Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0905 MIINUrES PALM DESERT PLANNING CCF ILSSION MEETING, TUESDAY, SEPTEMOM 5, 1989 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC (ENTER COUNCIL CIUV43ER 73-510 FRED W RIING DRIVE A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CIiAMER CONFERENCE ROOM. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman E:rwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Richards led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Rick Er wood, Chairman Bob Dawns Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz ,` Kandy Allen Phil Drell Steve Smith Catherine Sass Gregg Holtz Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for approval of the August 15, 1989 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Ccmmissioner Whitlock, approving the August 15, 1989 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COLTKaL ACTION Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent August 24, 1989 city council action. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos. PMW 89-8, PMW 89-14 - RAY-AL ENTERPRISES, INC., Applicant NQIVITI�'S ' PALM DESERT PLANNDU OCRUSSION SEVIU41ER 5, 1989 Request for approval of two parcel map waivers consolidating lots associated with the office building on the south side of Fred Waring Drive west of Monterey, as required by C/Z 88-10. B. Case No. PNW 89-09 - JOHN BASH, TRUSTEE OF THE BASH FAMILY TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to create two parcels out of three existing lots on Alessandro Drive. C. Case No. PMW 89-10 - OTRA III-A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge three parcels into one parcel on Sunset Lane. D. Case No. PMW 89-11 - DAVE MANOOKIAN, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to create one parcel out of three existing vacant lots on Alessandro Drive at San Pascual. E. Case No. TT 21338 - THE CARLO'ITA PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for a one year time extension for a project recently annexed into the city from the county, located on Carlotta Avenue west of E1 Dorado. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. continued Case Na. ZOA 89-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendments to the sign ordinance, Section 68, as it applies to signs and awnings. 2 Wd M9MT S PALM DESERT PLANNING GQMILSSION SEPrEMER 5, 1989 S Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. DAN EHRLER, Executive Vice President of the Chamber of Canmmeree and chairperson for a task force of various business people to review the proposed revisions. He extended appreciation to city staff, the subcommittee and planning commission for their cooperation and assistance. He felt sign maintenance should be strongly enforced. He eamnP.nded the sign ' subcommittee for taking action on their recommendation that individuals be included on the architectural review commission that deal with sign color coordination. He stated that neon signage was addressed equitably and that if it were permitted, it would be carefully scrutinized to insure compatibility with existing signage. Mr. Ehrler stated there were two areas that were existing differences that he hoped planning oormnission would adopt. First, the task force recommended a set of definitions as provided by the California Sign Users Council and used by the industry and on a state-wide basis and adoption of those definitions would be clear and in conformance with the rest of the state. He recommended that they be adopted in their entirety. In regard to sign colors he requested that the �.r commission keep the current language that specifies no set number of colors to be used in signs, but it be allowed to be determined by the architectural review commission. MR. JIM ENGLE, member of the task force, stated that the biggest problem they were having was the definitions. He stated that a lot of study state-wide and through the industry was done to i cane up with something that was easy to understand. He stated that staff worked hard and came up with definitions, but those definitions would eliminate important signage in the community (i.e. 1st Interstate Bank, Glendale Federal, Denney's, Sizzler, ice cream place across Highway Ill and many signs at the Town Center) would be eliminated in the future. He indicated that should not happen in the definition, but in the code itself and the definitions kept "clean and away from code". MR. ROBERT KEEMAN, Executive Director of Sign Users Council of California, 415 Foothill Blvd. , Suite 212 in Claremont, CA 91711. He stated that he just received a copy of proposed amendment 25.68.670 to make the amendments prospective only in order to "circumvent" state law. He stated that their attorney, Robert Aaron would review that and talk to Dave Erwin to see if it fits in with the state law. He indicated that in the staff 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLAINS CQTISSICN A SEP E BER 5, 1989 r/ report there was a reference to circumvent state law which requires that no sign could be abated or put into an amortization clause after March 12, 1983 by any subsequent sign code or ordinance, so that anything seen today in town that does not conform to these proposals would be considered under the law legal nonconforming and would remain unless the city uses its option under the law to buy the sign and have it removed. He indicated the city attorney could explain the buy-out procedures which would be payable in advance to the sign caning down. He stated that the proposed amendment had been modified by the city attorney's office so that any city/county action in the state of California after January 1, 1988 that modifies, amends or drafts a sign code would be required within six months after its adoption to inventory all the illegal and abandoned signs within the community and then within the next two succeeding months begin to remove those signs. Within the law was a means for the city to finance such a survey so that it wouldn't be from city funds. Under the direction of the League of California Cities, Chapter 2.6 of the Business Professions Code was created for the ' weed abatement act, which would take down any illegal or abandoned sign if the owner or property owner refuses to respond to the demand of the city to remove it. He did not feel that circumventing this law by malting everything prospective would be in the city's best interest. He felt that cities should take advantage of the inventorying sections of state law and do it. He indicated that several cities changed their ordinances (i.e. Temple City) and when they reviewed state law they had to inventory and remove the illegal and abandoned signs and then decided if the code should be amended. Enforcement was completed within two weeks with one staff person and they were now removing abandoned and illegal signs. He indicated that illegal and abandoned signs were continuous. He felt that illegal sign companies were most likely from unlicensed sign contractors and there was only one state-licensed sign contractor in an 60 mile radius. He felt that a better or more restrictive ordinance would not fulfill the purpose or intent of the city if illegal or abandoned signs were allowed to remain. He suggested that the city not circumvent state law, but take advantage of the financial sections and remove illegal/abandoned signs. He stated that he sits on the advisory oommittee to the assembly select committee on unlicensed contractors and he was concerned about unlicensed contractors selling signs to sign users because most don't know laws or codes. The only word changed in freestanding sign was inserting the word "pedestal". He stated that the industry does not use the word pedestal. He suggested the national language and that would be freestanding 4 M314TIES PALM DESERT PLANNIM QCT4IISSIQd SEPrE BER 5, 1989 signs were any signs erected and mounted directly on the ground and not attached in any manner to a building. He stated that these signs were mounted or attached to one or more uprights, code says pedestal (i.e. pylon, pole, detached, and ground signs) which are all freestanding signs and are all on uprights with air space between the base of the face and the ground. Another type of freestanding sign was the monument sign. He felt that should be defined because a monument sign was a specific type of freestanding sign--it stands alone, is not attached to a building, and is mounted directly on the ground to a solid base, with no air space underneath that. Both are freestanding signs, one does not have a "pedestal" and suggested that a co maon language be incorporated. He also stated that at a sign committee meeting with a list of the sign users definitions including wall sign, roof sign, mansard roof, abandoned sign, and illegal sign, the, request was made that staff review the definitions in the exact context with the rest of the ordinance to see if they would change the meaning of the ordinance, and if they wouldn't, that group of people had no problem with the city adopting these as definitions. He had not heard back from staff as to whether these definitions would change the meaning or effect of the body of the ordinance. The Sign Users of California recommended that the city not circumvent state law for enforcement of illegal and abandoned signs, and consider adopting reco nnended definitions provided they wouldn't change the actual body or intent of the rest of the sign code. He felt that replacing the ward pedestal with "uprights" would not change anything. He noted that the definitions had nothing to do with height, placement, color or size. He also recommended that the maintenance clauses be adopted and the inventory of illegal and abandoned signs be done. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone else wished to address the ccomission. There was no one. Mr. Smith noted that the city council subeomnittee group and the task force of the chamber met in mid August and reviewed the proposed changes. Some areas were agreed upon and some were not. He started with color and stated that section 68.480 presently says that you can have as many colors in a sign as architectural eonnission would approve; prior to 1983 there was a maximum of three colors, which was the new proposed wording. Architectural commission felt that it would be easier with a maximum of three colors. Mr. Smith explained that one of the first issues of the subcaanittee was certain signs that they wanted controlled and/or prohibited in the future, 5 NffNCTPFS i PALM DESERT PLANNIM CCNMISSICN SEP'IE BER 5, 1989 Stoo 1 specifically parapet and mansard mounted signs. He noted that they looked at the definitions for roof-mounted and walls signs to specifically permit mansard and parapet mounted signs; they were looking at revising the definitions so that those signs would not be permitted, but prohibited. The issue of Mr. Keenan regarding legal non-conforming signs, it was never the city's intention to start an enforcement program and start tearing down signs--the goal was that henceforth new signs reviewed by ARC cane under the premise of the ordinance as amended. The city attorney drafted the prospective language in section 670, which should have that result. As mentioned by Mr. Ehrler, the neon signs issue was left open because there was not much support. Staff created guidelines if neon signs were to be permitted. Mr. Smith noted that the final decision would rest with the city council. The section on lottery signs had been left blank in that the information was not available at that time; one memo fran city attorney's office came last week. The city attorney talked with the lottery council and submitted a report to ocrm ission indicating what the requirements are for lottery signs; if the city wished to give them anything more than the 5 x 5 deco in the window, it would be by the city's good graces. He suggested perhaps a window placard of 30" x 30". Carmissioner Richards asked the city attorney about the allegations that the city was not in conformance with state code. Ms. Allen replied that they were in conformance with state code revision for 25.68.670 and was the exact language drafted by Mr. Aaron as referred i to by Mr. Keenan. Mr. Diaz noted that in effect the city was grandparenting in the existing signs since 1983 into the present sign ordinance; existing businesses would change the signs and conform as signs turn over, rather than having the city go through a ccn nuiity split; this ordinance was in conformance with state law and staff did not recannend anything different. Mr. Diaz also noted that abandoned signs could still be abated. Commissioner Whitlock noted that definitions were referred to and asked staff to address the issue, noting specifically the word change of "pedestal" to "upright". Mr. Smith stated that the issue of freestanding signs involved the issue of pedestals and stated that staff was unocmfortable with the idea of changing a basic definition as sign because it could lead to internal inconsistencies which might not be readily apparent. Mr. Smith indicated that there was no problem with changing "pedestal" to "upright". Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. 6 MINUTES ` PALM DESERT PLANNING CLMMIISSICN (� SEP EMBER 5, 1989 Commission Richards stated that in the late 1970's he was forced to take down a sign without amortization and he was upset that any city could do this and was a principal person involved in the revision of the ordinance in 1983. He felt that working with three colors on a sign was very difficult; background color is one, the actual lettering is one, and that would only leave one color for the box. He stated that this started when the Bank of America. in 1980 wanted a building on E1 Paseo; they had a logo they had used for 50 years and Palm Desert was the only branch that required them to put up a logo that had three colors in it. He felt it was highly restrictive and difficult to work with. He referred to the various reports submitted from many experts on what amounted to a subjective situation, not a planning process. He stated that one group of citizens would be regulated for the benefit of the rest and the decision might affect them monetarily or economically and was in favor of sending the matter to council without comment from the comLission. He made that motion. i Action: Moved by Ccamissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, referring ZOA 89-1 to city council without comment. Carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. GPA 89-5, C/Z 89-12, PP 89-12, PM 24794 - BIR`PCER- DUNHAM, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan, and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of approximately 59,000 square feet of retail and commercial buildings at the southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway ill. Ms. Sass outlined the salient points of the staff report. She stated that the third pad's architecture had not been decided and would have to go to architectural commission for approval when a lessee was found for that pad. She noted that the project did not meet one code requirement for minimum site size and would need a waiver of this one requi.remment, which could be accomplished by approval of a precise plan. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. 7 V bIINL)TES PAIM DESERT PLANNING CIOMMISSIC N SEPE BER 5, 1989 MR. CURT DUNHAM, 72-010 Varner Road in Thousand Palms, agreed with staff reconnendations with one exception; the request that if the commission deems to approve the project, they would like the opportunity to continue to discuss the entrance driveway with the city's traffic engineer. He noted that Cheryl Natrice of Allies Restaurant, Jay Singer of Toys R Us, Rick Holden-- architect, Don Demers of Ultrasystems who did the traffic study, and Tom Lagier and Jeff Stone--engineers were also present to answer questions. Commissioner Richards asked what the problem with the traffic engineer was and Mr. Dunham explained that on Highway 111 the throat restriction could be detrimental to Allies Restaurant and they wanted the opportunity to continue discussing alternatives with the engineers. Mr. Holtz stated that the applicant would have to get back in touch with the traffic engineer and engineering staff handling this project for discussing alternate plans on widening or ingress/egress. Conmi.ssioner Richards asked why the project was before comnission with this type of problem unresolved. Mr. Dunham replied that the gentleman handling the project was no longer working with them and they thought this had been discussed with Allies Restaurant, which it had not been. The site plan had been redesigned several times and the last revision was not given to Allies for review. Conissioner Richards asked what the applicant wanted done to the driveway and Mr. Dunham stated that the problem was that you couldn't get to Allies Restaurant until you get to Toys R Us and loop back, which was restrictive. Ms. Sass indicated that there was a median to direct traffic into the parking lot and felt the traffic engineer's concern was that if people turning in from Highway 111 and immediately turning left would be obstructed by cars trying to exit. Mr. Dunham explained that he was only asking for the opportunity to continue discussion with the engineers; staff did not have a problem with a redesign. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would be willing to bring this back as an informational item before the council public hearing. Chairman Erwood noted that Cheryl Natrice had filled out a form to speak on this matter. MS. CHERYL NATRICE, Marriott Corporation, stated that they were not made aware of the latest design and explained that her problem with the proposed site plan was the severe restriction of the Highway 111 access. She felt that a dead end lane and traffic flow problem had been created and wanted to have the 8 NIIIdJI�S PAIN DESERT PLArNIM CU44ESSICN t SIIYIEM3ER 5, 1989 `r opportunity to work with the engineers to allow a better configuration. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project or in OPPOSITION; there was no one else and the public testimony was closed. i Commissioner Richards stated that he had no problems with the project and felt that staff could work out the problem with the developer; if it could not be worked out, it would cane back to the commission. Commissioner Richards moved for approval of the findings and Commissioner Downs seconded. Commissioner Jonathan expressed concern that if Toys R Us were to pull out an undesirable tenant might be obtained. Mr. Dunham stated that Toys R Us would be buying the property from them. Mr. Diaz stated that any retail tenant that could fit in the regional commercial zone would be allowed. Commissioner Jonathan noted that some parking lots had wide parking spaces and some did not. Ms. Sass !. stated that these were standard sized parking lots with spaces 9 x 20. Cannissioner Jonathan stated that he would not object to the project, but felt that parking spaces in large parking lots seemed to be too skinny. r.r Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1379, recommending approval of GPA 89-5, C/Z 89-12, PP 89-12, and PM 24794 to city council. Carried 5-0. i C. Case No. C/Z 89-11 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone from R-2 single family residential district (R-2 (7)) to office professional on the south side of Fred Waring Drive, between Monterey Avenue and San Anselmo Avenue. Ms. Sass outlined the salient points of the staff report. She noted that neighborhood concerns were traffic noise, parking spillover from the McCallum Theatre onto vacant parcels, and vagrants. She stated that development of the parcels could alleviate these concerns since 9 %NW M NUITS PALM DESERT PLANNIM CU44 SSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 offices normally operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and provide quiet time in the evenings and on weekends. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITIQd to the proposal. MR. CHRIS MILLS, 121 S. Palm Canyon in Palm Springs, architect for lots 15 and 16, stated that they were in the early stages of developing this ,property into medical office buildings and felt it was an excellent place. He noted that the development along there was a more appropriate use than single family. He also felt that staff requirements regarding screening from the residential area to the south would give adequate protection to those homes. MR. RICHARD FISCHER, architect for a previously approved project in the area for Mr. Fedderly, stated that he was in favor of the whole block changing and felt that a green buffer zone was unpopular with the neighbors and unlikely to happen. He felt the unification of the whole block was probably in the interest of the community. MR. HARRY DOICH, 73-141 Fred Waring Drive, expressed approval for the change of zone and indicated that was the original zone before the city took over. Chairman Erwood stated that one item discussed in study session was the fact that originally when the whole plan was before the commission the residents were promised that if office professional was put on Fred Waring they would be facing a nice green zone on Santa Rosa providing transition to the Muses on the south. He felt this represented a change and it was suggested that those residents be heard with respect to this type of change. Mr. Diaz stated that notices of this hearing went to those residents. Chairman Erwood noted that at the study session camiission talked about a review of the Palma Village Plan and this would be part of that plan. Mr. Diaz stated that the people impacted by this change had been notified on the south side of Santa Rosa and some responses had been that the greenbelt would be more of a problem rather than problem solving. Cannissioner Richards stated that anytime notification is given on scmething done he would like to see it (i.e. if someone calls and says they live on some address, he would like a record of that). He noted that the audience was filled the last time the Palma Village Plan was discussed and there was no one present tonight. He would 10 NIIN<TI'ES PALM DESERT PILANNIIW7 COMMISSION SEPPEMBER 5, 1989 I rather postpone this for a short period of time and go back to the people and notify residents on the whole block from Santa Rosa to Deep Canyon. Mr. Drell stated that the proposed greenbelt system was only proposed to extend to San Pablo, no such discussion was discussed to the east and should only be notified to San Pablo. Commissioner Richards concurred and asked if another public hearing could be held. Ms. Sass noted that these people had been notified twice of the public hearing and felt the majority of the people at the last Palma Village Plan hearing thought these lots were already I rezoned to office. Mr. Diaz stated that a notice could be sent out with a letter telling people exactly what that notice meant and if they could not attend, please call staff and let us know. He suggested a continuance to October 3, 1989 for this section. Coaaissioner Jonathan asked when the notice was sent out if it would inform the residents that a change was being considered impacting the original Palma Village Plan--staff stated the letter would have that warding. I Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing C/Z 89-11 to October 3, 1989. Carried 5-0. A FIVE MINUPE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8:20 P.M. tow D. Case Nos. GPA 89-1, C/Z 89-1 - AH ANSON COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of 1) An Environmental Impact Report; 2) General Plan Amendments and Change of Zones associated with the nine site areas within the Highway 111 Cccrmercial Core; 3) Amendment No. 5 to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1 and the Commercial Core Specific Plan, making the land use consistent with the General Plan and zoning; 4) Amendment to Section 25.37 of the Zoning Ordinance allowing the city to enter into a development agreement; and 5) A development agreement between the city and Ahmanson Commercial Development Company. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and noted that 11 letters objecting to the bridge, traffic on Painters Path and to the park had been received from Sandpiper residents. He explained that a second alternative was proposed eliminating access to Painters Path, the hillside residential development area would be dedicated as open space, areas 2, 3, 4, and 5 discussed in the EIR would be 11 %NW MIIVLnES PALM DESERT PLANNIM CCK4ESSICN SEP'IEMBER 5, 1989 consolidated into one area remaining intact with any mitigation relative to the Sandpiper development incorporated onsite and deletion of a bridge linking the two. Painters Path would remain as an access road for residential development to the south and Sandpiper. Area 6 was shown with development on the corner directly on Fred Waring and no development down Fairhaven or access to Fairhaven, and buildable area would orient toward Town Center Way and Fred Waring Drive. Staff felt these were logical and rational changes to the general plan and zoning map and consistent with the needs and requirements for quality development on Highway 111. Staff felt that planning commission should recommend approval to city council of a general plan amendment, change of zone and EIR, and continue the development agreement two weeks because it was drawn up prior to the alternative 2 changes. Mr. Drell noted that the development agreement would limit office professional development in area 1 to 80 percent and commercial at 20 percent. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. GREG SIMDN, Director of Retail Centers, 11-111 Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles 90025, stated that they were not asking for approval for the actual development of the sites part of the application at this time. He indicated that during the last 15 months the proposal was reviewed by various city committees and business organization, including the Chamber of Commerce, El Paseo Merchants Association, and the city's eeoncmtic development committee. He stated that the Sandpiper residents were invited to discuss the program (alternate 1) and as a result of that discussion changes had been made that were referred to by Mr. Drell. Mr. Simon outlined the assemblage of the property history. He stated that they would provide 200 parking spaces above code requirement and as soon as approvals were received, demolition of Sun Lodge would be done to allow the city/merchants to use that site as parking by a temporary easement. He stated that another significant component of their application was the dedication of the 54 hillside acres zoned for hillside residential development which would be used for a natural open space to preserve the Santa Rosa mountains' natural history. He indicated that the precise plan for any individual site would be submitted to the city in its entirety in the future to receive city approval for every piece of developable property in this development. He indicated that adoption of alternate 2 would delete the cul-de-sac, the park, and the connector road from Sandpiper over to the realigned Painters Path and would take an abandonment of Painters Path north of the 12 MINUTES PAU4 DESERT PLANNIM OOM IISSIC N SEPT043ER 5, 1989 i VOW storm channel up to Fred Waring to create a new infrastructure of road systems consistent with an approved development. He stated that while they elected not to include any access points to the side area on Painters Path, they felt in the future when the precise plan comes before the city, that it would be necessary to look at that issue relative to E1 Paseo traffic. He recognized that parcel 1 was significantly injured by ingress/egress and would require a lower use and they would evolve into a development plan that would focus on campus office, along with related financial or restaurant use. With the elimination of the bridge he concurred with the accommodation to change the zoning on the property to office professional and 20% commercial. He felt all concerns brought before then to date had been addressed. He thanked staff for their help and guidance. Commissioner Richards stated that he was excited about earlier presentations because it took E1 Paseo and linked it with the proposed sites and would create another road and take some of the traffic off of Highway 111. From a planning standpoint he preferred the first design. He asked if there would be a problem with considering the alternates equally. Mr. Simon stated no and indicated that the initial review of abandoning the bridge and r.rr possible consequences relative to doing an effective development were not as dramatic as they had thought. Mr. Simon concurred that they could function with either plan. MR. DAN EHRLER, Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce, stated that the board of directors after reviewing the proposal at the board level and at an open meeting of business and economic development committee last year, took the position of support. He personally felt that the attempt and good neighbor policy had been well done by this company. MR. PETER MATHIESON, 1716 Sandpiper, stated that five years ago this same thing came up and most of the people in the complex are not in residence during July or August. He informed commission that he was the president of the Sandpiper complex on the edge of the "Mervyn" property and of the 18 owners, only three are permanent residents. He felt the commission should know that 11 of the 18 people responded to the notice and felt that the ones that had not responded had not seen their mail. The people in their complex were not in favor of plan 1 for regional commercial and felt that would be "gross overkill" for that location abutting their properties, but would be in favor of the second alternative and the office professional zoning, 13 NII14UTES PALM DESERT PLC MIW-v OCNMLSSION SEP'IE+BER 5, 1989 i although they might not be too keen to see 20 percent oonmercial/restaurant. He requested that they be consulted as to the noise, traffic flowing in and out relating to Painters Path and their area. MR. JAMES WILSON, 1718 Sandpiper, stated that he was a permanent resident since February of 1970. He congratulated the commission and council on building the city. He indicated that they strongly recommend that commission should zone that professional only, not regional commercial. MS. DAPHNE TRIPHON, 1713 Sandpiper, noted that it was a five year anniversary with Ahmanson. She asked Mr. Drell for clarification on his comment regarding restaurant use. Mr. Drell replied that it was not in the city's best interest to have restaurants concentrated and segregated away frcm retail. She expressed concern regarding traffic, parking, noise, lights, and indicated that she would like office professional, but not restaurants or commercial next to her house. She thanked the city for acknowledging the neighborhood south of Painters Path as citizens of the ccnmunity, even though some are part time residents. MR. PURVIS MARTIN, 1714 Sandpiper, next door to Ms. Triphon, endorsed the approval for alternate 2 and felt that a totally commercial development would be detrimental. MR. JOHN HOOVER, 1715 Sandpiper, stated that it would be good for future development not to have the hearings during the summer when people are not available. He felt the hearings should be in months from November through May. He expressed approval of the second alternate and expressed concern for traffic. He felt that if the bridge were to go across over to E1 Paseo, his opinion was that traffic would be up eight to ten fold, which wouldn't be fair to the residents. He felt that Ahmanson was honorable and with a fair master plan and a spirit of cooperation, the problems could be worked out. MR. TCM WOOD, with the law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and Anderson, indicated he was asked by the City of Indian Wells to assist in the review of this project and EIR. He had comments on the EIR, which he explained would be put in writing and submitted before the end of public comments on September 14. Overall he felt the major impetus was to change the resort commercial to regional commercial and he felt that appeared to be an excellent idea. He felt that the task was to make sure 14 PALM DESERT PL ANNIM CICTISSICN SEPrR43ER 5, 1989 the commission and council received as full and factually a report as possible on the impact on the project. He hoped the EIR comments would assist the Palm Desert decision makers in their decision. He stated that a few areas needed further analysis and the first two areas dealt with the traffic impact as it relates to the cumulative impact on the project and the area and treatment of the alternatives to the project. He felt it might be more useful to have an additional alternative or two i with less density to compare traffic impacts. He stated that further discussion in the EIR for the cumulative impact was particularly noticeable in the Lindscott Law study and they only showed two projects that they felt added to the cumulative impact and he suggested that should be further examined. He also felt it was difficult to determine the extent of the impact of the entire project because of the uncertainty of the building intensity level for other non-residential property in the area that would be permitted in the general plan and felt the lack of intensity level undermined the consistency findings. He also felt the housing impact should allow more amplification of that aspect of that analysis in the EIR and some analysis might be required for the removal of the 61 Sun Lodge condaninium units. He stated that the lack of inclusion of adverse impact on water and sewage could be given some quantification and some explanation as to why that did not serve as an adverse impact. He stated that written comment would sent as fast as it could be done. Chairman Erwood stated that he recalled reading in the EIR when addressing the traffic concern they had a traffic projected increase caused by the project, the scenario where no project was built and the existing zoning build out and traffic that would be generated was calculated, as well as a projection that if no development was done how much traffic would still increase. Chairman Er wood asked where Mr. Wood specifically felt the EIR did not address the traffic and all scenarios. Mr. Wood felt that what would end up in their final comments would have to do with an additional alternative and its traffic impact, perhaps greater than 864,000 square feet and perhaps one less than that. Mr. Drell clarified that as a maximum 864,000 square feet was used because Ahmanson committed that to be the maximum and did not see any point in studying greater than that and since it was not an option before the commission it was not considered. He stated that the no project, which was development under the existing zoning, with the commercial site still commercial and residential developing residential. He stated that the cumulative impact was addressed in 15 MIN[TI�S PALM DESERT PLANNING 09441SSICN SEPIEM3ER 5, 1989 two ways: 1) projects with the exact parameters were assigned, and 2) they tried to assess using the CVAG study and all regional and traffic studies what would be the regional effect on the projects in Palm Desert, as well as on the whole valley, and tried to project the regional growth of all development to the year 2000 and added the specific projects that were known to exist and could be analyzed. The no development scenario would be if what would happen if no sites developed and the only thing that occurred was the cumulative impacts and the regional growth. He stated that the figures were given for the top and bottom and the mitigation for two or three points in between. Mr. Wood informed oc nmission that they would reduce their comments to writing and he had not done an adequate analysis to allow him to make any more comments. Ctninissioner Richards noted that Mr. Woods was representing the City of Indian Wells as their EIR expert. He expressed confusion as to why another city was retaining counsel to assist Palm Desert on its own EIR. He felt that the firm looked at the EIR quickly and were trying to be nitpicky and did not find anything substantive in the presentation and was a nuisance factor. He indicated that he would like to establish a better relationship and stated that there was no question that there would be an impact on Indian Wells and on Rancho 5 Mirage. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony and asked for co mnission comments. Commissioner Richards stated that he liked alternative 1, but seemed to be a political liability. He felt that it -would have provided a better planning situation and hoped that within the alternative 2 there might be some way to reduce the traffic at El Paseo where it intersects Highway 111 and if no access was provided from any kind of a road crossing the channel, more cars and another traffic signal on Highway 111 would be required. He felt that some traffic should be taken off Highway 111. Mr. Diaz stated that a people moving system was under study as a mitigation measure, between all the shopping areas, of which Ahmanson, the Town Center, and the city would be contributing $10,000 each. He noted this would be "a ways away". Cannissioner Jonathan asked if alternatives one and two were mutually exclusive. He thought the main objection to alternative one was not the bridge but the development on the parcel being regional commercial versus office professional. He asked if it would be possible to campronise and have office professional and a bridge. m 16 N1I IMES PAIM DESERT PLA IWY OTUSSIGN SEP'I MER 5, 1989 Mr. Simon indicated that the bridge was eliminated because of noise and traffic concerns voiced to them and their attempt to mitigate {I concerns. Commissioner Richards asked if there was a possibility of putting a bridge further away from the residential area in question and allow traffic flow to move from this development to El Paseo without having to access Highway 111. It was noted that because of the proximity of Painters Path and the intersection a problem was created. Mr. Drell noted that the projected traffic on El Paseo with a bridge in the year 2000 would approach the current traffic on Highway 111; Highway 111 is a regional highway and designed to be six lanes and handle a great deal of traffic while E1 Paseo and Painters Path are transitional between oammercial and residential and can't go to six lanes. Commissioner Jonathan commented that he did not know of any real regional highways that allowed left turn every couple of blocks; he felt that something needed to be done. Mr. Drell stated that where the traffic might be directed to would not be equipped to handle the traffic. Chairman Erwood asked if it was a concern that people would try to avoid Highway 111 by going down El Paseo; Mr. i Drell replied no, that it was the projected traffic onto Painters Path. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like to see another alternative that considered linking E1 Paseo with Painters Path and a �r.. bridge, an underpass or overpass or something. He felt that if the mitigation measures were attempted and met for the residents of Sandpiper with the office professional park as a buffer and if there was some way, to tie up the roads as in the first proposal. He indicated that it might not be able to be cone, but he wanted the applicants and engineers to look at the possibility. Mr. Diaz noted that the adjoining property owners would prefer alternative 2 and the applicant could live with alternative 2 and suggested that staff could cane back to the commission with an alternative and further amplifications to the council. Mr. Diaz stated that the key issue was the zoning issue. Commissioner Richards stated that he did not have a problem with the proposal, but with the access. Cbmnnissioner Jonathan felt this was a major issue and the opportunity should not be lost--he felt it warranted a continuance. Mr. Drell stated that there was no question that something could be done, but the issue was whether or not the impacts on Painters Path and El Paseo could be mitigated. Conmissioner Jonathan replied that the challenge here was how it could be physically constructed and also meet concerns. Commissioner Downs noted that the applicant was only asking for a zone change at this time--not a specific project. 17 `r N3NUPF:S PAIM DESERT PLAWaU COMISSIGN SEPPENBE R 5, 1989 After further discussion, commission indicated it would reco Trend approval of the change of zone and general plan amendment, continue the development agreement two weeks, at which time the applicant would provide alternatives as discussed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by CcmTdssioner Downs, continuing the public hearing for the development agreement to September 19, 1989. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Dawns, adopting Planning Cc mLission Resolution No. 1380, recommending to city council certification of the Environmental Impact Report Exhibit A, General Plan Amendment Exhibit B, Commercial Core Area Specific Plan Exhibit C, Change of Zone Exhibit D, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Exhibit E. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Ccmuissicner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1381, recommending approval of Amendment No. 5 to the Redevelopment Plan as amended for Project Area No. 1, as amended of the Agency and making its report and recommendations. Carried 5-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Selection of Boundaries for Palm Desert Redevelopwnt Project Area No. 3. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1382, recommending to city council approval of the boundary selection of Project Area No. 3 and the formulation and preparation of a preliminary plan. Carried 5-0. B. Amendment No. 6 to Redevelopment Agency Plan for Project Area No. 1, as amended. 18 MU4UTES PALM DESERT PLANNDC CX14-ZLSSICN SEPTE BFR 5, 1989 Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commmnission Resolution No. 1383, recommending to city council confirmation of certain matters with respect to the preliminary plan for Project Area No. 1, as amended, in connection with proposed Amendment No. 6 to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1, as amended. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. VAR 87-1 - RALPH SAUMPIE M, Applicant Mr. Diaz informed commission that 30 days had passed since certified notification to Mrs. Witmer that the condition relating to her approval of the rear yard setback would be waived unless some response from her was received. Since there was no response from her, the matter was again before the commissicn. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, waiving Mrs. Witmer's approval of a rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet for the R-1 10,000 zoned property located at 47-817 San Corral. Carried 5-0. `ow IX. ORAL OOM LINICATICNS None. X. CCMMENPS 1. Commissioner Downs complimented Ahmanson on their presentation. 2. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, directing staff to hold a public hearing to notify city council and residents effected by the Palma Village Plan that deviations from the Specific Plan of 1985 were being planned. Carried 5-0. 19 %am MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSICN SEP E BER 5, 1989 s XI. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Ccm-nissioner Ri , adjourning the meeting. Carried 5-0. The ting was adj at 10:08 P.M. A T: RAMDN A. DIAZ, Secret / S j RICHARD ERWOOD, Chai /tm i 20