Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1001 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 1, 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 : 01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance . III. ROLL CALL Members Present : Paul Beaty, Chairperson _ Sonia Campbell Jim Ferguson George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent : None Staff Present : Phil Drell Steve Smith ftw Sandy Jacobson Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 17, 1996 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the September 17, 1996 minutes by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent September 26, 1996 City Council action. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None . r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 96-25 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, Applicant Request for approval of a 60 foot high wireless commercial communication tower and antenna in the Service Industrial zone at 77-530 Enfield Lane . Mr. Smith indicated that this would be the first• of a series of three conditional use permits requesting permission to install telecommunication antennas in various locations throughout the city. Additional information was distributed that was received today. The first one he referred to was a colored map indicating the locations of the proposed towers, as well as other service towers throughout the Coachella Valley. There were two colored Thomas Bros . maps (Bermuda Dunes CM464 location) . It was at the easterly end of the one Gold' s Gym site on Enfield Lane . The tower originally started out in the northwest corner of the site . The problem with that location was that it was immediately adjacent to residentially zoned property. The applicant, rather than asking for an exception from the Commission on the first case, relocated the tower about 320 feet to the east . The proposed tower would be 60 feet high. According to the ordinance, separation requirement from the residential zone (three times the height) meant a distance of 180 feet . They are over 300 feet east of the residential zone . In this location staff felt the necessary findings to approve the antenna as proposed could be made . A colored photograph of a monopole was also submitted showing the type of installation and staff noted that it would be located in a planter area so there wouldn' t be a problem conflicting with parking spaces . The proposed project is a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. Mr. Smith noted that this application is tied to an ordinance that was before Planning Commission on September 17 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 `. and would be before City Council on October 10 , 1996 . If Commission approved the proposed conditional use permit, staff was proposing two conditions that were unique to these applications : 1) that the approval would not become effective until and unless that ordinance was enacted by the City Council and that this is still consistent with all provisions of that ordinance; and 2) that the applicant allow for co- location on the site if it becomes necessary at some point in the future . Staff recommended approval subject to conditions . Commissioner Jonathan noted that the effective date of the approval would be the enactment of the ordinance . He asked if it was projected that at that time the moratorium would be lifted as well . Mr. Smith concurred. He said that he spoke to the City Attorney on that and the City Attorney didn' t want the moratorium tied into this resolution. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith was referencing the letter from Mr. French of Equity Directions when he was talking about the location that would be closer to the residential uses . In his letter he was urging Planning Commission to approve a different location. He asked Mr. Smith to address that issue. Mr. Smith said that the letter was dated September 27 . At that point the proposal was still for the northwest corner of the property. It had since been relocated to the east and he felt that would have covered his concern. Commissioner Ferguson stated that when they considered the ordinance approval at the last meeting they discussed the uniqueness of the height of the structures involved and the perimeter coverage of the legal notice to be mailed. The Commission discussed that for property beyond 300 feet there was a greater visual impact than on those within 300 feet . The number 500 feet was suggested. He asked if a 500 foot radius was the distance used for the mailing of the legal notices for this item. Mr. Smith said that 500 feet was used and in this case it added four notices . The property to the west was 118 acres of single ownership. Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 MR. DARRELL DAUGHERTY, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, 2955 Red Hill Avenue, 4100 in Costa Mesa, stated that he would distribute some photographs in reference to Commissioner Jonathan' s first question regarding the letter from Mr. French. The first picture was the location where he wanted it . Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. French was present . There was no response . Mr. Daugherty said the second photograph showed where the antenna was relocated. He asked if there were _any questions . He said that the monopole in the photograph was one recently finished in Indian Wells and was very similar in look. The building they would be going adjacent to had a rock/aggregate look to it and they were proposing to match the actual texture and color with their monopole and concrete light standard. He felt that was what they would go with in this instance . Chairperson Beaty asked how tall the buildings were; Mr. Daugherty replied that they were two stories and ranged in height from 25 feet and a little higher. Chairperson Beaty asked if the buildings were half the height of the proposed antenna; Mr. Daugherty concurred that the antenna would be about twice as tall as the building. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the antenna proposed in this particular application was actually a monopole with six antennas at the top. Mr. Daugherty concurred. Commissioner Ferguson asked Mr. Daugherty to discuss the minimum technical service requirements that would justify the location and height of the proposed tower and antennas . Mr. Daugherty said that each site has a coverage objective . The coverage objective here was to provide the Bermuda Dunes/I-10 corridor area and down Washington to cover that part of the city. Almost all of their sites would range from 25 to 60 feet in height . At this location there were many trees that 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 �., were between I-10 and the railroad right-of-way to this site . He noted that eucalyptus trees especially and other trees with dense foliage would impair the signal . Since they were down the hill away from their original location and with the Woodhaven Country Club, they really needed the 60 feet since they were much lower in height . He felt this site worked. Commissioner Jonathan asked if another provider came along if this type of pole with the multiple antennas was conducive with sharing with another provider. Mr. Daugherty replied no. The pole they would like to use would be a single user application in this instance . It was 16 inches in diameter and was very low impact compared to a steel pol( that was 36 inches in diameter. They had discussed with staff the potential that if someone else came in with a co-location request that they would basically come off of the existing tower and replace it with a new structure to accommodate both. He felt that one of the things they wanted to make sure was that they got the best, lowest impact facility now because they didn' t know for sure if anyone else would use this site . He felt the commitment in the conditions was very clear that Pac Bell had to work with others when they come in. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that they would actually remove this pole and switch to a type that would accommodate a multi-user. Mr. Daugherty said that was correct, or that they would go with a larger monopole that was a larger steel structure . Commissioner Ferguson asked if mobile service was currently being provided in that area. Mr. Daugherty replied that there was excellent cellular service out there, but not with Pac Bell . Pac Bell would launch their system around the first of the year. Commissioner Ferguson asked if it would be digital analog . Mr. Daugherty concurred that it would be a PCS system. Chairperson Beaty asked if it was in the desert at all right now; Mr. Daugherty replied no. He said that tomorrow night would mark the potential for all their 14 sites in the desert to have all their land use approvals to get constructed and optimized for the first of the year. The 5 um MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 desert had a good potential to be brought up in early 1997 and r% would be offered commercially to the public . Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would be in favor of the project after looking at the site and after considering the public testimony from the applicant that they would change the antenna to accommodate co-location. Commissioner Ferguson noted that at the last meeting -the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance amendment to City Council . He reminded commission that he spoke very favorably of it at the last meeting and was still in favor of the ordinance, but he had difficulty with the Planning Commission being able to independently assess whether there was sufficient technology to meet the coverage area with existing poles versus non-existing poles . He indicated that he was not well versed in that area and wasn' t sure staff was either so they were relying on the applicant since they didn' t have any experts to refute the information. He stated that he was supportive of what Pac Bell was doing, but he felt he was still supposed to give it a thorough review per the ordinance wording. He stated that he would move for approval noting there was no opposition and since he was desirous of seeing the city move forward in technology. 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 Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1766 , approving CUP 96-25, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 B. Case No. CUP 96-26 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, Applicant Request for approval of a roof-mounted 25 foot high commercial communication tower and antenna located at 72-840 Highway 111 . Mr. Smith referred the Commission to the colored photograph exhibit showing the monopole and roof-mounted installation and indicated that the one in question was the example of the roof-mounted installation. He noted this was on the roof of the Palm Desert Town Center at the west end, not quite over Robinson-May. If entering Hamburger Hamlet from the south side of the mall from the Highway 111 side, -it would be straight ahead there about midway between the north and south limits of the building. He stated that the proposal is for an 18 foot high pole with a single 7 foot high 16 inch diameter cylinder on the top of the pole . On the roof there is an existing 8 foot high parapet structure, so the antenna would be 17 feet above that height . He said it would be approximately 500 feet from Highway 111, 640 feet from the nearest property line to the north, 540 feet to Town Center Way and over 1500 feet to Monterey. On the north side of the mall there was a height of approximately 44 feet . The structure almost fell under the 50% limit of the ordinance and it would have just been required to get Architectural Review Commission approval . This matter was before ARC last Tuesday and was approved. He said that on the south side of the mall the building has a lesser height, hence it did exceed the 50% limit which triggered the need for a conditional use permit and that was why it was before the Commission tonight . Staff felt the required findings could be met and they were outlined in the staff report . He noted that a letter was received today from P1anCom/Mr. Daugherty which outlined in additional detail the response to the necessary findings . Mr. Smith stated that similar conditions were applied (i .e . #5 that the action would not take effect until and unless the ordinance was enacted, and 46 requiring cooperation in co-location at the mall site) . Staff recommended approval . 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson asked if any of the monopoles fell within the FAA regulations for light signalization at the top (i .e . a red beacon warning light for aviation) . Mr. Smith said that he knew the ordinance addressed that issue, but deferred the question to Mr. Daugherty. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DARRELL DAUGHERTY, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, stated that they were thinking about putting one of the sites over by the Bermuda Dunes Airport . At that time they noted that the FAA recommendation came back from E1 Segundo that they wanted it to be lit and painted. That wouldn' t work. He said that with their building permit they would submit their notice of exemption for the three proposals . None of them should require any lighting or painting. Chairperson Beaty asked if they would be painted to blend in with the desert . Mr. Daugherty referred to the picture of an actual facility they proposed which was constructed at Eisenhower Hospital in Rancho Mirage . He said it would be similar to that or whatever staff determined. They didn' t really have a preference on the color as long as it was non- reflective. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Beaty called for comments or action. Action• Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 �.r Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1767, approving CUP 96-26, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . C. Case No. CUP 96-27 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, Applicant Request for approval of a 60 foot high wireless commercial communication tower and antenna in the Service Industrial zone at 74-876 42nd Avenue . Mr. Smith explained that this case was similar to the first request in that they were asking for a 60 foot high monopole. The property in question is the site on the north side of 42nd Avenue between Cook Street and Eclectic at the extreme northwest corner of that site. When staff visited the site last week there was a mobile home using that area and that would be removed and this antenna and pole installed. Staff s main concern when reviewing this was that there was a site next door to the north in the form of Continental Cablevision +` that has a whole series of satellite dishes and they have an existing 120 foot high lattice tower with what appeared to be ample room on which to locate these antennas . The applicant furnished staff and commission a letter received October 1 from the General Manager at Continental Cablevision indicating that at this time they were unable to accommodate their request for business reasons . He indicated that it didn' t look like it was going to be possible to place this antenna on the existing tower. Staff also suggested that the applicant attempt to get on the existing 100 foot Coachella Valley Water District tower on Hovley Lane East, which was still within this service area. The Commission also had a copy of a letter from Mr. Owen McCook for Tom Levy at the Water District indicating that they do not want to jeopardize future use of their facility by allowing Pac Bell to use the tower. The reason staff was concerned was because the ordinance has a separation requirement of 1, 000 feet between towers . In this instance there was about 150 feet between this tower and the lattice tower on the Continental Cable site . Given that the 9 �ftr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 city received letters of objection from the two tower owners in the area, Mr. Smith felt staff was in a position to recommend an exception to permit the additional tower considering that the one next to it is 120 feet high and the proposal is for 60 feet . He said he wasn' t sure anyone would notice it since the eye was drawn to the 120 foot high tower. There were provisions in the conditions that the ordinance must become effective and requiring co-location at this site should another carrier come in. The findings were outlined in the staff report . Staff didn' t want to see an unnecessary tower constructed, but staff was recommending approval because they were not allowed to use the existing towers . Chairperson Beaty asked if the city requested cooperation from either Continental Cablevision or Coachella Valley Water District . Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Drell spoke with a gentleman at Continental Cable. It was his understanding that it was not the General Manager. Mr. Drell said that the person he spoke with was responding to the notice and he had no objection to the tower. When he was asked about allowing Pac Bell to use their tower, he said he didn' t make those decisions, although he knew of no technical reason they couldn' t go on there but he was unaware of any business considerations that Continental Cablevision might have . He asked if the gentleman could inquire about cooperating with Pac Bell and the person never returned his call . Chairperson Beaty clarified that as far as we know, there was no specific request from the City asking them to cooperate . Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Campbell asked about the tower on KVER-TV on Corporate Way and if it could be used by the applicant . She thought the existing tower was about 30 feet high. She also noted that there was another one on the Gas Company property on Mayfield Drive that was about 30 feet high. Mr . Smith agreed that he also thought they were in the range of 30 feet high and felt the applicant could address how that would effect his coverage area in that the proposal was for 60 feet . 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 saw Commissioner Ferguson noted that there was a provision in the ordinance that would require Pac Bell to accommodate multiple uses on their monopoles so that this problem wouldn' t occur again if there was a request in the future . He said that as he understood it legally, the city could not go back and tell someone to allow their private property to be used by Pac Bell and however frivolous their reasons for denying the request might seem, they were within their legal rights . Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff knew why the Coachella Valley Water District declined use of their facility. Mr. Smith stated that he had not spoken with anyone at CVWD. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it could possibly_impair their technical capabilities in some way. Mr. Smith read from their letter, "With technology changing the way it is, we do not want to jeopardize future use of the facility. " Commissioner Jonathan noted that CVWD also has a lot of acreage not too far from the proposed site. He asked if that was an acceptable location for the antenna in that it would be completely out of view. Mr. Smith suggested that perhaps the applicant could answer that question. Chairperson Beaty stated that he would not like to see another one put up, but closer to the large 120 foot high one would be preferable. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he couldn' t understand why CVWD, which was a public utility of sorts and represents the interests of the citizens, couldn' t be a little more cooperative . Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would address the commission. MR. DARRELL DAUGHERTY, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, stated that in the case of Continental Cablevision it was important to note that to date, the Orange County office which represents Orange County, Riverside and San Bernardino, has not been successful in acquiring any leases for any Cablevision facilities . He felt that the primary reason was that Pacific Bell was undertaking in various parts of the state, not so much in Southern California, but they were undertaking a project called Broad Band and it could essentially 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 compete with cable operators . He felt the days of �1 needing towers for cable were not as great as 15 years ago and they might only need more fiber optics . He thought the cable operators perceived Pac Bell as competition. Also, they have certain requirements for security and restricted access because they provide programing 24 hours per day. He felt they were very concerned about people accessing their property and if one of their antennas were to go bad and the public relies on them, they would really want 24 hour access to their antennas . He didn' t know if they were willing to go with that either. Those were business issues on both sides that made it tough. As far as CVWD was concerned, the peak of the hill was really at Hovley. He said that Hovley levels off and starting down Cook, the towers were on the left hand side and there were two 30 foot towers and those were much too low. It would be easier for them to go on the top of buildings at that point . He noted that there were two or three very large microwave dishes on the top of that tower and he felt that what their intent to Pac Bell was that they don' t know what microwave shots they would have to their other facilities in Coachella or if they would be needing a repeater out here to do something like that. Knowing that they would want the maximum height possible on that tower he thought they didn' t know what they could commit to and they didn' t want to get involved right now if it meant they might have to sacrifice some of their space in the future. He felt that was their main concern. He noted that this location was very well adapted to co-location and they had a mini-storage which is there to be leased. The actual storage units would make great equipment rooms for people who require more space than Pacific Bell (i .e. cellular companies) . He said they could encourage other users when they come to town if they are looking for a site. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public hearing was closed. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 Action: Commissioner Jonathan moved for approval , Commissioner Fernandez seconded. Chairperson Beaty stated that he had a few comments. Chairperson Beaty stated that he drives Hovley every day from his home to his office and he has a beautiful view of the mountains obstructed by two antennas . He didn' t want to see another one, although he agreed with staff that next to the 120 foot tower this might not be as noticeable . He was also in a realtor' s office at the corner of Cook and Hovley and he had the corner overlooking Continental Cablevision and the storage site and that antenna was very offensive . He felt that would definitely impact on that owner. He ~was strongly opposed to this one . He asked that a formal request for cooperation be issued to the Water District before he personally would go along with this request . Commissioner Jonathan stated that if he thought CVWD would be cooperative he would not make the motion. Commissioner Jonathan said that concurrent with his motion he would like to advise CVWD that the Planning Commission is not pleased and in the future they would appreciate CVWD' s cooperation in these kinds of matters . Chairperson Beaty called for the vote . Action• Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-1 (Chairperson Beaty voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1768, approving CUP 96-27, subject to conditions . Carried 4-1 (Chairperson Beaty voted no) . Chairperson Beaty requested that the Planning Commission issue a recommendation to the City Council that a letter of cooperation be sent to CVWD. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that he intended that to be part of his motion, that the Planning Commission issue a letter to CVWD. Commissioner 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 Ferguson stated that he had no objections with sending that letter. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of land use proposals concerning property adjacent to the Cook Street interchange and along I-10 from Portola to half a mile east of Cook. Mr. Drell stated that there were some representatives from Mainiero Smith present, Marvin Roos and Bob Mainiero, to discuss proposals for properties owned by the Steinbergs near I-10 adjacent to the Cook Street interchange . Tney wanted to talk about a master planning concept . MR. MARVIN ROOS, Director of Planning Services for Mainiero, Smith and Associates, stated that they were representing Lionel Steinberg and Katrina Heinrich, the property owners . He explained that he has been talking with staff about potentials for this property for almost a year in terms of an approach. They were getting close ..� to making an application and he wanted to get some input from the Planning Commission before making the application to make sure that they haven' t missed any obvious opportunities . At the same time they have some land uses that they understood the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee was looking at that would be proposed on this site. He noted that an overall land use scheme was provided to the Commission. He said they were looking at property with a variety of shapes of property because of the "S" curve of Gerald Ford, the diagonal location of the freeway, the railroad tracks and the new Cook Street offramp and they would ultimately see those as opportunities, but there might be constraints because of them at the same time. They were studying the Mid- Valley Channel right now which the city has accommodated with some very large conduits under both the new Monterey overpass and the Cook Street overpass that would allow a very serious flow of water that would follow the 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 �. railroad tracks . He explained that his clients came to them and said that a portion of this property that they have owned for many years was formerly a vineyard, a large portion of their property was acquired by the Redevelopment Agency as a potential college campus, and with Cook Street going in there is a major opportunity for an entry statement into the city and they asked what they could do and what would be appropriate land uses . They worked with staff and looked at the property and its constraints and considering market forces and this location along the freeway, as well as the general area, he felt there were some obvious opportunities for a freeway-oriented commercial program, some of which would be in the nature of automobile service and restaurants . Not knowing exactly how the college campus was going to orient, and whether it would be more of a commuter campus, they saw some opportunities within the next 20 years of looking at perhaps some student-oriented young people housing and he wanted to promise that they would create an interactive mixed use commercial/retail/ residential/offices, etc . , where people could do a lot here without getting into their cars, but he felt that was a little idealistic since they didn' t know exactly how the campus would develop. He said they were looking for any major concerns that the Commission might have with their basic land uses . There was a fairly large regional commercial complex on the west side of Cook, some smaller freeway-oriented businesses both west and south, a mixed use to buffer the residential area approved to the south, some larger residential complexes toward the west end and a business office concept on the freeway, and perhaps a business park concept on the very narrow strip east of Cook identified as industrial . They were proposing to submit a development agreement so that there was a lot of control on the part of the Planning Commission, Council and Redevelopment Agency to help control the uses . As an example, his client was in discussion with one service station and that would be the only one for all of the properties . They would probably be looking at some type of fast food on the site directly 15 %a. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 east of Cook, but it would be under the guidelines they would develop with Commission and Council for the sites . He noted that the land use matrixes were done for the traffic study which they put out . They showed three different alternatives : a preferred plan, a maximum development plan, and the existing General Plan. He said that the estimated floor area column showed a range of 1 . 6 million square feet to 3 . 6 million square feet . He said this would be a 20-25 year build out and they would like to see some good design standards . They were not looking for traditional looking Spanish shopping centers, but good, crisp clean contemporary architecture, integrated land plans and street tree concepts for this entire concept so that there would be some uniformity. He said they sought Planning Commission' s input and thoughts for this property as they approach coming before them at a formal public hearing. He felt this was a good forum to begin discussions with Commission before they were committed to their plans . He asked if there was anything they could discuss now or if there was anything the Commission would like brought back to them. He said that his client regretted no being here, but she was ill . He felt she would be present during the public hearings . Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Roos indicated that this proposal would initially take the form of a development agreement and asked staff for clarification if there had been any done in the past on projects that were only at the land use phase as opposed to actually proposing something specific. Mr. Drell noted that this was done with the Ahmanson parcels . Commissioner Jonathan reminded him that in that case the use was specifically retail . Mr. Drell said the development agreement would be defined to the extent that the city wants it to be . Commissioner Jonathan felt that some of his concerns were that already in the preliminary document they were touching on parking requirement reductions and so forth and his concern was that the city should be cautious in entering into a development agreement that is nonspecific, yet it gives away some very specific things, if that was what was being proposed. Mr. Drell said they would approve and grant 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 �,.. any special consideration as the Commission saw fit and if at the time the Commission received the actual application they couldn' t see any justification for it, they shouldn' t approve it . Commissioner Jonathan said that other than that, to see something like this was wonderful . Even at the preliminary stage it looked well thought out and was a terrific use of some challenging properties and he knew what they would be facing with the wind and the proximity to the trains . When the city initially started planning this years ago with the North Sphere Plan and looked at the area being described, this was exactly what he envisioned for this area and to combine it with the Cal State Campus and moving in that direction he felt would be terrific . He commended them for the work they have already done . He asked that they keep in mind that the city of Palm Desert, being as environmentally conscious as it is, would like to see bike paths to allow students to ride from their housing, the concept of integrated situations where they wouldn' t have to get into their cars and having a self- contained area where they could buy their food, go out to dinner, and visit other sites on their bikes would be great . He liked what he was seeing so far and commended them. low Commissioner Ferguson also thanked Mr. Roos for appearing before them. He felt it was great for them to look at these things well in advance . In terms of what they would ideally like to see out there, he said it went without saying that this would be before the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee long before it would be before Planning Commission. Mr. Drell concurred. He said that a lot of what they are asking for revolved around the creation of the freeway commercial zone, so what came out of those meetings would be the direction to the applicant, staff and Planning Commission on how the city would deal with a project like this . Commissioner Ferguson thought it was a great concept . He hoped that they would be able to move forward with the Cal State Campus site once they received sufficient funds . He felt the economic development potential for this project was wonderful and he looked forward to working with them on it . 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 i t 1 Mr. Roos said that one thing that has been of interest to the potential users of the property was freeway signage . He knew that had been a ticklish issue throughout the valley and they would like to be able to come back with something, whether it was area signage that was not just a series of pole signs, but something that says "This is Palm Desert" and then the other signage as part of that or one sign for three or four users. He felt that was an area they would get a lot of pressure on to come to the city for solutions and he hoped that they could come up with something acceptable. He said they also planned to work with Caltrans . Caltrans had a series of signage programs along freeways throughout the state and where actually on their signs they would have logos so that people would not be surprised. Another thing they were trying to do was work with Mr. Nagus on public art to try and come up with a major statement at this offramp/access point to the city, wherein instead of having a lot of pieces throughout the property, they would have something that would knock people' s socks off when they left the freeway. They were trying to approach that and that was another thing that would be discussed. Commissioner Jonathan noted that off the I-10 freeway in the San Bernardino area there was a water utility that had a filtration system that was in the form of a water fall on an onramp. Mr. Roos stated that water was an issue and they have talked with staff about various things . So far there was a lot of difficulties with water and landscaping in terms of trying to really make that statement . He felt the art program has shown that a lot of interesting things could be done and it was a place they wanted to start . Even their low figures of 1 . 6 million square feet and 1300 dwelling units, starting to look at a public art fee that could be generated, if they could pool that a great statement could be made, as well as including a series of other things . They felt this could be a great offramp and it would be great because of the golf course, which they were also working on and Cook Street was going in. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 �... Commissioner Campbell stated that rather than having a mixed use, she would rather see more of an industrial/commercial use . She would like to see light industry coming into the city and there wasn' t much land left, so this area close to the freeway would be an excellent location if any large companies wanted to come in and build, instead of a location closer to residential areas . Mr. Roos stated that in most cases other than their planning area 7, the rest were virtually of that nature. It was a business park for fledgling industries and at the same time they have enough space so that they could accommodate some larger users also. He felt the primary reason they picked PA 7 as the residential use was to create the buffer back to the larger properties south of Gerald Ford that would be residential . At the higher density they were trying to create that buffer. He also noted that there was a fairly significant climb in elevation which was a little more conducive to residential use as opposed to trying to make that happen in large scale retail or industrial type uses. He agreed that was the prime focus, industrial on a commercial basis . Commissioner Campbell stated that she wasn' t looking for additional retail use, but light industry and warehouses . She said that where the residential area was located, from the land where they have the residential up above, they would hardly ever see any of those buildings because of the elevation height . Action• None . X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None . 19 �r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1996 i XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Ferguson asked why they received an advertisement for a video production company in their packet . Staff replied that it was because it was mail that was addressed to the commission. Commissioner Ferguson said he didn' t see the point in distributing it . Mr. Drell asked if the commission wanted staff to screen their junk mail . Commissioner Ferguson stated that it just seemed odd since there was no real planning purpose, it was just someone trying to make money. He was not against that at all, but didn' t think it needed to be duplicated and distributed to every member of the commission. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adjourning the meeting to October 15, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 00 p.m. wed PHILIP DREL , Secretary ATTEST: PAUL R. BEATY, Ch rperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm i i 20