Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0218 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 18, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCiL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE �r. �t * �r * * �t * �t * * �r �► * * �r * * ,r * * * * * � * * * �t � * �r * �r I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Ferguson led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None ... Staff Present: Phil Drell Martin Alvarez Sandy Jacobson Tonya Monroe Steve Smith IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the February 4, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the February 4, 1997 minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCI! ACTION: Mr. Drefl summarized pertinent Febr�ary 13, 1997 city council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS � None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 � � VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to reconfigure ten existing legal parcels into four lots for financing and golf course purposes. Proposed lot lines will also be reflected on Tract Map 28450. � Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10, TPM 28448 and DA 97-2 - MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a Change of Zone to PCD (Planned .�i Community Development), precise plan of design, Master Plan of Development, Tentative Parcel Map and Development Agreement for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. Mr. Smith noted that this matter had been continued since the Planning Commission hearing on December 17, 1996. In the interim the plan continued to evolve and the conceptual plan was gaining form. Today Planning staff received the draft development agreement and revised site plans. Neither staff nor the City Attorney have had an opportunity to review the matter. Staff was asking for one more continuance to March 4, 1997. Mr. Smith indicated that when they were advised that the applicant was having a development agreement drafted, staff renoticed the matter to the property owners within 300 feet. He indicated that staff referred the development agreement to the City Attorney's office and staff would review the development plan as it has been revised and would report back to Planning Commission on March 4. Staff recommended a continuance to March 4, 1997. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he was recusing himself from this matter and the Comprehensive Freeway Overlay Ordinance matter. He has a client that � is discussing with the applicant freeway signage and he felt it would be � � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ... inappropriate for him to vote on either of these matters. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the public hearing remained open from the last meeting and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one. Chairperson Ferguson left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, continuing C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10, TPM 28448, and DA 97-2 to March 4, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). B. Case No. CUP 97-2 - HEIDI R. ANTELL, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 22 seat restaurant establishment in the C-1 district located at 73-155 Highway 111 . Mr. Alvarez explained that Vinaigrette's was seeking approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a 900 square foot restaurant in the ""' General Commercial zone. The business is located on the south side of Highway 111 between Tony Roma's and La Bamba Mandarin Palace. The restaurant would have a total of 22 seats, 12 indoor and 10 outdoors. The hours of operation would be Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Although Vinaigrette's would provide some onsite dining, the majority of its business would be takeout and delivery. Mr. Alvarez explained that when staff was considering a CUP in the commercial zone, parking was the main concern. Vinaigrette's is 900 square feet and the city's parking standard would require the business to provide ten parking spaces fo� this use. The subject site consists of a 9000 square foot building and has both on and off street parking. The off street parking consists of about 150 spaces which are located in the rear of the building. There was also some on street parking located in the front adjacent to the building along Highway 11 1 . Mr. Alvarez noted that Exhibit A of the staff report showed a parking survey conducted by staff for the front and rear area. Area A was the 61 spaces in the rear and Area B the 17 spaces located in front of the building. The survey was conducted on weekdays during busy lunch hours. The results of the parking survey were shown on Table 1 of the staff report and showed that there is sufficient parking to accommodate the new business. More than 50 percent of the parking was available during its peak lunch hours and the adjacent to restaurants catered mostly to the dinner clientele in the evenings. Staff �...r 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 i � recommended approval of the conditional use permit by adoption of the � resolution, subject to the conditions. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the conditional use permit would require ten parking spaces in the ordinance and ten were not available. He asked what number of parking spaces were available to this particular applicant in terms of ones that were allocated to this 900-foot space. When Mr. Alvarez referred to 9 of 17 on street or 21 of 61 , he understood that those spaces were out there, but said the applicant was in a way seeking an exception to the ordinance. If they were coming to Planning Commission saying that ten parking spaces were required and ten were allocated to this business, they wouldn't be having this discussion. He asked what shortage they were talking about. Were they one space short or eight spaces short? Mr. Alvarez stated that they were no spaces short. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they came before Planning Commission as a brand new building of 3900 square feet, how many spaces they would be allocated. Mr. Drell said they would be designated approximately four spaces as retail. Commissioner Jonathan ciarified that they fell within the four per 1 ,000 parking requirement and would fall six spaces short. Mr. Drell concurred. ; Chairperson Ferguson o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to ..� address the commission. MS. HEIDI ANTELL, 45-815 Edgehill in Palm Desert, stated that she had no questions or comments at this time. She said that she was assuming that they were allocated four parking spaces for the 900 square foot business and said that the way she saw it there were empty spaces there every day and she didn't understand if the missing six spaces was a problem or not. Mr. Drell said that was why there were having the hearing. Commissioner Jonathan said that his inquiries were directed to what the ordinance requires and staff has conducted a study and the conclusion of staff concurred with what Ms. Antell just said, that there was an abundance of empty parking , spaces. Commissioner Campbell asked where the applicant would be putting the additional outside seats. Ms. Antell stated that they would like to have to tables right outside � their front door in the front patio area and two tables in the rear. She said they didn't need all ten tables and 22 seats, but they thought if 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 w... they could grow with time, that would be nice. The additional seating would be located inside with approximately four tables with two seats per table for both the outside and inside. Commissioner Campbell said when she looked at the restaurant location she didn't think there was much room left for tables. Ms. Antell clarified that there was enough room and that the tables were all small two seaters. She understood that as far as the outside tables were concerned, there were city requirements so that pedestrian � traffic would not be obstructed. They would be willing to comply however they needed to. Commissioner Campbell asked about the menu. Ms. Antell stated that they would serve salads and were a cold food establishment. Commissioner Campbell said she drove by at 6:30 p.m. and saw customers � and asked if the restaurant was still open. Ms. Antell said that she thought Commissioner Campbel! saw the dining room from Tony Roma's since they have a second dining room which is adjacent to her building and there wasn't a sign over it.� She thought it couid (ook like it came from her space, but they weren't open yet. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that the use would primarily be takeout and delivery. He asked if that was correct and if she anticipated that to be the case. Ms. Antell replied that was correct and the seating in the restaurant was for if ihey had a few walk-in customers or friends that came by that wanted to dine in for lunch. They were planning to be mostly a delivery service with some takeout. Commissioner Jonathan said he was surprised by her comments that there were an abundance of parking spaces because he thought that Tony Roma's and La Bamba Mandarin Palace we�e relatively successful. Ms. Antell replied that they were in the evenings and the parking lot was full, but during her business hours the back lot behind the building �... was almost always empty other than staff parking for both restaurants 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 i , � , � and the front lot for most of the day was also fairly empty. Tony � Roma's tended to have a fairly good lunch crowd and took up a little more than a third of the frontage road parking spaces. Commissioner Jonathan asked if she would be closed by 7:00 p.m. Ms. Antell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the evening dinner rush interfered with her business. Ms. Antell said she hasn't found it to be a problem up to this point. Tony Roma's did a dinner rush as we(I as La Bamba, but they were more of a nightclub use and they didn't seem to start until 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. They actually stopped their delivery at 5:00 p.m. and the restaurant's close down time was from 5:00 until 7:00 p.m. and was mostly for staff to close the restaurant. She didn't anticipate having much foot traffic in the restaurant between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. They were primarily a lunch time establishment. ,� Commissioner Fernandez asked how large the staff would be. „ri Ms. Antell stated that right now it was three, including herself. They would grow as they needed to and she had one other person for standby. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.� Commissioner Jonathan said that after reading the staff report he was opposed because of the parking shortage, but the discussion persuaded him otherwise, particularly the applicant's testimony about the availability of parking spaces which concurred with the staff report and the intent of the primary business to be in takeout and delivery rather than sit down and the lack of conflict because it is a funch business as opposed to the dinner hour conflicting with the surrounding uses. He didn't have a problem with this application, but warned staff that he was always sensitive to parking shortages. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was also in favor of the project. � � 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 o.. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1782, approving CUP 97-2, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. C. Case No. C/Z 97-1 - DENNIS GODECKE, Applicant Request for approva( of a change of zone from R-3 (multiple family residential) to O.P. (office professionall fo� the existing office complex at 44-875 Deep Canyon Road and Alessandro Drive. Mr. Smith said that the request before the Planning Commission was for a change of zone from R-3 multiple family residential to Office Professional. He said this was for the existing office complex at 44-875 Deep Canyon Road, specifically the northwest corner of Deep Canyon and Alessandro. He said �` that the property was currently occupied by a 6800 square foot two story professional office building. The property was developed pursuant to a conditional use permit which was approved in 1988 through Planning Commission Resolution No. 1270. The Core Area Specific P(an designated this site for office use and Conditionai Use Permit 87-16 in effect impiemented that plan. As such the building acted as a transition and a buffer between the Highway 1 1 1 commercial higher intensity uses and the single family residentia! to the north. At this time the applicant filed the request to change the zone from R-3 to office professional. There was no development change proposal and staff didn't anticipate future expansion due to parking limitations. Staff felt that the findings necessary for approval of the change of zone could be made. Mr. Smith said it was a Class 5 categorical exemption for the purposes of CEQA and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the zone change. He noted that a site plan from the original conditional use permit was on display. Commissioner Beaty asked for the reason for this change of zone. Mr. Smith deferred to the applicant. Chairperson Ferguson noted that this area was the subject of a specific plan. Mr. Smith concurred that this area was part of the Core Area Specific Plan done in 1987 and Mr. Drell said it was also part of the Palma Village Specific Plan from 1984. Chairperson Ferguson asked if either �— of the plans envisioned this as being an office professional use. Mr. Smith 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 . � 1 � replied that both of them did. Chairperson Ferguson asked why Mr. Godecke � didn't change the zone at the time of the original application. Mr. Smith explained that the R-3 zone allowed it through a conditiona! use permit and it was a quicker process. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. DENNIS GODECKE, 44-875 Deep Canyon Road, stated that he didn't have anything to add other than answering the question by � Commissioner Beaty. He said that it was coming up at this time because of changes that have occurred in the area and he didn't even realize that the property was still subject to a conditional use and when he was reminded of that by one of the Council members, he chose to take care of that problem. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed change of zone. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. � � , Action: '� Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1783, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 97-1 . Carried 5-0. D. Case No. TT 24254 Amendment #1 - GOLDEN HILLS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the conditions of approval on Tentative Tract 24254 located on the north side of Hovley Lane, 1900 feet west of Portola Avenue, immediately west of Casablanca. Mr. Smith explained that the request before commission was approval of an amendment to the conditions of approval on the original tentative tract map. The tract is located on the north side of Hovley Lane, 1900 feet west of Portola Avenue, specifically it was immediately west of the Casablanca development. He said that the tentative map was approved by Planning 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ` Commission in February 1989. The map created 94 single family lots. The lots were improved, with the westerly 26 lots being built upon. The easterly 68 lots �emained vacant and as indicated, there were street improvements to them. The 1989 approval permitted a mix of one and two story dwellings and accordingly the Planning Commission resoiution created different setbacks for each. As well, condition #9 limited all perimeter lots to 15 feet maximum height except where it was adjacent to the San Tropez Apartments, which is at the west end. Condition #4 specifically set out single story development at 15 feet in height with side yards of five feet on each side and two story development to a height of 24 feet with 12 feet of setback on either side. � This was another one of the developments where new people were coming in to pick up remainders. The current 68 lots were to be picked up by Golden Hills Property Management and their goal was to develop one story homes only. The homes they were proposing and which they showed to the Architectural Review Commission and where they received preliminary approval ranged from 1800 to 2300 to 2700 square feet, not including the garage areas. The homes they presented to ARC were single story homes, but they were 18 feet in height, so they have a conflict with condition numbers 4 and 9 of Resolution 1332. The lots in question ranged in size from 8,055 square feet to 8,568 square feet. Single family homes on single family lots at �""' 8,000 square feet staff typically applied the R-1 standards to which permit 18 foot high structures and prescribed side yards at a minimum of 5 feet with a total of 14 feet. If they had 5 on one side they had to have 9 on the other, or 7 and 7 or combinations as such. Staff also indicated that between the Casablanca development to the east and the first row of lots there was a significant grade change. This side was lower than the Casablanca site. The grade differential ranged from 4.6 feet to 8.6 feet. Staff recommended that the existing conditions be left in place for the existing 26 homes and that commission authorize the remaining 68 vacant lots to be developed pursuant to the City's R-1 standards for 8,000 square foot lots, which would allow 1 8 foot homes, but it would require bigger side yards than is what is currently required. Commissioner Campbell asked how many of the 26 lots were built on. Mr. Smith explained that all 26 lots were all built. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JERRY KIRKPATRICK, 8520 Los Lagos Circle in Lumas California, just outside of Sacramenfio, stated that he was present to answer any �.. questions. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the "'� application. MS. LINDA CHAPNICK, Ventana Court, stated that she has lived there about five years and asked for clarification on the lots. The map showed Terraza when coming in frorn Posada and there were five lots and she didn't know if they would also be built on. She stated that she was in favor of the project and felt it would bring up their property values and they have chifdren in the neighborhood that play there and she felt it was unsafe now, but she was wondering if there would be homes on those five lots because it wasn't marked on the legal notice map. Mr. Smith replied yes, the 68 lots included those five and apologized for the mapping p�oblem. MR. ERIC HEMSTREET, a resident across the street south of the project on Avenida Arcada or the La Paloma housing development, asked what the proposed price range of the homes would be. ..r� Mr. Kirkpatrick replied 5180,000 to 5235,000. Mr. Hemstreet said that was similar to the Hovley Court development just recently completed. Mr. Kirkpatrick concurred. Mr. Hemstreet asked if the architecture as far as the exteriors were concerned would be similar to the previous Sonata homes. M�. Smith stated that they would all be single story homes as opposed to the mix of one and two story. They would be higher single story homes. Current single story homes are limited to 15 feet. These would be up to 18 feet, but they would have greater side yard setbacks. Mr. Hemstreet said that his question was regarding the building exteriors, roof materials, etc. Mr. Smith replied that they were tile roof structures and he had plans if Mr. Hemstreet wanted to review them. The plans were being reviewed through the City's Architectural Review Commission. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the Architectural Review Commission had reviewed the plans. Mr. Smith replied yes. Chairperson Ferguson noted that � � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNtNG COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 �.. the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the plans for the first project and asked if the new plans were similar or different. Mr. Smith felt they Iooked similar, but they were not identical. He suggested that the residents look at the plans because they were more familiar with the detailing on their own homes. Mr. Hemstreet said that wasn't a problem and he could come down on his own time and review the plans. He asked if under this type of zoning in this area for the size of the lots what the maximum allowable square footage these homes could be. Mr. Smith stated that 35% was the existing maximum coverage limit, so 2800 to 2900 square feet. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no response. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. BRIAN JAMES, 40-735 Ventana Court, stated that he was not opposed to the building being done and they wanted to get the project `"" completed and move on with things, but he would like the ordinance kept at 15 feet due to the cost of air conditioning the houses. He felt it was a genuine cost. He said that since the applicant was from the Sacramento area, he didn't have the luxu�y of having So. California Edison and he has the largest unit there and he knew the cost for air conditioning. They have the 15-foat roof height restriction and it was very expensive to air condition the house. Increasing the roof height would increase the inside square footage that would need to be air conditioned in the summer and he felt that some consideration needed to be done. He wasn't going to hold up the project for simply that reason, but some consideration needed to be given to that. He also asked the applicant, when the construction started that some consideration be given to restrict construction traffic and that it should come in from the east end and barricade off the west or restrict the flow of traffic through the developed part of the project. Mr. Kirkpatrick said yes, they would do that. Commissioner Beaty noted that the air-conditioning concern was related to room height, not necessarily overall building height. He asked how high Mr. James' inte�ior height was. ... 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 j � � Mr. James replied that his �oof is vaulted. ""� Mr. Kirkpatrick replied that some of the homes would have vaulted roofs, some wouldn't. MR. ALAN McCAFFREY, 41-517 Armanac Court, stated that he was concerned that the height on the west side of Casablanca, the seven lots, if they would all be 18 feet in height. Mr. Smith replied they probably wouldn't be, but they could all be 18 feet. Mr. McCaffrey didn't think that was a good answer and said it was either yes or no. Chairperson Ferguson noted that it would be up to the developer to decide how high he wanted to build his building, but the zoning would allow up to 18 feet. Mr. McCaffrey stated that he was opposed to that on those seven lots because it would obstruct their views. 3 � ani Mr. Kirkpatrick addressed the commission in rebuttal. He said that the architect looked at the situation out there and they provided to the planning staff some paperwork that would show what the site line would be for these buildings given the elevation change. It was going to be a minimal blockage of the view because there was a 20-foot easement, the normal setback of 15 feet from the house they would build, and the 20 foot easement and 20 feet from the back of the condos in addition to their backyards. There was a considerable distance, and they were higher. If they could stand and see over their fence from inside their house, it shouldn't be a problem according to the way it laid out on paper. They would miss the foothills of the mountains, but they wouldn't miss what they were really looking at. MR. STEVE JAMES, 4520 Ventana Court, asked if there was a plan to change the grade since the land was lower than the adjacent (and, a 4.68 to 8.6 grade differential. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that there was no plan to change the grade in any direction that would be detrimental to the neighbors. If anything, it would go down and they also wouldn't have any two story homes � there. They wanted to be good neighbors. � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 r... Chairpe�son Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he had no problem with the application and he felt it would be appropriate that once they go to single story to convert to the normal zoning standards, but he encouraged the applicant to be very considerate of the existing neighbors. He knew what it was like to have construction next to or across the street and home is where you're supposed to have peace and quiet and relieve yourself of the stress of the day. To come home to construction was very disruptive. He sensed that Mr. Kirkpatrick was � a sensitive developer and he encouraged him to continue being that way. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that tt�e commission would be allowing the 18 foot heights. Chairperson Ferguson concurred. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he was in favor of the project and felt the developer was very concerned and he appreciated his honesty and ability to work with the neighbors and he felt he was doing a great job and this was part of the understanding that gets a project approved. '""' Commissioner Beaty stated that he would move for approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1784, amending Planning Commission Resolution No. 1332 to permit the remaining vacant lots in TT 24254 to develop pursuant to the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 25.16.050. Carried 5-0. E. Case No. CUP 97-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit for a 6700 yard eighteen (18) hole public resort play golf course in the south half ('lZ) of Section 4 T5S R6E (i.e., the area north of Country Club between Portola Avenue and Cook Street). �.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 � � Mr. Smith stated that the request was for the south golf course in Section 4 and was part of the Planning Commission's environmental review in 1994. At this point all they were dealing with was the 18 hole golf course itself. The driving range, clubhouse and golf school was associated with the north course and was considered in that conditional use permit. They were looking at 18 holes of golf in the southerly section that winds itself around the Intrawest proposal for the most part. The necessary findings for the conditional use permit were outlined on page 3 of the staff report and was part of the environmental impact report prepared and certified on November 16, 1994. No further review was necessary and staff recommended approval of � Conditional Use Permit 97-1 . Chairperson Ferguson o en d the public hearing and asked if anyone from the Redevelopment Agency wanted to address the commission. MR. DAVE YRIGOYEN addressed the commission and stated that this project has been before the Planning Commission previously through the environmental process. Mr. Smith said everything that needed to be stated regarding that. He said that regarding the recommendation, he wanted the project to be identified not as a municipal golf course, but 1 as a public play resort golf course. That would make matters easier � with regards to their ability to place less restrictions on the golf course itself. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Ferguson asked for clarification that the wording change was to the agenda. Mr. Yrigoyen replied yes. Mr. Smith noted that the same language was used on the resolution. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1785, approving CUP 97-1 , subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. � � 14 MtNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ... F. Case Nos. ZOA 97-1 and C/Z 97-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a zoning ordinance amendment and change of zone to establish a Freeway Commercial Overlay District in which expanded uses may be permitted subject to issuance of a conditional use permit. The change of zone will be an overlay to certain properties near the I-10 intersection with Monterey Avenue, Cook Street and Washington Street. Mr. Smith stated that on July 1 1 , 1996 the City Council directed staff to � proceed with the creation of the Freeway Commercial Overlay District. The matter was referred to ZORC. It was discussed there at a series of six meetings between October 1996 and January 1997. On January 22 ZORC endorsed it and directed staff to process it through the Planning Commission and City Council. ZORC also asked that the ordinance be referred for comments to the Economic Development Advisory Committee and Architectural Review. Comments were received from Architectural Review. They endorsed the changes. Nothing had been received from EDAC. He would attempt to have those comments before the City Council meeting. He noted that they were attempting to place an overlay on certain properties in �"' the vicinity of the freeway where it intersects with Monterey, Cook and Washington Street. These areas were shown on an exhibit attached to the resolution and it showed the three areas. He noted that in each instance the properties are currently zoned Planned Commercial allowing for commercial development. Currently there was a prohibition against drive-thru restaurants in Palm Desert and this overlay zone through the ordinance would allow drive- thru restaurants in this overlay area only. It would not apply to the city as a whole, only the three overlay areas. As well, there is a restriction on service stations located within 500 feet of each other. In this instance these prohibitions would be waived. The provisions of the overlay would be available to the owner. The owner could choose to use them. The development standards require that projects proposed under this ordinance be master planned in a minimum area of five acres. Individual projects within the master plan would then be processed through the precise plan process to ensure that the master plan policies are being implemented. The o�dinance would establish a series of development standards above and beyond the current City standards. Specifically parking, setbacks and landscaping. Projects using this Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone would be required to provide a rriinimum 30% landscaped open space. The current standard for basic retail is 15% of the parking area, which is a much lesser amount. On service station sites themselves, there is a 20% of the lot standard. Lastly the r.• ordinance proposed a new category of signage, freeway visible signage. The 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ; � � � goal is for these signs to be visible to traffic traveling on Interstate 10. The ordinance would permit these signs as high as 60 feet, but would require a distance of at least 750 feet between these signs. There would only be one permitted per development. The size of the signs were dictated by the size of the development that it serves. Sizes ranged from 125 square feet to 175 square feet. In the packets Planning Commission received an array of photographs of the sign at ARCO at Date Palm and the freeway taken from different distances. That sign was 52 feet high and has a face area of 147 square feet. The ordinance prescribes a maximum of six tenants on these signs. There was a normal standard of a maximum of three colors on a sign � face. The ordinance would waive that in order to favor companies using their national logos on these signs. They want people to recognize national logos so that they can identify them quickly when they are on the freeway and make their decision about whether to get off or not. Since this matter came out of ZORC, Mr. Smith stated that he had a discussion with Councilman Crites relative to the height. Currently Section 40 part 4 allows up to 60 feet in height and he had no problem with the verbiage he suggested, that "the maximum height of freeway visible signage shall be the minimum height necessary to allow the sign to be visible from the freeway and in no event � shall it exceed 60 feet in height." Secondly, under landscaping on page 3 of the Planning Commission resolution they call out a requirement for 30% and '� then the last sentence of that section presently reads, "With a showing of good cause the Planning Commission may increase the minimum landscaped open space requirement." Increase should be changed to decrease in that certain other uses have been added in to be permitted in this freeway commercial overlay. For instance, mini-warehouses. The idea was that they might want to tuck under the freeway ramps. Once the freeway ramp goes there the desirability of doing much of anything on that property is limited and they didn't want to say that even though an applicant was putting in an undesirable use, they had to smother it with landscaping at 30% that no one could see. That would be an instance where Planning Commission could reduce the landscape requirement. Mr. Smith noted that this was a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. The rational for allowing the drive-thru restaurants on these sites that are on the perimeter of the city were that if we don't do it and it happens in the county on the other side of the freeway or the other side of Washington Street, these properties were reasonably isolated and they were at a competitive disadvantage if they didn't. That was part of the rational of the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee in its review of this. Staff feft it would create more of a level playing field, but Palm Desert's standards would be so much higher than the county standards across 3 the street that it might still be viewed as a negative, but at least it would not � be an outright prohibition. With the two changes noted relating to the height ,,,,� 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 r... of the freeway signs and changing increase to decrease, staff recommended that Planing Commission recommend approval of the overlay area and ordinance text to the City Council. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Smith to clarify why this would receive an exemption from CEQA. He felt the change of zone could have a significant impact on the environment. Mr. Smith replied that all the sites were currently zoned Planned Commercial. The changes they were making were minor changes to the commercial zoning. Most of the issues related to drive-thru restaurants versus restaurants. The uses they were looking at were for the � most part already envisaged in the zoning and general plan. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the resulting uses would not have a significant impact from that which would result without these changes. Mr. Smith said that some of them could. They would review each one on its own merit and review each one for the purposes of CEQA, so it would be covered. Commissioner Jonathan said that if it was determined at that point that there is a significant impact, then an EIR or whatever could be done. Mr. Smith concurred. He noted that in the instance of the development plan that was continued earlier, they were actually reducing the traffic projections in the area covered by the development plan by around 20-25% over what the general plan had proposed """ for the area. They have a little give and take going both ways. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the signage and wanted to be sure the liberalization applied only to site specific signage. In other words, not general advertising but something that identifies the particular establishment onsite. Mr. Smith stated that was correct and indicated that as well, there was verbiage "businesses identified on freeway visible signage shall be limited to traveler oriented users such as gas stations, restaurants and hotels." Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was the intent of that language. For example, they could have general advertising that says use Shell gas stations or go to McDonald's. Mr. Smith stated that it had to be site specific to the site the sign is serving. Mr. Smith noted that the restaurant park they were looking at with five restaurants would have the five restaurants up there, plus maybe the service station. Time would tell. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that there would be no general advertising on these liberalized signs. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he was recusing himself from this matter. In reviewing the minutes associated with the packet, their consideration of this at the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee was really taken up in two aspects--the commercial aspect and the signage aspect. Although he was present at the meetings for the commercial issue, he was not present �,, for the freeway signs and stated his reasons therefore, even though they were 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 , � .�r�i not reffected in any of the minutes. Also, he reported to Planning Commission last week in reviewing the minutes of the last meeting on what they have been doing in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Committee meetings and made comments on the commercial side of it and none on the freeway visible signage side of it because he thought they would be taken up separately. He just wanted to clarify that matter for the record. Chairperson Ferguson o�ened the public hearing and asked for comments in FAVOR of the ordinance change. � MR. MARVIN ROOS, with Mainiero, Smith & Associates, 777 East Tahquitz Canyon in Palm Springs, stated that he represented the David Freedman Company. He said they have been working with the City staff over a year now on exactly how to bring before the Planning Commission a variety of uses for a 270-acre parcel that basically strattles both sides of Cook with about 10,000 feet of freeway frontage. They have developed a development plan which they brought before commission last fall for some preliminary comments. Based on that they made an application. Right after the application was # submitted ZORC started meeting. They kind of presaged ZORC in the + conditions and comments and recommendations. They have adjusted � their plan and their conditions to reflect that which is now in the ordinance. In general terms, maybe not in all specific terms yet, because the public hearings, Planning Commission and Council input was still coming in, so they might be making some further changes to try and accommodate that. They support the ordinance and the requirements that the city has come up with. He pointed out in the open space requirement that what they were trying to do with that for the commissioners that hadn't seen the site specific devefopment plan, they were trying to develop a common open space use around which the freeway business could orient and create more of a park-like setting for restaurants and gas station type users and people could stop and stretch and look at some desert landscaping, a little turf or picnic or something of that nature. They might in their development proposal see an overall 30% of open space, maybe including the mini-warehouse type uses that might be next to the railroad tracks. He said there might not be a site by site by site 30%, they would have to look and see how that goes. In any event, they would have 15-20% just from the retention requirement, so it wasn't that much more but it was an extensive requirement that they would be placing on these uses for long � term maintenance. For typical fast food restaurants and freeway type � businesses, 5% would be a lot and that was not usually maintained, so � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 � they would be fighting an uphili battle to some degree to get the people into this point. They were looking forward to pursuing this with the City. He hoped they had everything in now and could come before commission next time and bring that to them and supported the ordinance. MR. STEVE GLUSKER, 72-720 Firth Place in Santa Monica, stated that he and his partner own a portion of Monterey Shore Plaza which was where Costco and Home Base are located and asked about the sign aspect of the ordinance. He said that for that center the only two retail ' locations that meet the criteria would be Bubba Bears Pizza and Taco Bell. He said it would seem to him where the City's welfare was concerned and where the owners' welfare was concerned that if there were to be a sign on the freeway at some point in the future, that it would be more important for that sign to encompass Home Base and Costco, which were sizable generators of tax revenue to the City and were a major component to the draw to the center as opposed to fast food restaurant and a pizzeria which by the wording that was faxed to him today, which was the reason they were at the meeting, would be limited to restaurants in their case. � Mr. Smith noted that there was an application for a service station on the corner there that staff was currently processing from Price Costco. Second, they did put in some language under Clause 2, other similar users, which may be approved by the Planning Commission. If they had a center nearing build out and it didn't include it yet the signage could work there, then they could put themselves in the hands of the commission to make that consideration. Mr. Glusker asked if what would be specifically allowed by the proposed change would be any signage for a gas station, a restaurant or a hotel. Mr. Smith concurred. Mr. Glusker asked if it might make sense to be more all encompassing in terms of the sign requirement or in the alternative, don't put any restriction on which types of retail users would be allowed to have signage. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was a valid point. He asked if there was someone that went through the process with ZORC that could address that. He asked why there was a restriction on businesses that qualify. Mr. Drell �,,., stated that the initial conception was that signs would be for those sorts of 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ; .r� businesses that will be relying almost exclusively on freeway attraction. People wouldn't drive to Dinah Shore for a hamburger or to buy gas. Typically their survival was dependent upon drawing people off from the freeway. The issue would be if uses like Price Costco or Home Base were significant enough of a regional attraction that most of the people that would be coming would be coming from the freeway. That would almost apply to anyone that had frontage on the freeway. That was kind of the concession--those businesses wouldn't exist if they couldn't be seen from the freeway. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the forces of the free market would predicate ' what kinds of businesses that would qualify for that intent because they were the ones that would end up being next to the freeway. Mr. Drell said they were creating more due to the extreme nature of the freeway. Obviously Price Costco has existed in the past without that signage. Home Base has existed to a maybe a lesser degree without that signage. Part of what they were deliberating was the issue of whether the fact that someone would still need to draw a large portion of their business from the freeway, although not a tourist oriented business, it would still warrant and justify them having that sort of exposure. That was a question that Planning Commission could decide. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was thinking that if there was a certain limitation on the number of signs in terms of how far away they were spaced ••r� and the size of the signs, if he was going to live with those restrictions, he didn't really care if it said Price Costco or Bubba Bear. Mr. Drell said that the size was dependent upon the area of the center, not the number of tenants and they could let them decide how they use their sign. Mr. Drell said there were those who if they were given a choice would have no sign. The issue would be what the compelling reasons were to allow any sign at all at that height. The issue was that for these particular uses they need it or they won't survive. While most people know Price Costco and those businesses are still there, if they are not tourists, people in the Coachella Valley pretty much know where Home Base and Price Costco are. They don't need to know on the freeway which offramp to get off at. Mr. Smith noted that about a year ago he met with both the Price Club and Home Base people when they redid their signs on Dinah Shore. In those discussions, staff urged them to propose freeway related signage, something that would be high enough at the backs of the buildings there and indicated that staff would run with an ordinance amendment to permit that and they never got back with staff. Frankly, staff did see some stumbling blocks and seeing as they didn't have people coming back to them staff just sort of let that matter rest. j ..�i 20. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 �... Mr. Glusker asked if there was a potential willingness to consider freeway visible signage for Home Base or Price Costco or whomever. Mr. Smith replied yes, in his mind there was in that staff wanted to encourage them to have some visibility, but not necessarily as part of this ordinance. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval and � Commissioner Fernandez seconded it. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he favored the application. He had mixed feelings about the signage and could see both sides of the issue and he would expect there would be some opposition to the signage standards at some point in the process. He said that he didn't like signs and didn't like signs on the freeway and when he drove up in the northwest and in Canada last summer, he liked what they do up there. They just had very generic signs that simply stated the names of the businesses at the next offramp. It was very nice, very informative and served the purpose without detracting from the scenery, which was very important to the people up there. He wished they had that in So. California because it "' was a blight on the freeways. He didn't know which he hated worse, the . tumbleweeds or the signs or the combination of the two. Having said that he felt they were kind of stuck with it and he would rather regulate it carefully than allow county standards or lack of regulation for Palm Desert's several mile stretch along the freeway. Reluctantly he would go along with the signage aspect of the application, but he felt the restriction was reasonable and based on the explanation provided by staff it made sense to limit the available standards to those types of business and to provide a back door where other businesses could apply to the Planning Commission and go through the process since they had heard there was a willingness that they would at least listen. Reluctantly with regard to the signage, but with enthusiasm for the rest, he would go along with the request. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1786, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 97-1 and C/Z 97-2. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson ,,,,, Ferguson abstainedl. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ; ..rri IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST BY CITY COUNCIL FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CITY PHILOSOPHY. Chairperson Ferguson noted that there was a request by City Council for comments by the commission with respect to a City of Palm Desert philosophy. Mr. Drell clarified that this was not the philosophy of the City of Palm Desert, but the City of Palm Desert employees and others who serve the � City, like the Planning Commission. Chairperson Ferguson noted that one of his first comments was that staff didn't necessarily include people serving on the commission, boards, committees and if they were all serving the city with this philosophy they should probably all be included. Commissioner Campbell asked who wrote the philosophy. Chairperson Ferguson replied the Mayor. Mr. Drell thought that Mayor Kelly felt that staff included everyone. Commissioner Campbell felt it was nicely done. i ..�i► Chairperson Ferguson hoped the Mayor would read these minutes and take note of his comment. Commissioner Fernandez felt that instead of employees, it should say "associates" since they were all part of the philosophy. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Commissioner Fernandez was saying not to use the word "employees." Commissioner Fernandez concurred. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he had two other comments--one that it sounded kind of inercenary that they were doing all of this because of their financial integrity. He felt that the philosophy should be that they are a government by the people for the people and their goal is service to the people as their ultimate employers, not for financial integrity, although it was a residual benefit. If the Mayor was reading the minutes, he asked that he reconsider this philosophy. Commissioner Jonathan said that it was kind of Mom and apple pie, so it was hard to disagree with it, but candidly he failed to see the point. If there was going to be an overall city philosophy, he thought it could be a little more efoquent, broad and all encompassing than the document before them. He didn't have an objection, but it didn't excite him. ; � � � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 w� Chairperson Ferguson said that as he understood this it was originally going to be for city employees and was taken up by the council at the request of one of the council members. Commissioner Jonathan said that if it was going to be in the employees' manual, fine. Chairperson Ferguson said broader input was sought from all commissions, boards, etc., and hopefully the end product would be that which Commissioner Jonathan was describing. B. REQUEST FOR A DETERMINATION OF USE TO ALLOW A CHURCH USE IN A PLANNED COMMERCIAL ZONE Mr. Drell said there was a request in the Price Costco center to use 10,000 square feet as a church. His first reaction was okay, it probably wouldn't do any harm. His second reaction was that it might do harm. The key for the success of any commercial center was concentration of commercial uses. The city has approved churches out in the industrial park because there were individual businesses that didn't rely on their synergy for their success. Ultimately, if a center was successful, it relied on the individual draws of the components to reinforce each other and this was a use that was principally administrative during the week and church services on Sunday. It was kind """ of an admission, and it might be a realistic one, that maybe this center was designed so poorly that this was as good as they could do and was kind of like throwing in the towel. If they were to do more of this sort of thing, it was saying that this was not going to work as a commercial center and they could let anyone in who would pay rent go there. If they have reached the conclusion that this is as good as they are going to get back there, otherwise it started that stage of decomposition of a commercial center. Chairperson Ferguson asked why this was coming before them as a miscellaneous item. He noted they have had other public hea�ings on church uses. Mr. Drell explained that they were not in the commercial zone. All of the churches were in the Service Industrial zone. He felt it was an efficient use of those spaces during off hours in the Service Industrial areas. This was the first time they have had one in a shopping center and 10,000 square feet was a large space. It was not in any way one of the listed uses in that zone. It would require a conditional use permit, but the question was whether or not the commission would consider something like this. If it is, staff could schedule a hearing. Commission could tell the applicant to go through the hearing process, or tell them now that they should look for another location. Commissioner Campbell felt they should look for another (ocation. Chairperson Ferguson agreed. � 23 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 a : .■i Commissioner Jonathan said that he agreed with their logic, but he had a problem with them as a government telling a private owner and developer what is in his best business interest. He hoped that if the owner were to think about it he would come to the same conclusion. Mr. Drell believed it was in a receivership right now and they would rent it out to anyone. The City's interest was one of the reasons they had commercial uses that generate sales tax and churches don't. Commissioner Jonathan was not saying that if it was before them that he would vote in favor of it, but in terms of telling them flat out no, he was � uncomfortable with that because he felt they had a right to come before them. If staff wanted to communicate to the applicant that the Planning Commission has some strong reservations and that was their line of thinking, that would be fine. In terms of them as a government saying that they know better what good business is, in the long run he had a problem with that but agreed with Mr. Drell's logic and hoped they came to the same conclusion. Chairperson Ferguson stated that as someone who frequently rings the liberty bell for free market and free enterprise, he couldn't disagree more. He felt that under the concept of Euclidian zoning, they had every right to say if they i wanted to attract this type of use or not. Frankly, he felt the developer would ••� be happy to know if they were solicitous of that idea before going through a conditional use permit process, got turned down and then to wait a full year to reapply. He said that he didn't view this as a flat no, but was something they weren't wild about, but if they wanted to apply, they were free to. Mr. Drell said they weren't free to. Because this wasn't a listed use, he couldn't even apply unless the Planning Commission said he could. That was what the commission was considering right now. They were saying that this was a use not listed, but it was acceptable enough that generically it was potentially acceptable, therefore they could apply. They could communicate that to them and let them apply. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was a shortage of available church sites. Commissioner Jonathan said that for one at 10,000 square feet there probably was. He thought that in a sense they were all saying the same thing. He agreed that they weren't wild about this, but he wanted to be careful in case this application comes before them and he didn't want to be prejudiced before he sees an application, but speaking in a hypothetical sense, if a similar type of application were to come before him Mr. Drell's logic appealed to him. He was not denying that if someone applied they wouldn't turn it down and he felt it was appropriate that Baxley Properties should be advised of this, but he � was uncomfortable telling a private developer that he couldn't come to the � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 �.. City in a formal sense. Chairperson Ferguson said that since it was not a listed use, he had to do that. He thought Mr. Drell was saying that they shouldn't prop him up with their left hand and smack him with their right. Mr. Drell concurred. What commission might say was that they would allow him to come back and request it again at some time in the future, but they would really like to direct him somewhere else. Or they could say that although they were not inclined to approve it on its face, the commission would allow them to apply. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it then be up to him if he wanted to risk his time and money. Mr. Drell concurred and staff would make the � same argument. Chairperson Ferguson said that he didn't want to slam the door in their face and there was enough in the record right now to let Baxley Properties know the direction of the commission's thoughts. Ac ion: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, determining by minute motion that although the Planning Commission has serious reservations in allowing the proposed church use in the planned commercial zone, they should be allowed to apply for a conditional use permit. �"' Motion carried 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - February 18, 1997. Commissioner Beaty said they heard an update on the grand opening activities. The computers weren't working properly so they couldn't tell them how many rounds and what percentage were residents and nonresidents. They guessed that about 60% of the rounds over the weekend were nonresidents, which sounded very good. They also spent quite a bit of time going over budgets for both the north and south golf courses. Chairperson Ferguson said they had a media day today at Desert Willow and handed out revised budgets. The south course was estimated to be 521 million at this point. That didn't include a 55 miffion clubhouse or S3 million entryway. Commissioner Beaty said that before they really talk about those they were going to re-present it and tell exactly how much the golf itself cost and what r,.. everything else cost. Mr. Drell felt that would be more complete. There 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 � � weren't just two golf courses, they were building a development which would ultimately have 1500 hotel rooms, 600 timeshares, some other commercial uses and all those things were ultimately part of that development. Mr. Drell said that it would be going to next council meeting. Chairperson Ferguson said that the cost of the south course would be approximately S21 million, but they had asked the consultant to come up with a better explanation of the cost breakdowns. He understood that the fees for the north and south courses would be the same. Mr. Drell concurred. � C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - February 10, 1997 Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Drell to summarize it because she didn't know many of the people there. Mr. Drell said that the committee approved the final draft of the Project Area 4 Specific Plan which would be coming to Planning Commission the second meeting in March. Also, there would be an amendment to the Residential Estate zone as part of that which is the rural area which triggered the whole thing. It was going to be redesignated to allow horses. They also had +r a lot of discussions about the 19.5 acre vacant parcel from the Coachell,a Valley Housing Coalition that blew up. There would be a pa�tial rezoning of that and developing of a conventional single family subdivision, then the rezoning to allow that. The commission would be hearing about it on March 18. E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - February 5, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson said the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee met and considered the maximum lot coverage issue for residential uses and hasn't come up with a final recommendation, although they were headed in the direction of allowing anything wanted up to 50% with certain revised setbacks. That was continued and would be taken up at their next meeting. � s � 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 w.. XI. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Campbell asked Commissioner Jonathan if he would be attending the EDAC meeting on Thursday. Commissioner Jonathan said it was on his calendar. 2. Chairperson Ferguson clarified that the resolution for the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency should include the language about the public resort play as opposed to municipal play. The intent was to amend the resolution along those lines. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. 3. Chairperson Ferguson addressed the issue of the clock. He said in the past he has received comments from people who come to meetings, particularly if they are widely attended, and they ask why is it okay for them to sit there wasting their time while the five or six of them take their time getting to the meetings. He wanted to start the meetings at 7:00 p.m. and if the clock is fast, staff should have it reset. 4. Chairperson Ferguson noted that Commissioner Beaty asked him why he asked for all proponents of an application to speak before the �•• opponents. He explained that he has seen situations before where they get a comment in favor and then a comment in opposition and the person who spoke in favor is not the applicant and didn't have an opportunity to respond to the opposition. In the legal process persons petitioning an application spoke first, then all those in favor of it, and then all of those opposed know what they want to address, and then the applicant could offer rebuttal. It was procedurally fairer. 5. Commissioner Jonathan hoped that any public comments regarding meetings starting on time weren't directed at this commission because he couldn't recall ever this commission starting past 7:00 p.m., whether the clock was right or not. He hoped the public appreciated that. 6. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he wanted to go on the record to express his displeasure with the Desert Sun on their front page articles about the City's new golf course. He felt it was the worst example of lack of professionalism in the so-called newspaper profession. They took a non issue and tried to make it an issue for absolutely no good reason and it was an editorial that was disguised as news. He felt it was detestable. Commissioner Beaty asked if he had sent a letter to the editor. Commissioner Jonathan said he hadn't yet. He has a fairly � good relationship with them and he could call them up, but he was 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ; 's x �.ii waiting to calm down first, but he wanted to be on record expressing that displeasure. Chairperson Ferguson felt it was done more from ignorance. Having served on that committee he had some of the same concerns and they really had to understand Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing to realize that the City was not seeking a return investment of 520 million, they were seeking to generate positive cash flow. He wasn't sure the Desert Sun was that far along on the learning curve yet, but it was unfortunate. He felt the articles on what a dumb investor the City is really missed the mark. XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Ferguson, adjourning the meeting to March 4, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. ��,,., f c ' i . _� ..;�. ... ; 9 PHILIP DRELL, ecretar�c--- � AT EST: �_. JAMES C FERGU ON, Chairperson Palm Deser Planning Commission � � � 28