Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0820 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - AUGUST 20, 2002 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Lopez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell, Vice Chairperson Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez �Mw Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Planning Tech Joe Gaugush, Director of Public Works Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the July 16, 2002 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Lopez abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the August 6, 2002 minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). %NW MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Chairperson Finerty noted that the time extension request by American Realty Trust was back on the Council's agenda. Mr. Drell explained that ART was now working on a new project. He said it was generally along the lines of what the General Plan Committee has been looking at. He said it could be a golf course or low density residential for the golf portion. There were some modifications he has been working on relative to the project topography. He thought ART realized that a more relevant project would be more profitable for them in the long run. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 02-02 - MAMMOTH EQUITIES, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment between Parcel A of PMW 01-08 and Lot 5 of PMW 97-12 for the project located at the southeast corner of Country Club and Harris Lane. B. Case No. PMW 02-12 - EL PASEO, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment for Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 8740, also known as APNs 627-202-007 and 627-202-005. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing 2 *� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. ZOA 02-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council to approve an Amendment to Chapter 25.25, the Office Professional zone, as it relates to maximum building height and how building height is measured. Chairperson Finerty asked for the staff report. Mr. Drell requested that the next public hearing be opened as well since the cases were associated. B. Case No. PP 02-08 - PREST / VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, Applicant (Continued from July 16, 2002) Request for a recommendation to City Council to approve a precise plan of design for a 14,802 square foot office building on the east side of San Pablo Drive 1,100 +/- feet north of Highway 1 1 1 , also known as 44-530 San Pablo Drive. Chairperson Finerty asked for the staff report for both items. Mr. Drell noted that a couple of meetings ago when the commission first reviewed the office building, the Planning Commission wanted to approve the project but the ordinance wouldn't let them so Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would give them the flexibility without having to make the variance findings. Staff prepared some height exception language that "the Planning Commission may approve building heights up to 28 feet based on the finding of the Architectural Commission that the project incorporates unique design and significant roof elements below 25 feet resulting in superior architectural quality." He explained that our goal is not to simply raise the "shoe box" up to 28 feet high, but if buildings incorporate both unique roof design and variation in roof design, the goal is to break up that continuous horizontal. If they use the additional height to create variation and in general the architecture merits it, staff felt the project should be rewarded. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 j I The second issue that staff has been dealing with for a while with a couple of the large projects had to do with where they measure height from. On the smaller projects it's currently measured from the adjacent curb height. Buildings are 25 to 30 feet away from the curb. The grading ordinance requires a positive drainage to the curb which meant effective heights of 25-foot buildings were actually 23.5 feet for a typical building. A large lot that's 600 feet deep that positive drainage situation as it continues to rise would practically preclude any two-story buildings the farther you get from the street because they were still measuring it from this curb height. So staff was suggesting that once you get 50 feet away from the street, they would start measuring building height from the minimum pad required by the City Engineer to achieve a positive drainage under our grading ordinance. For all the typical small lots that front streets like on Fred Waring, it wouldn't apply since all those buildings had to be pushed as close to the street as possible. So they would still be measured from curb elevation. On larger sites like the office buildings on Fred Waring with the various layers or the project on Country Club that was a five-acre parcel extending all the way back, those would then be measured from minimum adjacent grade. That would reward good design and encourage greater setbacks. Mr. Drell thought that right now MAI we punish greater setbacks because it forces people to build lower buildings the further away they get from the street. He asked for any questions on the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the language said that the Planning Commission may approve building heights up to 28 feet based on a finding of the Architectural Commission that the project incorporates unique design, etc. He suggested striking the words "Architectural Commission" in case ARC didn't feel that condition existed, but Planning Commission did. Mr. Drell said that would be fine. Commissioner Jonathan thought the existing wording tied the Planning Commission's hands. Mr. Drell said the good news was that it would allow them to rest on the opinion of the Architectural Commission. By taking that out, it would still allow the Architectural Commission to express their opinion, but it would leave the decision up to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jonathan said that is what he wanted. He didn't want the Planning Commission to be limited to the ARC conclusion. That would be his suggestion. Mr. Drell said he had no problem taking that wording out. 4 '+ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 ► w Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification. On "significant roof elements below 25 feet" he asked if the Architectural Review Commission looked at this and had any input on it. The reason he was asking was to know if there might be an instance when they might have something occurring on the roof that they would want to be above the 25 feet. Mr. Drell said they could have it and if they looked at the building under discussion, it incorporated that. It has a curved roof so it goes up to about 27.5 feet. On the front of the roof the eave goes to about 23.5 feet, plus it would have a one-story section. He said if they looked at the buildings that are most interesting, some of them have a variety of one and two stories or a significant difference between the roof elements. The Vuksic building probably varied in height. It had a one story element at about 13 feet and a curved roof where the eave starts at 23 feet then the top of the arch is at 27.5 feet. This forced or encouraged that sort of variety. It didn't preclude significant elements above 25. The assumption was that they were permitting it. They were allowing 28-foot high buildings, but when they include both 28 feet and 23 feet or in this case 28 feet and 13 feet. Commissioner Tschopp explained that his comment was based on the interpretation that someone might make and how it might be in question later on. If the intent was very clear, there wouldn't be a problem. Mr. Drell thought that if it was unclear, it should be changed. Commissioner Jonathan suggested deleting the words "below 25 feet." It would just say "unique design and significant roof elements resulting in superior architectural quality." Commissioner Tschopp said he just knew how some people could interpret it and take the extremes and it wouldn't be good to get into an argument about it later on about where the architectural element lies, either below or above. Mr. Drell indicated that obviously there were architectural elements below and above. He said it might be more clear by adding the words "above and" below 25 feet resulting in superior architectural quality. He asked what they thought about that. The first sentence says they can go up to 28 feet. What they would be saying is that part of the objective is to get some variety. They want to see height variances above and below the ordinance nominal height limit which is 25 feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked what would happen if they had a situation with a flat roof that was exactly 25 feet and a design comes in and the developer says they want to add some interest and make it curve up. But if it was tow 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 dropped and they had a three-foot curve, they couldn't do it because the stories were too short so the only thing unique was that there was a curved roof starting at 25 feet and going up three feet. The way the ordinance read that would not quality because there was nothing significant below the 25. Mr. Drell concurred. Looking at Mr. Vuksic's building, the eave starts at 23.5 feet. Even if they were to chop off the front element, his building would meet this definition because his roof goes from 23.5 feet to 27.5 feet. Commissioner Jonathan suggested pretending for a moment that it went from 25 to 28 and the applicant said that if they didn't let him do it, he'd do the building with a flat roof. Mr. Drell said that if the commission wanted to have more latitude to make that decision, this kind of described a very specific objective, which was limiting. It told the architect right off that this is our objective and they didn't want them to start at 25 feet and go to 28, the tradeoff was getting some lower elements. If they wanted to retain the ability to approve buildings that start at 25 and go to 28 or argue with someone who wanted to do that and the commission didn't like it, it all depended on the commission's ultimate objective. Commissioner Tschopp thought they all agreed on the objective. But if they gave an inch, an applicant would take the three feet. It had to be in the verbiage tying down that the exception is only granted in very unique situations. Mr. Drell concurred. He said they wanted to make it clear where "unique design and significant roof elements above and below 25 feet resulting in superior architectural quality." Commissioner Lopez stated that he liked that because it gave the commission the ability to look above and below the 25 feet and gave the applicant the flexibility to work in those guidelines without tying the commission's hands. He thought that was a good compromise. Commissioner Tschopp said they were talking about significant roof elements and were limiting it to that and not the whole building going to 28 feet. To summarize, Chairperson Finerty stated that they were striking the words "of the Architectural Commission" and adding roof elements "above and" below 25 feet. Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any other questions. There were no questions. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked if Mr. Katz wished to address the commission. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 r. MR. KATZ asked for permission to pass the floor to his architect, John Cody, first and then he would come back. MR. JOHN CODY, 74-277 Highway 111 in Palm Desert, stated that when he heard about this he came to plead for it for the simple reason they would be building a building that has passed through the architectural committee, the City Council and the Planning Commission. He said there was a problem with the spans because the building is a general office building and could be used for large areas, so their spans were about 32 feet which necessitated 16-inch beams and trusses to allow air-conditioning in through there. The problem with the 24-foot height for them, although they could probably make it work, was that their ceiling heights on the floor areas would be less than nine feet and that was a typical office floor. They were beginning to squeeze and compress the building down to get it in and that was kind of bad. The other thing was the roof tile. Because of the height restrictions, they had to go to 2.5 and 12 which wouldn't even drain. It has a roof under it, a membrane, so it would be all right and would work, but it was a detriment. They would really like to see this simply because it would make it a more viable structure for them. He thanked the commission for their time. MR. KENNETH KATZ, 77-587 Ashbury Court in Palm Desert, informed the commission that he is not an architect or engineer and didn't really understand any of these things except as a layman. But since the last meeting last month, he went back to designing the floor for the doctor and the medical equipment and sitting down with the air-conditioning engineers and the electrical and plumbing, and all he heard was moaning and groaning about not being able to get things done like not getting the drainage because they need more angles, someone could not get the air- conditioning in because of the beams and they constantly heard these things. So he came in to see Mr. Smith to ask for a variance to get some additional height so they could remove the frustrations that they have architecturally and put in the equipment they need. Those people who were building knew it could be very frustrating. Also, for the roof angles, it would be much nicer to have a higher degree of slope. He 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 thanked the commission and said he just wanted to share his view on it. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Lopez asked if the comments were for both. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Mr. Drell noted that two separate resolutions would be needed. Commissioner Campbell indicated they would talk about the first one, the ordinance. Commissioner Tschopp noted that they were really looking at this from an exterior stand point and what the building would look like architecturally on the outside. He suggested inserting that in the language, "resulting in superior exterior architectural quality." The reason he said that was they weren't as interested in what was happening inside as the appearance on the outside. Commissioner Campbell agreed that they look at a building and the height from the outside. Mr. Drell said they really only look at the outside. But they should be concerned about the inside. Commissioner Tschopp said just to be argumentative for when architects come before them in the future and argue that the interior dictates that the building be 28 feet, he thought the argument back would be that they are interested in the exterior. That's why he thought that should be clarified and to say what they were really looking for. Mr. Drell said that if it avoids confusion, he had no problem with saying "exterior" architecture. Commissioner Campbell thought that logically they would be thinking about the exterior as being interesting. Mr. Drell concurred since they were talking about roof heights and differences in roof heights and architectural features. He didn't think it would hurt the ordinance to insert that word. Commissioner Campbell agreed and said that if the commission wanted to add exterior that was fine with her. Commissioner Jonathan said he was okay with adding it and understood Commissioner's Tschopp's point. He concurred that they would have applicants coming in asking for more room to fit in equipment or because it was superior architecturally and that it resulted in higher ceilings, so he agreed that it should be clarified to say that would not be an issue in considering 3 z 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 height exception. Commissioner Tschopp stated that they wanted something approved on the exterior of the building to justify the exception. Chairperson Finerty concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said he was okay with adding that. Commissioner Lopez also concurred. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would also add that change to the motion. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the wording they would end up with would be, "The Planning Commission may approve building heights up to 28 feet based on a finding that the project incorporates unique design and significant roof elements above and below 25 feet resulting in superior exterior architectural quality." Commission concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2146, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 02-04 incorporating the changes to read, "The Planning Commission may approve building heights up to 28 feet based on a finding that the project incorporates unique design and significant roof elements above and below 25 feet resulting in superior exterior architectural quality." Motion carried 5-0. With regard to the second item, Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a staff report. Mr. Drell said that staff went through it last time. He noted that staff made some of the corrections that came out of the last meeting relative to the easement situation. They had given options of the City having easements and that had been deleted from the conditions. Mr. Bagato was here to answer any other questions. Otherwise, the building and the proposal were unchanged from the last hearing. Chairperson Finerty noted that the commission was in favor of the project except for this one thing that the commission just took care of. Mr. Drell concurred. He explained that before they couldn't make the finding that it was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Chairperson Finerty asked if they needed to ask if anyone wished to speak for or against the project. Mr. Drell said that the public hearing was kept open, so yes. law MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Drell said that since it was attached to an ordinance that was going to Council, when they have one part of a relevant part of a project going to Council, the action on the precise plan would also be a recommendation of approval to Council. Both would go to the Council together. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2147, recommending to City Council approval of PP 02-08, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. GPA 02-02, C/Z 02-02 and PP 02-06 - NBNA UNIQUE PROPERTIES, LLC, Applicant (Continued from August 6, 2002) Request for a recommendation to City Council to approve a general plan amendment and change of zone from low density residential (PR-5) planned residential five dwelling units per acre to office professional (O.P.), a precise plan of design allowing up to 33,310 square feet of office professional use and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it pertains thereto for 3.90 acres at the northwest corner of Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Smith explained that the matter was continued from the last meeting at the request of the applicant. In 1998 the City looked at a request to do an office complex on approximately nine acres at the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra and Portola. At that time there was considerable input from nearby residents in the Kaufman and Broad project to the west and it was eventually rejected. The five-acre parcel to the west at Daisy Lane had been developed most recently with single family dwellings. i 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 r., The applicant was requesting approval of a general plan amendment and a change of zone from low density residential to office professional and then was seeking approval of a precise plan for seven one-story office buildings. The site plan, overview and building elevations were on display. For the justification for the general plan amendment and change of zone, staff felt the property at the intersection of two main streets was inappropriate for residential use for reasons of the geometry of the site, the ultimate noise potentially impacting the site and the lack of any type of entry statement that could be achieved through the residential development of the site. In support of the change to office professional, staff felt it would be an effective buffer between high traffic volume streets and less intense land uses to the north. The office professional land use would allow them to create an open landscaped area at the corner of two major streets which the applicant provided in the plan. He said generally staff felt the change to office professional was appropriate for this property. Mr. Smith further explained that they were looking at a total of 33,310 square feet in seven buildings. They range from 3,100 to 6,600 square feet. They were all single story. The site plan provided for a total of 143 parking spaces. too The project has a requirement for 133 spaces. The ten extra spaces could be applied to medical/dental uses and there was a condition on the approval to limit the medical uses to 5,000 square feet. Thirty-eight (38) of the parking spaces would be covered with carports. Architecturally, they were looking at a low profile contemporary desert architecture not too dissimilar from the architecture at Cornerstone at Country Club and Portola. ARC granted preliminary approval on June 11 . They imposed a condition to revise selected parapet elements with appropriate thicknesses and returns and to submit a roof plan illustrating the design. There would be three access points. One from Portola, one from Frank Sinatra and one onto Shepherd. Generally right in and right out only. Staff felt the project could be supported relative to environmental impact and recommended approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. In conclusion, staff felt the property would be difficult to develop residentially and that future traffic levels could negatively impact on residential units. From an urban design consideration, staff also felt that moving neighborhood services closer to residents was desirable and should reduce traffic into the 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 i t core of the city. Mr. Smith said the precise plan as proposed was consistent with the O.P. development standards which was the requested zoning and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Mr. Smith noted that condition number 15 relative to a bus shelter and stop on Portola would be amended. In discussions with transportation staff, it was indicated that the design of an actual shelter itself was no longer being required, only the pad and electricity servicing the pad. So condition number 15 should be amended accordingly. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Campbell noted that condition number 12 limited hours of operation for the office park from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven days a week. She pointed out that most office buildings were only open five days a week and staying open until 7:00 p.m. seemed quite late. Business was usually 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 or 5:30 p.m. Mr. Smith said that typically it would be. Mr. Drell stated that he didn't think they had ever limited an office building to certain hours at all. That was just how 99% of offices operated. But if they had a dentist that was open on Saturday, he thought that was a good thing. If someone was Jewish and a dentist was open on Sunday that would be a good thing. It was a minor, insignificant level of activity. He didn't believe they had ever put hours of operation on an office building. Commissioner Campbell WMW pointed out that it was close to residential and that was why it was a concern. Mr. Drell said that almost all office use was adjacent to residential. Commissioner Campbell asked if the medical office building on Park View was limited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the Dr. McLaughlin building. Mr. Drell didn't remember it being limited. The only office building he remembered limiting hours on was the office building next to L.G.'s Steakhouse because there was a reciprocal parking situation and they didn't want them to conflict with the restaurant, so they limited the hours to 5:00 p.m. But he didn't believe they had ever limited hours or had a problem or complaints from residents because of a doctor, dentist or accountant being open until 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. or going into the office on Saturday to work. Commissioner Campbell questioned the seven days a week. Mr. Drell asked if they started saying Saturday or Sunday, which day they would be closed. Seventh Day Adventists were one day and Catholics were another. He didn't think they were in a position to make that decision. Commissioner Campbell asked if they didn't have to make that decision, why the condition was in the resolution. Mr. Drell didn't think it should be there at all and agreed that the condition should be taken out. Mr. Smith explained that when they were 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 dealing with this issue four years ago, they had considerable neighborhood input. He also agreed they should remove it. Commissioner Lopez asked for confirmation that this public hearing was noticed. Mr. Smith said it was, but they were dealing with a vacant five-acre parcel to the north and all the lots to the west were owned by the same person. Mr. Drell explained that this office building was proposed before any of the residences had been approved or proposed. There was a concern that this whole area would go office and they wanted it to go residential which it will go in every instance except this one and possibly the Jewish Community Center at the end. He indicated that they would have to go 600 or 800 feet to get to any existing residences. The property owners of the vacant residential parcels did not have a problem or at least staff didn't hear from them. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on what the PC-2 zone would allow to the south. Mr. Smith explained it was neighborhood commercial. Mr. Drell said it would allow a supermarket, although they didn't anticipate a supermarket ever going there. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that was in line tow with the new General Plan proposal. Mr. Drell said they hadn't proposed any down zoning of any commercial properties. His expectation was that it probably wouldn't be a supermarket because Desert Willow was there, Ralph's was down the street and potentially the big Wal-Mart was going down the other way. That was something they could look at in the General Plan. All the attention had been focused north of Frank Sinatra. He thought the more logical use would also be office professional. Commissioner Tschopp said that the reason he brought up the question was because of the access to this site and the limitation on the right turns which needed to be in place right now, but just driving out there he could see that at some point in time they were going to need a stop light. For people coming out of Shepherd Lane or out of this development trying to go east on Frank Sinatra, they would have to go down and make a U-turn and he could foresee some difficulty down the road when this site developed. Mr. Smith explained that they would exit out onto Frank Sinatra and down Frank Sinatra to make a left at that point. Mr. Drell asked if there was a break in the median at Shepherd. Commissioner Tschopp said no. Someone would have to go west down to a break a couple of hundred yards down and make a U-turn. Mr. Drell noted that there was a break that wasn't adjacent to any entrance. ir.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 Commissioner Campbell indicated that the staff report ort said cars would exit on p p Portola and make a right on Portola and a left to go east. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the residents off Shepherd Lane in that development would have access to the parking lot to make that right turn or if they had taken that into consideration. He could see that happening. The alternative was to go west. Mr. Smith thought it was circuitous enough that they wouldn't do it more than once. Mr. Drell reiterated that he was suggesting they might go through the parking lot to exit on Portola and then make the left on Sinatra. Commissioner Tschopp clarified he wasn't suggesting it, he was just stating that traffic wise they could see as that area develops out more and more as residential. There was quite a bit of traffic trying to get out and they will flow to the least resistance and they might try to go through this development's parking lot. Mr. Drell said that Shepherd eventually swings around at the Jewish Community Center to Portola. For the property west of that they would probably have an east-west going through there that would go all the way to Cook Street. At that point they would probably have a signal conceivably. But in any case those people could get to Portola going north. That would be the easiest way to do it. The only alternative would be to somehow create a public street and what they have done was limit it and not let any of those residential properties have any access onto Portola. This would be the only property with access to Portola with the exception of the Jewish Community Center by virtue of them having the street run around them. If that was potentially a problem, and they could ask the applicant if they thought that was a problem, residents would discover that was a way to go eastbound on Sinatra to go through their project and turn left from Portola onto Sinatra. Mr. Gaugush said the observation was correct. The potential was there. Whether or not one chose to use it was the argument. As the parking is laid out, he thought the comment that someone would do it once and not use it again probably held a lot of weight. Coming down and making the right turn on Frank Sinatra and immediately making the U-turn approximately 600 feet westerly of the intersection of Shepherd and Frank Sinatra would be a lot more of a viable route than trying to traverse the parking lot. Commissioner Tschopp thanked staff. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A in Palm Desert, stated that he agreed with the staff report. They found no fault .I 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 with the staff report and thought they had a really nice project for the city, one that the city would be proud of. They have a forerunner that the city really likes and they tried to pattern the site plan somewhat after that, but going with more of a stone plaster. The Architectural Review Board asked if they could raise the alternate building which they had no problem doing to get a little more articulation in the architecture. They were happy to do that. He thought it would be a very nice project for the city and didn't think it would be a big problem with the neighborhood. The 15 houses immediately to the west belonged to the Barbara Sinatra medical center. Therefore, that was a different use then a bunch of kids running around. Which was good in a lot of respects because it would keep that traffic away from a street with a lot of traffic on it. He stated that they were in favor of everything. He pointed out that the client's name is Unique Properties so he wanted this to be the best, within the city guidelines and at the time was trying to keep everything under the 24-foot height. He thought it was a good project they would be able to point to and say it accomplished what the city was trying to do. Commissioner Campbell asked for the setback of the back building to the wall. Mr. Ricciardi said it was about 20 feet. It was a single story building. He noted that Mr. Homme's building was a little higher than that, so this would be a lot nicer. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be ample landscaping. Mr. Ricciardi said yes. They had good spaces for trees to grow and to be screened. Most of this would be vacant on Saturday and Sunday. Not too many people really work in offices on Saturday or Sunday so most would be empty. He didn't think many dentists would work past noon if they were open on the weekend. Asking about the point made by Commissioner Tschopp earlier regarding cut through traffic, Commissioner Campbell asked if it would be better to have a gate. Mr. Ricciardi acknowledged that there were some properties around town that had these problems and they usually ended up putting in 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 speed bumps and things to slow traffic down. On Highway 1 1 1 and Cook, people were trying to get from Cook over to Paine Webber without going onto Highway 1 1 1 so they manipulate their way through there, but he didn't think there were any serious accidents but they did put speed bumps in to slow traffic down. If there was any additional traffic it would be reduced in speed. He hoped there wouldn't be too much of that and thought it was easy to go out onto Frank Sinatra and make an immediately left turn. That was pretty simple and a lot less effort than trying to traverse through a parking lot. If they were trying to get some place quicker and faster, that would be the route they would take in order to go east on Frank Sinatra. Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the side access. He noted that there was an access point onto Portola and in general they have tried to stay away from that. He asked if staff felt that a Portola access was an enhancement to the traffic circulation and if it was necessary. It seemed to him to be not that far from the corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra and he was wondering if it was necessary. Mr. Gaugush said he didn't know if he'd call it an enhancement to the traffic circulation. One thing it did provide was the ability for users of this facility to exit the property and head eastbound via the Portola maneuver. In that context it was a benefit to the property and a proper installation. He said it was setback as far as it relatively could be from the intersection. He thought they had from centerline to centerline of the driveway approximately 300 feet. It was decent distance and a workable distance. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there would be deceleration and acceleration areas. Mr. Gaugush said those conditions had been applied to the project at the four project entries for both deceleration and acceleration. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in general they have tried to stay away from too many access points on Portola and asked for confirmation that Mr. Gaugush didn't feel this was a detriment to the general traffic flow on Portola in that area. Mr. Gaugush said no, they did not view it as such. Commissioner Campbell thought it was an excellent building and an excellent project. For the area it would be in it was a good use. It was only 18 feet high which was also good. Even though there would be more office professional, 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 it would blend in with the existing homes. She said that as long as everything shown on the pictures was there, she would move for approval deleting condition number 12 and amending condition number 15. Commissioner Lopez concurred. He thought the project looked good and was good land use. He thought it was very attractive. The traffic flow looked good. As creatures of habit, he thought the folks who live on Shepherd who have been going out and taking a right and going down and making a U-turn to go east would probably continue to do that. Once in a while they would probably get someone going through the parking lot, but he thought it would take longer to do that. Obviously Kaufman and Broad didn't think it was important any more because they had a lot of buffering between what they currently had and what they have now so he didn't think that would be an issue. He thought it was a good project and seconded the motion with the appropriate changes to the conditions. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a very good project that fit very well on that corner. He thought it was well designed. He did have a concern, not with this project, but just with that whole street and could see that down the road in a number of years that will be a very very busy street and what they were currently doing on Shepherd Lane wouldn't work in the future. He thought they had seen that in other areas of the city from Monterey to Fred Waring, etc. He challenged the traffic engineers to keep watch on that area because it would be a problem some day down the road as that whole area keeps developing out. Otherwise he thought it was a very good project and fit well in the area. Commissioner Jonathan concurred with the other commissioners. He felt the general plan amendment and change of zone made sense. He thought it was reminiscent of the Palma Village Plan in terms of the objectives this accomplished, mainly a nice buffer from a heavily trafficked arterial street to residential so this was a good use of office professional. The precise plan was fine. The design was potentially attractive if, as indicated by Commissioner Campbell, they got what they see. He hoped they would and suspected they would. He thought it should turn out very nicely and for those reasons he was also in favor. Chairperson Finerty concurred. She said she noticed the size of the palm trees on the exhibits and hoped they would see that same size there when the 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 project was built. Commissioner Jonathan agreed because he thought there was a potential for a certain blandness. There was a uniformity of color and design which the landscaping broke up nicely, so he concurred and hoped they saw the volume and size as indicated in the renderings. Chairperson Finerty called for a vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2148, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 02-02, C/Z 02-02, PP 02-06 and the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto, subject to the deletion of condition number 12 and the modification of condition number 15. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case No. PP 02-1 1 - THE YANKEE WOODSHOP, Applicant Request for approval of a 5,580 square foot industrial warehouse at the northwest corner of Beacon Hill and Mayfair Drive, 75-180 Mayfair Drive. Mr. Bagato explained that on May 1 , 2001 a similar project was approved at this same location for a 5,500 square foot industrial warehouse building. That entitlement expired and the applicant was requesting a new site plan and architecture. The existing area and all the properties around it are zoned service industrial. He stated that the property is located at the northwest corner of Beacon Hill and Mayfield Drive. He further explained that the site slopes significantly from north to south. There was an existing retaining wall along the property from the north and west. The property was currently vacant and the current proposal was for an industrial building 5,580 square feet with a maximum of 50% office space. The applicant provided three spaces per 1,000 square feet which entitled him up to 50% instead of the normal 20% in the industrial zone. The project met all the requirements of the service industrial zone. 18 , MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 tow The architecture of the building was contemporary in nature with some various angles and pop outs. The exterior of the building would be a stucco finish with a variety of earth tones. Mr. Bagato noted that a color sample and colored elevations were on display. He said there were two 12 x 14 overhead doors on the east side of the building. The doors were setback from Beacon Hill about 60 feet and the doors would be substantially screened from the slope along the property with the grade difference. The height of the building was single story, 22 feet and on July 23, 2002 Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval of the revised architecture. The findings for approval were included in the staff report. For environmental review, Mr. Bagato said this was a Class 32 categorical exemption under CEQA for infill development and staff's recommendation was that Planning Commission adopt the draft Planning Commission Resolution approving the precise plan subject to conditions. Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Place, Suite A, in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He explained that they tried to do something that when someone was driving on Mayfair and Beacon Hill that intersection would be a nice looking intersection. So they faced the buildings so that the back part of the building would be facing another industrial building with a bunch of roll up doors which wasn't too attractive. So they really wanted this to look great from the two streets. So they added articulation to the building with the ins and outs and different pop outs on the building in order to get a different shadow line. He thought it looked good for an industrial building and looked nice with the facility across the street that was done some time ago. Then they had varying heights on the building also. For an industrial building they were trying to take it a step up and it wouldn't be a tilt up. He thought it would be a very nice looking building and with the different stripes and colors it should be very pleasant there. Chairperson Finerty asked where the mustard color would be. Mr. Ricciardi said that he tried to get the colors as close to the colors of the building across the street which he thought was really neat looking and those would be the colors. Even though it looked like 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 mustard inside, when it was taken outside into the sunlight the colors changed. Chairperson Finerty asked if it was similar to the mustard on the Ralph's on Washington. Mr. Ricciardi said no, there was a building across the street that Brian Orr owns just up from the auto parts building and those colors came out really great. That was what they were trying to emulate, but he didn't have the cornice at the top. Commissioner Campbell asked if what they approved in 2001 was similar to this project. Mr. Ricciardi said no. That building faced west and he never saw it. Mr. Drell said it was a similar size of building but the site plan and architecture were different. Mr. Ricciardi said that they didn't want the bays facing west on an industrial building because the west side is where the sun beats and the wind blew that way also. It was a lot harder to have an industrial building with the bays facing west. Chairperson Finerty thanked Mr. Ricciardi. She asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a nice looking building that should fit in well and moved for approval. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and seconded the motion. Commissioner Campbell also concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 it It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2149, approving PP 02-1 1 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion of the City's Utility Undergrounding Program. Mr. Conlon explained that he was requested to come to update the Planning Commission on the City's underground efforts. He noted that there were two colored exhibits. One was the Arterial Underground Plan and the other the Neighborhood Utility Undergrounding Districts. Starting with the arterial underground plan, Mr. Conlon explained that they were both related, but in looking at the arterial underground exhibit they had three projects currently underway. One was being done by a private developer and the other two were being done by the City. The largest one was the Highway 74 undergrounding. They were undergrounding the power lines from El Paseo all the way up to Bighorn including a small segment on Cahuilla Way. He noted that it's a scenic ftw highway and that it is about a $2.2 million project. The second project currently underway was the Cook Street undergrounding which runs from the Palm Desert High School north to Avenue 42 which would remove all of the remaining lines on Cook Street. The Highway 74 project would remove all the remaining overhead lines on Highway 74. So those two corridors would be clear. Regarding the timing on those two projects, Mr. Conlon said that they are putting in the conduit in the street now. Their anticipated completion date was the middle to the end of September and then at that point they would turn it over to Southern California Edison. They have a different cabling crew that comes in to pull all the cables and set the transformers and they take about 90 days, so probably three months after September. He said that meant an early Spring completion date for the undergrounding of those two projects. The third project, number 21, was a small job on Country Club Drive. That was part of the Portofino development and the developer was doing that as part of the conditions of approval for development. Green areas on the arterial plan identified completed areas. Yellow areas were tow 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 the areas they were looking forward to completing in the next three to five years depending on budget funding. Their goal has been working on the arterials first and there were a couple of reasons why. When they do street widening, they will have the lines out of the way. There was seismic safety. These arterials are very important for recovery vehicles and emergency services if they were to have those lines down in the street after an earthquake. Also, the neighborhoods get a benefit. If a neighborhood assessment district were to form, the removal of these arterial lines would take the burden off of any local or adjacent neighborhoods which might form an assessment district. The second exhibit was of the utility underground district. There were 18 districts that staff had worked with the engineers at Southern California Edison in putting together. These were the smallest areas that they could engineering wise underground. These areas could be combined together in larger districts if they wanted. But a lot of times they had folks coming in just wanting to underground the utility lines on their street and that was very very expensive and almost impractical. So they tried to put together a strategy where they'd have an assessment district that could work, but keeping it as small as possible. Mr. Conlon noted that they also had the City Council resolution setting up the undergrounding assistance program for neighborhoods. That was Resolution No. 00-135. They also had his staff report to the City Council from December 14, 2000 that kind of outlined the assistance program for neighborhood undergrounding assessment districts. He informed commission that they have one neighborhood undergrounding assessment district currently being formed. That was District 18, the Silver Spur Ranch district. They have submitted a petition to City Council. He believed around 76% of the registered property owners signed the petition initiating the assessment district proceedings up there. The Edison engineering was complete at this time. He thought that at the end of this week the Verizon engineering would be complete. The assessment district engineer had been hired for this project and he suspected that they would be in front of the City Council with the preliminary engineer's report, the resolution setting 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 forth the assessment district boundaries, authorization to go out to bid for this district and authorization to ballot for this district in November of this year. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification. Mr. Conlon explained that they signed a petition that they wanted to form the district. That was the first step in the assessment district. Once they finished all the engineering and got all the costs together, they go out to bid and then get the lowest responsible bidder. The assessment district engineer spreads the assessment on all the parcels. Then they send the ballots out. The ballots would tell the property owners exactly how much their assessments are and they had to do all the other work before they could do that. Once they vote and send the cards back in and the ballots are counted, then they would know whether or not they have a viable assessment district. They needed 51 % of the cards returned voting in favor. In the assessment district assistance program, they have a 70% ... threshold on the petition. There was a lot of work he has been doing on this assessment district and before he started doing all this work they wanted to be sure they wanted to have a safety margin because people change their minds, so they like to have 70% of the property owners sign the petition to start formation of the district. He explained that they only need 51 % when they go out to ballot. He said Silver Spur Ranch was in design and he anticipated that they would start construction in spring of 2003 with the completion of that neighborhood by the end of summer, August or September of 2003. What he did with the neighborhood assistance program was put together a packet of information on each district. He has been receiving calls and for each of the 18 districts there was a package of information available. He put together five packages per district. He had been asking people to sign up as block captains. He was there to facilitate formation of an assessment district, not to promote it. It was up to them to go around and knock on doors and get the signatures. So he had packages of information for each district and he had been handing them out. They've had districts 11 , 13, 15 and 18 request information. District 18 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 was the Silver Spur Ranch area. He said that they have a leg up on this whole thing because they have such an active homeowner's association with monthly meetings that were very well attended. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked if Mr. Conlon had any idea what District 18 would cost. Mr. Conlon said they were looking at about $2.4 million. Commissioner Jonathan noted that was the total cost, but there was a sharing program so that the homeowners would be assessed only half of that. Mr. Conlon clarified that was up to half of that and only certain eligible costs. It was not a dollar for dollar match. The City could only pay for work in the public right-of-way which would be trenching, back filling and street paving. The City could pay for assessment district engineers, his time and the costs of issuing bonds to finance the district. They could not pay for the cost of Edison facilities or Verizon facilities. They could not pay for any work on private property. So there were only certain eligible costs that the City.could participate in up to 50% of the total cost of the district. Commissioner Jonathan said that if they looked at District 18, the total cost might be around $10,000 per parcel and the property owner would participate to the extent of about $5,000. Mr. Conlon explained that these are order of magnitude costs and they had been running anywhere between $10,000 to $12,000 per parcel depending on the parcel size and what's going on. There were really four categories of cost. The order of magnitude of cost which kind of got them in the universe, the engineering costs, the bid price, and then the final installed cost. So the order of magnitude cost was certainly not an engineering cost because they didn't have that ready yet. That was what they were working on now. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it told them a ballpark figure and that's what the homeowners had in their mind although he heard Mr. Conlon say there would be bonds issued so this was not something they were being asked 24 �.,� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 to come out of pocket for immediately. This would be added to their property tax base and they pay it out over time. Mr. Conlon said that was correct. As part of the assessment district, they would be financing it and then offering the property owner the option to either cash out in a 30-day window to pay off their assessment or staff would put it on the tax bill for them. Commissioner Jonathan asked if a homeowner elected not to cash out, what the increase would be to their annual property tax bill. Mr. Conlon said that depending on what type of rates they sold the bonds at, it was about $680 a year additional in their taxes. That would be paid over two payments. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that was a 10-year payback. Mr. Conlon said 20. He figured $6,500 and 5.2% or 5.25% on the bonds. Commissioner Jonathan said he was just trying to get an idea of what the homeowners seemed willing to accepting in District 18 and what they were ready to pay. Mr. Conlon said they would know more after finishing the preliminary engineer's report which would be in front of the Council. He said he would rather shock them up front and then come in with a lower figure. So he had been telling them between $6,000 and $8,000 a parcel. It could be any where in there because there were a couple of different parcel sizes up there in Silver Spur. But when they received that engineering plan they would have a much better idea. Commissioner Campbell asked how the neighborhoods were divided. Mr. Conlon explained that the neighborhoods are divided by the circuiting that the Southern California Edison put together and how they have the circuits run for the neighborhood. %NOW 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 3 Commissioner Campbell asked how the neighborhoods knew this program was available. Mr. Conlon said that since December of 2000 they have had two articles run in the newsletter. He said he has made presentations in front of a couple of different homeowner's associations. He wasn't sure if they had an article in Desert Sun yet, but this underground assistance program was a pilot program. They only have $3 million available. So it was on a first come first served basis. They have $1 .2 or $1 .5 million of the $3 million already earmarked for Silver Spur Ranch. So they only have a little bit left and probably the next neighborhood that forms would probably gobble up the remaining funds available in this pilot program. Commissioner Campbell asked if he would be advertising it again. Mr. Conlon said no. Commissioner Campbell said that people might not remember what they read a two years ago. Mr. Conlon explained that people call. He received two or three calls a week asking about undergrounding, especially with all of Highway 74 and Cook Street going on. The word gets out. Commissioner Campbell asked if when they call and ask, he tells them this is available. Mr. Conlon said yes. In fact, he said he asks them if they'd like to be the volunteer for their neighborhood and puts them on a mailing and phone list so when other folks call in from the same area, he could refer them. He noted that he lives in District 15 and has 309 parcels in that district. He spent a couple hundred dollars in mailing and sent out letters that his wife typed up and they sent them to all his neighbors about this program. He received six responses. He said Silver Spur Ranch really surprised him. He was up there a couple of times to their homeowner's meetings. They have undergrounded properties all around them and they could really see the 26 �f MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 r.. direct benefit of undergrounding their neighborhood. It was something that would have an immediate impact in their property values, but a future owner would have to pay it off down the road. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that everything on the map was south of the Whitewater Storm Channel. She asked if that meant there was nothing existing to the north. Mr. Drell agreed that they were all new developments that had already been done. Referring to the neighborhood map, Mr. Conlon noted that Districts 1 and 2 were both north of the Whitewater Wash. Commissioner Campbell noted there was nothing there between Portola and the freeway. Mr. Drell indicated that everything in the city built since incorporation has had to be undergrounded. The original adopted city zoning ordinance required all new development to underground all their lines. Commissioner Lopez asked if they could really put those big power lines along Country Club Drive in front of the Marriott underground. r.. Mr. Conlon said they were very expensive. Rancho Mirage did it. And those are 1 15,000 volt lines, transmission lines. Commissioner Campbell said that there was also another area not identified. There were lines on Portola that went all the way to Monterey and half of Monterey. She asked what kind of poles those were. Mr. Conlon said those were also transmission lines. He didn't have them on the neighborhood undergrounding map because those were not neighborhood lines. They were transmission lines. The neighborhood underground program was primarily geared for houses that have overhead services that are connected to neighborhood lines. Those lines that she was talking about were large transmission lines that come from the substation there along Monterey in Rancho Mirage. Commissioner Campbell asked what could be done about those lines. Mr. Conlon said the power source is from Rancho Mirage but the lines are in Palm Desert. On the arterial undergrounding plan, the 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 transmission lines were identified and those that were along the street. If they followed the extension of those lines behind Hovley Lane West, they veer over to the west to the Rancho Mirage substation. Looking at the map, he said they weren't adjacent to an arterial and they weren't really a neighborhood line. Commissioner Campbell said they were out there in no man's land. Mr. Conlon asked what she wanted to do. Commissioner Campbell said she wanted them put underground. Mr. Drell said that the theory is that they are of secondary priority since they are less visible and the undergrounding of the lines that they do see on the arterials may not happen in our lifetime, but he thought Mr. Conlon should add them in a different category since they are there, but were of a lesser priority. Commissioner Campbell thought they looked as unsightly as the ones between Highway 1 1 1 and Fred Waring on Portola. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that they all looked bad and thought that Mr. Conlon was doing very very important work. He noted that he mentioned before in terms of the aesthetic quality of life here in our city one of the biggest impacts they could make besides the traffic improvements which were quite visible and hopefully effective, is undergrounding. They knew at least subconsciously if not consciously when they are in an area where they don't see wires such as north of Country Club. And conversely there was a negative subconscious or conscious impact when they see a bunch of wires all over the place, not just the big ones like on Cook Street. People also complained about not being able to hear the radio, even the smaller ones. He hoped that Mr. Conlon met with a great deal of success and hoped that District 18 goes through and that he showcased it and took before and after pictures and got the Desert Sun to get the word out because he would love nothing more than to see all of these areas in the entire city undergrounded. He said Mr. Conlon was doing good work and important work. Mr. Conlon thanked him and said he would like to showcase the Silver Spur Ranch area and then maybe go back to the City Council and see if he could get more money in that assistance program. j 28 �„ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 a.r Commissioner Jonathan said he would have his support. Commissioner Tschopp asked about district areas where newer buildings have already undergrounded their utilities but surrounding businesses or residences haven't. He asked how that person who had already paid for his undergrounding got assessed. He asked if that person got assessed in this district and if he was assessed just like everyone else. Mr. Conlon explained that if the property has overhead lines that are along the property boundaries and the service between the building and the overhead lines was underground, there would be a cost savings to that building owner or home owner. There would be a cost savings because that building owner wouldn't have to pay to run an underground service to his building because he had already done that. If the property has overhead lines that run along the boundary, they would still be in an assessment district because they would be paying their share of that undergrounding. Commissioner Tschopp indicated that if there were areas where they had a �.. person who had already put theirs underground, what he was saying was that there was an adjustment in the calculation of what they would pay. Mr. Conlon said that was correct. That was why they saw a lot of blank areas. There were neighborhoods that are already undergrounded and are outside of any future district. Commissioner Tschopp asked how publicly owned property was being handled within these districts. Mr. Conlon said they pay it. Even if it's the Water District or someone else. Commissioner Tschopp asked if it belonged to the City of Palm Desert if they would be assessed. Mr. Drell believed they would be. Mr. Hargreaves thought that under current assessment law, they would have to spread the assessment among the different governmental agencies. Collecting from them was another matter. Mr. Drell said they wouldn't have a property tax bill, but typically they would pay their piece in one lump sum. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 j Mr. Conlon noted that there was some Water District owned property up there, so they would see. Mr. Drell didn't think there had been a problem historically. Looking at District 18, Commissioner Tschopp noted that there was a park there with the utilities running right over it and it was excluded just on the outside of that area. He had always maintained that that is a true eyesore and the City should step up and set an example by having those undergrounded. Mr. Conlon said there is a plan for Ironwood Park. He said he tried to get those undergrounded when they got the park, but they would be undergrounding those. Commissioner Jonathan noted that any other developer would have been required to underground the lines. Commissioner Tschopp agreed and said that what is good for the few is good for the many. The commission thanked Mr. Conlon for his presentation. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell stated that the Art in Public Places Committee had a special meeting on August 14, 2002. They picked out the art for the medians on El Paseo. She said it would be in front of Council in September. She noted that there was going to be quite a bit of diversity this time and thought they would like it. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 30 Ind MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2002 6. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Jonathan thanked staff for inviting Mr. Conlon to the meeting. He noted it had been requested a while back and thanked staff for following up. Chairperson Finerty noted that the next meeting would be September 3, 2002, the day after Labor Day. XI1. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, ecretary ATTEST: CINDY FIN RT'(, Chairpe on Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � 31