Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1017 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 17, 1995 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell James Ferguson George Fernandez Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Jeff Winklepleck IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the October 3, 1995 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the October 3, 1995 minutes as presented. Chairperson Jonathan asked if his letter was received by the commission. Commission confirmed that it was and was referred to under item 8 . Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Jonathan abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent October 12 , 1995 city council actions . VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PM 24255 - EDC CONSULTANTS, Applicant Request for approval of a second one- year time extension for a parcel map allowing 100 commercial/industrial lots on 173 acres located southerly of Dinah MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Shore Drive extended, easterly of Monterey Avenue, and southwesterly of Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. 4540 SA - QUIEL BROS . SIGNS, Applicant Request for approval of an exception to certain provisions of the sign ordinance to permit the change in color (repainting and refacing) of existing nonconforming signs at the Palm Desert Lodge at 74-527 Highway 111 . Mr. Drell noted that photographs of the existing signs were being distributed. Under Palm Desert ' s sign ordinance, signs which were determined to be legal nonconforming in that they were originally erected legally under the county that became nonconforming due to the creation of Palm Desert ' s own sign ordinance originally were to be abated immediately. Due to some lawsuits and some settlements of lawsuits, the code was amended to permit the signs to remain until such time as the applicant either sold the property, a new business located there, or new signs were applied for that location. Anything other than routine maintenance of existing signs was forbidden. Over the years most of the roof signs and large pole signs were removed. The applicant was before the planning commission requesting upgrading of the existing signage by changing the colors and graphics . The signs would basically say the same, but in changing the colors or graphics it went beyond routine maintenance. As a result the city' s abatement of the code was triggered. The code gave the applicant the opportunity to apply for an exception to the interpretation. The request went to the architectural commission--they did not see any particular design merit in the roof signs . With the pole sign ARC saw some historical design merit and from a pure design point of view saw some justification in granting an exception and letting the sign continue. The one sign behind the wrought iron fencing was an illegal sign. Although the city would now require a monument sign not to be on a pole but to have a masonry structure under it to be a little more aesthetic, from a geometry point of view that one wasn't illegal . He noted it was difficult to make the findings for an exception and under 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 'B' of the recommendation, with the removal of the roof �.r signs, the applicant could work with the architectural commission to try and make the base area around the pole sign more aesthetic . Under 'C' , if planning commission rejected the request and the applicant refused to remove the two roof signs, then the applicant should be required to prove that sign 'C' (the pole sign) was installed legally with permits, and if it was in fact legal, then it could stay; if it was illegal, it would have to be abated as well . Those were the options for the commission. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICHARD TILTON, Quiel Bros . Signs, a Palm Desert resident, stated that he was new to this project. His client expressed a need or want to change and fix the signs to make them more presentable. Right now they were big, yellow "gaudy" looking signs . The client 's contention was that he was now unable monetarily to comply with what staff had asked him to do, which was remove major pieces of advertising along the Highway 111 stretch. He was aware of the leaps and bounds the city had taken and was proud of it himself, but the reality was that it was a tough road to hoe for a non-corporate 'r entity anywhere in this valley. The business brought in by the advertising by the pole sign was essential to the survival to this business . Signs were often identified as a must even though they sometimes trashed up the landscape for the most part. His client was trying to make it nicer looking. That was about all he could afford right now and even though he would like to conform to the city' s request, there was no way he could monetarily at this time. He based the argument on the fact that they could take this yellow sign and refurbish it. He distributed pictures to the commission and was willing to dull the background and let the letters show through, which would be an improvement. He had done some remodeling to the grounds . They have a business they want to keep a certain type of feel to. Eliminating the signs was something they could not afford to do, even taking them down. It would be a burden to replace the sign faces alone. They were concerned with the appearance of the building and improved the landscape, grounds, and building. Commissioner Beaty asked for a cost estimate to remove the signs . Mr. Tilton replied that he did not have that information, but it was 75% higher and then the down side to the advertising value of the signs had to be considered. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Commissioner Ferguson asked when the sign behind the wrought iron was installed. Mr. Tilton replied 1978 was the date he was told. He didn't have anything in writing on that. He was told that the smaller sign had a permit at that time and the only one they couldn't prove was the pole sign in front of the building. Commissioner Campbell asked if the owner would have a problem if the roof signs were removed and if the historical pole sign would be ample signage for his property. Mr. Tilton said that the pole sign was on a corner set back from the highway at a low elevation and was hard to read. It currently had a dark background with lit letters, which was what they were proposing for the rest of the signs, which would subdue them greatly and not automatically draw the eye to their property. As a sign person, he felt it wouldn't be enough exposure for them if they removed both the pole and roof signs . Upon questioning by Commissioner Campbell, Mr. Tilton replied that changing the background color to white would ruin the sign. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Tilton' s client had met with staff to try and resolve this matter informally; Mr. Tilton replied that he was only aware of the last architectural commission meeting. Mr. Drell clarified that staff had met with another representative from Quiel Bros . on a couple of occasions . Unfortunately there was 20 years of history on this sign issue and there was a bitter battle between the city and the business community. The property owner across the street conformed immediately with the city code and was bitter about the fact that theoretically he could have kept his sign because other people fought it. The Mobil Oil sign came down, the Shell sign came down, and the Alcobar Liquor sign came down; theoretically the Houston Lumber sign when and if a new tenant moves into that building would also come down. He noted that there had been a proposal to turn the sign into a sculpture and was approved as a sculpture in a competition. He noted that the applicant was not compelled to do anything--he could keep the signs exactly the way they are until they fall down; once they become a public nuisance, then the city could abate them. As long as the current owner still owns the business and does not proposal any new signage, he could keep the signs he has and maintain them. That was the catch 22 . Both the applicant and city are caught in it. Mr. Tilton replied that the applicant was aware of that fact and despite that fact he has taken it upon himself to try and convince the commission that there was a way of coming to a compromise. Subduing the signs and bringing them a little closer to the 90 ' s without having 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 to go through the total expense that it would cost would �+ be a compromise. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he analyzed this both logically commonsensically and legally and was sympathetic to the client because he predated the city. He was disappointed that the client was not present because he had a lot of questions that might have caused him to vote one way or another. Legally the ordinance and policy was clear and the 20 years of history were clear. He did not agree with the ordinance because it put the city in a "cut off your nose to spite your face" posture where there could be a blight that could continue to exist. There was nothing the city could do short of abating the illegal sign and the client would probably continue to have yellow signs on his facility given the fact that the client was not in a financial position to bring them into conformance. They were stuck with yellow signs or nothing. The renderings the commission was given, the color design and scheme, together with his talking with people in the area and visiting site convinced him that this would be a nice compromise that would update somewhat the �... unsightliness of the signs . However, the law was clear and while he did not agree with it he was bound to follow it. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Over the years the client had the opportunity to change the signs and conform with the law and everyone had problems and would like signs that they couldn' t have, and even though the proposed colors would be better for the signs, if the client wanted to make any changes, the client should be made to comply with the code. She concurred with Commissioner Ferguson and would deny the request. Commissioner Fernandez concurred with Commissioners Ferguson and Campbell as far as the colors and history of the signs . There was a lot of history, but it was an eye sore and they had to comply with the city ordinance. He felt it would look better if the signs came down and Highway 111 signage was consistent all the way through Palm Desert. Chairperson Jonathan added that the applicant did address the issue of financial hardship and that while that argument did not resonate with him personally, they had to consider all the other businesses out there in the city who incurred a cost in conforming with the sign ordinance. It was the cost low of doing business just like payroll taxes, workers comp. insurance and other costs . They couldn' t pick the ones that 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 were inconvenient or the lowest priority to them and say those were the ones that they couldn' t afford. In fairness to all the businesses within the city, the financial hardship perspective was not an argument to him. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the staff recommendation was three-fold and asked. if there was a motion to address the staff recommendation. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1705, denying 4540 SA. Carried 5-0 . B. Case No. PM 28253 - JOHN L. CURCI, Applicant Request for approval of approval of a tentative parcel map to divide two parcels into four parcels at 77-550 and 77-650 Enfield Lane, approximately 350 feet west of Garand Lane in the Service Industrial zone. Mr. Winklepleck explained that on August 15, 1995 the planning commission approved a precise plan to allow a four building 27, 332 square foot industrial project on Enfield Lane. This parcel map was basically for financial purposes . The site plan and parcel map were on display. The proposal worked as one project with two entrances--this action was solely to separate the two buildings and met all applicable provisions of code and staff recommended approval . Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. WAYNE MCGEE, Wayne McGee Surveying, a La Quinta resident, stated that he was representing the applicant and was present to answer any questions . Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Campbell said she had no problems with the proposal and moved for approval . Commissioner Beaty felt it looked straight forward and seconded the motion. aw Action: 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner �••• Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1706 , approving PM 28253, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . C. Case No. PP 95-6 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of a 3680 square foot restaurant building at 74-011 Highway 111 in the C-1 S.P. zone. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the project was on the southeast corner of Portola and Highway 111 . The redevelopment agency originally bought the property which contained a bank and a small chicken establishment (Henny Penny) . Subsequently, the buildings were removed and there were some major improvements done to the intersection to widen the streets . RDA was now putting together a request for proposal to developers and r.. restaurateurs to see what the city would get back in terms of offers for a lease or sale. The project conformed with the C-1 standards and there was a condition under public works for the alley to the south to be widened to 24 feet, which was a standard two-way lane. The project had been through ARC and received preliminary approval for the architecture. Staff recommended approval . Commissioner Campbell said that for the alley, she would recommend a right-turn only access onto Portola. Mr. Greenwood said that could easily be accommodated and felt that the location might already be signed for that and it was staff ' s intention now that it be right-turn only. Commissioner Campbell stated that there was a problem there now. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the alley was currently right and left turn. Commission concurred. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there were existing businesses there and if the commission was going to make that change, he was concerned about making that part of this particular application because he was not sure that the affected properties had been noticed in that regard. Circle K, the bank and offices that used that alley for ingress and egress from Portola could have %WW concerns . Mr. Greenwood stated that because of the existing congested traffic condition public works would support a 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 right-turn only with or without the project. The commission could condition it on this project or public works could handle it as an operational concern. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there was a traffic study done in association with this project. Mr. Greenwood replied that there was no formal traffic study performed, but there was an analysis performed by staff . Commissioner Ferguson felt that everyone was in agreement that it was a traffic nightmare there; he said that he lived in that area and frequented Circle K. The right-turn only access would help, but was concerned that people would try to go through the parking lot at Circle K and turn left out of the other ingress/egress point which would further compound the traffic problem. He spoke to Mr. Winklepleck earlier and was glad to see that the alley would be widened to 24 feet and felt it would help if it was striped. He supported the project but could only foresee traffic problems in the future. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DAVE YRIGOYEN, the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency representative, said that they have been working for quite some time with putting together some sort of process for identification of what they would do with that property. The Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency appointed a committee of board members to analyze what they would eventually like to see. After looking at several alternatives, they identified that they would like to develop the site as partially open space and ultimately some sort of commercial use that would allow a mixture of both. They were hoping to put out an RFP. In order to acquire a particular person to develop the site, and they had several people interested in doing that, their idea was to issue an RFP to identify which one would be the most suitable. Chairperson Jonathan asked what some of the other alternative uses for the site were; Mr. Yrigoyen replied that two years ago an analysis of the site was done, which was taken to the agency board. Mr. Winklepleck said that they tried to figure out what could go on the property and presented a conceptual idea to city council which included a two story retail building, a single story retail building, and a single story restaurant. Out of those three they eliminated the two story retail building immediately and instructed staff to go back and look at the feasibility of a single story retail and single story restaurant facility. As things progressed the restaurant was selected. Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification that staff conducted an analysis, the committee 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 deliberated and the conclusion was that a restaurant was the `oo best use for that location; Mr. Winklepleck said that was what the committee wanted to see on that corner. Chairperson Jonathan asked what kind of restaurant they had in mind for that location next to the Circle K; Mr. Winklepleck said that on the site plan, they tried with the use of landscaping as a means of hiding the Circle K as much as possible and included a planter on the south side of the alley. They were looking for something that was upscale. He had only been in contact with one of the interested parties and it was more upscale. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was similar to Boston Market or Olive Garden. Mr. Winklepleck felt it would be a step up. Mr. Drell noted that the entrance would be off Highway 111 and across the street was Ruth' s Chris and Entourage. Mr. Winklepleck said that the building was set up with a porta cachere to serve as a valet drop off point. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Mr. Drell noted that a restaurant use required a conditional use permit in the C-1 zone and since only a precise plan was advertised for the physical design, the commission could go ahead and approve the physical design and staff was in the �•• process of advertising the CUP for the next meeting. Mr. Winklepleck clarified that the conditional use permit would be for the actual use and approval of the beer, wine and spirits license. Mr. Drell said that they wanted to be able to offer a whole package in the RFP. He also stated that the commission could either approve this or continue it to the next meeting. Chairperson Jonathan said that since it was fresh on their minds they could make a decision on it tonight and consider the conditional use permit at the next meeting. Commissioner Campbell asked if the commission could place conditions relating to a traffic study on Portola. Mr. Drell stated that access to a piece of property couldn't be denied. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the commission could create restrictions or limitations . Mr. Drell concurred, but did not know if a traffic study would tell the commission anything different that they didn' t already know. It was not going to be any better than it is now and as E1 Paseo prospers, it would get worse, which was why for this particular project, they created the entrance off of Highway 111, which didn't exist and up to that point this was one of those "you can't get there from here or leave there from here" pieces of property. The commission could limit left turns . Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of �.. the project, but the congestion from the alley was a concern. Mr. Drell suggested keeping it a separate item, since this 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 x was an existing problem which would continue to exist whether or not this project happened, and the commission could direct public works to come back with an analysis of that section and somehow propose ways to correct existing problems . Chairperson Jonathan felt that would be appropriate because his concern was that there was an existing problem and the additional use would exacerbate the problem because there would be a more intensive use of that intersection. Simply limiting and eliminating the left-hand egress might make the problem worse rather than better. There were still cars that needed to head south on Portola and since the problem was not the product of this particular application, the best solution might be to ask staff to conduct an analysis of the traffic problem that exists in that area and come back with some recommendations . Commissioner Campbell concurred. Mr. Greenwood informed commission that the intersection of Highway 111 and Portola carried over 50,000 cars per day and this project would generate approximately less than 400 per day. That was less than one percent impact to the entire area. Even if a larger percentage of the traffic used the alley and turned left it would still be a relatively small number of the people that did it now. Even if in the worst case for this use was a small percentage impact to the existing condition. Commissioner Ferguson said that these were all new facts to the commission and he would like to see some kind of work-up which incorporated what had already been discussed by staff on how they reached their conclusions . Without the benefit of an analysis he would have a difficult time finding in a resolution that this was not going to have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. He concurred with the commission that they would like to get the analysis and workup and if a traffic study just says that it will be congested, then they wouldn't need traffic study and he would be more interested in seeing solutions, but as a planning commission it seemed they would be creating a situation where there was a great site and facility that he was in support of, but they were creating bigger planning nightmares in terms of traffic and that was part of their responsibility to consider. He agreed with Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioner Campbell . Chairperson Jonathan stated that he dealt with numbers all day and the 50, 000 figure he felt was less relevant to the reality for the use of that particular alley as a left turn onto Portola because most of that 50,000 was traffic onto Highway 111 and the rest was traffic on Portola. To look at strictly the use of that particular alley as a left-turn lane, it wouldn't surprise him that adding a restaurant would have a very significant impact on that particular use of the 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 alley. That was where the problem was, not with traffic `r moving up and down Highway 111 or Portola, but those going into Circle K and coming out and making a left turn onto Portola. The new facility would do the same thing. He felt there was adequate reason to ask staff to prepare an analysis . Chairperson Jonathan asked for any further comments regarding the application. There were none. He stated that the proposal was nice and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1707 , approving PP 95-6, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . Mr. Drell said that under the miscellaneous section the commission could direct staff to prepare the analysis . Chairperson Jonathan asked if a formal motion was needed. Mr. Drell replied yes . Chairperson Jonathan felt it would be appropriate to address this issue now and asked for a motion i... to request that staff prepare an analysis of the situation at that location. Mr. Drell noted that the analysis should look at the various types of traffic control devices that might be available, whether there was any potential for widening, etc . Chairperson Jonathan suggested that they give staff until the first meeting in December to address the issue. He indicated the study should include access on Portola, the alley between Circle K and the proposed restaurant site on Portola and the particular concern of left turns going south of the site. Commissioner Ferguson noted that on Highway 111 there was an ingress only access and there was no egress . He felt that was a problem and he had a lot of people talk to him about it when they saw it on the agenda. He also talked to city council members about it and he felt it was a problem that needed to be addressed. Mr. Drell said that unfortunately it was an eccentricity of Caltrans--they didn't mind people leaving the highway, but they never wanted anyone to enter the highway. It was quite a struggle and victory to get the entrance approved. He felt it was odd that in Rancho Mirage and every other city in the valley every single business had a driveway on Highway 111 and Palm Desert put in the frontage roads and as a result they wouldn' t let us have access anywhere. That was the best that we could do and more than some thought was possible. Action: 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 x A Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, by minute motion, requested that public works staff return to the commission by December 5, 1995, with a report analyzing the traffic ingress/egress situation for the project and adjacent alley and offering alternatives . Carried 5-0 . D. Case Nos . PP 95-5 and VAR 95-2 - MADISON MARQUETTE, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Precise Plan of Design for a 207,000 square foot retail commercial/restaurant center (with liquor licenses) and building height variance located on 10 . 68 acres on the south side of E1 Paseo between San Pablo Avenue and Larkspur Avenue. Mr. Drell stated that the project began with the Core Area Specific Plan where a group of different business and property owners in the commercial core (Highway 111, E1 Paseo) met with staff over a period of months to develop strategies to stimulate development and economic growth in the commercial area. When looking at E1 Paseo one of the primary priorities affecting the success and future success of E1 Paseo was developing a major anchor attraction, especially relative to the center of E1 Paseo. E1 Paseo was a long, mile commercial street which depended upon pedestrian traffic, but had large holes in it which served as a barrier to pedestrian traffic. At one time this was the Sunlodge Colony site. One of the high priority items for the success of E1 Paseo was the development of an anchor attraction located on that ten acre site. Also included in that was the provision of a major source of centralized parking which would address what was perceived as a parking shortage in the vicinity. That occurred around 1987 . In 1989 the Ahmanson Company, who' s family owned the Sunlodge property, came in with a commercial development plan covering a number of sites that they owned throughout the area. Over a year and a half they processed a development agreement with the city, a disposition development implementation agreement with the redevelopment agency and conducted an EIR analyzing the projected development intensities on each one of the various sites which included what is now the Desert Crossing site, the Town Center Plaza which included Trader Joe ' s, the proposed site, the 12 acre site at E1 Paseo and Highway 111 on the west which was still vacant next to Sandpiper and the wash, and there was a large hillside area behind Desert 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Crossing which they dedicated as open space, and a small �• service industrial area next to Moller's Nursery off Fred Waring. Accumulative impacts from all the projects were analyzed in the EIR which was certified with a number of planning actions which included changes of zone and approval of the various agreements . As part of the development agreement floor area development entitlements were established for each site as were a whole list of requirements and fees and improvement exactions . Originally this site was approved for 167 ,000 square feet. That provided a minimum that the applicant could count on and the maximum was still limited by what was available to any property owner under the basic requirements of the particular zone they were in. As part of that action this property was rezoned from a residential zone to a general commercial zone. In December of 1994 the applicant returned and applied to increase the minimum entitlement to 197, 000 square feet, which would include 25% restaurant. As part of the negotiation it was stipulated that the additional square footage would only be granted if the project included a major specialty high-end retail store such as Saks Fifth Avenue. Later when the request came that Saks wanted an additional 10, 000 square feet or 40,000 total, this increased the total size to 207,000 square feet. At that time a major traffic study of the entire downtown core was conducted with the .�.r first plan. Each time when projects have come in the analysis was redone to recalculate what was known about the existing conditions and the increased entitlement and what the traffic impacts would be. As a result of that analysis the basic findings of the original EIR were affirmed, but the council added as a requirement of the project the widening of San Pablo between E1 Paseo and Highway 111, adding an additional through lane in each direction. As part of the original agreement the project was required to comply with the C-1 parking requirement which was four spaces per 1, 000 square feet. In addition the project would provide an additional 200 parking spaces . When the project agreement was amended in 1994 the financial terms with the redevelopment agency were modified granting RDA a public easement over the entire parking lot, which in essence made the entire parking lot a public facility, and required the developer to provide a parking management plan to maximize the efficiency and utilization of those spaces . For the 1,000 space parking lot the applicant would receive $5 million from the redevelopment agency. As part of that agreement the applicant was discouraged from filling up his project with existing businesses on E1 Paseo, therefore creating vacancies that would have to be filled and requiring that they replace any tenants on E1 Paseo over 1, 000 square feet or elsewhere in the city over 5, 000 square feet that relocates to this center and closes at their original 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 location. In 1990 after the approval of the agreements they cleared the site and demolished the existing residential use. There was now an application designed for a project. He noted there was a model on display which roughly represented the current design. There were some significant changes addressing some concerns of staff and the general public that had been incorporated into the plans the architect would describe. In general staff felt that we received what we asked for. We wanted an extraordinary impact anchor attraction for E1 Paseo and believed the model showed that was what we would be getting. In terms of compliance with the general commercial zone and the requirements of the development agreement, the project complied with all with one exception. The exception was height. The C-1 zone had a maximum height of 30 feet and allowed tower elements which did not exceed ten percent of the entire building area to go as high as 25 feet above that, or 55 feet high. Most of the newer projects on E1 Paseo had gone in with towers above 40 feet but all up to this point had met the 30 feet level . They were all typical single story buildings . This project was predominately a two story structure with one story at street level and the second story had been stepped back about 30 feet from street level, but the second floor did exceed the height of 30 feet by 6 and 8 feet generally. Saks at the rear exceeded the height by 10-12 feet and the top of the equipment screen on the top of Saks went up to 44 feet and was therefore 14 feet higher. Part of the height issues had to do with the basic character of the stores and businesses going into the center. The city asked for the highest quality retailers to be able to be attracted to the center, and specifically Saks . Saks was usually seen in a regional mall and not in a general commercial zone. Most of Palm Desert ' s centers developed along this scale were not in the C-1 zone, but were located in our regional commercial zone which allowed typical heights of 35 feet and allowed for exceptions above that. As an example the Palm Desert Town Center which was the closest in terms of type of tenants, had a height of 38 feet to the top of the basic screen wall and 44 feet to the high equipment screen on top of May Company. The city wanted something more than small scale shops or a continuation of small scale shops and the combination of the volume requirements of the tenants, the design of the center which included a large central garden area, dictated the ultimate height volume. He felt the developer would probably like to have built it shorter because it would be cheaper and less controversial, but he would explain that this was the requirement of the tenants which he and the city wished to 9 attract to this location. On the basis of those findings, staff concluded that this was what we asked for. There had been some discussion relative to architectural detail and impact of elevations on side streets which the model did not 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 now reflect the actual design and the architect would discuss how the design had changed. There had also been discussion of how best to soften and camouflage the long horizontal line of the parking structure on Shadow Mountain, which also would require more study to make that view as interesting as possible for those driving or living on Shadow Mountain. With those reservations, staff recommended that the planning commission recommend to city council approval of the project with the associated height variance. Commissioner Campbell asked if the developer was aware that the entire development was subject to inclusion in the E1 Paseo Assessment District. Mr. Drell stated that he could inform them of that and noted that by virtue of an E1 Paseo address, they automatically became subject to that assessment. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the top of the parking lot was subject to the shading ordinance. Mr. Drell said that theoretically the city required that half the parking be shaded. In a structure half the parking was shaded. It was a matter of debate and interpretation. Staff felt from an aesthetic point of view that there needed to be shading on the second deck and given the high class of the center, he felt that the maximum amount of shading would be appreciated by the customers . The applicant had provided some shading, but the nature of the shading was still being discussed and was an issue before the architectural commission which was unresolved. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the shading ordinance was unclear as to whether it applied to the top level of the parking structure; Mr. Drell replied yes, that the goal of the shading ordinance was that 50% of the spaces be shaded and one in every three parking spaces had a shade tree to ultimately achieve that goal . In a parking structure, the structure immediately shaded half the spaces . The problem was how to physically grow a tree in a pot on a piece of cement, especially in the desert. That was a technical question that the applicant could address . One could make the interpretation that automatically half the spaces were shaded; therefore the goal of the ordinance had been achieved. Chairperson Jonathan said that if the interpretation was on a level by level basis, then it hadn't been. Mr. Drell concurred and said that distribution could also be an issue and it was clear that there would be shading of some sort on the second level; whether they could successfully incorporate vegetation into that shading was a technical problem. Chairperson Jonathan asked which area the Palm Desert Property Owners Association addressed. Mr. Drell said that they represented all of E1 Paseo with the exception of this property. At one time this property was owned by Clifford Henderson who set up the Palm Desert Property Owners 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Association and he did not include this property. Their comments relative to this project were advisory in nature like comments of a neighbor. The applicant made a presentation to the neighbors which included the E1 Paseo people and the immediate condo neighbors to the west and property owners to the south. Commissioner Ferguson noted there was a memorandum in their packet from Brent Conley concerning private security and asked if that was advisory in nature. Mr. Drell replied yes, and suggested that it was probably an issue the applicant was concerned about and the commission could incorporate any of those conditions that they felt were essential to make sure they were addressed. One issue in his comments revolved around the nature of the parking lot as to whether they used an open column structure as opposed to sheer walls . That was a trade off between structural integrity and internal security which was something the applicant would have to reconcile. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. PAUL HEISS, the Development Director for Madison Marquette, stated that he resided in Cincinnati Ohio, and also present were Carl Meyer and Lou Kaufman of Altoon and Porter Architects . He informed commission that they competed for and negotiated contractually with the city during 1994 to obtain the right to acquire the property, which they did in May of this year. They have a signed development agreement and DDIA with the redevelopment agency for the property. They also had a signed lease with Saks for a 40,000 square foot two level resort store similar to their Naples Florida store. They were actively leasing the remaining space, but no one they could announce yet. They were excited about the project and called it The Gardens on E1 Paseo because they wanted it to become the heart of the street. They were talking about creating an open space and focusing on the major central garden which was a major amenity space for this kind of project. They fought having the restriction of Saks Fifth Avenue being in their plan--they lost that battle to the city council last year, but it wasn' t a bad thing, it was just that they hadn' t signed the lease yet. They had now and it was fine. Saks Fifth Avenue was tough to deal with because they had a standard store and they have put that store in the middle of their proposal . They weren' t trying to get more height or density because they understood and believed that they were taking a risk in upping the development density of a one level street 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 into two levels . They didn' t want to do that. Their r.. only business was retail development and it was what they do. They have a one level parking deck shaded and they would spend a lot of money to paint the inside of that garage and decorate it with palm trees and light them. They wanted customers to come in, go up to the second level and it would be a nice place to be. They would shade it, but didn't know if they could grow trees up there, but they would add trellises and make it simple. If people didn't like this development, it would not become the heart of the community. The second level deck would come directly onto the second level which was setback and the terraces were energized. They were talking about restaurants and high activity stores . They wanted the site to have two lives : one was street front retail, buildings that touched each other, street front sidewalk, and access promenade. They had that but they wanted it to spill into the open internal garden. Driving by El Paseo and up San Pablo and walk by, it would not seem like a tall project. The Saks building was 150-200 feet back from the street. It was the size of a normal department store. One of the things that was very deceptive was that they had a 14 foot elevation change from E1 Paseo to Shadow Mountain. They were trying to deliver what the city wanted and what they �.. felt worked as a retail site. They wanted this to be part of the community and had met with some of the city civic groups, had gone through the architectural committee and quite successfully. Some of the drawings brought into focus the comments they had received. They were very excited about this but believed that this was their best shot at an urban village core for retail . MR. CARL MEYER addressed the commission to discuss the architectural design of the project. He noted that Mr. Heiss described the 207,000 square feet of shops, including the 40, 000 square foot Saks, as well as the second level portion of that being about 40,000 square feet of restaurant space, and a 1, 000 space parking garage in the rear on two levels . What would be the most obvious characteristic of this project would be the negative space. By creating the central garden and a series of secondary gardens, by creating some courtyards, smaller courtyards, by creating shaded paseos with a trellis and vegetation shading them, they had put an architectural centerpiece into the middle of this project which came out to El Paseo and created a character which they felt was village-like. The mass became a collection of separate buildings that they tow moved around in between and out to the street and this village connected to a larger village and the whole E1 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Paseo district which was a premier shopping zone in the desert communities . Conceptually the open space was inspired by the opportunity to create a desert oasis . The forms of the buildings would be simple, classical with indigenous materials . They would be using plaster and stone, wood and tile. The colors would be earthen tones . Terra cottas, tans, sage--all this combined would create an architecture that was tranquil, elegant and somewhat understated. Against the backdrop of the gardens they would have a landscape plan which included native flowering plants, palms, water features such as a central water feature in the courtyard that would spill down along a desert landscape to a pool at the entrance at E1 Paseo. The two side courtyards were designed after the Court of the Lions in the Alhambras in Spain which had two small fountains with just enough water and sound to be something that they could hear from the entrance from the south and sides, and they could also be seen. Walking along E1 Paseo, visually they could look through the paseo to the courtyard with the palm trees and fountain. Entering from either side of the project they have a major entrance where 80% of the customers would enter from the back because that was where the parking was located, also a straight visually connected piece to the entry courts . One of the most important aspects of the design of this was the quality of civic space. They felt this was an inviting amenity to the community and felt it had a pedestrian character and the upper portion of the central court was a flat landscaped area with just grass and benches and paving around the top; from there it spilled down into a promenade down to El Paseo. This created a space that could be used for civic functions, community meetings and any number of activities that didn' t have a place to occur right now along the El Paseo district. In a meeting with the community, some of the business associations, and architectural review commission some issues had come up raised as concerns about the height and setback, shading of the parking structure and they had addressed those. One concern expressed was that the elevation on Shadow Mountain and Larkspur was close to the property line and went up two levels and that the mass might feel overpowering both for the pedestrian and businesses on the other side of the street. He noted that on the proposed sides, it was only the sides of existing businesses ' sides . The elevation was redesigned to allow the side elevation and take that two level mass and redesign it in terms of its elements . There was a piece that had the stair tower in it and the a exit corridors so that it became one discreet piece. The second level pieces were all set back from the 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 streets now. The service level was being screened by a `••� wall . On the front the stores wrapped around the side and the second level was set back away from the street. In their last meeting with the architectural review commission, they asked them to further differentiate the wall at the stair tower, the stairs and to place a planter in front of it and after that a screen wall for the service area. He felt they created a much more village-like elevation. The other issue regarded shading on the upper parking level and they were proposing to create trellises along the rows of parking and around the Saks building. He felt these were much more effective shading devices than trees . The trees were generally by code required to be in a certain grid- -when they were put into a parking structure, that grid was laid out and they had to be put into waterproof vaults . Not only was it something that caused great expense, but was usually not successful in maintaining its integrity over time. There were usually problems with leaking and damage of cars and the trees died. They had been successful in designing structures that ran along the line of the parking row and rather than shade cars every 60 feet, they actually shaded all of the cars down to a certain extent. They had taken the shading requirement and incorporated it for the cars r closest to the entrances . That meant the spaces getting used most of the time. The cars at the highest point in the season and most amount of people would fill up all the way to the outside of the structure, but 95% of the time people would park as close as possible to the entrances . That was where they focused the shading devices, rather than putting them in a grid or on the edges of the parking structure. He felt they had successfully addressed the issue of parking, circulation and access . They have had three goals from the beginning for the design of this project: one was to create a civic space for this community, one was to create it in a comfortable desert environment that was shaded and lush, and one was to provide a shopping and dining experience that would be a cultural experience where people would come and spend time and have the quality of civic space. He felt they had been successful in achieving those three goals and hoped the commission would agree that this project would be an asset to this community. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . r..r MR. RICHARD CREEDMAN, a resident of Indian Wells and owner of nine condominium units between San Pablo and 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 San Luis Rey. He stated that he was in favor of the project and variance. His only problem was the landscaping along Shadow Mountain and the effect it would have on his properties across the street in terms of just seeing the parking garage. He felt it was hard to see how it would look from across the street. If the setback could have been larger, they would have provided it, but there should be something so that when looking at it from across the street, it wouldn't look like just a parking garage. He wasn't talking about spending lots of money, but possibly using some fountains or something with a minimal cost. He felt this was necessary. Mr. Meyer said that Mr. Creedman raised a very important point, that their project faced a residential area. He showed an elevation of Shadow Mountain Drive and pointed out that at one end there was a sidewalk, a landscape buffer with shrubs and trees and then was open to the lower level of the parking structure so that there was light and air, then the guardrail and beam for the parking structure. The rest was open so that the only impact visually of the parking structure was the spandrell piece beyond the trellises and then screening by the landscaping and trees . At the other side of the site because of the slope, the setback area was larger that it appeared because in order to keep the light and air in the parking structure naturally ventilated, they dropped the grade into it. He hoped that addressed the concern about that elevation. Chairperson Jonathan asked about the height of the top of the rail to the ground level . Mr. Meyer replied that from the street itself, there was 17 feet from the street to the top of the spandrell piece. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Meyer knew what size of tree would be planted or more importantly how long it would take for those trees to actually soften the impact of the structure. Mr. Heiss indicated that they would be 36 inch box trees; the standard requirement was 24 inch box and they were sensitive about the parking structure. Mr. Meyer indicated that they were all irrigated and the landscaped area was automatically irrigated so that the growth would be maximal . Commissioner Beaty asked if they had a species list for the types of trees being used to soften the height; Mr. Meyer replied that it would be a deciduous canopy tree and an evergreen canopy tree--the actual species was not shown. He said it would be appropriate to the environment. Mr. Drell said that the desert type trees being planted recently, like the mesquites, almost grew too fast. A 36 inch box was a large mesquite if they could be found. His only comment would be that it would be a subject for the architectural commission. In terms of 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 how best to soften it, whether it was a row of soldiers every tow three feet, part of the chore was to break up a very long horizontal line and that was something that the architectural commission would spend a lot of time trying to achieve. The plants would also achieve vertical relief and an understory which would ultimately be the thing that blocked the view at eye level . It would be a combination of trees and shrubs in a design. The other issue would be the actual finish material and the architectural detail on that wall . Given what could be done with cast concrete, they could do a lot. It would another design discussion. Commissioner Campbell asked if some of the designs on that wall could include tiles of kind to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Meyer replied that was what they were indicating now: a panel with basically tile with decorative elements . The parking structure design needed to be developed as they go forward; they felt the most important thing was for the view from the residences would be for the cars on the second level to be below the spandrells, and the cars were below grade on the bottom, so they wouldn' t have to put up with headlights or visibility to cars . At the same time they wanted to keep that piece thin and as invisible as possible. The more they make out of that piece, the more visually distracting it would be. If they could make that ... piece disappear with the right kind of finish, color or texture so that it didn't draw the eye would be better. They would be happy to bring back to the commission the solution for the actual detailing for that panel . Commissioner Campbell asked if the only access to the project from that south elevation was the staircase to the second story. Mr. Meyer concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked if there was access to the lower level from that staircase. Mr. Meyer replied no, that they weren't indicating a lower level entrance. He felt the entrances on the sides should be kept minimal . Commissioner Campbell asked if the two buildings shown on the model were elevators at the end of Saks; Mr. Heiss indicated that was a design element which had been removed, but the project would have elevators and escalators . Mr. Meyers said that they were three access points : one at Larkspur, one on San Pablo and one on Shadow Mountain. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Campbell asked about the architectural style. Mr. Meyer replied that the general aesthetic on the model was current--the difference between the model and drawings as they developed further were details in terms of the two architectural forms . When they referred to it as contemporary and simple forms, it was not attempting to be a 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 spanish colonial building, or a particular historical style-- they would use the traditional materials, forms and colors, but in a very simple and contemporary way. Commissioner Campbell asked if the storefronts along E1 Paseo would have entrances onto E1 Paseo; Mr. Meyer replied that was correct-- the elevations didn't adequately address that; each tenant would make their own presentation and they would have a design criteria established for the project which would encourage a high degree of transparency, design and three dimensionality for all of the storefronts, including those along E1 Paseo. They would have entrances along the front. Commissioner Campbell asked if their main entrance would be on El Paseo, the ones right on the sidewalk; Mr. Meyer concurred, but said that exceptions might be the corner tenants who might choose to have it on E1 Paseo or to the side, but it would be on the corner. Commissioner Campbell asked about those along Larkspur and San Pablo; Mr. Meyer replied that they would have entrances on E1 Paseo and inside, but not on Larkspur or San Pablo. Commissioner Campbell noted from the drawings that they showed quite a bit of window space along there to break up the wall ; Mr. Meyer replied that it was for visual interest, the presentation to the street, but it wouldn't make sense for the tenant to have entrances on San Pablo or Larkspur. The tenants would be in the project because they want to be part of this synergy and part of this street. It would be a waste for a major tenant to go around the corner and use that area. Commissioner Campbell asked how high the walls on the corners at Larkspur and San Pablo would be before the second story began. Mr. Meyer replied that the low wall that screened the service area was approximately 14 feet, the higher wall up towards E1 Paseo was about 22 feet. It would be painted and have some architectural definition to it--it could have a canopy or signage. Commissioner Campbell asked if it could have a mural on it on the sides like at Desert Crossing; Mr. Meyer replied that it could develop that way as they completed their design criteria. It was an important tool for them to address each district of the project separately, whether they were along E1 Paseo or inside the courtyard, and they would set criteria for how the tenants would go in and occupy that space. What they did for shade and signage; beyond that he could not address whether it would have a mural effect, but it was something to consider. Mr. Drell stated that a good example of something at another Altoon and Porter project was the E1 Paseo Collection buildings north and south were built with fairly simple E1 Paseo elevations; what was probably remembered was what the individual stores have done and in essence that was the goal of this project to draw the eye to the picture or storefront, not to the frame. Through the city' s design process, they would be reviewing at the architectural level every storefront remodel or every tenant 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 improvement which came in which would be proposing the final +�• faces on each storefront. Commissioner Campbell noted that even though the applicant didn' t have leases for the other pads, she asked what the applicant felt the square footage of all the buildings would be as far as the larger tenants would be; Mr. Meyer replied that the spaces were intended to be five to ten tenants in a building like that. The lease plan was adjusting constantly, but those were multi-tenant buildings on the lower level; on the upper level, there would probably be two tenants . Mr. Heiss informed commission that they were talking about tenants that ranged from 600 square feet to 12, 000 square feet. Commissioner Beaty said he felt the concern was that there would be a series of 1,000 square foot boxes . Mr. Meyer replied that that wouldn't work for them, the project or the street. Commissioner Campbell felt it would be to the applicant' s benefit to have larger tenants in building. Mr. Heiss said that the general size range would be that the ends would be larger tenants or even two story tenants; medium sized tenants would occupy the other areas and closest to Saks there would be some smaller shops . Commissioner Campbell asked how many stores they were anticipating; Mr. Heiss replied between 40 and 50 total tenants . Commissioner Ferguson asked the applicant about security. Mr. Heiss replied that they envisioned having private security guards during hours of operation. Mr. Drell felt that Mr. Conley' s main concern had to do with the parking structure and the fact that the whole project was accessible, even when it was not in operation. Mr. Heiss said that they had an interesting discussion regarding that about a year ago because the city and public had an easement over it and it could be patrolled by police, which they expect it would be, but they would also have private security also. Commissioner Beaty felt that his concern was also that people could be in the courtyard and not visible to the street and a threat to the businesses or property. Mr. Heiss replied that they would have an active onsite manager and security around the clock. Commissioner Beaty stated that he was impressed and commended the applicants for doing their homework, commenting on the absence of people before the commission. They met with the E1 Paseo businesses, the local neighbors and demonstrated that if there are concerns, they would take care of them. He felt the architectural issues would be addressed by the city' s architectural commission and he liked what he saw. Commissioner Ferguson thanked the applicant for putting together a project he felt was wonderful and was what the city was looking for. As Commissioner Beaty noted, the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 absence of people in the room was testament to the hard work they put into this . The staff report was excellent and was replete with references to where the applicant had made concessions and worked with the city and made clear their intention to not come in as a developer and impose their will on this site, but to work with the city toward achieving a desirable goal for all involved. He commended them for that. Commissioner Fernandez agreed with Commissioners Beaty and Ferguson on the really great job they did on the project. He felt it was good that they were open minded in working the city and their neighbors . Commissioner Campbell stated that she also liked the project. She said that she had a problem with so many small stores and had heard from other tenants on the street that they were told that they would have more larger tenants and not smaller tenants so that the street would not be raided and make more empty stores on E1 Paseo. She hoped that when they did their leases they would take that into consideration and try to get the larger tenants . Otherwise, she was in favor of the project. Chairperson Jonathan concurred with the aforementioned comments, but there were some practical concerns he didn't see addressed in the conditions . They included deliveries in terms of where they could be made, types of vehicles, sound shielding, light shielding, circulation, deliveries of apparel as well as produce for the 40, 000 square feet of restaurant use, and waste. There had been too many experiences with improper disposal of waste and used the Lucky' s center on Monterey at Country Club as an example. The last thing the city, community, or E1 Paseo needed was more visible waste, particularly food products . That raised the issue of odor--it smells good when a person is hungry, but when you live in the area, enough was enough. They've learned that there are devices to control odors and he didn't see that conditions . Also, since there would be liquor and restaurant use, he didn't see a limitation on hours of operation. He asked if those issues had been addressed. Mr. Drell replied that in terms of trash, the city had a general condition relative to the design of the trash service and suggested that the applicant could address how the loading bays worked in the center. Relative to the pleasing odors of restaurants, the technology for controlling them had yet to be accepted by AQMD as reliable. The difference between this project and some of the other ones was that this was a commercial and restaurant street as opposed to a residential shopping center where there was a greater concern. They were dealing with relatively large distances away from the restaurants to any residential uses . He didn' t believe they 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 were warranted. Regarding hours of operation, this was a commercial district, not a residential shopping center. They have not had any problems with any of the other restaurants on E1 Paseo relative to hours of operation. By their nature, if they had activity on E1 Paseo after 10 : 30 or 11 : 00 p.m. , it would be extraordinary. Those were things that could be conditioned to identify them as potential concerns which could be reviewed and brought back to the commission if they proved to be a problem. Chairperson Jonathan said that was really his concern. With the caliber of applicant they were dealing with and understanding how the free forces of the economy worked, they would be as motivated as anyone else to not have a problem in these particular areas . His concern was that since this was not a conditional use permit, if they ran into a problem, and it could be 20 years from now when perhaps the owner/operator was different, that they have a mechanism to deal with it. Mr. Drell said the mechanism would be to identify them and say that if, based on information received by staff, these items became a subject of public concern, that they could trigger review of the approvals relative to addressing those problems . Staff could put together language addressing those issues and would require the owner/operator to remedy the problem if it became a public nuisance. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would be in favor of that. He complimented the applicant on the %MF layout/footprint and breaking up the project into several buildings . The open space was wonderful, the special features, the garden, the water features were very striking and he felt the project would enhance the area as well as the community in general . In the spirit of helping the applicant succeed, he wanted to offer an observation. When the Desert Fashion Plaza first went on to Palm Canyon he felt the design was a mistake because it was essentially Orange County and he did not feel that people drove two hours to leave Orange County to come to Orange County. It was not unique desert; it was a little too contemporary, not historical, not spanish, not mexican and pretty soon it became Orange County- -not much of anything. This was far from that and was beautiful, but he took personal exception to the general aesthetic and basic style. He wouldn't change anything in a major way--he was talking about accent items and touches, perhaps how the windows were bordered or little things that provided a three dimensional interest feature. They didn't have to be expensive, just a little creative. He was not prepared to object to the project, but wanted to make those comments because if they sparked an interest at the council level, or with the applicant, it might encourage something that would be more interesting and indigenous to our area, El Paseo and Palm Desert rather then where people were coming `NO from. He commended the applicant and felt the project would be an addition to the community. With that, along with a 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 condition that was discussed to provide a mechanism to deal with the potential problems in the area of deliveries, waste, odors, and hours of operation, he asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1708, recommending to city council approval of PP 95-5 , VAR 95-2, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. X. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request for Street Right-of-Way Abandonment--San Pablo Avenue z Mr. Greenwood stated that the report was before the commission and asked for questions . Chairperson Jonathan commented that it looked routine. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, by minute motion, determined that the subject right-of-way vacation was in conformity with the city' s General Plan. Speaking to the motion Commissioner Campbell asked why this couldn't be left until the applicant decided to develop the property and then give it some consideration because San Pablo would be widened from Highway 111 to El Paseo and it would be a thoroughfare from Highway 111 to Fred Waring. Mr. Drell stated that the city would retain sufficient right-of-way for the ultimate geometry of the street. They were spending a lot of money putting in the sidewalk and hoped they would not be changing the width. On the other hand, the way vacations worked, theoretically the city was supposed to retain enough right-of-way as specified in the General Plan for the street system as designed and in this case the county took right-of-way in excess of what our street plans show as the ultimate geometry for San Pablo. What the commission was being asked for was to make a finding that the remaining right-of-way would conform to the General Plan Circulation Element. This could be used as a lever for when a developer came in, but they technically had the right 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 to ask for right-of-way that the public had no logical use for. Commissioner Campbell felt there might be some use for it in the very near future. Mr. Drell stated that there was no public policy or document that said the city had any use for it. Commissioner Campbell asked what the city did afterwards when San Pablo needed to be widened. Mr. Greenwood replied that even with the vacation the city would be reserving right-of-way adequate for the secondary classification of the street. This was a 100 foot frontage on over a 1, 000 foot portion of the street. This was the only property that had this excess right-of-way that they knew of, so it represented less than 10% of the area. Ever acquiring the additional right-of-way from the already developed parcels would be nearly impossible, so it was very unlikely that this area would ever come into their use. Commissioner Campbell asked if there was ever a problem if the city could take it from everyone' s property. Mr. Greenwood replied that they would attempt to if there was that problem. This area of San Pablo was wider than the area south of Highway 111 now. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was still one lane and a golf cart lane. Mr. Greenwood stated that the area they continued to reserve was wide enough to allow two lanes in each direction with a two-way left turn lane. The restriction was on the opposite side of the street and offset from this due to the water company �.. pumping facility and well . This vacation was not the limiting portion of the street. Chairperson Jonathan called for a vote. Motion carried 5-0 . B. Report on Helicopter Landings Mr. Drell noted that the report indicated that what KESQ was doing was illegal . It was not an emergency situation. Staff recommended leaving things the way they were; they had through temporary use permits fairly wide discretion to make a one time or short period exception. They would not want to allow a permanent use of this type because there was Bermuda Dunes Airport which was close by. Other than inserting something that says it is expressly prohibited, the way we typically work was that unless they asked for approval and it was not a permitted use, then there was an ability to deny it. Chairperson Jonathan asked if by knowing that a violation occurred and not taking any action if they preempted themselves from making objections should those violations occur again. Mr. Drell replied no, and noted that commission could direct KESQ that what they did was illegal and in the �.. future the city would consider it illegal and pursue it. Mr. Rudolph clarified that the commission was not the enforcing 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 agency here; any member of the public could bring it to the attention of the state. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the report said that state law looked to local regulations and our regulations didn't seem to provide for that use. Mr. Rudolph said that we don' t have anything on helicopters, but it didn' t matter because it was prohibited by state regulations anyway. It was the violation of the state regulations that anyone could bring to their attention. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there would be any problem with commission recommending to staff that they inform KESQ that our interpretation was that their helicopter landings were in violation of state law and should they reoccur, we would investigate further. Mr. Rudolph said it was no problem for the planning commission to make a recommendation like that, but the ultimate decision to do something like that was not necessarily the planning commission' s decision, but could be a recommendation to the city council . Commissioner Beaty suggested that the recommendation should come from the neighbors and not involve the commission--it was illegal . Chairperson Jonathan didn't feel it was the citizen' s function, but the city' s responsibility to regulate helicopter landings within its borders . Commissioner Beaty noted that they were regulated--it was illegal and if it happened it should be dealt with. Chairperson Jonathan felt the city would be derelict in its responsibility to the safety of its citizens if it didn' t address the problem. Mr. Drell said that all they would be doing was giving them information. It would be proper to give them the same regulations the attorney' s office gave us and they should be aware of them and act appropriately. Commissioner Ferguson said that jurisdictionally if a neighbor had a problem with the landings they could call up the State Department of Transportation and make a complaint and ask for an investigation. The city had no police powers under a state regulation unless it had a local ordinance. It seemed that if they had an illegal landing and the city didn't have an ordinance on it, and he was not convinced they needed one, that person could call Caltrans for an investigation. Mr. Rudolph replied that they had a remedy regardless of what the city did. His understanding of what the chairperson was suggesting was that it was more of a question of stepping in to do something affirmative because it was the nature of the activity occurring within the city. That was a discretionary decision and the commission could certainly make that recommendation to staff or the city council, or just let the neighbors take care of handling it if they were upset. Commissioner Ferguson asked if this was an on-going problem; Chairperson Jonathan replied yes, the problem was brought up to the attention of KESQ and they indicated at that time that they were not intending to change 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 their actions . They were delivering film footage of a fire tow and it was several times a day for two weeks . They indicated that whenever those types of events occurred they planned to do that. He felt that the city had a responsibility and should not take an ostrich approach and say it was not the city' s responsibility. If the city was aware of helicopters landing in apparent violation of state law, he wasn't suggesting that the city regulate that, but there was a certain degree of responsibility for the city to take proactive measures to at least try and constructively advise the offending party that the city was concerned. Commissioner Ferguson thought it was a transportation issue and a public safety issue. Perhaps this was something that the commission might want to ask the council to address as a city problem, rather than a planning problem. Chairperson Jonathan felt it touched on both because it was an inappropriate use that violated the zoning. He did not feel that warehouse/industrial zoning ever intended to allow helicopters, particularly on unimproved lots where traffic was nearby. He felt there was an implicit violation of the intent of the zoning ordinance. Councilman Spiegel commented that sometimes there were helicopters landing in the civic center parking lot, �. primarily police helicopters . He felt that as an alternative they could drive over here to the park. Chairperson Jonathan said that was no problem, but Bermuda Dunes Airport was a 20 minute drive and could not see that it would make that much of a difference to them. Any reasonable solution was fine. Mr. Rudolph replied that it was more appropriate for the police to do it than KESQ. He wanted to reiterate that it was not the planning commission' s decision whether the city contacts KESQ. It would be more the commission' s function to make a recommendation that they feel it would be appropriate for the city to contact them and that actual contact would come from council or staff. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. Commissioner Ferguson stated that his preference would be that when the city contacted them it would not be from a standpoint that they are breaking a law and stop, but recognize that they are a news organization and sometimes there are emergency situations where it' s vital to get the news out, but they couldn' t create these types of problems . He felt that KESQ would work with the city--he might be wrong but wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Chairperson Jonathan concurred and offered a motion to encourage the city to consider working with KESQ in a cooperative way to find a solution that wouldn' t create a problem for the surrounding community, but met their need to �.. get the news out. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 a Action: Moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner goo Campbell, by minute motion, encouraged the city to work with KESQ to find an alternative for helicopter landings in the industrial zone. Carried 5-0 . C. Election of Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Liaison to the Economic Development Advisory Committee, and Liaison to the Civic Center Steering Committee Chairperson Jonathan suggested handling all the positions at one time and making one motion for all of them. He nominated Commissioner Beaty for the position of chairperson, Commissioner Ferguson for vice chairperson, and asked for volunteers for the other positions . Commissioner Campbell suggested sharing those positions on a rotating basis . Councilman Spiegel felt that it was better for continuity for one person to attend the meetings . Mr. Drell noted that by rotating on an annual basis that allowed everyone to take a turn within their term of office. Mr. Winklepleck noted that economic development met once a month and the civic center steering committee met on an as needed basis . In the last six months there was only one or two meetings . Mr. Drell suggested appointing an "alternate at large" to go to any of a the meetings if the designated person was not available. After discussion Commissioner Campbell said she would accept the EDAC liaison position and Commissioner Fernandez said he would accept the civic center steering committee liaison position. Chairperson Jonathan volunteered for the position of alternate. Action: Moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion selected Paul Beaty as Chairperson, James Ferguson as Vice Chairperson, Sonia Campbell as EDAC Liaison, and George Fernandez as liaison to the Civic Center Steering Committee. Carried 5-0 . XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. 3 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 XII . COMMENTS r 1 . Commissioner Beaty noted that commission received a policy from council on excused absences and noted that Chairperson Jonathan had an incident which should be excused because it was a religious holiday, but was not addressed in the formal resolution. Councilman Spiegel indicated that they did not include religious holidays as excused absences . Commissioner Beaty felt that should be included and would be the discretion of the chairperson. 2 . Chairperson Jonathan stated that he wanted to share his concern about the Kaufman and Broad application. He felt that the commission made the right decision not to continue the matter since there were people from out of town present. He felt that as a community the city was letting density go up too much and were varying too often from the 8,000 square foot lot size minimum and in his opinion it was not working out. He felt that low income housing was having horrendous results and used the project on Fred Waring as an example. The city approved a high density small lot size project in the north sphere towards the north side and just did another one. Mr. Drell clarified that Kaufman and Broad did not �••• go through with that one but it technically still existed. Someone could pick it up, but if they couldn't make it work chances were that no one could. Chairperson Jonathan recognized that what was approved might not go up but what was on the books right now was that it could go up. The trend of the commission was to be sympathetic to those seeking the lower smaller lot sizes and felt that some of that was appropriate, but they should recognize when it' s gone too far. He felt that 8, 000 square feet was a reasonable size and could be built affordably. It was an issue that he felt the commission should consider and be sensitive as to when they were going too far and allowing too much of that. Commissioner Beaty felt that they took that into account and did not personally think there was too much yet. He agreed that they didn't want to change all the rest of the open space into that type of lot, but didn't think it was excessive yet. Chairperson Jonathan noted that it was rare to have this many unanimous votes--it didn't used to be that way and when it wasn't it wasn't all bad. It was okay for the commissioners to disagree on issues like that and hoped that the synergy was wiser than the individual parts and they headed in the right direction. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting to November 7, 1995 . Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 9 :26 p.m. PHILIP bRELL, Acting Secretary ATTEST: �22 -/�-az� PAUL BEATY, Chairpers n Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm y 32