Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-08 t MINUTES PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 I. The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. Commissioners Present: Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Richard Holden X 2 1 Frank Urrutia X 3 0 Chris Van Vliet X 3 0 Wayne Connor(unexcused) X 2 1 Richard O'Donnell X 3 0 Ronald Gregory X 3 0 Staff Present: Steve Smith Steve Buchanan Daisy Garcia Martin Alvarez Donna Bitter II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Steve Smith stated that the commission may wish to continue the minutes of the September 24th meeting to the meeting of October 22, 1996 as they were quite extensive. He added that a letter from Mr. Chris McFadden was distributed with the minutes listing items he wanted to be added to the minutes. Mr. Smith explained that the city had purchased a different brand of dictating tapes which were found to be defective, and therefore, the meeting of September 24, 1996 was not recorded. He requested that the commission review the minutes extensively. Action It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to continue the minutes of the September 24, 1996 meeting to the meeting of October 22, 1996. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Connor Absent. It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to receive and file documentation submitted by Mr. Chris McFadden. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Connor Absent. `..✓ MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 III. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO.: PP 96-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): REAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, 1706 `B"Newport Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92627 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of sign program LOCATION: North side of Highway 111, approximately 505 feet east of Deep Canyon Road ZONE: P.C. (4) Steve Smith reported that this was the proposed sign program, including a free standing monument sign, for the development. He indicated that the sign program proposed channel letters in the Luckys red,teal and the Starbucks green with the white neon being considered as a non color. Mr. Smith stated that there are more than two tenants listed on the monument sign but that the applicant is proposing to reduce the number of wall mounted business signs on the east side to just one sign and no signage on the south side as a trade off. Commissioner Urrutia asked if there was a name for the center. The applicant, Rob Sanford, replied that there was no name for the center. Commissioner Gregory discussed his concerns with future business owners asking why they are not allowed more than two tenant signs on a monument sign when this monument sign was approved with four tenants. He would like to see this trade-off in writing for the file. Commissioner Gregory felt that the monument sign needed to be simplified. Commissioner O'Donnell agreed and felt that the signage was too cluttered. He added that the placement(lay-out) needed to be a little more balanced. Mr. Jim Engle of Imperial Signs indicated that Heath& Co. Signs spent a lot of time on balancing the monument signage and felt that the submittal was the best that could be done. Mr. Sanford offered to take the background off the Togo's sign to help soften it some. Commissioner Gregory felt that this would help and added that the tile also made the sign look cluttered. Mr. Sanford asked if commission wanted him to also take the tile off the monument sign. The commission felt that by eliminating the tile it would make the sign easier to read. 2 *%Noe. MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 Action It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the sign program as submitted, subject to the following conditions for the free standing monument sign: 1) Remove background from Togo's sign; 2) Remove tile; 3) Lay-out and script to return to commission for final approval. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Connor Absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO.: PP 86-28, Amendment No. 2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DAVID GEISER c/o MCG ARCHITECTS for 111 TOWN CENTER, 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: 1) Approval of sign program for Best Buy; 2) Approval of plans to enclose open space to use as an outdoor workout area for new World's Gym; 3) Approval of trellis and projecting canopy at the Best Buy front elevation at 111 Town Center LOCATION: 111 Town Center ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. The applicant, David Geiser,presented revised drawings for the Best Buy sign showing reverse channel letters and a flush mounted metal background for the ticket with a non exposed neon tube surrounding the ticket. This would create approximately 97 square feet of signage at a height of 34 feet at the top of the letters. Commissioner Urrutia thought that the commission directed him to recess the sign into the wall making it completely flush. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if they had considered other materials. Mr. Geiser indicated that they did look at other materials but the metal background is what they are requesting. Commissioner Urrutia discussed his concerns with the metal background material as he felt it would not look much different than acrylic and the shiny acrylic look is what the commission did not want. Mr. Geiser felt that the yellow metal material would not be reflective as it is painted. Commissioner Urrutia explained how there is a big difference when using stucco as a background material rather 3 ti..r wry MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 than the metal material. Mr. Geiser indicated that they wanted the metal background look. Commissioner Urrutia explained that he understood that because the sign exceeded the allowable height limit, the commission was trying to work with him to make an exception if he could conform to some of their other concerns. Commissioner Holden noted that the tower element was being added to the building and could still be redesigned to put a nitch in it to recess the sign. He explained that the commission was looking for some type of a trade-off with a special way for the sign to fit recessed in the building. Commissioner Holden added that they need to make sure that the applicant create something that does not look tacked on. Mr. Geiser asked if they could keep the metal background material if the sign was completely recessed. Commissioner Holden stated that he would like to see the actual metal material. Mr. Geiser indicated that it would be one large piece. Mr. Sixto Beltrandy, architect for Best Buy, stated that the retail side of their business was very concerned with night visibility. They feel they are fighting an up hill battle to break into this market in a center that has very little visibility. He added that if using flat yellow paint on the metal background would get the sign approved, than he was willing to do that. Action It was moved by Commissioner Urrutia, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the signage for Best Buy subject to the entire sign being recessed fully into the wall, the metal background material be substantial enough not to cause any type of buckling, and the yellow to be a flat non-shiny finish. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Connor Absent. Mr. Geiser addressed the issue of pedestrian flow at Best Buy. He showed how the wedge was pulled out to create two trellis structures. Mr. Geiser noted that the walk was not completely covered in order to it create a rhythm there. Commissioner Gregory felt that the trellis' should be extended as they looked very small and just tacked onto the building. Commissioner Urrutia also showed on the plans how the commission suggested continuing the horizontal beam. Mr. Geiser indicated that they have shaded 40%to 50% of the building with the added trellis structures. Action It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the added trellis structures at Best Buy subject to increasing them in size making the area more pedestrian friendly. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Connor Absent. 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 Steve Smith presented proposed plans to enclose approximately 3000 square feet of open space west of the north building adjacent to Fred Waring Drive. He showed how the west end is a landscaped area between the building and the wash. Mr. Geiser indicated that this enclosed area would create an outdoor patio area with room for exercise equipment. He added that the existing chain link fence is 5' to 6'high and they want to raise the height to 8 feet to deter vandalism. Mr. Smith thought that the fence along the channel belongs to the Coachella Valley Water District. Commissioner Gregory asked if the diagonal fence at the north be stepped at a point to make for a more interesting break between the developed area and the landscaping. Mr. Smith indicated that the outdoor work-out area would have to be subject to there being no music because of the residential area to the north. Action It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the plans to enclose open space to use as an outdoor patio/workout area subject to maintaining the existing pyracantha in its existing condition and letting it flourish and that there be no music on the outdoor patio area. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Connor Absent. Mr. Geiser presented a revised color pallet for the building elevations as the commission had requested more color variations. Mr. Smith indicated that Festival Management came in during 1995 with a new sign program but that MCG want to go back to the original sign program with channel letters in rust, blue and green. Commissioner Holden felt that the new colors were acceptable and thanked Mr. Geiser for working with the commission on these issues. Action It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the color pallet for the center assuming the various colors are carefully placed. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Connor Absent. 5 `. MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 C. Miscellaneous: 1. CASE NO.: CUP 96-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): McFADDEN&McINTOSH ARCHITECTS for CAM'S CORNER, 73-929 Larrea, Suite 1A, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of revised site plan and canopy elevation LOCATION: Northwest corner of Highway I I I and Deep Canyon ZONE: C-1 Steve Smith stated that he was unsure as to the applicant's request and suggested that the applicant address the commission directly. The applicant, Mr. Chris McFadden stated that he phoned city staff the day before and requested that they have the plans for the Lucky's shopping center across the street available for today's meeting as he was told to review the Lucky's center lay-out as it relates to his project. He then distributed an outline to the commission. Mr. McFadden stated that along Deep Canyon their project is bounded by 175 lineal feet of landscaping. The 12' area(which is approximately 30 feet long)represents 17% of total frontage. The total frontage is 670 feet with 60 feet of driveway. Mr. McFadden added that their landscaped area along Deep Canyon undulates, not like the structured landscape plan across the street. Mr. McFadden indicated that the canopy is allowed by ordinance to be 5 feet from the exterior property lines. Commissioner Holden stated that the commission is looking at aesthetic concerns only, not what is allowed by ordinance. Mr. McFadden stated that the landscaping demands from the commission makes them change their building area and because they did not reverse the site plan, the landscaping issue has become greater and greater. Commissioner Holden reminded Mr. McFadden that a specific motion was made on August 13, 1996 approving this project and it had nothing to do with reversing the building. Mr. McFadden stated that the conditions of that approval stopped this project. He added that he took the comments from the commission and where he thought it was appropriate, they were incorporated. Commissioner Holden stated that the commission asked for specific issues to be addressed and they were not complied with. Mr. McFadden stated that he can not reverse the site plan. Commissioner Holden noted that the motion made did not say anything about reversing the site. Commissioner 6 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 Gregory stated that most of the members of the commission had concerns and a motion was made and passed on August 13, 1996. Several of the items still have not been addressed. Action It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to receive and file the documentation submitted by Mr. McFadden hereto attached as "Exhibit A". Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Connor Absent. Mr. Tim Bartlett stated that the Planning Commission asked that the applicant return to the A.R.C. and work out the concerns. Mr. Drell felt that the planning commission's position was that the plan was economically feasible. He added that technically the site plan itself is defined by the precise plan and is approved by the Planning Commission while the architecture is the responsibility of this commission. Commissioner Holden stated that the commission asked to have the canopy cut back and change from 3 pump isles to 2-1/2 pump isles. The commission was told that the applicant has to have 3 pump isles and cannot change the canopy. Commissioner Holden felt that the circulation cannot work without these changes. He added that when you are looking at such a roof structure as this, the setbacks have to be addressed more than what is allowed by code. Commissioner Holden added that this project is located at the entry to the city and did not think it should be so cluttered. Commissioner Urrutia stated that the majority of the written information submitted by the applicant today has to do with percentages and comparisons to the Luckys center across the street, but that a lot of times the aesthetics outweigh the code requirements. Mr. Drell asked what would happen if the canopy was changed somehow. Commissioner Urrutia replied that this is what the commission has been asking for but they have not seen anything but what still was being proposed today. Mr. McFadden indicated that he submitted a new design on the canopy at the previous meeting and the commission did not comment on it and so he went back to the original canopy design. Commissioner Gregory stated that there has been one change in the setback from Allesandro and the canopy was reduced in height and flattened. Commissioner Holden indicated that the commission's direction was to pull the canopy back, not reduce the height. Commissioner Gregory asked what needed to be done next in order to keep this project moving. Mr. Drell replied that if the A.R.C. feels that the only 7 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 recommendation they can make is the action taken on August 13th, the Planning Commission will take that and decide accordingly. Once the Planning Commission approves the site plan with the conditions, the applicant would then appeal the architecture to the City Council. Commissioner Gregory stated that he wanted to make sure that the applicant understands what is needed to move ahead. Action It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to reaffirm the Architectural Review Commission's action of August 13, 1996. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Connor Absent. Commissioner Gregory suggested that the Planning Commission communicate with this commission to assist is moving this project forward and ensure communication. 2. CASE NO.: TT 278872 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS JASCORP, 119 Via Scena, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a 5'6" interior perimeter wall (masonry/wrought iron combination) LOCATION: Merano Homes located north and east of the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue ZONE: PR-7 Mr. Drell explained the proposal for masonry fencing along the north property line adjacent to Suncrest Mobile Home Park. He indicated that there is 4 feet of solid wall and 4 feet of wrought iron for a total of 8 feet with a section that has 6- 1/2 feet of solid wall and 4 feet of wrought iron for a total of 10-1/2 feet. Mr. Jim Ferguson,representative for Suncrest Mobile Home Park, explained their concerns and advised the commission that they have been working toward and agreement on what type of wall should be installed on the north perimeter wall. Due to complications, the agreement has not been finalized by the attorneys. Mr. Robinson, a representative for the Avondale Corporation, and Mr. Joe Swain of Jascorp, also addressed the commission with their concerns. 8 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 Note: Commissioner Gregory left meeting at 2:15 p.m. Mr. Ferguson asked that the commission not approve the open style fencing until the agreement between the parties is finalized. Commission felt that the best solution was to let the parties work out the details among themselves. Mr. Drell concurred that the two parties should work together to resolve the issue. Action It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to continue the request to October 22, 1996 to allow the applicants to work out the details. Motion carried 4-0, Commissioners Connor and Gregory Absent. 3. CASE NO.: CUP 95-6 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RUDY ACOSTA, CITY OF PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Presentation of the Desert Willow maintenance facility LOCATION: South side of Frank Sinatra Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street ZONE: PR-5 Steve Smith reported that the presentation by the Redevelopment Agency was on the proposed maintenance facility at the city golf course currently under construction off Portola Avenue in Section 4. Mr. Acosta presented the lay-out of the Desert Willow Golf Course indicating that it was approximately 50% complete. The project he was showing the commission today was the maintenance facility which is accessed off Portola Avenue. Mr. Acosta explained that the building is approximately 12,000 square feet and is designed to accommodate two golf courses. Mr. Smith asked how they arrived at the number of parking spaces. Mr. Acosta replied that it was based on figures received from other maintenance facilities built in the city. He outlined the depths 9 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1996 of the overhangs, the material being a concrete masonry mix with a stucco facade, bands of colors, and a barrel roof type. Commissioner Holden felt the architecture was fine with the exception of the one big architecture element as it needed to be softened. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how many people the lunch room would accommodate. Mr. Acosta replied that it would hold 48 employees. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there could be an entrance on the west side to this area. Mr. Acosta felt this could be done. Mr. Buchanan added that there would be some modifications made to the exterior entrance so that the employees would not have to go through the equipment storage area to get to the employees area. Commissioner Holden directed Mr. Acosta to ensure that the parking lot(s) meet the citys parking lot shade tree requirements. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about.roof mounted air conditioning equipment. Mr. Acosta indicated that the equipment will be fully screened behind the parapets. Mr. Acosta added that he would be going before the City Council on October 24, 1996 to request approval of the contract. Action It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant preliminary approval of the plans for the maintenance facility at Desert Willow Golf Course, subject to addressing the suggestions made by the Desert Willow Committee and that once the plans go through the department of building and safety that Mr. Buchanan bring the plans back to the commission for final approval. Motion carried 3-0-1, Commissioner Urrutia Abstaining and Commissioners Connor and Gregory Absent. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. ST SMIT PLANNING MANAGER SS/db 10 EXHIBIT "A" ARC MEE1*rr1G CONTENT * 10/08/96 CAM' CORNER * The final course of direction we received at our last ARC meeting was to review the Lucky' s Shopping Center layout and try to reflect its image on this parcel . In review of the Lucky' s layout we are somewhat bewildered. * Our project is bounded by landscaping along Deep Canyon ( 175 lineal feet) . The area of focus has been on our narrow element of 12 ' landscape buffer. This area is 30 lineal feet or 17% of the entire frontage. * There is currently proposed to be 350 lineal feet (52% of overall) of strip retail along Deep Canyon with buildings setback 32 ' . Our Deep Canyon building frontage is 98 ' (56% of overall) and our nearest building element is setback 100 ' . * Along Highway 111 frontage which is an important issue to discuss since it was used as an element of focus to reduce the canopy along with the landscaping on Deep Canyon. The story is much the same. Lucky' s has 215 lineal feet of planters 6 ' - 10 ' in width, and another Highway 111 driveway access . We have 200 lineal feet of u-ninterrupted landscaping with a minimum 12 ' planter width. Our building is setback 65 ' from 111 . * Our landscaping area is superior to that of the proposed Lucky' s . Our Landscape Design (formality vs . non-formality) is still open to modification. In light of the fact that we meet our required areas and that Lucky' s does not have an approved Landscape Plan as yet, I request that the committee no longer delay this project over landscape material issues . * The canopy encroachment is allowed by ordinance to be within 5 feet of exterior property lines . Our closest point is 25 feet. * Pump islands are allowed by ordinance to be 20 feet from property lines . Our closest point is 30 feet. * Maximum allowed building height = 30 ' - 011 . Our tallest portion is 26 ' -4" . We have redesigned and reduced the canopy massing and height to 22 ' -10" as of our last meeting. We did this only to gain some recognition that we want to work with the committee, as a compromise position. In light of the fact that we gained nothing from this and that it compromised the architecture in our opinion, we want to return to the previous canopy design with tile roofing which fits within the same footprint delineated here. * Specific plan issues I (see attached) Contrary to Mr. O' Donnel ' s statement at the last ARC meeting, we do not feel as though the landscape issues on this project are an alternative to reversing the site plan. We introduced at a prior meeting (Mr. O' Donnel was absent) the two criteria for inboard siting. We now submit that the specific plan committee recognized that the site plan reversal is a "fundamental site planning flaw" (page 24 ) . page two. . . * We comply and in many instances exceed the requirements of the zoning ordinance as far as building heights, location, parking, etc. We have heard the committee' s concerns and responded appropriately when their recommendations did not threaten the economic feasibility of the project. We satisfy many of the concerns of the specific plan. I would ask that you vote in favor of this project so that we may proceed. maintain the economic viability of existing tenants at their present locations or relocation to equally desirable areas in the vicinity . B . Private project developers shall be responsible for all property acquisition and on-site development costs directly attributable to their project . ( ( ( . Plan Consistency All development proposals within the Project Area shall be consistent witch the policies of this Core Commercial Area Specific Plan (here Inafter referred to as the "Plan" ) . IV . Subarea Development Policies To formulate specific policies , the study area was div1ded into four subareas . A . North Highway lit /Alessandro B . South Highway Ill - Desert Sun Building to El "'oleo C . South Highway III /El Paseo east to Monterey D . Gateways - Monterey West and Deep Canyon East Area A,_North H h ii9y—L l l Z Alessandro This area contains a diverse mixture of new and old buildings and vacant lots . The Highway Ill buildings are served by a frontage road , which currently allows two-way traffic between Deep Canyon Road and Cabrillo Avenue , the one - way from Cabrillo to Las Palmas , then returns to two-way west to Monterey . Highway Ill lots vary in depth from 125 ft . to 140 ft . These lots back onto Alessandro Drive which extends from Deep Canyon to San Pablo . West of 6 San Pablo , only a narrow alley separates the commercial from a sparsely developed older , single- family subdivision . The Committee iclentified , four specific issues impacting this area : 1 . Frontage road access 2 . Shallowness and fragmented commercial lots limiting substantial high quality development 3 . Replacement or remodeling of obsolete or nonconforming buildings 4 . Land use conflicts between expanding commercial uses and residential area to the north Issue 1 . Frontage _Road Access The current frontage road system continues to be a source of conflict and controversy in the business community. While the two-way circulation east of Cabrillo Avenue and west of Las Palma represents an improvement over the one - way system , significant Inefficiencies continue to exist . Access to rear parking areas is still difficult . Frontage road/cross street intersections continue to be a source of traffic safety conflict . Issue 2 . Limited Depth of Commercial Zone The lot depth in this area varies between 125 ft . and 140 ft . To meet parking requirements , buildings are usually limited to ' the front 50 feet leaving little room for future expansion . More ambitious projects are either required to devote several Highway Ill frontage lots to parking or develop parking on the north side of Alessandro Drive . It is not particularly efficient to use high visibility highway frontage lots for parking . It is also poor planning to require pedestrians to cross a 60 ' right-of-way to get from a parking lot to their destination . The north side of Alessandro Drive , presently zoned multi - family residential is a patchwork of aging apartments , abandoned single family homes , converted offices , commercial parking lots and vacant lots . The unsightly rear entrances and storage yards of Highway 111 businesses have discouraged new Alessandro residential development . Limited lot depth and design restrictions associated with developing adjacent to single family has stifled commercial development other than parking lots . West of San Pablo where Alessandro is replaced by a 20 - foot alley , similar conflicts have placed constraints on commercial development as well as negatively impacting the adjacent single family zone . A new bank built on the northeast corner of Highway III and Monterey was forced to devote two-thirds of their Highway III frontage to parking . The lack of an adequate buffer between the growing commercial area and the single family zone to the north has inhibited 8 new residential development on numerous vacant lots and contributed to the deterioration of many of the existing residences . Issue 3 . Replacement or Remodeling of Obsolete_or Nonconforming_ Bu f l d f n.g- in various blocks there are sections dominated by older buildings which. due to their original design or lack of maintenance no longer conform to present standards . Existing policies provide little incentive for owners to improve these properties . The inability to comply with current parking requirements actually acts as a disincentive for new investment . This creates a cycle of decline which causes the properties to deteriorate further as well as depreciating adjacent buildings . Issue 4 . Commercial /Residen!, Confl_fcts Residential areas adjacent to the study area will be Increasingly subject to negative impacts as the intensity of commercial activity increases . This situation is aggravated by the present lack of a distinct boundary between the two uses . Insensitivity to these negative impacts of traffic , noise , invasion of privacy and sight line view obstructions will cause the deteriorating situation on Alessandro to spread further back into the single-family zone . Ideally, the transition from commercial to residential should 9 lot for the purpose of creation of off-street parking and a landscaped buffer shall be implemented . f. Between San Carlos Avenue and Cabrillo Avenue , the commercial zone shall be expanded to include lots on the north side of Alessandro to an average depth of 120 feet . These lots shall become part of the super- block and shall be used primarily for parking and a landscaped greenblelt adjacent to _the single family zone . East of Cabrillo Avenue high density garden apartments shall be encouraged to Will the remaining lots . The . vacant parcel on Deep Canyon may be Incorporated into a larger - commerr ' zi development 1n conjunction with a proje,-t on Highway 111 . g . Local residential streets may be cul -de-sac 'd north of the superblock , if deemed desirable by affected property owners and residents . h. Incentives shall be created to encourage the remodeling or replacement of obsolete older buildings and uses . 3 . IMPLEMENTATION The City/RDA shall facilitate the cr'eatlon of superblocks through the following actions : 11 "pocket parks " in their design . To offset this reduced private parking development , the RDA shall purchase and develop additional parking when necessary on less desirable commercial property located off El Paseo . g . Detailed engineering studies shall be conducted leading to implementation of the frontage road superblock system . See Exhibit 8 ( Conceptual Design Plan) . h . S 1 g n a g e Program - Area - w I'de pub 1 c directional signage program shall be . developed clearly identifying block addresses and parking lot locations . Area--Q . Gateways 1 . Issues Gateways , visitor ' s first exposure to Palm Desert , play a critical role in defining the City ' s character and identity . In addition to communicating an overall impression of quality , it is important for gateways to emphasize that one is entering a unique and distinctive community. At the City ' s western gateway , the Las Sombras Restaurant Park built in 1980 was constructed with a fundamental site planning flaw which detracts from the developments appearance . as 24 well as being detrimental to the success of many of the tenants . The project was built backward with inferior rear elevations facing Highway lll . On the east side of Highway 111 , an ambitious Raffles HoteI - restaurant / resort commercial project is planned . Directly south of the Las Sombras project is a large 32 -acre vacant site for which numerous unsuccessful development proposals have been submitted . Planning on this site is ~complicated by a 1 . 8 acre pie-shaped (the Hoams Pool site ) , separately owned , nonconforming developed parcel piercing the parcel ' s lower quarter . Further south , across the Palm Valley Storm Channel , a 12-acre vacant parcel also has had d controversial development history which incluc:Zd denial of two major commercial developments due to conflicts with the adjacent Sandpiper residential development . The principal issues in this area concern how these remaining vacant , unplanned parcels can be developed to best reinforce Palm Desert ' s unique character . GENERAL POLICY The City shall develop a more flexible zoning designation on the remaining vacant parcels to 25