Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies Sherwin‑Williams paint store at Palm Canyon site, finds project inconsistent with Uptown general‑plan goals
Summary
By a 4‑3 vote the Planning Commission denied a proposed Sherwin‑Williams paint store on North Palm Canyon Drive March 25, citing inability to make the finding that the project is consistent with the Uptown mixed‑use policies in the general plan; commissioners urged a more pedestrian‑oriented ground floor if the applicant returns.
The Palm Springs Planning Commission voted 4‑3 on March 25 to deny a major development permit for a new Sherwin‑Williams paint store on a 0.38‑acre undeveloped parcel at the southeast corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and East Stevens Road, concluding the proposal did not meet the city’s Uptown mixed‑use general‑plan guidance for active street‑oriented frontages.
The applicant, Matt McWhorter, representing the proposed tenant, told the commission the design had been updated since its February 26 review to add a clearer north‑facing entrance and expanded glazing along Palm Canyon Drive. Property owner Wayne Gottlieb and project supporters said the site is zoned for the proposed commercial use and described the revised building as pedestrian‑oriented.
Several commissioners and members of the public urged a design that better activates the Palm Canyon frontage. Commissioner Rotman and others criticized the interior layout, saying the plan still placed back‑of‑house storage and paint mixing along the street frontage and left limited visible retail and display facing the sidewalk. Commissioners recommended the applicant return with a floor plan that reconfigures the building so stores, displays and customer‑facing retail occupy the Palm Canyon frontage, with service and tinting operations located toward the back or otherwise screened from public view.
Commissioner Land explicitly moved to deny the application on the ground that the project was inconsistent with the Uptown district policies and the mixed‑multiuse objectives of the general plan; the motion passed on a 4‑3 roll call with commissioners Wermick, Layan (vice chair), Rotman and Morrell voting to deny and commissioners Baker, Miller and Murphy voting to approve.
The denial is procedural and policy‑based: staff and the city attorney confirmed the site’s zoning permits retail uses, but commissioners deciding the development permit must also find the project is consistent with the general plan. Several commissioners concluded the current plans do not demonstrably further the Uptown objective of concentrating pedestrian‑oriented, mixed‑use activity on vacant and underperforming parcels. The applicant may revise the plans and return with a reconfigured ground floor and stronger architectural treatment for the Palm Canyon frontage.
