Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1004 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 4, 1994 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE low I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Beaty led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairperson Paul Beaty George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Joe Gaugush Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe Phil Drell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 20, 1994 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the September 20, 1994 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent September 22 , 1994 city council actions . VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS r■�► A. Continued Case Ahmanson Commercial Development Plan Amended and Restated Development Agreement - MADISON REALTY PARTNERSHIP/SUNRISE COMPANY, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and amendment of an approved Development Agreement associated with the Ahmanson Commercial Development Plan increasing the allowable gross leasable area from 167 ,000 square feet to 197,000 square feet including 25% restaurant for site area 5, a 10 . 3 acre parcel on the south side of E1 Paseo between San Pablo Avenue and Larkspur Lane. Mr. Drell explained that in 1989 Ahmanson Commercial Development Company came to the city with a number of properties throughout the commercial area and proposed to do preliminary planning and an environmental impact report assessing the cumulative impacts of all of the projects on the Highway 111 and E1 Paseo commercial area. One of those sites was the subject site, which was formerly the Sunlodge Colony 10 . 3 acres on E1 Paseo. Also included in the EIR was the Desert Crossing site now under development, the site on Town Center Way where Trader Joe' s was located, the automall site at Highway 111 and E1 Paseo, and a large 55 acre site west of the Desert Crossing site which was dedicated as permanent open space. Chairperson Spiegel asked if that included the development across from the Town Center Mall . Mr. Drell replied no, that the Marshall ' s center was developed by Ahmanson, but it was prior to this process; it was done independently. Mr. Drell said that associated with the EIR for all the sites was a development agreement which set out the basic parameters for the developments . It defined them in rough terms for area so they could do the EIR, and established from mitigation measures within the EIR exactions, which were physical improvements that would be required similar to setting forth the conditions of approval for each of the sites . In addition to the development agreement, it gave the developer a vested right and the term of the agreement was for 10 years to at least the square footages called out under each of the site areas . Secondly, in addition to the 2 "no MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 " specific exactions, the development would be only subject to those fees and zoning regulations which were in effect at the time the agreement was executed. It gave the developer the assurance that they could go out and plan a development and know exactly what conditions and requirements they would be subject to. In terms of the square footage requirements, they were not that carefully considered by staff or Ahmanson; what they did was a rule of thumb with 25% of the site/floor area. It was still subject to any requirements of the zoning ordinance. They are requesting in the amendment the ability to increase the square footage from 167 ,000 to 197 ,000 if they succeeded in attracting a major department store; they talked to Saks Fifth Avenue and it would be them or an equivalent retailer as determined by the city. They also wanted pre-approval for 25% restaurant use. Mr. Drell said it was a little higher than historically approved in centers . This was is a 4/1000 general commercial parking requirement; this project did include an unusual supplemental requirement for an additional 200 parking spaces . It was the belief of the city at that time that this project would allow an opportunity to provide general public parking to be utilized by the entire central El Paseo area. Therefore, above and beyond the 4/1000 parking requirement they would provide an additional 200 parking spaces . Associated with this development agreement was a disposition, development and implementation agreement with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. Those 200 parking spaces were addressed by the agency reimbursing Ahmanson or whomever developed the site, for the specific cost of those 200 spaces . That wording in the DDIA relative to reimbursement changes was a straight forward payment of $5 million to purchase the public parking rights to those 200 spaces . In addition, there would be a prepared and approved by RDA a parking management plan which would insure the efficient operation of the entire 1000 space lot. Those were the fundamental elements of the amendments . Before the commission was only the development agreement. He said that whether the commission wanted to comment or give the RDA advice on the DDIA was up to them. In that this represented a somewhat substantial increase in the floor area, which was analyzed in the EIR, staff determined that portion of the traffic study should be redone. He felt the developer was fortunate in that subsequent to the first analysis in 1989 the Institute of Traffic Engineers did an extensive re-analysis of traffic generation from shopping centers and added 100 new studies to their statistics and determined that there was a 20% reduction in traffic generation than what they had previously thought. Therefore, when the potential increase in traffic from the 30,000 square 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 foot addition was analyzed, it resulted in only a 4% increase in traffic volumes . The computer model used to analyze traffic generation in the EIR determined that there would be no additional traffic mitigations required than originally required in the EIR. The requirements and traffic improvements in the EIR were still applicable. On the basis of that staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The public works department in reviewing the traffic study and applying their own local specialized knowledge recommended some additional improvements over and above those recommended by the EIR. They involved the intersections right around the project: San Pablo/El Paseo and Larkspur/El Paseo. They also suggested the rewording of one condition from the EIR. That included: creation of an exclusive right turn lane for northbound San Pablo traffic to eastbound E1 Paseo. This was traffic leaving the project onto San Pablo turning right eastbound on El Paseo. While the traffic engineer spoke of re-striping, the city' s traffic engineers felt that there might not be enough room within the present curb to curb area to adequately create that lane; therefore there might be some reconstruction necessary--it was reworded to "creation" . That meant doing whatever was required to facilitate the right-hand lane . Also required would be modification of existing median left-turn pockets on E1 Paseo/San Pablo and E1 Paseo/Larkspur to allow for additional vehicle stacking. Those were left-turns that would be going from E1 Paseo either at San Pablo into the project or Larkspur down to the project. Presently those were fairly short turn pockets that did not have enough stacking room to handle what they hoped would be a lot of traffic . He said this simply involved tearing out curbing and extending the turn pocket into the existing median. The last was the southbound lanes on San Pablo at E1 Paseo. In analyzing the current situation which was a dual purpose left-turn through lane and an exclusive right-turn lane, the computer said it would work--that the volumes of traffic that would now want to go through E1 Paseo and enter the project parking lot would not cause a disruption to that intersection. The sharing of the left- turn and the straight-through would still work. It was the feeling of the city engineer that assuming that the project was successful and generated spinoff traffic and activity throughout the street, that ideally there should be an exclusive through lane for traffic going to this project and should not be sharing the signal with the left-turn movement. The alternatives to that through lane was lengthening ( for a five-phase signal) all southbound traffic and the left turn would go exclusively at one time, then the northbound traffic 4 UW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 r.. would go and increase the length of those lights relative to the westbound traffic on E1 Paseo. Those would have to be shortened to prevent backup on San Pablo extending towards Highway 111 . The goal was to get as much traffic through that intersection in the shortest amount of time to minimize the backup onto San Pablo. The present problem was the physical geometry of the curb and right of way did not permit the additional lane without the elimination of sidewalks in front of the hexagonal building. It was the considered opinion of the city engineer that this improvement should be made for the project to proceed, or will be required sooner or later. The next step was to decide if it was an impact specifically triggered by this project and if it should be part of the exactions included under "Exhibit D" for required street improvements . It was the recommendation of the planning department that the conditions be included; it then became a point to be considered by the city council and the RDA in reviewing the development agreement and DDIA relative to the timing of such an improvement and who would pay for it. Staff recommended that those conditions identified by the city engineer be included as mitigation in the negative declaration with the modification of the original condition for the creation of the exclusive right turn lane on San Pablo and the addition of these three requirements to the Exhibit D Exactions for Street Improvements . Staff recommended that the planning commission recommend approval to city council of the negative declaration and development agreement amendment. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the 200 additional parking spaces referred to in the report were already included in the original development agreement for the 167, 000 square foot proposal; Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked that if they were adding 30,000 square feet, was staff proposing an additional 120 parking spaces in addition to the extra 200 . Mr. Drell explained that the 200 were in addition to those required in the zoning ordinance. The city would require 4/1000 for the 30, 000 square feet plus 200 . Commissioner Jonathan noted that would calculate out to 120 + 200, which would be 5/1000 . Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked who would define a comparable retailer--it was up to the city, but were there parameters set forth; if the city disagreed with Ahmanson or Sunrise, was the city setting itself up for involvement by the attorneys . Mr. Drell said that was a good question and should be directed toward the attorneys . Mr. Hargreaves stated he had not looked at that particular issue, but generally speaking in the interpretation of the contract if 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 it ever came to that the court could look at whatever the moo parties intended at the time and come up with some kind of definition if it wasn't clearly specified in the agreement. Commissioner Jonathan said his concern was that if there wasn' t a specific definition, then the city was left with one alternative and that was the legal process . Mr. Drell said that there was some language in the DDIA that it was within the sole and absolute discretion of the city. The character of the project was such that the developer was looking for the same function from this retailer as the city and would make the success of all the other shops and would be a magnet to draw everyone past the other shops . He did not see a conflict. Commissioner Jonathan addressed the issue of the $5 million from RDA; he asked if the city was buying a specific easement. Mr. Drell said it was a public easement specifically over 200 spaces, pursuant to the parking management plan which covered the entire lot and specified the location of the spaces . The spaces would be similar to the Town Center or any other commercial development. The city would have additional rights for the 200 spaces . The other spaces were no different from any other commercial lot. Commissioner Jonathan asked what exactly the city was getting; were they spending $5 million for an easement for 200 spaces . Mr. Diaz stated that they were getting the right to have 200 spaces within the entire parking structure--staff MAO did not want the 200 parking spaces to be in the "north forty" . What the city was paying for was the right to have a parking easement, over 200 parking spaces, within the parking structure and the parking management plan that would be produced would assure that: 1) the 200 spaces were not in the back forty; and 2) that the parking structure would be operated in the most efficient manner possible. They were going for an easement for 200 spaces in the overall parking structure--that was what the city was getting for $5 million, or whatever the amount turned out to be at the end of negotiations . Commissioner Jonathan noted that the city was requiring 5 spaces per 1000, which the city had done before with developers, and this time the city was paying $5 million for it. Mr. Diaz stated that the city was paying $5 million to allow this development. Mr. Drell felt that part of the justification could be that the character of the shops on E1 Paseo and in this center would be similar to those generated, which was typically less volume than the Town Center. The argument could be made that this center could get by with 4/1000 parking spaces . Mr. Diaz stated that they hoped that at any one time there would be 200 people parking in that lot and not shopping in that center, but along E1 Paseo. The intent was to provide 200 additional spaces for everyone on 6 'r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 a.. the street. Mr. Drell stated that 4/1000 was the standard that all the other centers in the last 15 years had been developed at--it was a requirement of the C-1 zone. Commissioner Jonathan said the matter before the commission was to increase the square footage from 167,000 to 197,000; he asked if there was any "quid pro quo" and what was in it for the city. Mr. Drell said that the feeling was that for this center to work it needed a major department store. That major department store would be larger than 30,000 square feet, but developers made money on the small shops . They gave away the major department store space. They needed to attract the major department store and still have enough space left over for the rest of the project to pay the bills . The city had been told by several sources who have tried to do projects on this site that to attract a major retailer they needed more room. Chairperson Spiegel said that besides the $5 million, the city should do certain things in Exhibit D. Mr. Drell clarified that those were conditions of approval and were with the original plan. Those three that were added were the result of the city' s re-examination on the refinement of the recommendations from the EIR. In the agreement where it refers to the EIR it should now refer to the EIR and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact since it was restating the conditions of the EIR per the increased square footage. He said that the $5 million was not in this agreement at all; it was in the agreement going before the redevelopment agency. In the agreement before the planning commission was the addition of the 30,000 square feet, and in response to that the city was requiring some additional street improvements . He said it could be argued that some of those street improvements might have been required at 167,000 square feet as well . Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. WILLIAM BONE, Chairman of the Board of Sunrise Company and a resident in Indian Wells . He stated that the $5 million was not a new issue, it was in the prior agreement that was done several years ago. What was being done was changing the designation of the 200 spaces . In the original agreement there was a specific 200 spaces; the parking management plan would make it more manageable. He understood that the easement was over all the spaces and not just for 200 spaces, but the common use of the entire facility subject to the low 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 management plan, so they could not designate any of them MW for their project only. He said there would be a lot of spillover of pedestrian traffic. He felt on the city' s discretion on the replacement tenant, it was clear in the agreement that the city had sole discretion if they proposed a replacement tenant to Saks, they had the unilateral right to accept it or not. They agreed to that and were not troubled by that. On the issue of what's in it for the city, if the Saks deal was made, about $150, 000 per year in sales tax revenue to the city would be generated. The Saks deal was not a good deal for them and he felt the project would do great without them, but Saks would be terrific to the city of Palm Desert. It would add an additional draw on E1 Paseo and would do good things for El Paseo in general . It would help in that regard, but department stores did tough deals--they did not want to pay any land rent and as described earlier, they had to be subsidized. They could not take the square footage out of the basic 167 ,000 square feet and make the economics work. They had to collect the rent from that amount and they would have a series of mini-anchor tenants . The concept was if they were to have a traditional department store, it would have to just pay rent to amortize the cost of their building, not anything else. The benefit to the city was a lot of sales tax revenue and helping the rest of E1 Paseo have a core and heart and soul . He said that Sunrise Company had developed many projects in Palm Desert including: Rancho Las Palmas when it was partially in Palm Desert, Monterey Country Club, The Lakes, Palm Valley Country Club, Indian Ridge and the Desert Springs Marriott. They had been part of the whole enhancement of the image in an upscale way of the city of Palm Desert in the last 20 years . He felt the leadership of the city had been very visionary in making this the central destination for the whole valley. This project "The Gardens of E1 Paseo" would be a terrific addition to the continuation of the progress of the city of Palm Desert. Their development team was comprised of Sunrise Company and Madison Realty Partnership. He stated that back in the 60 ' s he was a shopping center developer and he developed three regional shopping centers like the Town Center and several neighborhood shopping centers . They had substantial retail development expertise and in the last 20 years they had concentrated more in the residential country club business . They had worked with Madison Realty on three other specialty retail projects and had worked together 8 "W MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 �r.. for seven or eight years . The two principals, John Borne and Jim Bennett, had been in the retail development for many years . John Borne, the President of Madison Realty Partnership, prior to that was Chairman of the Board and CEO of Campo Development, which was the real estate development arm of Federated and Allied Department Stores . They developed shopping centers all over the United States and Canada. Prior to that he was the President of Federated Stores Realty; prior to that he was with the Ralph ' s Company. His whole career was in upscale retail development. The other principal was Jim Bennett, who headed up the leasing operation. He was also with Federated and Campo and Ralph' s and had worked together with John Borne for over 20 years on these types of projects . The other partner in Madison Realty was The Capital Guidance Corporation, an international investment company in the Washington D.C. They were a highly experienced, financially strong team that could execute and carry this project through to fruition. Their role was participating in the planning and design of the project and they would be the project managers and oversee the project management and all the local activities . The Madison Group would work with them on the design and they would handle the financing and leasing. The project overview was to develop a plan that was an open air experience, not an enclosed mall shopping center. It was to have a variety of major national tenants not currently in Palm Desert. The architectural design would be fitting in scale with E1 Paseo and would help anchor the central part of E1 Paseo and give it a real life. He felt this would be the energy/magnet that would draw people to the central part of El Paseo. He said that the project worked fine with 167 . 000 square feet; if they couldn' t make a fair deal with Saks or an equivalent, they wanted to go forward and develop with the 167,000 square feet and anchor it with a series of mini-anchors and they would do fine. He introduced Paul Heiss from the Madison Realty Partnership, who would talk about the leasing and tenant mix and about the site plan. MR. PAUL HEISS, from the West Coast Office of Madison Realty Partnership, stated that prior to Madison Realty he ran the Southern California Division of Walt Disney Imagineering. He said their concept for the project was one of adding to El Paseo. He believed they would be tenants of high quality, but not high price points . 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 Four major categories included apparel and accessories, leisure, home business accessories, and food and specialty. All tenants he mentioned they had been in direct contact with and shown them the plans and they expressed extremely strong interest. They included Anne Taylor, Banana Republic, Pottery Barn, Williams Sonoma, Patty Bower Home, Wolfgang Puck Cafe, Cheesecake Factory, and Sharper Image. All of those tenants were not high end, small specialty retailers, but of the size of 5,000-9 ,000 square feet and could be a draw in and of itself. They were national retailers; they advertised and brought customers to their door. They could retail from one or two levels and were very strong and credit worthy and could pay the rent to help subsidize Saks . He apologized that Jim Bennett and John Borne were not present, but they were in New York City to meet with Saks to help confirm some of their interest in this project. They had numerous discussions and had reviewed the plan, they had participated in developing the plan and they agreed with one: the concept of a two level store that would help energize a second level and all of E1 Paseo; that they were very close in economics including the addition to 197 , 000 square feet and they were tremendously excited about seeing this project move forward. They were not the only tenant for the project and on Friday they would meet with Neiman Marcus and they had expressed extreme interest. He said they would be meeting with Nordstrom in two weeks and noted that Saks was not the only deal, but he felt it would be the best deal . He said that the plan before the commission was the best they had seen so far. They had obtained three different architects . They had paid them to develop concepts for this project to show what 167 , 000 square feet and 197 ,000 square feet would look like with parking at 4/1000 plus 200 and a very high amenity level . He said they had not selected an architect yet. He stated that they were trying to respect the E1 Paseo streetscape that had development at the street front, pedestrian walk, and develop an internal courtyard with new tenants to front upon the courtyard in one or two levels . One level of parking would be on grade and one level of parking in a structure above. He stated that the site increased in slope from El Paseo to Shadow Mountain approximately 14 feet. They were able to slide the first level parking underneath the deck parking so that the deck would sit a few feet above grade at Shadow Mountain. That grade was equal to the upper level of Saks and the restaurants so that the decks would not be 10 "� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 obtrusive to the neighboring residential parcels and it would energize the retail level . Most of the large mini anchors, a Pottery Barn, right now Madison Realty Partnership was doing a 12,000 square foot Super Pottery Barn in Fort Worth, Texas . That concept had 6,000 square feet on the ground floor and 6,000 square feet on the second floor. Those retailers circulated vertically. This was not the kind of project they would conceive as having a vacant second level . There would be restaurants above, major mini-anchor tenants, Super Pottery Barn, Eddie Bower Home, with a walk through atrium up and down that anchored the tenants and Saks. He said he was extremely excited about the project and would like to come back to the commission and confirm their selection of an architect and confirm their design choices on how this would energize E1 Paseo. Madison Realty Partnership had been involved in projects that re-energized communities . He believed it would be a new heart for E1 Paseo and in the center courtyard they would program activities and non-profit activities, a high level of design and he believed strongly that this project could energize all of E1 Paseo in a way that had not been seen before with the small shops . Mr. Bone said that his last comment had to do with the three additional conditions being recommended that were not part of the original approval and development agreement of 1989 . The first one dealing with traffic re-signalization was fine. The third one regarding modifying medians was fine with them and was necessary. But they had a big problem with the widening of San Pablo and that whole discussion. He noted that the computer said it was not necessary and would work without it, the independent traffic consultant said the same thing. If it was needed, there were other potential ways of solving the problem. They could make it one-way, San Pablo could be cul-de-sacced near the south end--there were other ways to do it without destroying the sidewalks or having to remove a building which was expensive. Through this project they would be contributing $300,000 in TUMF fees . The problem at E1 Paseo, if one existed, was an existing condition and was a regional kind of problem and they did not think they should be stuck with mitigating something that may not be necessary and was not necessarily linked solely to this project. He felt it should be covered by the TUMF fee and management of it. Other cities had used one-way streets, but that was a last resort and might not be 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 necessary. The computer and independent consultant ri might be right, and the city staff might be right, but he did not want to take the most extreme case and do it and then find out it was not necessary. The project economics were very tight and it could not stand the additional financial burden and he urged the commission to approve the project without that condition. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Bone stated that the project did not need Saks Fifth Avenue and asked if he was confident that without Saks or a comparable major tenant that leasing would proceed in the same way as it would with that kind of major tenant. Mr. Bone replied yes, because he felt this was a specialty retailing project, not a regional shopping center. Specialty retail centers did not have department stores and the retail tenants described were used to that and they knew how it worked and liked it and were located in many similar places and did great. There was a different tenant mix and it fit a different niche--he felt the time was now to develop and would fill a niche that was presently vacant. Commissioner Jonathan said that Mr. Bone was the applicant and they were coming back with basically the same development agreement except they were asking for an additional 30, 000 square feet and 25% restaurant mix--Mr. Bone told commission that they did not really need it, and the city said there was more sales tax in it, so he wondered who the real applicant was here: Mr. Bone or the city and if they did not want the 30,000 additional square feet, why was it before the commission. Mr. Bone said that a lot of people on E1 Paseo would like to see it; the driving force behind Saks Fifth Avenue was more the people up and down the street then them. He said it might be their feeling that Saks would be a draw; there had been substantial emotional investment made in the concept of bringing an additional tenant like that to that location and those discussions went on before. He informed commission that they started on this project in 1990 . They tried to make a deal with Ahmanson and couldn't. Ahmanson wanted them to take the Desert Crossings site and this property and they did not want that because they were specialty retailers . In the meantime, the Saks discussion got started by their predecessor and developed a life of its own. They were not opposed to Saks, but felt it was not mandatory; they thought it would be great, but it was not a condition of success for the project. Their preference was to have them, if they could. Commissioner Jonathan asked what Mr. Bone ' s time table was for the project. Mr. Bone said it would be under construction next summer and open for the fall season of 1996 . 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 'r Chairperson Spiegel said there were rumors that Magnum' s would be going out of the Town Center and that Saks might be interested in locating in the Town Center and Mr. Bone had mentioned Neiman Marcus and possibly Nordstroms . He asked if they had considered Bloomingdales or Lord and Taylor. Mr. Heiss replied that the market was too small here for them. Mr. Bone said that most department stores wanted much larger stores, like Nordstroms, wanted 200, 000 square feet and to be in centers like the Town Center--that was their traditional home and there were only a few "department stores" that wanted to locate in a scale appropriate for this project. If they had one department store the size of Nordstroms, there would not be enough room for anything else on the site. Saks was the most likely candidate because they recently opened a store in Naples Florida that was very successful and was a similar size specialty shop and they were looking for a niche that was different from Nordstroms and Lord and Taylor and the others . Chairperson Spiegel asked Mr. Bone if the project went without Saks, if they would stay with the same time table for development and if they still wanted the additional square footage. Mr. Bone replied yes . Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. BOB SNYDER stated that he was speaking on behalf of his mother, who was 80 years old and not able to attend. He said that she owned one of the 30 condominiums directly west of the project in a small development called El Paseo Village. He said that he was not opposed to the project and felt most people in that development weren' t, but he wanted to express some concerns . He stated that one point lost in the discussion was that this project was bounded on three sides by residential housing. That made it different from the other projects that were part of the redevelopment plan. All the projects to the west were either isolated or in a commercial zone. This one wasn' t and the historical reason for that, going back to 1989, was quite controversial five years ago as to what should be done about the Shadow Mountain half of the zone. He said that E1 Paseo was a commercial street for its entire length and Shadow Mountain was largely a residential street with R-3 zoning or similar. The issue became what to do with the block in between E1 Paseo and Shadow Mountain and when looking at the zoning map, the entire parcel between Shadow Mountain and E1 Paseo was split so that the northern half of the block ... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 was all commercial and the southern half was all ..ri residential with the exception of this parcel . He felt that was a tough decision five years ago--on one hand the street badly needed an anchor and this was the geographic center of the street and was a beautiful opportunity to put that anchor in. On the other hand, this superblock was the only one on Shadow Mountain that was commercial; all the rest of Shadow Mountain was residential . He said he was not asking the commission to revisit that zone, but he wanted to suggest that 1100 cars was quite a few to put next to residential zones . When Commissioner Jonathan asked what the quid pro quo for the city' s contribution to the project was, he felt there were three that the planning commission could impose or ask the city council/RDA to impose. The first was that if the project was to generate the kind of traffic they hoped to get, the two side streets needed to be closed on the northern half of the project so that it did not impact on the residences to the south. He expressed concern about the location of the entrance of the project in relation to the entrance to E1 Paseo Village and suggested that if the parking entrance was to the north, that would less of an impact on the homeowners; to the south there would be an impact on homeowners and future homeowners . He recommended that to mitigate the impact on the neighboring area by requiring that the parking lot entrance be placed somewhere else. Also, while the grade rose toward Shadow Mountain and it was easier to build a two story garage, no one wanted to live next to a parking lot with an excess of 1000 cars . He asked the commission to require that the developer provide substantial mitigation to protect the adjacent residential parcels from the appearance of the parking lot. Third, if the traffic generation was as everyone hoped, Shadow Mountain would carry a lot more through traffic than it did today and the reason for that was that E1 Paseo would become more congested and there would be protection for turns, but people needing to get across town would take Shadow Mountain more. In the ten years they owned the condo there had been a lot more traffic. He asked that commission keep in mind mitigation measures along Shadow Mountain, certainly if the side streets were not closed, but in particular if they were. He said he was not opposed to the project, but by historical accident it abutted a residential zone and he implored the commission to keep that in mind. 14 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 Chairperson Spiegel told Mr. Snyder that his comments were well taken and he noted that while the commission' s action tonight was not a determination of the plan, and it would be coming before them at a later date, he appreciated his comments and would take them into consideration and he recommended that when the final project came before the commission for approval, that he appear before the commission again. MR. RICHARD CREEDMAN, Indian Wells resident, stated that his family had owned nine condominiums on Shadow Mountain for many years . He was in favor of the development and increasing the size of the development to 197,000 square feet because there was a tremendous need for an anchor tenant there to draw business to the center. But he felt there should be some mitigation along Shadow Mountain. Chairperson Spiegel suggested that Mr. Creedman come back before the commission when the project was before the planning commission. Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Whitlock stated that Mr. Bone has always brought Palm Desert a lot of energy and excitement with his residential developments and there was no question that he would do that again with this specialty shopping center. She wished him a great deal of success in the future negotiations with RDA and the city council . She was in favor of approving the amendment to the development agreement, but she wanted to hear about the engineers exactions for the street improvements and comments about the third exaction that Mr. Bone would like the commission to reconsider, because she felt that his comments were very valid. Mr. Diaz said that what the commission was doing was making a recommendation to the city council . He felt that in terms of what was recommended to the council should be more conservative than they might otherwise be. Also, the condition they were placing on the project with regard to the intersection of San Pablo and E1 Paseo, it was not a matter of who paid for it and the DDIA with RDA could take care of that. What they were talking about was bringing that into account. The computers say it was not a problem; computers did not drive cars . He felt there was a problem there that could be resolved. In speaking to Mr. Drell, he felt that 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 the public works department could come up with a way of adding that additional lane without as much cost, but he felt it had to be there as a condition of approval on the development plan. To take it out at this point and if there was a problem, they would come back to the planning commission and ask how they could approve this and not take care of the added traffic that would be generated by the development. He felt the condition should be there and taken to council . If they wished to, as the council and redevelopment agency, they could remove that condition or leave it there and f igure out a way to implement it. The commission would be giving them the information that they felt it was necessary. If they feel the commission' s wrong, fine; if they feel they are right and want to pay for it they could. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that it should go to the council for determination. He said that it was a wonderful project and they had seen it before and they were not there to discuss any major changes, just a little more square footage and higher restaurant usage. He said that he did go by the history of applicants and felt that Sunrise had a wonderful history in Palm Desert and was confident that they would do a wonderful job. He stated that he would be prepared to support the application. He did want to express his concern about the $5 million expenditure. Although that was not a change, because they were having an amendment to the agreement, that put everything back onto the table and started a new ten years and every aspect of the agreement under consideration. He said that was an issue they were not prepared to address as a planning commission, but it was a part of the agreement, which was one reason he did not like development agreements . They were really complicated and they were signing off on things they were not particularly qualified to do. His point with regard to the $5 million was to urge the council to re-examine that expenditure and consider if that was an appropriate use for RDA funds . If the city needed 200 parking spaces, he felt it could be accommodated on far less than an acre and an acre in the heart of El Paseo would not cost $5 million including construction. He was not sure where the $5 million was really going or whether they needed an additional $150,000 in sales tax revenue; that would be over a 50 year pay back including the time value of money. He did not think it was his job to find out what was going on there, but he did not want to let it go without at least urging the city council to give careful reconsideration to the use of those RDA funds . Other than that, he was fully in support of the application. 16 we MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 Chairperson Spiegel stated that his personal feeling was that they had to look beyond the project to see what was happening on E1 Paseo and how it had its ups and downs . This kind of a project in his experience would rejuvenate the entire area and would build E1 Paseo to the east, which was needed. To the west was developing, but to the east was kind of slow and there were a lot of empty banks and buildings . E1 Paseo was one of the cornerstones of Palm Desert and did not feel that they could look at just the $150, 000, but the total E1 Paseo development and see what it was worth and he felt it was worth a lot. He was totally in favor. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1663, recommending to city council approval of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact with additional traffic mitigations identified by the city engineer. Carried 5-0 . V.. B. Continued Case No. 4341 SA - B-Y-J PARTNERS for BURGER KING, Applicant Request for approval of an exception to Section 25 . 68 . 310(A) of the zoning ordinance to allow an additional freestanding sign at 73-547 Highway 111 (Jensen' s shopping center) . Mr. Diaz noted that this item was continued and the main issue was the color of the red in Burger King when the sign was internally lit. The architectural commission looked at this . The applicant agreed to have the lighting outside the sign, rather than inside, so that would hopefully solve the concerns of the commission with the internally lit sign. Staff recommended approval . He said that the commission might want to add a condition that non-opaque plastic be placed on back of the red on the Burger King sign so that at a later date if a future commission decided to approve an internally lit sign, the internally lit Burger King red color would not shine through. %MW 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the We applicant to address the commission. MR. TOM YEAGER, 40-041 Sagewood Drive in Palm Desert; MR. DEAN BUSH, a resident of Palm Springs, were present. Mr. Yeager felt that staff explained their solution to the problem that was expressed at the last meeting, which was the intensity or brightness of the colors when internally lit at night. They felt that if they did not light that sign from the interior at all, that if they used some form of ground lighting that they would greatly reduce the illumination of that sign. He distributed some photographs to show the difference between an interior lit sign and an exterior lit sign. He said that he used a 75 watt flood light that he was holding while his wife took the picture of the sign with the electricity off in the sign. That was one 75 watt flood light. He said they were proposing two of those lights at each side. He noted that the picture was taken of their Cathedral City sign, which was internally lit. The sign face was four feet by four feet versus the proposal before the commission, which was three feet by three feet. He felt the outside lighting substantially reduced the illumination and the brightness and would be a lot less effective at night, "Mo but they were staying true to their colors and reducing the light. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant considered cool white fluorescent versus high output internal lighting as an option, along with a vinyl film on the back of the red lettering which might be an effective way to reduce the glare from the night internal lighting. Mr. Yeager replied yes, but with the vinyl film, because their signs faces relief, they were told that was not as effective. There were a number of options and they would prefer to have it illuminated from within. He said that the city ordinance said they could use illumination to a maximum of 430 milli amps; the sign in Cathedral City was a high output lamp which was 800 milli amps . They would be required to have half the milli amps . In addition to that there were other things they could do to reduce the illumination; they could put an opaque strip on the tube itself; they could use diffuses over the fluorescent tube; painting the diffuses was an option and the more paint used the less light would show through; they could mask the back of 18 r'r' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 ...� the sign face with white paint and that would reduce the illumination going through it. Mr. Diaz said he could not have code enforcement going out to make sure there was paint or tape in certain places . There was an ordinance that had a 430 milli amp maximum and in terms of enforceability, he recommended that the sign stay within the ordinance and not have any rare conditions because it would be impossible to enforce. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony. Commissioner Jonathan said this was preferable to what the commission was shown before; his concern was with the two lights on the south side of the sign which would be pointed in the direction of the street and he felt that could be a nuisance. He did not mind having two lights on each side of the sign, but wanted one light to point away from the street or to make sure both lights pointed away from the street. Mr. Diaz suggested a condition that the public works department examine the lights to make sure that they do not impact traffic visibility. w. Chairperson Spiegel stated that a lot of the signs on Highway 111 were black against beige, they were not obtrusive and did not take away from the feeling of being in the desert and while there were signs that were red, yellow and blue that had been there over the years, if they were trying to go forward with some kind of a feeling in the city of Palm Desert, he would much prefer that. He used Pizza Hut as an example and they were doing a good business with their sign and they were a nationally known chain. He felt Burger King would be successful in the Jensen' s center and he noted that they had started on it already. He said his preference was still the dark against bronze and back lighting to provide a sophisticated sign for Burger King. He felt they would do just as much business . Commissioner Beaty said he did not have a problem with the original proposal, but after reviewing the situation he felt they would have a classier looking sign if during the day they had their red and yellow, but at night it was opaque so that it showed up dark. They would still get the logo and that is what he would prefer. %MW 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 Commissioner Whitlock asked if the applicant was unwilling to put the opaque backing behind as suggested by Commissioner Beaty. Mr. Yeager said that they looked into making the back of the sign opaque and talked to three sign companies and their architect. Virtually all of them agreed that if they opaqued the logo, due to the size of the sign they would not communicate what they wanted and people would not recognize the sign. It was compared to the Pizza Hut sign, but the letters on this sign combined--one was 6 1/2" and one 8 1/2" so that the top and bottom lines were 15" top to bottom for the words Burger King. The Pizza Hut sign had four feet of letters and it was much easier to do that. Almost all the people they talked to felt that reversing that opaque procedure could be effective. They did not feel the commission would be thrilled with that, that would be to opaque the white background and letting the colors shine through. Commissioner Whitlock felt the sign would be much more subdued with lighting from the outside versus lighting from within and she would accept the explanation from the applicant and move for approval of the revised lighting from the exterior out as presented. �I Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-1 (Chairperson Spiegel voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1664 , approving 4341 SA, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 (Chairperson Spiegel voted no) . C. Case No. TT 27882 - ROBERT MAYER TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 40 gross acres into 127 residential lots and a 9 . 1 acre lot for future development and mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates thereto for the property located at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 Mr. Diaz stated that the reason the tract map was before the commission was because the number of lots had been reduced from 128 to 127 . The corner parcel, 9 . 1 acres at Monterey and Country, was held out and the applicant would come back at a later date for development of that parcel . The applicant agreed to all the conditions of approval and he indicated that on the map before the commission, it showed along Monterey Avenue a smaller setback from the street with the wall; the condition of approval required an additional 20 feet over what was shown on the map. That was greater than what was on the south side of Monterey; Sagewood was approximately 16 feet and the residential development south of Sagewood was 21 feet. In terms of those developments there was additional footage here and that was what they would see. Staff recommended approval of the tentative tract map with the conditions as set forth in the staff report and resolution. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the landscaping setback was required around the entire corner or only in front of the development itself . Mr. Diaz replied only in front of the development itself. Commissioner Jonathan said there was a left turn allowed out of the project onto Country Club; Mr. Diaz said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was a little close to the Monterey/Country Club intersection. Mr. Gaugush stated that the entry/exit onto Country Club from Monterey was approximately 1000 east of that intersection. That location had not changed from previous submittals on the site. The project as proposed before required a full signalization of that intersection. This was not requiring signalization. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Gaugush felt without signalization, that kind of egress would not create a problem. Mr. Gaugush stated that was correct. Mr. Diaz noted that if at a later date the city wanted a signal there, they could. This development would have to pay signalization fees . In terms of this residential development, it did not warrant it. He noted that before there was a commercial development that would have access there and the applicant was willing to put it in, but that was then. Commissioner Whitlock asked how many trips would be generated from the 127 units . Mr. Diaz replied 1270 . Chairperson Spiegel asked if all the things that were going to be done at the intersection of Monterey and Country Club (widening, the left hand turn, and all the other extras) were gone. Mr. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 7 Gaugush stated that there was still an obligation and requirements that certain intersection and requirements that certain intersection and frontage related improvements be constructed. He said that proportionately, it was about 70% of what the commission saw when the commercial element was present. The other issues presented to the commission with respect to the additional offsite improvements being undertaken through other mechanisms, it was still on-going and was still being looked into and moving forward. Whether or not this project did anything, those elements would still be taking place. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the minimum average lot area was 7500 square feet; he asked what the actual smallest lot size would be. Mr. Diaz said the applicant could address that question. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ED SLOMAN, KWC Engineers representing Robert L. Mayer Trust and the developer S.H. Sandberg and Partners, stated that the number of lots had been dropped to 127 lots . They lost approximately 80,000 square feet from the time the commission saw the plan to when it went to council . The smallest lot was approximately 6950 square feet. There were some lots that were almost 9000 square feet, but when they were here before and what was taken to council was a 7500 square foot average. The developers reminded him that in between the time this had gone to council the recalculations were probably at 126 lots just to make sure they were at the 7500 . He felt the developer recognized there was a problem with traffic and there was no argument for the additional 20 feet both on Monterey and Country Club. At some point in time there would be a project there by the city and Rancho Mirage jointly to solve some of the intersection problems and they would not exacerbate the problem. They had already planned the lots to be what they were and if they took the 70,000 square feet, they could probably get the 8000 square foot lots, but the traffic situation was something that in the future was a good trade-off . Council liked the residential portion of the project and so they were moving forward with that portion of the project. He said that they accepted all the conditions of approval as amended by staff. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 Chairperson Spiegel asked why they didn't just continue the housing including phase 3 . Mr. Sloman said there were a couple of reasons; one was that the developer of the residential portion wanted to get moving forward immediately, staff suggested leaving the rights of way and with all the conditions it was still a PR-7 zoned property and he felt that the single family private community was very viable. Basically it came down to looking at another 150 units on that nine acres--that was a high, intense intersection and not knowing who would want to live there and what should they come up with was a problem. Phase 3 would come back before the commission and looking at what the developer did on the 127 units, it might be viable to continue on that corner, but they wanted to move forward and open some models before the end of the year. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she would like to extend one of the conditions one step further if it was appropriate to do so. Condition #13 under the department of community development, she asked if it would be appropriate to add regarding the stray golf ball situation that the CC&R' s stipulate the party responsible for the repair of any damage sustained by golf balls, whether it was the association or the owner. She felt that would cover the city from worrying about the buyers and sellers if it was in the association' s documents and taking it one step further by saying who was responsible from that golf ball impact that they would all be covered. She asked if it would be appropriate in a condition of approval . Mr. Hargreaves said that it was not clear to him whether it would be the association or the property owner who would be responsible. He said that it could be that the driving range was responsible and he would not want to try to apportion responsibility in the CC&R' s for something that did not fall on the property involved. Commissioner Whitlock stated that the whole point was if they were acknowledging that they were buying a lot that was subject to stray golf balls, she felt they should take it one step further. Who was responsible for that damage if it wasn't the association or the property buyer, then who should it be and shouldn't it be stipulated in the documents, not just making them aware when they bought their home and going through escrow that this could occur, but where does the responsibility lie. Mr. Hargreaves said it might be on the part of the people shooting the golf balls into the homes that was not part of 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 this development; that may be where the responsibility lies u„ and normally when buying a home, there was a potential for adverse impacts on that home that were not the responsibility of the property owner, but part of the whole disclosure process that you had to advise someone buying a home of all the material adverse conditions they might face even if they were not responsible for them. In this case it was quite possibly the people who owned the driving range. Chairperson Spiegel noted that in this case the developer was not the owner of the driving range. Mr. Diaz stated that in this case, the developer of Suncrest Country Club owned the driving range and Suncrest was developed in the county. Commissioner Whitlock felt that the potential buyers should be protected and recommended that they research the matter and whatever the outcome, it be made a condition so that whoever was the party responsible it would be stipulated in the conditions and disclosed in escrow. She noted that in her business she dealt with these issues every day. If a problem could be stopped before it happened, it should start here. Mr. Diaz explained that the problem at this point was that the planning commission would be determining who was responsible and he did not believe they could. He noted that the potential buyer was notified that there might be stray golf balls and if one happened to break a window, they were warned. Then they could take legal action against whoever hit the golf ball or the owner of the golf course. He did not think they could determine who was responsible at this time--the courts would have to decide if there was litigation. Mr. Hargreaves pointed out in the staff report addendum that the city attorney advised that the responsibility and liability rested with the golf course owner/operator. That would not preclude some kind of condition that would require the homeowners association to at least be the responsible party to address the damage and fix the home; then the association would have whatever legal cause of action it might have against the owner/operator of the golf course . That kind of arrangement could be made to put the primary responsibility on the association to address the damage. Without really looking into it, he would not want to say that was an appropriate condition to place on this project. If there were a number of lots within the development that would have that kind of impact, it might be the kind of thing the homeowners would agree among themselves that their association might want to address . He said that they could research to see if it could be placed as a condition or they could ask if the developer would be willing to incorporate that type of condition. Commissioner Whitlock 24 "'r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 felt it was important to address the problem now so that the developer or the individual property owner was not going to be addressing this after the fact. If they gave them something now, in her opinion it would be easier to resolve. If the responsibility was going to lie with the owner of the driving range, then they should so state that in the documents when these people buy--it could that: 1) they were acknowledging that they were in a golf ball zone; and 2 ) if there was damage to their home, tile roof, broken window, etc. , that the property must deal with the owner of the driving range, or that the association would deal with it. They needed to know what the recourse was, not just that they were aware they could get hit with a golf ball . Chairperson Spiegel reopened the public testimony. MR. DAVID SAUNDERS, attorney for the applicant, stated that there were a couple of issues floating around. One was the duty to warn--they wanted to warn potential buyers of the problem so that there could not be a claim that the city had a duty to warn and failed to discharge that duty. He felt it was important that they undergo the process of warning so that the citizens did not come back to the city council and say they would never have %UW purchased there if they knew of this problem. Step 2 addressing Commissioner Whitlock' s concern, it was probably beyond the realm of authority of the planning commission to allocate ultimate civil liability by a condition of approval on a project. If someone had a problem with golf balls, they would consult legal counsel to determine what the problem was, they would evaluate the situation in light of the fact that they were warned of the problem and in light of the fact that the potential harm created by the parties involved, whether the golf range or the individual golfers . He failed to understand how the city council by recommendation of the planning commission, could say that the park operator by matter of law was civilly liable. That was beyond their authority. He felt it was appropriate to simply have the warning to put them on notice of the problem and let them evaluate as purchasers whether they wanted to assume the risk of the balls hitting their residences . Who ultimately under the law would be liable would be determined by the courts and not by a statement in the conditions of approval on this project. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 Mr. Sloman said that they agreed to put in the warning ru statement; however, prior to coming before the planning commission there was fruitful discussion with Mr. Befeld and the developer to come up with a mutually agreeable solution. He believed that if they could leave the warning situation there and at the same time try to work out the situation amongst themselves, because there was some discussion that Mr. Befeld was concerned about the houses being there and he would be potentially contacted habitually. There was also the concern on the behalf of the developer on whether he would be able to sell the homes . Additionally, as they talked, they had not renewed the discussions, but the site would be graded all at one time. It was basically left that phase 1 was the middle portion of the 40 acre project, although they would grade the whole thing and put the walls up, they would monitor how many golf balls ended up in the "potential backyards" or homesites of both the north property line as well as the northern half of the eastern property line. If it looked like there was a real problem, the developer and Mr. Befeld were going to try and work out what could be done to protect both parties . He said the developer had an impetus to sell the houses , but if there were golf balls in the back yard there would be a problem. He felt that would be worked out and agreed with Mr. Saunders on putting in the warning condition. Commissioner Whitlock asked Mr. Sloman to have his developer put the resolution in the CC&R' s whatever he decided. If they as a body could not do it as a condition, she highly recommended whatever resolution was reached with the golf course owner that it be stipulated in the CC&R' s because they would have headaches later if he didn't. Mr. Sloman felt that having staff or the city attorney' s office review it prior to any sale of any house would also help to insure that what they had covered the intent. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he wanted to go on record as having three concerns . 1) the egress on Country Club heading east was a problem; 2 ) Palm Desert needed to maintain a minimum lot size of 8000 square feet, not 6950 or even an average lot area of 7500 square feet; and 3) the issue that Commissioner Whitlock brought up was a valid one and also included the potential liability of the city and the minutes of this meeting would go toward establishing the fact that 26 '"r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 the city was aware of the dangers, but nevertheless allowed a residential project to go next to a driving range. Commissioner Jonathan stated that those were his interpretations and his three concerns . Mr. Diaz stated that from a staff standpoint, if they were to do that there would be no residential country clubs . Commissioner Jonathan disagreed, he did not know of another instance where they allowed a residential development next to an existing driving range. Mr. Diaz stated that if they allowed residential units to be developed within a country club, then the danger was a lot greater and the potential city liability would be a lot greater. From staff ' s standpoint the conditions of approval covered the city' s responsibility and liability. Mr. Hargreaves stated that he was not aware of any theory that anyone could use to impose liability against the city in this circumstance. Commissioner Jonathan stated that anything was within the realm of possibility. Commissioner Beaty stated that he had a major concern. The commission approved a project that included a commercial development and the city council turned that down. He felt that it was clear that current city politics did not want am commercial use on that corner and was not going to change the zoning. If the commission allowed this tract to go ahead, he asked if they were setting up a situation that would only allow a commercial use to go there because of the requirements that would be placed on it. Mr. Diaz stated that what the commission would be allowing was residential development based upon the density of the entire project that could go on there. They were not allowing commercial development or office professional . The property owner was clearly aware of that and it was similar to the situation on the projects at Cook and Country Club where there were single family residential units in apartment zoning. By going ahead, there was no indication that commercial would go on that property or office professional . That was not the indication that was being left. It was up to the property owner. Commissioner Beaty felt that from the city' s standpoint they might be dedicating a piece of vacant land with an unimproved corner; economics might dictate that. Mr. Diaz felt that one had nothing to do with the other. He understood commission's feeling on whether they were de facto creating a situation where there would be commercial zoning on that property; staff ' s reply was no. He believed the fact that they were discussing it now would be a record that they were not. If an application came before the planning 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 commission, the argument could not be used that the commission knew what it was doing. They could reply yes, they did and it would be reflected in the minutes that they were not approving commercial zoning on that. If a project came in that commission liked, they could approve it or recommend approval or deny it. They were not committing to any future project on the corner. Chairperson Spiegel stated that hopefully the development would be successful and they would take phase 3 and put in additional homes . Commissioner Beaty asked what requirements the city would have to make economically for that corner. Commissioner Whitlock said it would be a lot different than if it were commercial . Commissioner Beaty said it might be better now to say no, that they wanted to see the whole property developed residential, determine what the economic impacts would be, and what they would have to pay to get that corner going and do it now rather than waiting until it was only nine acres that they would have to put into high density or change into something to make the development pay for what the city had to have for that corner. Mr. Gaugush stated that with respect to the level of improvement, as conditioned the project would build street improvements that would function adequately for residential development on the entire parcel . If at some future date they chose to come back and try for a commercial use on the corner, there would be an increased level of improvements required. The base improvements going in as a part of this approval would serve a total build out of residential at the corner. Chairperson Spiegel asked if that would include apartments; Mr. Gaugush said that there would be an incrementally increased level of improvement, but in a general sense what was being conditioned would serve either of those two uses . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Chairperson Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Beaty and Jonathan voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Chairperson Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1665, certifying the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approving TT 27882 as revised, subject to the conditions of approval . Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Beaty and Jonathan voted no) . 28 "'r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 .... IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Continued item: Request for a Determination of Use to allow dog boarding in association with an existing dog grooming shop at 73-260 E1 Paseo, Suite No. 2-E - Ritzi Rover Pet Grooming. Mr. Diaz explained that this item was continued to refer the matter to the E1 Paseo Merchants Association; the E1 Paseo Merchants Association Board met--the applicant was not invited to that meeting to allow her to present her arguments and position. The board recommended that the use not be allowed even with a conditional use permit. Staff recommended a continuance until October 18, 1994 and hopefully between now and then it could be straightened out so that the shop owner had an opportunity to present her arguments to the board. Also, staff was looking to find out if there was a quorum at that board meeting. He noted that this was not the first time this had happened where someone requesting a variance or modification was not invited to the board meeting. Commissioner Whitlock requested that someone from community development department be a part of the E1 Paseo board meeting. Mr. Diaz replied they would talk to the board and the president of the association and tell them that planning commission felt the same way as the city council--when they asked for an opinion of the board, they would like the board to allow the individual impacted to have a say. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she did not believe that the owner of the business was aware that there was an El Paseo board. Mr. Diaz said that he called her and told her what the board had done, but unfortunately the president was out of town and staff did not know who the vice president was; he recommended a continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing this case to October 18, 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . B. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. C. Election of a Liaison to the Economic Development Advisory Committee D. Election of a Liaison to the Civic Center Steering Committee am 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 Chairperson Spiegel asked for nominations . Commissioner Whitlock nominated Sabby Jonathan for chairperson, Paul Beaty for vice chairperson, Bob Spiegel for EDAC liaison, and Paul Beaty for Civic Center Steering Committee liaison. Chairperson Spiegel closed nominations and asked for a motion electing these members by acclamation. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Chairperson Spiegel, electing Sabby Jonathan as Planning Commission Chairperson, electing Paul Beaty as Planning Commission Vice Chairperson, electing Bob Spiegel as Economic Development Advisory Commission Liaison, and electing Paul Beaty as Civic Center Steering Committee Liaison by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . E. Discussion items for a possible Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and City Council in November Commission indicated that they had items to discuss if the council wanted to meet. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she would like to meet with the city council after decisions had been made for Section 4 . Commission concurred and indicated that items for discussion would be submitted after council decided upon a date. r,ri Action: None. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent September 27 , 1994 EDAC items . He noted that they discussed the restaurant in the park issue. After discussion, planning commission stated that that a restaurant should not be allowed in the park--the park should be kept a park. XII . COMMENTS None. 30 "'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1994 No+ XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adjourning the meeting to October 18, 1994 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was ad urned at 9 : 12 p.m. -t eoer� �f RAMON A. DIAZ , Sec ary ATTEST: SABBY JO HAN, Chairperson Palm Des Planning Commission /tm `� 31