Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-19 PC Regular Meeting Minutes ONO--'—� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY — OCTOBER 19, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Limont called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Connor Limont, Chair Mari Schmidt, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Nancy De Luna Van Tanner Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Robert Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Tony Becker, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Schmidt led the pledge of allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Lauri Aylaian stated that there were no decisions made relative to land use issues at the last City Council meeting. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 2010 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the October 5, 2010, meeting minutes. ► Commissioner De Luna wanted to clarify the meaning of her being listed as ABSENT for a vote and wanted it specified as ABSENT for that particular vote. Mr. Becker replied that upon talking with the City Clerk, she confirmed that having Commissioner De Luna listed as ABSENT under that vote signifies that she was ABSENT for only that vote since she recused herself and left the Chamber. The minutes appropriately reflect this action. Action: Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded the approval of the October 5, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR NONE Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Limont stated that 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 described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. ZOA 10-311, City of Palm Desert, Applicant Recommendation of Approval for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment providing signage standards for illuminated window signage in Section 25.68 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Principal Planner Tony Bagato orally presented his staff report and Power Point presentation to the Planning Commission regarding neon window signs. He showed examples of signs that fall under this proposed new ordinance. He stated that the previous ordinance was established in 1978 and at that time, neon signs weren't specifically mentioned in the ordinance. By virtue of not being explicitly permitted, they were prohibited. As the signs appeared, the enforcement was strictly on a complaint-driven basis. In 2009, staff was instructed to update the ordinance. Direction was given that all neon signs were now to be explicitly prohibited and that the Code Enforcement Division should work with businesses to bring them into 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2010 compliance. Upon receiving numerous complaints from businesses about being asked to remove their signs, staff was instructed by the City Council to suspend enforcement and inform the public that any NEW neon signs had to go through the Architectural Review Commission process. Mr. Bagato outlined the new regulations that would be added to the ordinance. They state that: No signs can be added after the fact (for grandfathering purposes); the signs cannot be in residential areas; they cannot be combined with reflective materials; they can only cover up to 25% of the window (not including glass doors); and, there must be only one neon sign per frontage. When a business is across from a residential area, then the neon sign must be turned off at night. Signs must identify the business or have aesthetic merit; those signs that advertise products sold or that list prices or phone numbers will not be permitted at all. Staff recommends approval and with that, Mr. Bagato took questions. Commissioner De Luna began by asking about the new ordinance and if, in theory, every shop on El Paseo and on Highway 111 could potentially have a neon sign in their window as long as it met certain criteria. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner De Luna mentioned that a business called in upon hearing about the new sign ordinance, complaining that it would hinder their ability to advertise in this bad economy. Mr. Bagato stated that that did transpire. It was Skitzo Kitty, on Hwy 111, who has a neon sign and their other sign is a non-illuminated wooden sign. The owner wanted to be able to keep his neon sign lit until closing at 9 p.m. since the wooden one would not be seen in the dark when he was still open. Commissioner Limont asked about the advertising of products and if those will still be allowed. Mr. Bagato said that some businesses would be grandfathered in with respect to those that already have 'Corona' and `Budweiser' signs. But no new product signs and none displaying a phone number or anything related to products that are sold inside the business would be permitted. She asked about what percentage of the window the Apple sign uses. Mr. Bagato stated that the Apple sign isn't a window sign, it's a 'wall-sign' located above the store. And that sign has gone through ARC and meets all of the requirements for illuminated wall signage. Commissioner Tanner asked for clarification about the ordinance stating that existing signs in business windows, even if there are more than two, will be allowed to stay. Mr. Bagato stated that was true and it is for that reason that the City wants them inventoried and documented now, so when there is enforcement, those businesses can't change them or add more at the last second. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2010 Following this question, Chair Limont asked to clarify what they are being asked to do and stated that, as she understands it, the Commission is being asked to grandfather those signs that are in existence today because of lack of enforcement from years past. Mr. Bagato responded that he talked with the City Attorney, Dave Erwin, who believes that yes, we do need to allow existing signs to continue to exist. Chair Limont asked if we were able to enforce the current prohibition legally, or is the City walking too fine of a line? Commissioner Tanner followed up with asking what happens if we CAN'T enforce this, what would businesses do. Mr. Bagato stated that, under the proposed ordinance, all new signs of either existing or new businesses must go through the ARC for review. Mr. Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney spoke on behalf of City Attorney Dave Erwin to Commissioner Limont's question about legality. He stated that he hadn't had a chance to talk in depth with Mr. Erwin about this matter, but if the ordinance forbids neon, then legally the City can enforce the prohibition. However, the longer the City waits to enforce something from the start of a violation, then the more diminished the ability to enforce becomes. Commissioner Schmidt asked how many signs would be grandfathered in under this new ordinance. If the City is going to give carte-blanche to allow existing signs, she wanted to know what that number is. Mr. Bagato didn't know off hand, but Ms. Aylaian stated that Code Enforcement has been ..rr keeping inventory of how many businesses have neon signs currently and that number is near 50, although some of these businesses have numerous signs. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she understood that none of the stores on El Paseo have any. Various Commissioners stated that some stores on El Paseo do in fact have neon signs. She asked if any existing business that doesn't currently have a neon sign could now request one under the grandfather clause. Mr. Bagato stated that the ordinance reads [in part] that all new neon signs for ALL businesses, existing and new, would have to go through ARC from this point forward. Commissioner Schmidt wanted to ask about existing scrolling marquis signs, and if they are included in this ordinance. Mr. Bagato stated that those are considered 'moving signs' and those certainly are prohibited. She then asked if the color of illuminated signs is controlled by the code or the Architectural Committee. Mr. Bagato stated that the City doesn't regulate color up to three colors; after three colors there are requirements to reduce the size of the sign for each additional color used. The bottom line is that any new sign that comes up, either from a new business or an existing business will have to go before the Architectural Review Commission. No 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19. 2010 Mr. Bagato stated that if the Planning Commission wanted to move for denial, then their recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for direction. A recommendation can be made for denial and enforcement of prohibition of all neon signs, if that is what the Planning Commission requests. Commissioner Schmidt asked if any attempt has been made to reach out to those businesses that DO NOT have neon signs and how they felt about it. Mr. Bagato stated that no real attempt was made to contact non-signed businesses. Commissioner Schmidt asked if this applied to the El Paseo Gardens. Mr. Bagato stated that it does. Chair Limont opened the public hearing for comments. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing and asked for commissioner comments. Commissioner Schmidt commented on the impact of signs and the grandfathering of signs. She doesn't feel it's proper and it's opening up a can of worms for those that oppose neon signs. Commissioner De Luna stated that theoretically El Paseo could end up looking like Las Vegas. She doesn't mind the "Newport Beach look" but not the "Venice Beach look". She went on to state that if the City allows neon signs, then every business could get one and then how would that business stand out? She stated that the idea of neon signs was to make a business stand out, but if everyone had them, then nothing would stand out. She thinks that that specific argument doesn't wash and wants to prohibit all neon signs. With that she moved for denial. Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion for denial, but then added further discussion: Neon signs could be a distraction. She read an article that said one-in-three trucks on 1-10 is so unsafe that they need to be pulled off of the road. She said that that is meant to get your attention, as are neon signs. And since they are attention grabbers, she would hate to see an accident because a sign distracted a motorist while they were driving. Commissioner Tanner offered his thoughts on the matter stating that he is not in favor of neon signs, but understands that businesses need something more than just regular signs to attract business. As the proposal has been presented today, and that the City Council has voted in favor of changes; he is now in favor of having all new signs go for review with the ARC as part of the permitting process. He indicated that he would not vote for the denial of staff request to change the zoning ordinance. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 201 Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner Tanner in that staff and City Council have worked to have the ordinance read in favor of all new signs going through ARC so they can be monitored appropriately. So she is in favor of grandfathering existing signs. Chair Limont talked about Palm Desert and its sense of being. She went on to say that the city isn't flashy, it's not Las Vegas, and that El Paseo is the feather in the cap. The City and the Commissioners have worked hard to get it to where it is today and to maintain that look and feel and sense of what is Palm Desert. She stated that she is not in favor of this ordinance and with that reiterated the current motion and second and called for the vote in favor of denying the Zoning Amendment. Action: Commissioner De Luna moved and Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion to deny ZOA 10-311. The motion carried for denial 3-2 (Commissioners Tanner and Campbell voting NO). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Villa Portofino Discussion of terminating for cause a Senior Housing Development Agreement ("Development Agreement") with Royce International for the development of Villa Portofino due to default by the developer. Commissioner De Luna recused herself and exited the Council Chamber. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz presented his staff report to the Commission. Royce International entered into an agreement with the City of Palm Desert to develop a parcel with senior assisted living facilities, a club house, villas and casita units in 1999. Royce International submitted a condominium map to the State without City approval thus breaching one of the terms of their Development Agreement (DA). With the subdivision in place, they then sold portions of the project without approval of the transfer by the City, which is also required by the Development Agreement. Royce International no longer owns the project or any of the sub-divided parcels. Staff recommends terminating the current Development Agreement for the benefit of the City and future developers. This will cause each new property owner to entitle their own property for their projects. Mr. Swartz entertained questions from the Planning Commission. also MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19. 2010 Commissioner Schmidt asked specifically if what was being asked of the Commission was to give direction to staff regarding the Development Agreement. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. Commissioner Tanner wanted to clarify the situation for his own benefit and asked staff specifically what they wanted the Planning Commission to act upon. Mr. Swartz stated that every change of ownership to the land constituted breach of contract with the City. Any new developer would have more difficulty following a convoluted agreement that has been broken time and time again, and that is why staff recommends terminating the current agreement and having each new developer seek their own Development Agreement. Commissioner Limont asked if they had been in breach of contract since they (Royce International) started the project. Mr. Swartz said that that was true. Commissioner Tanner asked about any legal issues and claims against the City. Ms. Aylaian said that at one time Royce filed a claim against the City. They had 180 days after the denial of the claim by the City to file suit. Royce International didn't follow through, and now isn't able to pursue that claim any further. The City hasn't heard anything from Royce International since August 2009. As a point of clarification, Mr. Bagato stated that the termination of this .. Development Agreement would also remove any entitlements. Up to this point the City has dealt with one owner, one developer and one set of entitlements related to this project. Now, because of the parcels being split, with or without City approval, those entitlements and conditions are all fractioned. A memo was issued to potential developers stating that anything further that they do on their property still has to go through the various stages of approval and various remedies to the property need to be done. From staff perspective, the best alternative was to terminate the original agreement, since all of the new developers would have to go through the process anyways, and give each of them their own Development Agreement. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Swartz about the club house and its use now and in the future. Will this club house be able to be used by all of the residents that live there (on any parcel) and any future buyer on any parcel? And are the existing homes considered part of the senior overlay? Mr. Swartz stated that the whole project is subject to the overlay with an age restriction of 55, reduced from 62. Even if the agreement is terminated, the senior overlay will not change. As to the club house, that continued use is stated in the CC&R's. However, if a development agreement is breached, the City looks at the CC&R's to see if anything has changed. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 201 Rod Hanway, Hanway Consulting group of 709 Serpentine Drive, Redlands approached the podium to speak. He is the Planning Consultant on behalf �++ of the property investor who is in escrow for two of the four parcels (west and north), currently owned by Citi National Bank. Mr. Hanway wanted to reiterate that he is not the property owner and cannot speak for the banks. However, once they do close escrow, his investors plan to pursue the project to completion as currently slated. He has identified ten to twelve deficiencies that can and should be resolved. He stated that the 30 day request by staff is unreasonable since some of the deficiencies occur across parcel lines and there are numerous owners. He asked that the Planning Commission not dissolve the Development Agreement as that would complicate things further. He suggested that in six months they come back with a progress report and a new development agreement. He offered to answer any questions at this time. Commissioner Campbell asked what his group was planning on building. Mr. Hanway stated that they would build what was intended to be built. The number of units might change from the original plan, but architecturally and aesthetically the project will not change (save some minor design tweaks on the inside of the casita units). Over all, the project will remain the same EXCEPT for possibly the number of units and some interior changes. He also wanted to answer Commissioner Schmidt's previous question about the clubhouse and said that it would continue to serve the existing units as well as any future units. That would not change. Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Hanway when the closing of escrow was scheduled. He indicated that there is no hard date. They wanted to close last August but because of title issues, that has been pushed back. He is eager to get it closed as soon as possible so they can move forward with the project. If the entitlements are rescinded, then his developer isn't sure if they will be able to proceed as planned. The number of six months was suggested by Commissioner Tanner as a more realistic time line for this, since he felt that thirty days wasn't realistic, yet the eleven years that has already passed certainly wasn't realistic either to have nothing be done. He asked if those six months were realistic since escrow hasn't closed yet. He didn't want to put the developer or the City in a position of being locked into something that had an unrealistic timeline. But he did want to issue a realistic timeline since it was important to have this project move forward. Jerry Robinson, San Juan Capistrano, represents the owner/developer Country Club Drive Investors who control the eastern-most parcel (near the aw 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19. ?O10 fire station) of the project. He handed the Planning Commission a handout with his thoughts listed. He feels that those problems listed in the staff report are all valid and should be dealt with. He feels also that those have nothing to do with the Development Agreement, but should be considered as part of the construction. He also stated that, "...throwing out the baby with the bathwater doesn't do anyone any good..." and didn't want the Planning Commission to toss the Development Agreement completely out as it is his opinion that doing so serves no one. Ms. Aylaian commented on a few issues that were raised by both Commissioners and speakers alike regarding the entitlements and what they mean to the City. Over the last two years, there have been numerous parties coming to the City stating that they had interested developers or owners who wanted to build on the property but were just shy of closing escrow. Then after complications arose or too much time passed, the buyer left and the project was still left undone. Each developer to date had attempted to start the process of moving forward with the project, but gotten mired in the convoluted details. She feels that potential buyers who believe they are buying entitled property are being deceived, since neither the entitlements nor the obligations are subdivided as the property now is, and they don't attach to the specific parcels. From what was originally entitled to what is now developed is very far off the mark and she believes that the best way to remedy this and represent this project correctly is to terminate the current agreement and have each developer go through the process with their separate holdings. Commissioner Limont commented that the project was so convoluted over the past eleven years and agreed with staff that a disservice is done to potential buyers of this property. She favors an end to the quagmire of entitlements that have risen from past actions and to start the process over. The new owners will have to go through the process anyway, so they could start clean at that time. Mr. Bagato stated that this Development Agreement only talks about the density. But the Senior Overlay will still be in place and is zoned as such. So any new project will still have those requirements in place. Commissioner Limont agreed and added that the developers have the right not to agree with the decision made and to appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Schmidt asked about how much notice the new developers had on this. Ms. Aylaian stated that Mr. Swartz called the new developers on the phone to make certain they knew about the meeting tonight, but that the level of communication with each developer differed. Commissioner Limont asked if a Public Hearing would take place. Ms. Aylaian stated that em 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19. 2010 there would be and this discussion was just the first part of the process—to give staff direction to notify developers of termination of the Development Agreement—and then to move to the next of several steps, which would include public hearings, in the entire process. Commissioner Tanner would like to suggest that the Commission give the Developers six months to get their information together, gather entitlements, close escrow, etc. and then report back. If there is no success in that time, then all entitlements would then be pulled. Commissioners Campbell and Schmidt asked if the third owner, who came in late after the other owners had already presented their case to the Commission, could have a chance to speak. Chair Limont agreed. Tom Tokeim, 38 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, California spoke about his parcel and his participation in the project. He and another partner have owned their portion of the property since last February. He stated that it was always his intent to finish the project as it originally was listed. They, like the other owners, have just been waiting for everyone to get the ownership issues straightened out. He stated that with the market being what it was, the urgency hasn't been strong. Mr. Tokeim is in favor of waiting until the ownership issues have been resolved before the Development Agreement is revisited. If they have to start all over, then the momentum could be lost on the project and that wouldn't do anyone any good. Chair Limont asked for Commission discussion. Commissioner Schmidt suggested the issue be revisited in 60 days and Commissioner Campbell suggested 90. Chair Limont asked if it was appropriate to move it to a Public Hearing. Ms. Aylaian stated that this particular staff report is just asking to give direction to staff to notify the developer that they are in breach of contract, and then staff can come back with a public hearing if the developer doesn't remedy the issues within 60 days or whatever time is deemed appropriate. Commissioner Tanner stated that 60 days will put the issue right into the holidays and that's just not enough time. He also commented to the developers that although the economic times are bad, because of the fact that these are senior homes they will 'move' on the market and that is not necessarily the best argument for this particular case. Commissioner Campbell stated that the City has given eleven years, so they could give the developers six months to get the needed information. Ma 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19. 2Q10 Commissioner Schmidt wanted to find the middle ground that would force the bank to close escrow sooner but also give an extra 30 days to get past the holidays to get the proper documentation, but she felt that six months is too long. She would recommend having a firm date for a progress report. Mr. Bagato stated that it is appropriate to direct staff to come back in 60 days with a progress report, if that is what the Commission wants to do and then at that time, the Commission can recommend that staff give the 30 or 60-day notice before pulling entitlements. Chair Limont felt that was very fair to all. Since the holidays occur at the end of the 60 days, the Commission decided to give the developers and staff just more than 60 days until the January 4, 2011 meeting to come back to the Commission with a report on their progress. In response to a question, Ms. Aylaian confirmed that staff understood the direction of the Commission, and that no motion was required. Commissioner De Luna re-entered the Chamber. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell stated that the meeting will be held the next day (tomorrow). B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont stated that the meeting was cancelled. C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner commented that there was no meeting held. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt stated that they met last Monday and it was business as usual. The golf course was still in disrepair and doesn't feel like there is a `real answer' for the issue. It is still ongoing. Ms. Aylaian added that since ownership was going to be changing hands, there was still much confusion as to who and what will be done should the purchase go through. am 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2010 XI. COMMENTS Mr. Bagato reiterated that there will be NO MEETING for November 2, 2010, as that is an election day. But there will be a meeting for November 16, 2010. Ms. Aylaian wanted to check with the Commission about the December meetings since the 21st was so close to the holidays, did the Commission want to only meet on December 7tn. The Commission agreed to meet on December 7tn Commissioner Schmidt asked about Rosewood Hotel and any progress. Mr. Bagato stated that they are still working on their environmental documents and updating their plans. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded the adjournment of the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ,ATTEST: M. CONNOR LIMONT, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tb 12