nermits are not obtained within twelve months.
All elevators shall be minimum gurnev size.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the
Fire Marsh�i's Office at (760) 346-1870 in Palm Deser�
Location: 73710 Fred Warin� Drive #102. Palm Desert CA 92260
Other:
l' °Z"' --(i'L�� �-� .�i� .�-�''`� --7��"'
i�i��� ,�,� �--�_ �.�-- ��-G-� l/(.y/�
� �J� /
Sincerely,
David A. Avita
Fire Marshal
�
�
(,. � _�.
�� CITY Of rfllf� DESERT
73—SZO FRED WAR[NG DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 922C)0-25�5
TEL: 7G0 346-o6i i
Fnx: 760 340-0574
info�palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETtNG
NOTICE OF ACTICIN
Date: December 8, 2004
Mr. Jeffrey E. Langan
Tibarom Inc.
668 North Coast Highway, No. 517
Laguna Beach, California 92651
Re: Determinatian of Use
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its regular meeting of December 7, 2004:
PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MINUTE MOTION, DETERMINED THAT A JIFFY
LUBE TYPE OF FACILITY COULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE USE IN THE C-1 Z�NE,
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CONDfT10NAL USE PERMIT. MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
`----•�'"`�, ,
r ��
Philip Drell, S cretary M. .�''
Palm Desert P nning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal �
d►
� � >AINI[OOM AE[Y(LEO PAIfA
��<e.., �. �. <
CITY �F PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT_
MISCJINFORMATIONAL ITEM
TO: City Council
FROM: Tony Bagato, Assistant Ptanner
�ATE: December 7, 2004
SUBJECT: Confirmation of a determination of use to add a Jiffy Lube type
business to the list of conditional uses in the C-1 zone.
CONTENTS: Recommendation
Executnre Summary
Discussion �
Tibarom Inc. letter requesting the determination of use
Recommendation:
That the City Council confirm the Planning Commission decision, determining
that a proposed Jiffy Lube operation can b�e considered as a conditional use in
the C-1 zone.
Executive Summary:
4n December 7, 2004, the Planning Commission wilf discuss and make a
determination of use for the existing Texaco gas station on Highway 11'E.
Tibarom Inc. is requesting staff to process a conditiona! use permit applicatior� to
allow a Jiffy Lube with a DMV satellite office on Highway 111. Currently, the C-1
zone allows automobile service stations as a conditional use. a Jiffy Lube type
business does not meet the zoning ordinance. definition of a service station.
However, from an urban design and land use point of view, a Jiffy Lube can meet
the same goals, objectives and design standards of a gas station. If, the Jiffy
Lube is determined to be an acceptable as a conditinnal use, a separate precise
plan and conditionaf use application will be filed and a public hearing wilt follow.
aiscussion:
Tibarom Inc. currentfy owns and operates the two existing Jiffy Lubes in Palm
Desert located on Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive. They have entered
into a�ontract to purchase the existing Texaco service station located at 74-180
Highway 111 and are interested in changing the service station into a three (3)
bay Jiffy Lube that will also function as a satellite office for the State Department
of Motor Vehicles (DMV), which provides smog checks and vehicle registration
renewals. As part of the use change, the existing building will be demolished, the
underground petroleum tanks will be removed, and the property will be
redesigned with a new site, building and {andscape design.
t _ `� � �
STAFF REPORT �
DETERMINATION OF USE
DECEMBER 9, 2004
The property is zoned C-1, generai commercial. it is surrounded by R-3 zoning to
the north and C-1 zone to the south, east and west.
The general commercial zone allows automobile service stations located on
State Highways and major arterial streets as a conditional use permit. The zoning
ordinance defines a service station as:
"A retail place of business engaged primarily in the sale of motor
fuels and supplying only those incidental goods and services which
are required in the day-to-day operation of automotive vehicles and
motorist needs."
Jiffy Lube does not meet the definition of a service station and is not listed as a
conditional use in the C-1 zone. However, from an urban design and land use
point of view, a Jiffy Lube is no different than a gas station. It can meet the same
goals, objectives and design standards of a gas station. Section 25.74.010
(Determination of Use Not Listed) states that the Planning Commission shall
determine a use not specifically listed as a permitted use or conditional use in
any on.e or more districts on the basis of similarity of uses specifically listed.
Tibarom Inc. is requesting staff to process a conditional use permit application to
allow a Jiffy Lube with a DMV satellite office on Highway �111. If the Jiffy Lube is
deemed a conditional use, a separate application and public hearing will follow.
Submitted By:
� �
� 7 � r r..�,v�
Tony Bagato %
Assistant Planner
Services
Department Head: .
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
CITY COUNCI�TION:
APPRO`TED DENIED
RECE IVED QT�g
A�ETTN ,�- -�c ,
?IYES ; �y ( �
"JOES :
!�l , ,..
�,BSENT: . � �� ,
�BSTAIN � , ��`'�-- • � �
VERI F SED BY :, l,t 1�,. / Yh,t-,�v� '
Qric�?.n�1 nn �`i1A wi�h�r#t-�► r+�..ru�.. n.c�a,
Approval:
�
�
!
F
r
�. .
� »�
GIjY 0���at�l
73-510 FRED WARING I�RIVE
PALM I.IESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-25y8
T�,: �60 346—o6cz
F.4x:76o 34t-7oq8
info@palm-desert.org
D�S�R1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CCIMMISStON ACTION
CASE NO.: PP 05-05/CUP 05-01
APPLICANT �AND ADDRESSI: ERNEST RAMiREZ, 668 N. Pacific Coast Highway,
Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised
elevations and color board for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a
new Jiffy Lube drive through facifiiy.
LOCATiON: 74-18� Highway 119
ZONE: C-1
Upon reviewing the pians and presentations submitted by staff and by the
appticant, the Architecturaf Review Gommission granted preliminary approval of
archite+cture onty, subject to changes discussed with the architect.
Date of Action: February 14, 2006
Vote: Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Lopez absent.
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within �fteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved pian would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMEMTS: {t is your responsibility to submit the pians approved by the
Architectura{ Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or
revised p{ans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days
prior to the next meeting.
February 14, 2006
?� � PAINI[� ONIE(YQEO tAHA
t-- � � �- � {�� �
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 14, 20U6
MINUTES
approval of the landscape pian. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with
Commissioner Lopez absent.
8. CASE NO.: PP 03-11
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSj: THE EVANS COMPANY, 74-000
Country Club Drive, Suite H-2, Palm Desert, CA 92211
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
elevations for buildings 2A and 2B at The Village at University Park.
LOCATION: 37-825 Cook Street
ZONE: PCD
Actlon: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell for final approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with
Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent.
B. Preliminary Plans
/1.? 1. CASE NO.: PP 05-051CUP 05-01
'v��
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific
Coast Highway, Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:, Request approval of
revised elevations and color board for the conversion of existing
Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube drive through facility.
LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Commissioner Vuksic stated that there are some items that need
clarification, but the overall project looks great. He thanked Burt
Tarayao, project architect, for providing the sections, which were useful.
In section C, the glass in the customer lounge is shown flush to the
exterior wall, but I don't think it is. Mr. Tarayao stated that the windows
will be inset. Commissioner Vuksic stated that in section A in the
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocsWgmin1AR060214.MIN 6
, , �� � �� �
�
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
MINUTES
customer lounge there's glass that's flush to the wail and asked the
architect if he could bring the soffit out six more inches to get some
reveal. Mr. Tarayao agreed to add a projection to add shadow lines.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the south elevation has some wall
space above the storefront glass that goes to the ground and it looks
like it's flush with the glass. Mr. Tarayao stated that it's recessed.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that section D doesn't show that recess.
Commissioner Hanson suggested dropping the soffit. Commissioner
Vuksic concurred and commented that it's important for the glass to line
up. Don't leave a flat spot that would look like you intended to put glass
there but the contractor forgot because that's what it looks like.
Mr. Bagato showed the commission alternative exterior colors for their
review. The drawing shows a steel color. The altemate is more of a
warmer color in the brown range. Commissioner Lambell commented
that she liked the warmer color better.
Mr. Bagato asked the commission about the proposed signage. Jiffy
Lube usually uses red lettering, but they're proposing a cherry cola
color for the letters. Commissioners Hanson and Vuksic commented
that the color looks very nice.
Mr. Tarayao asked which color the commission would prefer.
Commissioners Vuksic and Lambelf commented that they like the
warmer color. Mr, Smith stated that the architect has the ability to ask
the commission to change the color when working drawings are
submitted for final approval. Commissioner Hanson stated that it is a
building that's related to automobiles, so the steel color might be
appropriate.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, se�conded by Commissioner
Lambell for preliminary approval of architecture only, subject to
changes discussed with the architect. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with
Commissioner Lopez absent.
2. CASE NO.: PP 04-13
APPLICANT fAND ADDRESSI: LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT, 35-
850 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211
NATURE OF PROJECTlAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Gomments on
proposal of outdoor display of inerchandise.
G:PlanninglDonna Qua(ve�lwpdocslAgmin1AR060214.MIN 7
�-
�-
ci1Y oF ��.���� a�s��1
�j-510 FRED WARING DR1VE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-25�8
T�.: 760 346—o6ii
January 10, 2006
FAx: 760 34�-7og8
i a fo@ p al m-d ese rc. o rg
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO.: PP 05-05/CUP 05-01
APPLICANT �AND ADDRESSI: ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific Coast Highway,
Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised
elevations for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube
drive through facility.
LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the
applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued the request to allow
the applicant to retum with (1) revised plans that show the finished details, per
the changes that were made by the commission at the meeting, and (2} resubmit
a more appropriate color palette suitable to the desert.
Date of Action: January 10, 20I?6
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approval.)
SiAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the
Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or
revised plans rnust be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days
prior to the next meeting.
E°, j ninEoa�urao�ru
�^
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMM{SSION
JANUARY 10, 2046
M{NUTES 4
�.
Commissioner Vuksic commented that he was trying to visualize a huge
wall with a mural �on it and a roof or create the wall so tall that you don't
even see the roof.
The applicant displayed samples of the 3-D panels for the
commissioners to view. Mr. Drell asked if the applicant had any
pictures of murals that had been done using the 3-D panels. Mr.
Murphy stated that he has used this product on walls that are 30' high
on buildings in Rancha Mirage on Naranda Patel's building. It has a
raked horizontal pattern.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that it might be safer to make it look like a
mural of a building, as opposed to making it so huge that it's screening
the building. It might look big and flat and very odd. 1'd rather see the
roof over the top of it and make the mural a little smaller.
Commissioner Hanson asked the applicant to give the commission a
sense of what it's going to look like and some options. I understand the
concept, but am concerned about the execution.
Ac#ion: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic to continue the request to allow the applicant to return with (1)
revised elevations that show the ends of the garages, sections and
dimensions showing distance to the curb, and (2) exhibits that show
what it will look like. Motion carried 7-0.
B.
Preliminary Plans
,i1.� 1. CASE NO.: PP 05-051CUP 05-01
���
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific
Coast Highway, Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of
revised elevations for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a
new Jiffy Lube drive through facility.
LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
G:Planning\Donna QuaiverlwpdocslAgmin1AR060110.MIN g
�_`. ` ry
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 10, 2006
MINUTES
Mr. Bagato stated that the architect has finro options for the commission
to review. I recommend option B. The colors need to be changed to be
more compatible with the desert. Commissioner Hanson concurred.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the purpose of the height of the
building. Mr. Bagato stated that they have a 30' height limit and they're
proposing a 21' roof height.
Commissioner Lambell asked about the wall on option A. Mr. Bagato
stated that the wall that screens the bays might cause a visibility
problem for people driving out of the bays onto the street.
Commissione� Van Vliet asked about the finish and wondered if it was
going to be smooth plaster. Burt Tarayao, architect, was present and
stated that it will be a hand-troweled finish. Commissioner Van Vliet
was concerned that the finish might crack. Mr. Tarayao stated that he's
intending to have expansion joints to break up the la�ge area of ptaster.
Commissioner Gregory was concerned about the elevation as viewed
from Alessandro. The other elevations are quite attractive.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that the elevations are a huge
improvement to the previous submittals. However, there are certain
elements that don't have any architectural reason to be there. Changes
were made on the, plans by the commissioners to illustrate the detai(s
that haven't been finished and showed how they should be finished.
Commissioner Hanson suggested changing the colors to more of a
desert palette.with warmer colors.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell to continue the request to allow the applicant to retum with (1)
revised plans that show the finished details, per the changes that were
made by the commission at the meeting, and (2} resubmit a more
appropriate color palette suitable to the desert. Motion carried 7-0.
2. CASE NO.: PP 05-29
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44-
530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 204, Palm Desert, CA 92260
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocslAgminWR060110.MIN 9
��.
C11Y 0� �lf�
'73-51 O FRED Vf%ARING �RIVE
P'ALM DESERT, CAL[FORNIA 92260-257a
TEL: �60 346—o6iz
September 13, 2005
Fax: 760 34�-7a98
info@palm-deserc.org
�ES�R1
ARCHtTECTURAL REVIEW COMMISS{C31V ACTIt�N
CASE NO.: PP 05-05/CUP 05-01
APPLICANT IAND ADDRESS): ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific Coast Highway,
Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PRt�.lECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised
etevations for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube
drive through facility. �
LOCATION: 74-� 84 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural
Review Commission denied the request due to (1) the overall design is flat,
lacking detail and massing, (2) roli-up doors front onto a public street, which is
prohibited in the C-1 zone and the architectural design does not merit a variance,
and (3) the proposed building design is not acceptable on Highway 111.
Date of Action: September 13, 2005
Vote: Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and
Lopez absent.
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date ofi the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the pians approved by the
Architectucai Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
t.l nixrto cx etna[o �un
.. �`
ARCHITEGTURAL REVIEW C4MMlSSION
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
MlNUTES
� T. CASE NO.: PP p5-05lCUP 05-01
f
�_
APPLtCANT (AND ADDRESSI: ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pac�c
Coast Highway, Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPRfJVAL SOUGHT:, Request approvai of
revised elevations for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a
new Jiffy Lube drive through facility. �
L.00ATIC�N: 74-1 SO Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Mr. Bagato stated that initially when this project came to us we were
toMd that we were going to get an exceptionat project to replace the
previous design. Unfo�tunately, l stiil don't think that the project is
going to warrant the approval of an exception for the conditional use.
We wouid aiso have to make a finding for the variance foc the roll-up
doors facing the street. This site requires a high quality project with a
high-quality design to meet the s#andards of the zone.
Commissioner Hanson
the roil-up doors on i
variance, and (2) the i
zone.
stated that the issues are: (1) In order to have
�e street side they would have to receive a
se was not specifically a permitted use in this
Mr. Bagato stated that when this project went to the Planning
Commission we were told that it was going to be a great enhancement
to the existing site. We gave them the opportunity to appty for a
conditional use permit and to try and get it approved based on the
overall enhancement to the area.
Emest Ramirez, appiicant, was present and stated that based on the
comment that was made by the representative for planning. This is the
third time before the ARC. We're presenting something that we felt
was a design that we could work with and, hopefully, that you could
work with. Our �rst attempt was to remodei the existing structure,
which feli short of any af the site planning or elevations. The second
attempt was for a traditional Spanish-style building, but this seemed to
fall short also on the articulation of the architecture. We've come back
with a more contemporary project. The site plan is not going to change
because it seemed to be satisfactory the first time around. We've
reduced the size of the screen walls near the parking lot. We don't
have a screen on the frontage for the roll-up doors because that's our
only exit. We've eliminated all the other drive throughs. We thought
G:P{anninglDonna G�uaiverlwpdocs�Agmin1AR050913.MiN 19
�� \
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMM{SS{ON
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
MINUTES
we came back with a pretty presentable building for the type of use that
we're presenting. When you say that we're still "faliing short of the
architecture" i thought that we did pretty good on this attempt. The
windows are symmetrical. We've changed the function a little bit on the
interior of our space to make that happen. We think we've got a good
product here for that location. We did go to the Planning Commission
about the use issue and the City Council to get thei� feel for what they
would be, looking for and their approval for the use before we closed on
the property. After getting their "nod" and their " yes� we'll support it"
we went forward and purchased the property decided to tear down the
ugly-looking structure that's there now and put up something that's
much more superior. The area is pretty bad and this will be much
better than what's next door to us.
Mr. Drell commented that all that was approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Council was the ability to appiy for the use. It
wasn't support for the use.
Mr. Ramirez stated that there's no# a lot of articulation on the rolt-up
doors on the exit side, but they're roll-up doors. !t's part of the function
of the facility. Commissioner Hanson stated that it can be beautiful and
functional. It can be architectural and functional. You can have both.
It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I think that if you want to have
the doors on the street, why couldn't they be set back slightly so that
you actually get some shadow lines. The twafoot eyebrow really isn't
going to do much of anything. Mr. Ramirez commented that
Commissioner Hanson was at the last meeting when their elevations
had a structure that extended 12' out. We've removed it since.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was frustrated because somehow
I just don't think that we're communicating. 1'm not sure if this design
would pass muster as an industrial building i� an industrial zone and
yet we're looking at it on Highway 111. The current Ware Malcolm
submittal is a tilt-up office/industrial project and it's quite superior to the
Jiffy Lube submittal. I just don't know what to say. Mr. Ramirez stated
that Ware Malcolm has a lot more volume to work with. Mr. Drell stated
that we've gotten drive-through restaurants that are probably 2,00�-
3,000 square feet that incorporate a lot of architecture. ln order to get
drive-through restaurants approved, they don't just expect something
that's "presentable". They expect something more than presentable.
What you're hearing typically from this commission is ra#her moderate
in comparison to what the Council has judged these sorts of projeets
as. '
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocslAgmin1AR050913.MIN 2�
�,_
�_:
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
MiNUTES
Commissioner Vuksic commented that simple architecture is okay, but
sirnple it tough to do. Simple has to be brilliantly done. It's actuaNy
easier to articulate a building than make it simple and beautifui.
Commissianer Gregory stated that the applicant seems to be
"swimming against the tide and you don't know how to swim". You're
not the architect on the building, but if you were an architect you'd be
more used to this kind of review process. Mr. Ramirez stated that he is
an architect. Commissioner Gregory stated that he should be used to
this kind of flack. Mr. Ramirez commented that he's bui{t a hundred of
these things and designed a hundred of these things. Commissioner
Gregory stated that he hasn't designed one an the main drag of Pafm
Desert. Mr. Ramirez stated that he's done Jiffy Lubes in downtown
lrvine. Commissioner Hanson stated that irvine is totally different from
Patm Desert.
Commissioner Gregory stated that what everyone is trying to say is that
for this iype of use on the main drag in Palm Desert, you can't just do
something that's good. It's got to be exceptional, especially for this
type of use. Also, you're requesting doors that face the street, which is
against the ordinance. You're bucking quite a tide here. What that
means is that you've got a tough chailenge on this job. i'm not sure if
you understand. Mr. Ramirez stated that he's also one of the
developers and financially sensible to the whole project. We're trying
to take everything into account. Obviously, the first time around didn't
work out. Commissioner Gregory stated that he hoped that it was clear
to him and was hoping that it sinks in that we're not picking on you. It
seems that way but this is going to be very challenging. Mr. Ramirez
stated that he understood and that's why he went to the City Council
and the Planning Commission �rst befoce we even attempted to c{ose
on the deat, because it was questionable based on the use. They don't
want this type of use. Right off the bat we're approaching something
that they don't want there in the first place.
Commissioner Gregory asked if Mr. Ramirez wants to take the extra
effort and expense in making this work or to not want to and then we
might do you a favor by turning you down because then you can appeal
our decision and attempt to move forward. We're not doing you a favor
by constantiy continuing your case. Right now {'m not sure if that's
helping you. Mr. Drell commented that if the applicant has gone as far
as he can with the architecture then the best thing would be to get a
decision from the ARC and move down the line. Mr. Ramirez stated
that he is prepared to move down the line. Mr. Drell commented that if
a substantially different style of archite�ture is presented to the
Planning Commission, then it may be referred back to the ARC for
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocsWgmin1AR050913.MIN 21
( ... �.
.. � �.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
MINUTES
comment. Mr. Ramirez commented that he didn't think that there
wouldl be a drastic change as far as design.
Action: Gommissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim to deny the request due to (1) the overail design is flat,
lacking detaii and massing, (2) roll-up doors front onto a public street,
which is prohibited in the C-1 zone and the architectural design does
not merit a variance, and (3) the proposed building design is not
acceptable on Highway 111. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with
Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent.
C. Miscellaneous
1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-32
APPLIGANT (AND ADDRESSI: RtDGE LUNDWO�L, 17 Woodside
Court, San Anse{mo, CA 94960
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:, Request approval of a
walt exceptio� to allow a 6' high slump block wall 17' from the curb.
LOCATION: 45-411 Sunrise Lane
ZONE: R-3
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with
Commissioners Lopez, Van Vliet and Lambefl absent.
2. CASE NO.: PP 05-08/CUP 05-03
APPLICANT tAND ADDRESSI: DEL.GADO / RODRIGUEZ, 73-?03
Highway 111, Pafm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of
preliminary approval of 'revised elevations and landscape plan for
restaurant, office/retail for Casuefa� Caf�. (NOTE: In conjunction with
the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program).
LOCATION: 73-703 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
G:Plann(nglDonna Quaive�lwpdocsWgminWR050913.MtN 22
�..
��
C I 1� 0��Y�� � L[fl
�3-510 FRED WARiNG DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-25']8
T�.: 760 346—OG�II
�uty � 2, zoo5
Fnx: 760 34t-7og8
info�palm-desert.org
O�SER1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMlSSION ACTION
CASE NO.: PP 05-051CUP 05-01
APPLICANT tAND ADDRESSI: ERNEST RAMIREZ, 6fi8 N. Pacific Coast Highway,
Suite 517. Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PROJECTJAPPROVAL SOUGHT: �Request approval of revised
elevations for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube
drive through facility.
LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Upon reviewing the pfans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural
Review Commission continued the request to alfow the applicant to return with a
different architectural style.
Date of Action: Jufy 12, 2005
Vote: Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners Hanson, Gregory
and Van Vliet absent.
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Pa1m Desert within fifteen {15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan wouid need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approvai.)
STAFF COMMENTS: ft is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the
Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: in order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or
revised pfans must be submitted nofi later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days
prior to the next meeting.
L������o�,�
. �` C �
ARCHITECTURAL R�VIEW COMMfSSIUN
JULY 12, 2005
MINUTES
stated that they should also consider the Iocation of the utility boxes as
well.
Mr. Drel) stated that if the applicant wants to make any changes, then it
has to come back to the commission for their approval. The
apartments wifl be processed under a separate application.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell for preliminary approval subje�t to (1 } submit photo of detail of
baosting of roof tile, (2) show specia{ corner elevation for each product,
(3) approval by Landscape Manager, and (4) use tube steel where
small wood members are shown. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with
Commissioners Hanson, Gregory and Van Vliet absent.
� 2. CASE NO.: PP 05-05lCUP 45-01
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific
Coast Highway� Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PROJECTlAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of
revised elevations for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a
new Jifiy Lube drive through facility.
LOCATION: 74-184 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Mr. Bagato stated that he received revised plans based on comments
made at the last ARC meeting.
Emest Ramirez, applicant, was present and stated that one of the
comments that they fai{ed to make a revision on was the trellis, which
comes out beyond the exiting ofi the facility. The wall has been
reduced from 6' to 4'. �
Commissioner Lopez asked if there would be any way to get a little
more of a cantifever on the west elevation.
Commissioner Vuksic commented that he didn't even want to critique
the proposal because I have to stare at it to try to figure out whai
changed. I don't think you understood me last time ve you didn't take
me seriously. This is not an acceptable building, in my opinion, to go
G:PlanninglDonna Quaiverlwpdocs�Agmin1AR050712.MIN g
� �._.
E`
ARCH{TECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSlON
JULY 12, 2005
MINUTES
on Highway 111. It looks way too predictabte with a strip center-kind of
architecture. There just isn't anything there. To even start critiquing it
in terms of the details might make you think that the overall buiiding is
okay and you just need to tweak the little details and it's far from that.
You need to hire a talented designer and design a building that befongs
there.
Mr. Ramirez stated that one of the things that they took forward from
the first meeting with the ARC was the fact that they weren't going to be
able to make the existing building work, therefare, they refuctantly
decided to ievet the oid building. You get into the financiai issues of
having such a smail site for such a high price with a buiiding that
generates o�ly so much income with one type of use with three bays
and you can't change the three doors for the bays. You're faced with a
limited amount of what seems to be what you would class'rfy as a retaif
look with some detaii on it and dress it up as much as possible. We
ended up with a pretty decent landscape area and we think we've
facilitated quite a bit. You're not gaing to get this to look like the
Elephant Bar. You asked me to add more detail, tweak the building
and make it look iike something other than a Jiffy Lube. That's a 1ot of
expense for a Jiffy Lube. In keeping it simp{e, we're keeping the
function.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that when he looks at the elevations that
show a flat waii with giass in it with little bits of stone in between and it
has no relationship to the rest of the building. I don't think you're taking
me seriousiy.
Mr. Dretl stated that the City agreed to potentially permit this use in this
area with the understanding that this would be a more exceptionai Jiffy
Lube than we got behind Toys R Us. That was the understanding.
Mr. Ramirez stated that they're talking about specific fikes and disiikes
of architecture. Mr. Drell stated that this is the group whose job it is to
express their opinion on architecture. Given the somewhat
ambivalence to our code on mixed use on Highway 111, the
understanding was that this would be on the high side of design and
not even middie of the road. Obviously, you have a tower etement and
the tower should read as a real masonry tower and the cotumns are
beefy enough to be holding up that big mass and that the elements
underneath the tower bear some relationship to it.
G:PlanninglDonna Quaiverlwpdocs�Agmin1AR050712.MtN �
. f�,,.�
� L, .
ARCHiTECTURAL REVIEW COMM{SS{ON
J U LY 12, 2005
MINUTES
Commissioner Vuksic stated that whoever drew this plan and looked at
it and thought that it was okay, makes me worry. Mr. DreA stated that if
they're going to adopt a traditionai architectural style, then you better
do,it right. If you're going to mimic Mediterranean or a Spanish style
then you have to add all the details or it will look cheap. We would
rather you do a simple contemporary building where you can be honest
to the style and the forms. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it couid be
a skilled interpretation of a certain style of architecture. Mr. Drell stated
that possibly a simpie building with less detail where mass is important
might work better than trying to only half mimic a traditional style.
Commissioner Lambell stated that the neighbors wiil be fooking at a
huge, boring wail. Mr. Ramirez stated that this is why they have 50' of
landscaping and a trash enclosure in this area. Commissioner L.ambeli
stated that it still needs some architecture. it's lacking any pizzazz. Mr.
Drell stated that the problem with desert landscape is that 'rt doesn't
hide biank architecture. Commissioner Lambeli sta#ed that the whole
thing needs some personality. It's on a very important corner so maybe
they need to abandon this style altogether. Mr. Ramirez stated that it
might be better to abandon the style and take the form and function
and work with that. Cammissioner Vuksic stated that whatever style
they choose, they have to do it well.
Commissioner Oppenheim stated that they've come so far because
when they first came in they were trying to make something out of the
existing building and now they need some major refinements.
Commissioner Lopez pointed out that the directions on the elevations
are iabeied wrong.
Mr. Ramirez asked if there would be any objection to a metai buiiding.
Mr. Drell stated that they could do a 4ot of interesting architecture with
metal. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they would have to use their
materials in a skilled way. Mr. Ramirez stated that they have three Jiffy
Lube buildings going up right now with entirely different, architecture
than this. Commissioner Vuksic stated that from what he sees here, he
would worry about them doing a meta{ building because you've got to
be skilled to do some#hing in metal here that's going to be acceptable
and I'm not seeing that sophistication level here.
Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner
4ppenheim to conti�ue the request to al{ow the appficant to return with
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocslAgminlARQ5Q712.M1N iQ
l-
` ( �. r`. .
�
ARCHITEGTURAL REVIEW CQMMlSSION
JUI.Y 12, 2005
MINUTES
a different architectural style. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with
Commissioners Hanson, Gregory and Van Vliet absent.
C. Miscellaneous
Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by
Commissioner Lopez to add Case No. Misc 05, William R. Withrow, to
the agenda. Motion carried 4-�-0-3 with Commissioners Hanson,
Gregory and Van Vliet absent.
1. CASE NO.: MISC 05
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: WILLIAM R. WITHROW, 72-869
Arboleda Drive, Pafm Desert, CA 92211
NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approvai of
exterior paint color of a single-family residence.
LOCATICIN: 72-869 Arboleda Drive
ZQNE: R1
Mr. Smith showed the commission photographs of the home, which has
already been painted. William Withrow, applicant� was present and
stated that he didn't know that he had to get approvai to paint his
house. It's an older house that was bui{t in 1949 and has a flat roof.
Mr. Drell stated that this house is more adaptabie to this sort of coior.
Mr. Withrow stated that he's going to purchase a new white garage
door. The trim will be white. Mr. Drel{ suggested using a grey or Cape
Code grey for the trim to soften it. Commissioner Lopez suggested
leaving the duct work and air conditioning equipment white.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim for approval subject to painting the trim a grey-blue color to
be approved by staff. Motion carried 4-0-0-3 with Commissioners
Hanson, Gregory and Van Vliet absent.
VI, ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjoucned at 1:55 p.m.
STEVE SMITH
RLANNING MANAGER
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocslAgminWR050712.MIN 11
�
CI�Y 0� �r��.�l
73-5�0 FRED V�ARING I�RIVE
PALM T7ESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
�.:760 3q6—o6��
June 28, 2005
Fnx:76o 34�-7og8
info@palm-deserc.org
DES�RT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTf4N
C�►SE NQ.: PP �5-05/CUP 05-01
APPLICANT �AND ADDRESSI: ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific Coast Highway,
Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PROJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT:, Request approval of revised
elevations for the conversion of existing Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube
drive through facility.
LOCATION: 74-180 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural
Review Commission continued the request to atlow the applicant to return with
revised elevations.
Date of Action: June 28, 2005
Vote: Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and
Lambell absent.
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within frfteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approvaf.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is yot�r responsibifity to submit the plans approved by #he
Architecturai Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
CONTiNUED CASES: in order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or
revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:0� a.m. the Monday eight days
prior to the next meeting. �
�3 rRixrtoax�EcruEa�u�
. . . ( __ �...
ARCHITECTURAL�c`VlEW COMMISSI4N
• JUNE 28' 2005
MINUTES
14�tio,�, Commiss�aner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez for preliminary approvai subject to lowering the roof element to
the top of the clay roof tile. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners
Hanson and Lambell absent:
� 4, �,$E w0.: PP OS-03lCUP 05-01
�,P IC �ND ADDRESS): ERNEST RAMiRE2, 668 N. Pacific
Coast Highway, Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATU OF PROJECTlApPROVA�,,.30UGHT: Request approval of
revised elevatbns for the conversion of eacis�ng Te�co gas station to a
new Jifty Lubs dfire through facility.
LOCATION: ?4180 Highway 111
�• C-1
Mr. Bagato stated that the plans were included in the commissioner's
packets. The new plan is showing a brand new building. There are no
plana for the �' hiyh wall. There wili be roli-up doors facing the street,
which wiil require a variance through the pubiic hearing process. Our
code curren�y states that bays are not supposed to be visible from any
pubiic streets for any automobile se�virs or gas station. There are
three streets that surround this proj�t and it's a smaN site. The
landscape area that's shown could be used for a waiNng area for
customers. Mr. Smith stated that they've added a trellis over the entry
doors on the west side.
Emest Ramirez, applicant, was present and stated that they're going to
demolish the existing buiiding. The new buiiding shows a lot of
landscaping and they increased the size af the planter areas. A treliis
has been added over the roli-up doors to soften this area. They're
expecting to have 35 cars a day. Mr. Smith asked about the number of
emptayees. Mr. Ramirez stated that they wiN have approximateiy three
fuli time empioyees and some park-time employees.
Commissioner Lopez asked about the pilasters for the treilis. Mr.
Ramirez stated that there wil! be four pilastera. Commissioner Lapez
asked if they could be cantitevered. Mr. Ramirez stated that he could
look into it.
G:Pfanninglt)onna Ouaive�wpdocslApn'�in1AR050828.MIN !
r. � � �
IT CTURAL R� ,EW COMMtSS14N �!
ARCH E
JUNE 28, 2005
MINUTES
Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they were going to use enhanced
paving at the exit area. Mr. Ramirez stated that it's going to be a
reconstructed driveway so they coutd do something there.
Commiss�ner Gregory sugges#ed using pavers. A cantitevered trelfis
with pavers with a nice cofor woukl be reatly nice.
Commissioner Van Vliet comment� that they're showing a reaNy nice
landscaped area and wondered why they didn't move the building down
so that there's more landscaping on the comer, Mr. Ramirez stated
that they created the site plan based on comments made at a p�ior
meeting and also for flow of the vehicles. There c:ould be a stacking
situation.
Commissioner Gregory stated that stafPs suggestion of having an
outdoar waidng area is reaily goocl. The landscaped area is very large
and it would be very difticult ta maintain.
Mr. Knight stated that he was concemed about the garden waiis being
shown at 6' in height. They see�m to be out of scale and too high.
We're not trying ta► screen the building. Some mounding and shorter
garden walls would look much better. 42" high walis at the maximum
would work aiong with bemning. Washingtonia foliferas wauld look very
nice on this site.
Commissioner Vuksic commen#ed #hat he was having a hard time
reviewing the proposal because the floor plan didn't seem to match the
etevatbns. The wlndows are in different places. The west elevation
and the east elevat�an both look like they have a tower on the comer.
which isn't the case but that's the way the elevations read. It made me
wonder how it realiy works. There's no roof pfan � so there's concem
about the screening of the mecha�ical equipmen� f didn't have any
information to heip me see how it was going to be done. Mr. Ramirez
stafed that they oniy have a small unit that they will place close to the
tower.
Commissioner Van Vtiet asked if they were going to have evaporative
coolers for the woric bays. Mr. Ramirez stated that they wili have
evapora�ve cooiecs that wil! be installed on the roof using a low profile
model. Commissioner Vuksic stated that there was some concem
when traveling west on Highway 111 and thought that the units would
be visibie. Mr. Ramirez stated that they coufd move the units back.
Commissioner Vuksic asked about the height of the car bays. Mr.
G:PIanninglDonnal Quaiver�pdoplA�ninVlRa5l�28.MIN $
, . �.
�.
ARCHiTECTURAI. r4.cVIEW COMMiSS14N
JUNE 28, 2005
MINUTES �
Ramirez stated that the ceiling would be 12' in height. The parapet wili
be about 3'+. Commiss'ioner Van Vliet stated that 3' won't be enough
to cove� the mechan'ical equipment. Mr. Ramirez stated that they'{{
make sure that the equipment is screened. Commissioner Van Vliet
stated tl�rat the parapet has to be higher than the mechanical
equipment.
Commissioner Vuksic stated tha�t he doesn't want to leave it to chance
that the equipment will be screened on the roof. He wants to see how
they intend to do this. Also. the floo� plan shows ali the walis being flat
with windows right on the base of the wails. On the elevations. there's
a little bit of pop out, but judging on the south eleva�on it's very flat with
no recerss at ail. The eave detail doesn't match the elevation. The
pians don't match� making me wony about th� level of thought that
went into these details. lnside the tower there are lots of windows,
which must be on a flat wali because there's no other room. Mr.
Ramirez sfated that the �nrer windows are in a flat wall. Commissioner
Vuksic stated that he feft that this was a substandard relationship of
giass to wall�. ft"s aii flat with little pieces of wall in betwaen glass.
This buifding is on Highway 111, which is on a main corr3dor. i�s an
extremely mediocre building, at best. !t's very predietable. it's very fla�
It's going to look old a�nd tired right after �'s buil#. 1 can't imagine that
this doesn't need quite a bit of work. The site plan works well. The
concept is fine, bu! the architecture needs a lot of help.
Mr. Ramirez stated that this is a directive �ha# has no direction.
Commissioner Gregory stated that before it seemed hopefess and now
there's hope. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's not c{ose enough to
recommend m3nor changes. tt's not that simple. The architecture is
not to the point where you can effec�vely critique it. There has to be
enough architectural interest and care in the detaiis and right now that's
severely lacking. i can telf by how inconsiste�t the drawings are.
Commissioner Gregary commented that perhaps the building shouid
look more authentic, because right now it looks iike a"pretend" building
with respe�t to that pa�ticular style. They have a 6" pop-out, as
apposed to what a tower reatly should look like. If this was supposed to
be a take-off on same type of architecture (Mediterranean or Mission or
some variant of that style), that if it were made to look more authenttc in
that sense it would play better here. If you want it to be Mediterranean
styte, you need to make it fee) fike tha� Mr. Ramirez stated that
whatever he does to the exterior, it's nat going to change the function
of the interior. Commissioner Gregary pointed out the roof tile and
G:PlanntngU]onna QuatverlMrpdacal�Ipmk�lARQ5Q628.tWIN 4
, . �
ARCH
ITECTURAL R�.IEW COMMISS{ON
JUNE 28� 2005
MINUTES
suggested that they shou{d use more authentic tile. Maybe this isn't the
place foir faux Mission tife. It's such a smatl roof that it probably
wouldn't be that hard to use reai tile with mud. Commissioner Vuksic
stated that right ncw they show a rock wainsc�t which is basically glued
on to the piaster. It woutd took better if they didn't have it at all.
Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they don't have to stay with
this style of arctidecture. lf they want ta change it or go in a different
direction, then that would bs okay. Commissioner Gregory stated that
it shouid be sorr�thing that we could be proud of because it's on our
main drag. Mr. Smith stated fhat a{I of this contributes towards the
variance that's required ior this project. Mr. Bagata stated that there
will be reskients who may not be in favor of the project so the better it
looks, the more likety that it could be approved.
�gp;, Commissioner Lopez moved, seconded by Commissioner
4ppenheim to conttnue the request to alfow the appiicant to retum with
revised elevations. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson
and Lambell absent.
5. CASE NO.: PP OS-10
�PLlCAyT � N��gRE33): SRW INVESTMENTS, LLC, P.O. Box
986, Rancho Mirage, CA 9227C1-0986
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPR SO�GHT: Request preliminary
approval of a four-unit, two-story apartment building.
�ATlONs 73-692 SA11ta ROs� Wey
ZONE: R-3
Action: Commissioner 4ppenheim moved, seconded by
Commissioner Lopez fior approvai by minute motion, subject to (1)
deepening balconies so that they"re useable� as previousty discussed
with the applicant, and (2) windows to have mullions, as shown on the
efevations. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and
Lambeli absent.
G:Plan�in9�Donna Clua[verVwpdoc�lApmiMAR050829.MiN 10
�..
DESERI
�..
C I 1 Y 0��� rI � ii!
73-5 � fl FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM IiESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
T�.: �60 346--o6ii
FAx: �bo 34�-7098
info@palm-deserc.org
May 10, 2005
CASE {V�J.:
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMiSSION ACTION
PP 05-05lCUP 05-01
APPLICANT tAND ADDRESSI; ERNEST RAMlREZ, 668 N. Pacific Coast Highway,
Suite 517, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:, Request approval of conversion of
existing Texaco gas station to a new JifFy Lube drive through facility.
LOCATtON: 74-180 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural
Review Commission continued the request to allow the applicar�t to return with
aitemative architecture with a recommendation that the existing structure not be
used as part of the design.
Date of Action: May 10, 2005
Vote: Motion carried 6-0-01 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent.
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Glerk of ihe
City of Palm Desert within fifteen {15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved pian would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approval.}
STAFF COMMENTS: it is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the
Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: ln order to be piaced on the next meeting's agenda, new or
revised pians must be submltted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eighi days
prior fio the next meeting.
G> mmo oM ncrttw tua
.1 � s �Y\r �Y "
\
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSiON
MAY 10, 2445
MINUTES
2. CASE NO.: PP 05-06
APPLIGANT (AND ADDRESS): KSC INC., KEN STENDELL, P.O. Box
3352, Palm Desert, CA 92261
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of revised elevations finro new industriai buildings totaling 9,680 square
feet.
LOCATION: 73-750 Spyder Circle
ZONE: S{
Mr. Bagato stated that based on ihe discussion at the last meeting, the
appiicant has made some changes, mostly in the front. It was
suggested that the stone column on the east of the building match the
west column and possibly thicken the fascia. The landscaping has
been changed which now includes paim trees. A trellis was added over
the ro{I-up doors. Staff is recommending approvai with the above-
mentioned changes.
Commissioner Hanson commented that it looks better. They have
successfully picked up some of the details that they were trying to
accomplish in the first submittat. An additional 6" should be added to
the fascia and the east column is to match the west column.
Commissioner Lambelf asked about the property adjacent to the
proposed building. Mr. Bagato stated that it's vacant land with no
proposed development at this time.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Oppenheim for preiiminary approval subject to (1) thicken fascia an
additionai 6", (2) east column to match west column, and (3) approval
by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 with Commissioner
Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent.
� 3. CASE NCI.: PP 05-05iCUP Q5-01
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: ERNEST RAMIREZ, 668 N. Pacific
Coast Highway, Suite 51�7, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 �
NATURE OF PROJECTlAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approvat of
conversion of existi�g Texaco gas station to a new Jiffy Lube drive
through faciiity.
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocslAgmin1AR050510.MIN 12
., r , � (r .
� �..
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMiSSiON
MAY 10, 2005
MtNUTES
LOCATfON: 74-180 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
Mr. Bagato stated that Jiffy Lube is not considered a gas station by City
code. They went to the City Council and Planning Commission to
request a determination of use to try and see if this wouid meet the
standards of a gas station. They got the blessing to move fonnrard to
submit a design. The original proposal had a flat roof and the revisions
show tower elements. I've expressed my concems when meeting with
the applicant. The appiicant intends to work with the existing building.
One of the areas of concern is that they're showing roil-up doors facing
a public street. !f we were to recommend approval of the building that
has exposed doors, the architecture has to be something special.
Revisions were made, but they're stiN trying to work with the existing
building. Staff is not willing to recommend approvat ofi the proposed
design and architecture of this project. The applicant, Emest Ramirez,
is present to answer any questions from the commission.
Commissioner Hanson commented that the screen wail at the last Jiffy
Lube that was built on Fred Waring didn't come out the way that they
fiad proposed. On the plans, it looked iike the wali would have
recesses and they were painted on and it doesn't iook good.
Mr. Ramirez stated that in terms of the site plan, they feei that they met
their preliminary requirements. Instead of leaving the existing
landscaping in place, they decided to take it out and start from scratch.
We're trying to maintain the existing building. If it's a desire to
completely re-do that existing structure and get rid ofi the existing wrap-
around facade, we'!! take that approach and come back with revised
elevations. If we come back with an A+ design on the building, are we
still goi�g to be looking at issues on the site pian? Mr. Bagato stated
that the site is very constrained because it's on three public streets.
We never asked for the tower e{ements but stated that we need better
architecture.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that to create a strong design will take a
iot of work from where you are now. You have a very flat buiiding with
roll-up doors right on the face of the walls. ft doesn't look like there's a
purpase for a symmetrical two-tower etement on the buitding. The
package looks very inconsistent. There's no roof plan. The roof looks
like it's not possible. Ins#ead of creating an artificially fong looking, tait
looking front to this building, define more whaYs happening when you
go inside and create an entry and then create other pieces that
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocsWgmittWR050510.MIN 13
� • . � �
ARCHITECTURAL RE�V'IEW COMMISSiON ��
MAY 10, 2005
MINUTES
somehow work with that entry. Mr. Ramirez stated that the entry is
generally where you bring in the cars when you drive in. We're willing
to work with the existing structure and create a focal point as an entry.
Commissioner Lopez stated that there's a Jiffy Lube on Washington
where they have a system where you come in from the side and go out
in a horseshoe shape. It's walted on three sides so they've taken care
of the probiem with the doors facing a pubiic road. Mr. Ramirez stated
that they have a bigger site to work with on Washington.
Commissioner �ambell stated that they may be trying to make
something out of something that could be hindering the process
because of the restrictions of having no ro{I-up doors being visible on �
public streets. It was suggested that they start with a clean piece of dirt
and start from scratch.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that architecturafly, the existing building
isn't a bad base. If you take the eyebrow off it, you have a ciean face.
Commissioner Gregory commented that the site is small so if they
reaily feef that the location is important they're rea{ly going to have to
do an excelient job. They're trying to do too much with a very limited
site. It's sma11 and there are aiso streets on three sides. Their best
luck might be to not try to make use of the existing building considering
the constraints on the site.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic to continue to ailow the applicant to retum with altemative
architecture with a recommendation that the existing structure not be
used as part of the design. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner
Van Viiet absent.
4. CASE NO.: PP 05-08/CUP 05-03
APPLICANT lAND ADDRESSI: DELGADO / RODRIGUEZ, 73-703
Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SDUGHT:, Request preliminary
approval of restaurant, office/retail elevations for Casuelas Cafe.
LOCATION: 73-703 Highway 111
ZONE: C-1
G:PlanninglDonna Quaive�lwpdocslAgminWR050510.MIN 14
DECISION OF THE
(Name of Determining Body)
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
Planning Commission
Case No. PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04
Project Proponent:
Address:
Date of Decision: March 21, 2006
Ernest Ramirez, Applicant
74-180 Highway 111 (Project Address)
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Description of
Application or Matter Considered: Request for approval of a precise plan of design
and conditional use permit to allow a new Jiffy Lube oil change facility with a
variance allowing a reduction in the required "daylight triangle" setback from
43'8- to Z4' and a variance allowing service bays to tront onto a public street
tor property located at /4-18U Highway 111.
1.4 (=3
Member o the City Council
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Filed: �- Fj — (' Received by:
Wet? Tb : `s t Is (41C9- / `4 -5 -
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
H:\W Pdata\W PDOCS\FORMS\cncl req for rev.wpd
5/21/03