Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0206 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 6, 1996 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ferguson led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell James Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan (arrived after Consent Calendar) Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Steve Smith �"' IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the January 16, 1996 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the January 16, 1996 meeting minutes . Commissioner Ferguson noted that he gave the secretary some non-substantive changes . Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent January 25, 1996 city council actions . VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR � None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS �r1i A. Case No. CUP 96-2 - MONTEREY LAW CENTER, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow conversion and 512 square foot expansion of a single family residence to an office use in the R-2 zone on the east side of Monterey Avenue 62 feet north of San Gorgonio also known as 44-712 Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith noted that the property was on the east side of Monterey Avenue, the second lot north of San Gorgonio located between the existing insurance office on the corner and the existing law office on the north side. The applicant was requesting to convert the existing single family dwelling and make a 512 foot addition, for a total of approximately 1408 square feet. The site would also be developed with six parking spaces at the rear. In order to accomplish this they would need to remove the existing carport structure from the south side of the existing unit. Driveway access would be provided to the rear. He indicated that this similar formula has worked adequately for the existing law offices to the north. The six parking spaces comply with code requirements � of one parking space per every 250 square feet. The Zoning � Ordinance permitted offices as a conditional use in the R-2 zone where the property was across the street from commercially zoned property. This site met that criteria. As discussed on page 2 of the staff report, staff would have preferred to develop this site in conjunction with one of the adjacent properties . That matter was broached with the property owner to the north; the property owner was not interested in that she wished to maintain a distinct separation between the two properties and a matter of privacy was expressed. There was a letter to that effect in the report. There was a repetition of the situation to the north, which has worked adequately, therefore staff felt the required findings for the approval of the conditional use could be affirmed. The proposed project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. Staff ' s conclusion was that the proposal was acceptable and recommended approval subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Condition #9 would provide the city with a long- term opportunity that should either of the adjacent properties redevelop at some point in the future, at least then the city would be in a position to require this property to go along to consolidate driveways . . � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Chairperson Beaty noted that the commission did not receive '� a copy of the letter from the property owner to the north (Ms . Nancy Noel) dated January 10, 1996 . Mr. Smith read the letter into the record (see Exhibit A attached hereto) . Commissioner Jonathan asked if Ms . Noel 's project required an approved conditional use permit. Mr. Smith replied yes . Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith recalled whether there was discussion at that time regarding the Palma Village Plan and the potential sharing of the parking facility/ access . Mr. Smith noted that Ms. Noel 's conditional use permit was processed in 1989, which was B & B Insurance at that time. Staff came in with a recommendation of denial because staff felt we weren't getting adequate improvements . Commission approved the matter and somehow that issue did not get into the decision. Chairperson Beaty o ened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLES MARTIN, 73-733 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, stated that he was the architect for the pro ject and was present to answer any questions . � Commissioner Jonathan asked if the extension of the building out towards Monterey Avenue was a necessary design component. Mr. Martin replied yes, and indicated that he, Ron Gregory, and Don Bolas all attempted to talk to Ms . Noel about the proposal . His f irst site plan used Ms . Noel ' s driveway and they were able to have parking on the backside and from the left side were able to take the building back out to where the existing carport was and pull it more to the south, bu� when they didn't have that access, they had to redesign it. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the alternative design with the access from Ms . Noel ' s property would eliminate the need to go out front towards Monterey. Mr. Martin replied that the design would have allowed them to go around the other way and had a sample of how that would have been done. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . � MS. KIMBERLY WHITE, the property owner of the residential property to the east of the subject project 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 stated that her concern was based on her neighbors who � lived directly behind Ms . Noel ' s law practice. When �r�l that project was developed it increased noise and with the removal of the carport/garage on that property, the mall and J.C. Penney' s lights, as well as the view, all changed. Her concern was that the parking lot would be directly behind her backyard and she wanted a fence line that would allow her to continue to protect her privacy, as well as when the carport/garage was removed, that there wasn' t an increase in noise and the lights from the mall wouldn't shine into her backyard. That was what happened to her neighbors behind Ms . Noel ' s law office. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that Ms . White was asking for confirmation that there was a fence between her property and the subject property. Ms . White said that she was directly behind the subject property and right now there was a wooden fence. She felt that between residences that was fine, but not between a business and a residence. She suggested that the fence be higher. Mr. Smith indicated that condition #6 required that the rear yard would be enclosed with an appropriate six foot high ,� masonry block wall . If the wooden fence was on Ms . White' s property, it would be up to her if she wanted to remove it. If it was on the applicant' s property, they would remove it. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that would address Ms . White' s concerns . Ms . White stated that she had concerns for between six and eight feet high because it would be a public parking lot behind her backyard. She said that she might want it higher than six feet, although she should go and measure it before deciding. Commissioner Jonathan said that some people didn't want it higher because it became almost oppressive, but they could go as high as seven feet. Ms . White said that it was very private right now and she didn't want anyone looking over the fence into her backyard. Once it became a commercial property with people coming and going all the time, it was a concern. The other concern was when the garage/carport was removed, the lights and increased noise from Monterey " Avenue and fram the Palm Desert Town Center could be a ' nuisance. � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 2996 Mr. Drell informed commission that they could condition that � pending an the neighbor' s wish that the wall could go as high as seven feet. Also, there were trees opposite where the carport used to be. He said another condition would be to provide at least four feet so that trees could grow and Ms . White could provide some input as to what type of trees she would like to see planted. Ms . White indicated that right now along the fence line there were many large, thick palm trees that provided some blockage. Chairperson Beaty asked if Ms. White currently had a view of the San Gorgonio Mountains . Ms . White replied yes, and stated that she understood there wouldn't be a height increase to the building, now or at any time in the future. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He asked if the landscaping shown on the plan was accurate and if it was one of the requirements to create the landscaping along that side. Mr. Smith stated that the plan was not a landscape plan; it did indicate where some of the existing material was, but there would be a landscape plan to be approved by the architectural � review commission. Commissioner Ferguson noted that condition #7 said that the trees shown on the site plan, which he read to mean the trees there now, must be retained under this conditional use permit and would then be enhanced by a landscaped plan, which would be approved in the future by the architectural review commission. Upon questioning by Ms . White, Commissioner Ferguson indicated that all of the existing trees would be staying, according to that condition. Commissioner Jonathan also felt that Ms . White' s concern regarding lighting would also be addressed in the landscaping plan, which would receive architectural review commission approval . He noted that staff could notify Ms . White and he encouraged her to attend that meeting. The commission would condition the wall to be six or seven feet high, depending on the needs of the surrounding residents . MR. RICHARD STANTON, the resident immediately east of Nancy Noel 's property, stated that at the time that the insurance company converted that property, they were given no input on the decision. They suddenly woke up one day and found carpenters working over there. They � chopped the garage out and created a parking area. For them it meant a tremendous impact on their privacy. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 They have a concrete wall on their property on their ; side of the fence, but there was never any attempt made � to equalize the differences in the wall between the two pieces of property. The property on the east side and south side was higher at one end, but on the other end, the north side, it was lower. On the east side and the south side, they have a five foot wall and they had about four feet between the ground level on the west side. When they took the garage out, the Penney' s parking lot which was about 10-15 feet above their property, was suddenly full of cars at night with headlights, plus the increased noise. This was why they urged their neighbor to try and get as much of a shield in the back as possible. He was also concerned about the future relationship that might exist between the two pieces which would again have an adverse impact on their property unless they could do something about that back wall also. Mr. Drell stated that if that situation ever changed, then another hearing would be held like this and the city would have the opportunity to correct any omission that might have occurred in the past. They would have to come to the city and apply for something new. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant wished to readdress � the commission. He did not. Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. Martin had the authority to make representations on behalf of the client with respect to the height of the back wall . Mr. Martin replied yes . Commissioner Ferguson asked if the applicant could provide a seven foot wall . Mr. Martin indicated that when building a six foot wall, they were building at a block module and in order to go to seven feet, they have to build another eight inches and then another four inches . It was conditioned that there was a block wall back there and they were aware or that condition. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he assumed Ms . White would be willing to work with Mr. Martin and if the wall ended up being 6 ' 8" , 7 ' 2" or whatever was practical, they could work that out. ; Mr. Martin concurred. � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Ms . White stated that there was a difference in grade �+ height and the wall might only be 4� feet or five feet from her side. Mr. Drell indicated that the wall height could be measured from the higher side. Commissioner Ferguson said that speaking for himself, it was a goal to have uniform development there so that there wasn't a four foot wall, then an eight foot wall, and six foot wall, but a uniform wall straight across and mitigation efforts made for light and sound so as to protect all three of the properties. The problem was that there was one existing owner who didn' t want to participate at this point and the commission had no legal authority to require her to do so, but a condition had been added which required the present owner of the subject property and any successors in interest to agree to any modifications that the commission came up with to that end. At least at this point the commission was looking out for Mr. Stanton' s interest, even though they couldn't do anything tonight. Chairperson Beaty said it was disturbing that this situation occurred and it wouldn't happen in the future. He closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . +r.. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff if, since Ms . Noel was operating pursuant to a conditional use permit, if there was something the commission could do to influence her decision about the joint access . Mr. Rudolph replied no, not as long as she was operating under her conditional use permit as conditioned. Mr. Drell said that applied also to how she was operating her business, as long as it wasn't creating a public nuisance. The existence of that lot in terms of cars going in and out wasn't a problem. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a general catch-all provision in the CUP that referred to not interfering with the public good and Ms . Noel 's unwillingness to cooperate with subsequent development impacting traffic by making it slow down on Monterey because of all the driveways and so forth, if could that be considered non-compliance with that type of provision if it existed. Mr. Rudolph said that he was willing to take a look at it, but didn't think so. Chairperson Beaty suggested directing staff to revisit that conditional use permit to see if Ms . Noel ' s conditional use permit was in compliance. v.. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6 , 1996 3 Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn' t want to hold up ' this applicant and was willing to give approval as amended, wI but suggested that concurrently staff could look at that CUP and possibly have commission revisit it. This might allow the commission to improve this situation and to keep Monterey Avenue from having too many access points, which slowed down traffic. He felt the commission could approve this conditional use permit, but then hear back as to whether there was an opportunity to address the concerns raised and perhaps the applicant would then be allowed to come back with the other design. Mr. Rudolph said that the commission could look at it, but it would be highly doubtful anything could be done at this time. Mr. Drell stated that there would have to be some extreme findings . Commissioner Ferguson stated for the record, that because he was a firm believer in property rights belonging to the individual and not to the city, absent of a provision similar to condition #9 where Ms . Noel would have expressively waived her right to assert her rights in this area, he didn't want to do to Ms . Noel what had apparently happened to the Stantons, which was that the property was adversely affected with really no choice on her part. He was willing for Mr. Rudolph to take a look at it, but as a lawyer, unless it was in black and white, he would vote against "shoe-stringing" anything in on a general clause of public health and safety. � Chairperson Beaty asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1718, approving CUP 96-2, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. B. Case Nos . PP 96-1 and TT 28320 - HOLLY MANAGEMENT, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, precise plan of design and tentat.ive tract map for an eight unit residential condomfnium project for seniors over age 50 to be located at the southeast corner ; of Catalina Way and San Carlos . ? � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Mr. Smith clarified that the request was for age 50, but in �•• order to get the parking level that the applicant was seeking, the ordinance required that they be restricted to age 55 and over. The conditions would reflect that. Mr. Smith stated that this was an existing vacant lot at the corner of San Carlos and Catalina directly across the street from the Senior Center. To the east it backed onto the backyards of single family units . To the south was an existing single family unit and to the west across San Carlos was another existing senior apartment complex. The units were proposed at 1252 square feet with two bedrooms and two baths, and would be single story. Amenities include a six foot lap pool, private rear yards and onsite RV parking for two RVs . Access is from Catalina and the site would be enclosed by a four foot wall and would be gated at Catalina. Each unit would have one single car garage, plus one uncovered driveway parking space. Architectural review granted preliminary architectural approval with some minor modifications . The project complied with the code requirements for the R-2 zone as shown in the staff report. He noted that typical condominiums have a requirement of two covered spaces plus a half space for visitor parking. Using the senior overlay zoning, the applicant could seek a requirement for the 1 .25 spaces per unit of which one was covered, which he complies with. All units have one plus �+ one. Findings for approval of the precise plan could be affirmed. Findings could also be affirmed for the tentative map. The purpose of the tentative map was to allow for the project to become condominium units . There would be eight individual lots plus three common lots for the driveway areas, landscape areas, and pool area for common maintenance. A Negative Declaration was included in the commission packet. Staff felt the application was consistent with the secondary plan for the area and recommended approval as submitted. Commissioner Ferguson requested clarification on page 2, Section D called "Coverage" with the ordinance requirement being at 50� and the project at 34� . Mr. Smith explained that was the percentage of the lot allowed to be covered by building with 50� being the maximum, although staff had never seen a request for more then about 40�-42� . Building was defined as enclosed physical space. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was surprised to see a four foot wall instead of a six foot wall and asked if there was a standard. Mr. Smith replied that six feet was the maximum, but there was no minimum. Conceivably they didn't have to put one up at all . Commissioner Jonathan asked where code required an applicant to do a wall; Mr. Smith indicated ` that it was when adjacent to open parking areas in commercial districts--it either had to be walled, bermed or planted ta 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 screen within a two year period to an effective height of at " least 36 inches . That goal was also pursued for residential ..r/ projects . Commissioner Jonathan asked if this was the same site that was previously approved as a senior housing pro ject a few years ago. Mr. Drell said there was a 13 unit apartment project by Cable & Rylee, the same people who were originally going to do the senior housing project. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was a different owner now; Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Beaty o_ pened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JIM HOLLICKY, the principal of Holly Management, stated that he was present to answer questions, but wanted to clarify the question on the fencing. Their plans were for six foot high fencing for about the bulk of the perimeter except along San Carlos, where it would be four feet high within 15 feet of the street. Commissioner Campbell asked if this would be a gated community. Mr. Hollicky concurred. Chairperson Beaty 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. Chairperson � Beaty asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he liked this project. He drove through the neighborhood and took note of the Senior Center, the neighborhood and the grading of the lot and felt this was a good location for this type of project. He reviewed the blueprints of the plan as well and welcomed this project into Palm Desert. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and felt this would be a nice addition, was in the right part of town, and was nice project. Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioners Ferguson and Jonathan stating that the area was nice for this type of project. Chairperson Beaty asked if there was a problem with the difference in age of 50 versus 55 . Mr. Smith clarified that in order to achieve the parking that the applicant is requesting, the ordinance requires the age limit to be 55 years . � Commissioner Fernandez also agreed with comments made � previously. He felt it would be a good addition. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Chairperson Beaty concurred and asked for a motion. r.r Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1719, approving PP 96-1 and TT 28320, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . C. Case No. ZOA 95-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendments to the sign ordinance to regulate signs at mini bank branches and attempt to establish size criteria for signs having more than three colors . Mr. Smith stated that this matter started out as what staff thought was a fairly straight forward attempt at regulating the additional signage that was being seen at supermarkets where they were bringing in mini-bank branches and whether they should have to have people there to serve the public '` like at Union Bank where they have five or six employees . He visited the site several times and there were always people there. Bank of America at Lucky' s at Country Club and Monterey had three people there most of the time and had a long line of customers . Visiting the Von' s on Highway 111 where the initial request for signage came from, he visited it four or five times and saw one person one time and that person was putting cash in the ATM, but didn't look like he was prepared to act like a teller. Notwithstanding where they originally started going with this, staff came back to the existing situation where the city allows businesses to have, in addition to their main sign identification, they were allowed to identify two products or services if they had sign area available to support that. That came about three or four years ago when the business was Sports Fever and they wanted to identify most of the products in the store and city council had staff prepare an ordinance amendment at that time where they limited the items to two. Effectively, that was what staff was saying for mini-bank branches . That if there was available signage under that portion of the ordinance (i .e. goods and services available onsite) , then they would be able to put up mini-bank branch signs provided that the signs are: a) clearly ancillary of the main business signage, b) that the overall aggregate sign area limit is not ` exceeded, and 3) that the design of the signs is consistent with the existing program to the satisfaction of the 11 Mzriu�rEs PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6 , 1996 1 architectural review commission. This then got staff to a � problem that had recently arisen with trademark registered �ri signs where certain laws have passed that entitled those people to the colors in their signs, regardless of what the city' s sign program might say. The federal law that gives them this right did not necessarily give them the right to have a size that they might otherwise want. The city attorney' s of f ice worked on this and came up with language as shown in the staff report which effectively said that if an applicant was going to use colors that were outside of the approved sign program or if there was a sign with more than three colors in it and they were getting it because it was a registered trademark sign, then the ci�y was at liberty to reduce the size of that sign. Staff was suggesting a reduction of 20`k for every color beyond three. That matter reflected back into the first mini-bank branch because a couple of the banks have signs that were registered trademarks . What was before the commission in the end result was shown in Exhibit A of the draft resolution and that was what staff was recommending �o commission. If commission felt the reduced size for extra colors was excessive, staff was open to other percentages . Mr. Drell noted that staff brought the mini-bank issue to the # city council for their initiation and consideration. Council � itself initiated the amendment relative to the provision for � trademark signs, which came up in reference to a lawsuit that was about to be filed at that time. They gave staff and the city attorney specific instruction to come up with an ordinance to give them special consideration. Commissioner Fernandez stated that due to a conflict of interest, being a store manager for Von's, he would be abstaining from this matter. Commissioner Ferguson said that as he understood it the resolution the commission would be adopting didn't change the existing ordinance with respect to ancillary signs for listing goods and services on existing properties . Basically, a business was allotted what they were allotted and if the business chose to let a mini-bank branch use part of the existing allowable signage, that was their decision. Mr. Smith concurred, as long as it did not exceed the two goods and services and/or other businesses . Commissioner Ferguson felt this was similar to a previous case regarding �he situation in the Palms to Pines center on their monument signs and whether the commission was going to grant an exception. At that time he felt it was between TGI Friday' s � and Von' s whether they would let them have a piece of their one monument sign or not. This seemed similar. He wanted to clarify that basically they were not changing the ordinance 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 with respect to what they get, and if they wanted to reach an � agreement to put signage up, that was when the new resolution would apply. The new resolution said that having reached that conclusion, there should be size and color restrictions . Federal law prohibits the city from modifying federal trademarks . Commissioner Ferguson asked where the 20� number came from; staff indicated they discussed at length what the appropriate number was and at this time was recommending 20�, but staff could be comfortable with the 15� . Commissioner Ferguson asked if staff had consulted with any potentially effected parties to see if the 20$ was at all reasonable. Mr. Smith replied no, not with respect to the trademark signs. He indicated that they put in a provision that where architectural review specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features, that they could waive the reduction requirement. Mr. Drell clarified that they weren' t allowed a reduction to 20�, they were allowed 80� of what they would have. The goal was to provide some diminution without it being excessive. Commissioner Ferguson said that he was wondering from a legal point of view on a municipality' s ability to restrict commercial advertising based on colors and relating it to size. Under the resolution, basically the city would preclude signs based on the number of colors only, absent architec�.ural review commission's giving approval . He '� had some problem with that. Mr. Rudolph stated that they could have as many colors as they wanted, it was just that if they were going to do that, the idea was that a certain size allowed in the ordinance was premised on the understanding that there would be a maximum of a certain number of colors in the sign. They would be allowed to add as many colors as they wanted to that--the resulting visual "clutter" was not what that size was premised on and required some diminution in size to offset the visual impact. Staff ' s suggestion of 20� seemed appropriate and that would be a policy decision and that was for the commission and council to decide. Commissioner Ferguson said that the legal question was if someone had more than five additional colors, they were down to zero percent because it was reduced five times by 20�, leaving nothing. Mr. Drell said that was right if the city decided the colors were objectionable. In the past the council has exercised reason in granting or denying exceptions, even before trademarks became an issue. One example was the Elephant Bar for pictorial displays where having appropriate colors was essential to actually depict what they wanted to depict. Council approved it. They also once approved a very elaborate sign that had an old fisherman with a sea gull on his shoulder and it probably had 20 different colors because it was a painted sculpture. They � have shown in the past that they were not arbitrary in making these judgements . The architectural review board is 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 ; � comprised of professional design people to make the � determination. If the determination is that it is contrary to the intent of the sign ordinance, they could have it, but it would be at a diminished size. Mr. Rudolph said that prior to this issue of trademarks there was just a cutoff for the number of colors and that was defensible, but in allowing more colors, the rules had to be across the board for everyone. He said that the city could do a lower percentage. Commissioner Ferguson used as an example a federally registered trademark with seven or eight colors . Under the ordinance they would not be allowed to use it. Mr. Drell explained that it was 20�, then 20� of the balance, and then 20� of that. It would never go to zero, it would always be 20$ of something. Commissioner Ferguson said that he thought staff ineant that the 20� was of the baseline. Mr. Drell said that was the way they had to determine it, otherwise Commissioner Ferguson would be correct and they would end up with zero signage. It would be a reverse compounding interest. Mr. Rudolph said that there was no intent to have that effect. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he just wanted to make that clear. Chairperson Beaty also indicated that there was an avenue for appeal, so this was a good starting point. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was � prepared to support the proposal with that clarification. > , � Commissioner Campbell noted that most bank logos only had two colors . Commissioner Ferguson said that the problem was that they were talking about all federally registered trademarks and all ancillary services and goods. Banks was the vehicle that brought it to the city' s attention, but per Mr. Smith this was a blanket resolution (to be ordinance} that would effect everyone. Mr. Drell said that it would also effect a sign that was only two colors, if they were two colors that were not included in the sign program. It applied both to colors in one sign and colors in excess of the approved colors within a sign program. Commissioner Jonathan asked if someone had three colors or less, they could still face a diminution if they were not within the prescribed color scheme. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that the formula they would end with was basically a multiplication by 80� each time of numbers exceeded, rather than a flat out 20� reduction. Mr. Drell concurred that it would be a 20� reduction of the previous product. Commissioner Ferguson said that if he had a one color � violation, the size went from 20 feet to 16 feet. If he had another offense, then he would go to 80� of 16 feet; the next � offense would be 80� of 80� of 16 feet. Chairperson Beaty 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 asked if that was what the ordinance said. Mr. Drell said � that it should be amended to clarify that. Commissioner Ferguson said that since this was a recommendation to city council, he was not sure 20� made sense. It seemed to be the type of thing that they should get comments on. He was leery to grab a number out of the air and enforce it against all businesses, goods and services . Mr. Rudolph stated that it was a policy decision, but was also an aesthetic decision. Mr. Drell said that theoretically a decision of the architectural commission could be to make it only 10� . Commissioner Ferguson said that it would make sense if architects were saying to him that based on aesthetics, this made sense as opposed to just picking 20� and using it. Mr. Smith stated that 20� was the maximum. If someone went to ARC with a four color sign, commission could require only a 10$ reduction if the contrast was not excessive. The premise of the ordinance was that they wanted to limit contrast. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this was a vehicle to mitigate excessive contrast. Mr. Smith concurred and said that if it was going to have a lot of contrast, they would diminish the size of the sign more, unless it was aestheticaily desirable. Mr. Drell clarified that 20� was the maximum reduction per sign color in excess of three. Commissioner Campbell asked if the sign would still have to be approved by the architectural commission. Mr. Drell said ` that theoretically if it was a trademark sign, and the architectural commission felt it was unacceptable and saw no redeeming value in the sign, they had no choice but to approve it if it was a federally registered trademark sign. If it was not a federally registered trademark, they could simply deny it or apply the maximum 20$ . If it was a federally registered trademark, the commission had no discretion on whether or not to approve it. Mr. Smith indicated that the ordinance formerly said that the sign should not exceed three colors . It was almost that black and white. Now they have removed the three color limit, but for additional colors they would get less size. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there was ongoing litigation or if it had been resolved. Mr. Drell indicated that it was settled. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to ZOA 95-3 . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for further comments or a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he reviewed the staff report quite carefully because he thought this was going to � be a controversial issue and he was impressed on how it was handled by staff. He also liked staff ' s solution. It was an 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6 , 1996 ' attempt to mitigate the impact of excessive contrast, which � has been an issue that needed to be dealt with from time to � time. This was an effective way to do that. He liked the 20� number and felt it made sense. He stated that he was prepared to move for approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. Z720, recommending to city council approval of ZOA 95-3 as amended. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request for a determination of use to allow a bank in the service industrial zone. Mr. Drell noted that the applican� was present. The commission had a letter requesting a determination by the commission to give him the ability to apply for a conditional � use permit for a bank in the service industrial zone, which j currently did not list banks as a use. It did list ancillary � services to the benefit of the surrounding area, so there was some legal room. On the basis of that statement restaurants, sandwich shops and convenience stores have been approved which were designed to provide services to the industrial employees in that area. The commission was not approving the use tonight. Staff would still have to go through an analysis to make sure it had the right amount of parking, etc. , but the determination would allow him to apply for a conditional use permit. Mr. Smith read the verbiage for that section as follows (Section 25 . 34 .020 L) : "The planning commission may, by resolution, permit other uses which are similar and no more objectionable than those enumerated in this section. " Mr. Drell said that the section under accessory uses also applied (Section 25 . 34 . 040 B) , "Incidental services for employees on a site occupied by a permitted or conditional use. " Previous determinations had been made that a use would primarily serve employees or customers already in a specific area. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant would like to address the commission. Commissioner Jonathan noted that � there wasn't really an applicant and the commission was not � addressing a specific location or proposal . � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 MR. LYNN MARKROFF, representing Bank of the Desert, the '` entity making the request for the determination, said that in reviewing the industrial area, he could tell that over a period of years the area' s service industrial nature had changed as a result of other applications for conditional use permits, particularly the commercial buildings located closer to the intersection of Hovley and Cook Street. The nature and original designation appeared to have changed over the years as that area developed and was upgraded. He felt their particular service was of a particular benefit to the industrial, business retail, and other service-type businesses located in that general area. Their emphasis would be to service tha� area as their primary clientele base. He felt this would be a good location and service to that aspect of the Palm Desert business community. He said that he could go into comments about the site, but didn' t think that was appropriate now. Chairperson Beaty asked if this was the unit that was previously occupied by a furniture store. Mr. Markroff concurred. Chairperson Beaty, taking a superficial look at the concept, asked if parking was going to be a problem, noting that it was a big concern of the commission. Mr. Markroff replied no, that as he recalled the city required "r one parking space for every 200 square feet for a bank facility and the landlord designated 16 parking spaces based on 3,000 square feet, so they met that code requirement. The bank staff intended to use other parking facilities so that area would be left relatively free for the business community and other staff that might use the facility in the normal conduct of commercial business . Chairperson Beaty noted that he has an office in that area and felt that corner was bad, but where the furniture store was there didn' t seem to be a problem. He stated that he would not have a problem with the determination of use. Commissioner Campbell also said that she was in favor of the determination of use. She felt those businesses in that area needed a bank closer. Commissioner Jonathan said that he didn't want to get into a discussion about any particular site, but indicated that parking and traffic circulation would be major issues because there were already existing problems . Other than the specific site issue, he felt it was a logical extension of the service industrial zone and would not have a problem with the determination. rr.� 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMIS5ION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 + � Action: � Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner � Ferguson, by minute motion determining that a bank would be an allowable use in the Service Industrial zone with approval of a conditional use permit. Carried 5-0 . X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Commissioner Campbell summarized January 18, 1996 EDAC actions . She noted that four motions were made: 1) for the city to act as a catalyst in assisting businesses in the City of Palm Desert; 2) immediately identify vacant areas and contact individuals in the following key business districts: 111 Town Center, Palms to Pines center, the Highway 111 corridor, E1 Paseo and Cook Street; 3) immediately contact lenders to obtain pertinent information for immediate dissemination to the business community; and 4 ) support the general concept of the business expansion and retention plan and recommend to city council for approval . EDAC recommended for this program to go forward. XI . COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Jonathan said that he has been working with : the staf f on a soccer matter and it was a pleasure; they , were a professional, helpful staff and that every once �i in a while they should pause and appreciate them. Specifically, it has been Jeff Winklepleck and Phil Drell . 2 . Commissioner Campbell asked why the planning commission didn' t have a liaison for the Section 4 Steering Committee. Mr. Drell said that it was redevelopment agency committee. He said it was basically a staff committee, except for Dave Tschopp who was from EDAC and possibly one other. He noted he only recently became a member of the committee. It was basically a staff committee with some council members in their capacity as board members of the redevelopment agency. It was a project of the redevelopment agency. If the commission desired to have a member on the committee, that request could be forwarded to Carlos Ortega. He said it was really like a private project that was being pursued by the redevelopment agency. He noted that the golf course was going to be on the council agenda for some of the first construction items to go to bid. At this point it was already designed and was moving ahead. He said another committee the commission might want to participate in was the Project Area 4 committee. This � was for the Palm Desert Country Club area where the city � initiated a specific plan/redevelopment plan, which was 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 more of an ongoing planning related committee. +� Commissioner Campbell noted that these meetings have been going on for some time. Commissioner Ferguson felt it would be a great idea. Mr. Drell said that the Project Area 4 committee was just beginning and out of it would come a specific plan. When the city annexed Palm Desert Country Club, the existing County zoning was adopted. What they would now do was examine that zoning to make sure it was appropriate. He asked if someone was interested in participating. Commissioner Campbell felt that since the planning commission voted to approve the golf course, that a member should participate. Mr. Drell noted that the commission could not confuse their regulatory function. He also noted that council is also the redevelopment agency and acts sometimes as an applicant and as city council, which was the regulatory . body for that same project. The planning commission was the regulatory body and would never be the applicant. Commissioner Ferguson said that the issue Commissioner Campbell was touching upon was that he personally didn' t want to just show up at planning commission meetings and pass on agenda items when he felt they had a responsibility and opportunity to integrate planning function with other functions within the city, and one area that particularly concerned him was what the ` redevelopment agency was doing. It was awkward when the commission was handed a RDA project because the city was the applicant, but the city was the ultimate appeal and the commission was in between, which was not always a comfortable situation ( i .e. the restaurant on Portola} . Any opportunity the commission had to participate in projects of particularly that magnitude he would definitely join Commissioner Campbell in letting whomever know that the commission was interested. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with that statement, but indicated that Section 4 (meaning the North Sphere) was not relevant to that comment because the aspect of the North Sphere that was relevant to the commission has already been done. The layout of Section 4 was determined and did go through the Planning Commission. As far as being involved in the process that RDA goes through, sure, but in the North Sphere case Planning Commission's work was done. Commissioner Campbell said that would let them know what things were going on. Commissioner Ferguson noted that a couple of ineetings ago CVAG, their Executive Director and Corky Larson, were present to seek the commission' s comments on what the Planning Commission would do with the valley over � the next 24 years . Subsequent to that he was asked by Councilmember Benson to attend a CVAG meeting to discuss 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 this issue, which was a six hour meeting at Bighorn held a week ago last Monday. It touched peripherally on many planning issues as far as Palm Desert was concerned, but also touched on a lot of issues like transportation. He said the overall consensus of those present ( including council members throughout the nine communities, their mayors, city managers and supervisors) at this meeting essentially concluded that they could sit around and come up with a big wish list like clean water, clean air, quality education, career opportunities, middle income jobs, but to accomplish this they had to determine what kind of business they wanted to stimulate the valley's economy, which involved taking a look comprehensively valley-wide at where the industrial zones are and putting together a mechanism to accomplish that. Also that a body be created to provide (whether through a joint powers authority or otherwise) a valley- wide economic development body that would utilize planning commissioners from the nine communities, economic development people, that some sort of comprehensive valley-wide plan be put together. It seemed that there was genuine interest and that economic development was number one on their list of priorities . He felt that Councilmember Jean Benson, who was spearheading the project, did a wonderful job. He wanted to use that as an example of what they could be doing as planning commissioners and that Commissioner Campbell 's comments were very well taken by him. 4 . Mr. Drell noted that the joint meeting with the City Council/Planning Commission/Economic Development Advisory Committee had been scheduled for April 18 at 4 : 00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room. XII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting to February 20, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 18 p.m. .�---� . PHILIP DRELL, cting Secretary ATTEST: . C,-.il_ � . PAUL BEATY, Chairpers Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 20