Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-18 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT Now PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sonia Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Roger Dash Commissioner Connor Limont Vice Chair Nancy DeLuna Chair Sonia Campbell Staff Present: Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Campbell led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian, Director of Community Development, stated that at the City Council meeting of December 13, a new mayor, a new mayor pro tem, and two new City Council members were sworn in. In addition, the City Council approved Final Map No. 36464 (Villa Portofino), subject to the applicant working out details for payment of park fees. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WMW Councilman Van Tanner expressed that it was a pleasure to serve on the Planning Commission for seven years. He wished the Planning Commission the best of luck. He distributed a thank you card on behalf of the City with a gift card enclosed for their service on the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission thanked and congratulated Councilman Tanner. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 2012. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a lot line adjustment (APN 652-320- 008) at Bighorn Golf Club. Case No. PMW 12-365 (Dan Sandy, PO Box 4094, Tumwater, WA; and McGee Surveying, Inc. 45-100 Golf Center Drive, Suite G, Indio, CA, Applicants). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a lot line adjustment, Case No. PMW 12- 365. Commissioner Connor Limont stated she would move for approval, but asked if the lot line adjustment would be affected by the action on Case No. DP 12-371 (under Public Hearings). Mr. Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney, replied no. Upon a motion by Limont, second by DeLuna, and 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration of a Development Plan creating uniform development standards for the Canyons at Bighorn in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Sections 25.25.190 and 25.24.330. Case No. DP 12-371 (Bighorn Development, LLC, 255 Palowet Drive, Palm Desert, CA, Applicant). 1W 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Chair Campbell stated that a booklet was given to the Planning Commission before the meeting, and asked the City Attorney to advise them on how to proceed. Mr. Hargreaves suggested hearing staff's report, then asking the person that submitted the booklet to inform the Planning Commission whether the information is materially different from the information that has already been supplied. At some point after the explanation, he suggested the Planning Commission and staff take a few minutes to review the booklet. Mr. Hargreaves stated that if there is information they are unaware of that materially changes their understanding of what is going on, the Planning Commission may want to continue the item to digest the information. He also stated that if the information is an elaboration of what staff has already reviewed and prepared to discuss tonight, and the Planning Commission feels comfortable based on the information provided to them to move forward; he suggested they do so. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, stated that the item is a Development Plan; No. 12-371. He displayed Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2594. The Canyons at Bighorn is located along Highway 74 in south Palm Desert. On the west side there is a golf course called the Mountains at Bighorn. He said that the Mountains have a much higher terrain above the street level so many of those homes are visible from Highway 74. He said the Canyons at Bighorn golf course is below the street or there is a significant berm with a wrought iron fence surrounding it that blocks many of the interior homes. The only homes that tend to be visible from Highway 74 are located in the gray area (Exhibit A), which is zoned Hillside Planned Residential and is not part of the request. He stated that the request applies to the dashed area of Exhibit A, which is zoned Planned Residential and separate from the hillside lots. The hillside lots would continue to be subject to the City's hillside ordinance. The General Plan shows the non-hillside portion as low density, zero to four units per acre. Mr. Bagato stated that the project was originally approved in 1991 with the history outlined in the staff report. He noted that Tentative Tract Map 25296 was last amended in 1997, which is where the development standards are coming from. He displayed an image of eight different lot types. He explained that each lot type has varying setbacks depending on the size of the lots. However, many of the actual lots are irregular shaped, streets are curved, and there are slopes within the development. He said all the pads are graded, but there could be a seven-foot variation in elevation from one lot to the next lot. Bighorn worked on creating views into the open space around the golf course, as well as trying to incorporate some of the natural terrain and minimize some of the grading. He displayed a photo of the zoning map, and noted that many of the lots are not rectangular. 3 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Bagato reported that the applicant is requesting to amend the development standards from the approved 1997 Tentative Tract Map. He said issues with the current standards are irregular lots, curved streets, and changed lot numbers and sizes that were changed through the mapping process. The original map was done as a phase map so when it was initially approved, the original map had 372 lots (numbered Lots 1 through 372). He explained when a dash map (phase map) is brought in and recorded, the lot numbers are changed and can also be reconfigured for various reasons: 1) grading is performed on site and an as-built is brought in later; 2) parcel map waivers to adjust property lines to accommodate the golf course, natural terrain, emergency access points, or easements; or 3) homeowners bought two or three lots and merged them into one bigger lot. He said with this proposal it would create uniform development site standards flexibility. The standards for this proposal would have setbacks in the front to be 15 feet, in the rear 10 feet, and on both sides 5 feet. This would apply uniformly to every lot. The separation between buildings is 10 feet. He said the maximum height is 20 feet as previously approved, and the lot coverage is now 60 percent. He stated there is now a modification section that allows the Director of Community Development to approve modifications to the site plan. He mentioned that Bighorn has their own architectural and landscape guidelines, which was approved with the original Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). low Mr. Bagato stated staff reviewed the applicant's request, and staff is recommending approval to the City Council. He said from a CEQA standpoint, staff believes it is a Class 5 categorical exemption for an existing development. He noted that 596 legal notices were mailed, and the notice was published in The Desert Sun. He stated he only received one letter of objection from a property owner that is in litigation with Bighorn, and is now in a separate litigation with the City. Staff also spoke to the Ironwood homeowners' association. Their only concern was if it was going to change their views and hillside, which he told them no. There was no objection from Ironwood Country Club. He stated a letter was received Monday, December 17, from Rutan & Tucker, LLP (representative for homeowner, Mr. Lawrence Pasternack). Mr. Bagato presented a response to the letter addressing each issue separately, and using visual exhibits to illustrate his responses. Staff recommended approval of Development Plan 12-371. Mr. Bagato offered to answer any questions. Mr. Bagato added that he briefly reviewed the booklet that was given to the Planning Commission before the meeting. He commented the booklet addresses points that already have been made. He said it also highlights items in litigation or photos of the neighbor's site, which he does not believe are relevant. He asked that the opposition only highlight what is pertinent to 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 this case, and only highlight items that have not been addressed by his report. .. Commissioner Limont commented that due to the irregular lots, terrain, and other issues, does the City look at where the builder is looking to have their foundation. Mr. Bagato responded that they measure from building of the wall to the property line, and not from the foundation. He also noted they look at it from a bird's-eye view. Commissioner Limont asked if the Bighorn CC&Rs are above of what the City requires. Mr. Bagato answered typically they are, but there are some cases that they are not. He said that Bighorn tries maximizing the visual aspect of the lot, and they have reconfigured lots sometimes not knowing or following the setbacks. In the past, the City would rely on the homeowners' association for the approval. Mr. Bagato said because Bighorn has transition areas, which require berming and landscaping, that the City does not require on a typical single-family home; lot setbacks may be larger than the City has required. Commissioner Limont reaffirmed they are looking to standardize for the City to have a level playing field for everyone. Mr. Bagato replied that was correct. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired how many lots are left to build? Mr. Bagato replied there are 26 lots to build, but the standards apply to all lots. The number of homes yet to be build might be less if people merge lots. Vice Chair DeLuna clarified if there are approximately 300 lots covered by these standards. Mr. Bagato responded that the original approval had 372 lots, but through the phasing and the parcel merging he does not know if there are technically 372 lots in Bighorn. Vice Chair DeLuna understands that even though they are establishing uniformity and minimum setbacks, irregular shaped lots will automatically have greater setbacks than what is allowed because of the way the terrain is configured. Mr. Bagato stated that is potentially correct. 5 G.\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Commissioner Dash asked if there is a difference of opinion between the City and the homeowners' association, how is it resolved. v..r Mr. Bagato responded that the City could approve based on the Development Plan, if the homeowners' association was reluctant to approve something that was stringent. He said if there was a homeowner that came to the City, and said they want their plan approved based on what the City has approved, the City would ultimately move forward since CC&R issues become private matters, and the City would not get involved in a CC&R debate. He stated that historically the City would rely on any homeowners' association that has an architectural review commission to approve the home and give the City an approval letter as part of the permitting process. Mr. Hargreaves interjected that the City has its standards which it applies. A homeowner coming to the City for a permit would have to comply with the City's standards. The homeowner also has to comply with the CC&Rs. He stated that the City does not enforce private homeowners' CC&Rs. Commissioner Dash asked if the standards would apply to future plans or modifications to existing plans. Mr. Bagato responded that it would apply to the existing development of Bighorn; all lots except for the hillside lots. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and invited the Applicant to address the Commission on this matter, followed by any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. ANDREW FOGG, Cox, Castle, & Nicholson LLP (attorney representing Canyons at Bighorn), 2049 Century Park East, 28t" Floor, Los Angeles, California, thanked City staff and thought Mr. Bagato's presentation was excellent and comprehensive. The point he would like to make is that the setbacks create effectively a developable envelope on each lot. He stated that under the tract map there were certain setbacks arguably under the zoning code with some inconsistencies. What Bighorn has always driven to do and would continue to strive to do, is build a cohesive-well integrated development that respects the natural environment, and put forward the golf course uses that is in center of the project. For example, if there is a lot with a 20-foot setback on one side, that may restrict the ability of the homeowner in the homeowners' association (HOA) to site the house appropriately on that lot in order to maximize the views and respect the natural environment. He stated the Development Plan gives the maximum flexibility to the HOA while assuring that there are minimum separations of at least 10 feet. There would be a minimum separation that protects the privacy and the security, and makes the transitions appropriate. Mr. Fogg stated that the Development Plan .. represents a tool to allow the homes to be looked on an individual lot-by-lot 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 basis and sited appropriately. He said there are circumstances where there are variations in elevations amongst neighboring lots that can get close to 10 feet, variations along the street of several feet per lot, there are setbacks from the golf course and cart paths, and hazards associated with golf courses. He stated that having a rigid set of standards that provides for expansive setbacks really is not needed in a home development such as Bighorn where there are a lot of factors that go into each individual lot. Mr. Fogg said the history of the development is that they have applied those principles to preserve the golf course and environmental views, and minimizing the impacts on the natural surroundings to create the comprehensive feel. There may have been times when there have been inadvertent violations of the setbacks. He stated that no one intended to do that purposely. He said initially the master developer and the HOA intended to act in good faith, and tried to apply things as well as they could with those issues in mind to the extent that there were inadvertent setback violations. The violations are being recognized to the extent that this new building envelope is created and will apply to those moving forward. California law recognizes the ability of the City to adopt a curative legislative provision, and that is exactly what they are asking the Planning Commission to do; effectively go back in time. As long as the City is not violating vested rights, and there are no vested rights at issue here, the City could adopt the standards retroactively. Mr. Fogg mentioned that there are a variety of tract maps that the opponent cited in his letter. He said those were statements on the tentative map, they were not a condition of approval, and they were not on the final map to the extent there was any vesting. Those vested rights have long been expired, and he noted that vested rights only last a year after a final map is recorded. The maps were recorded many, many years ago. Mr. Fogg emphasized that Bighorn's HOA, Design Review Committee, and Architectural Landscape Committee will continue to zealously look at setback issues, continue to perform the same service it has provided to the community, and assure the development is done in a sensitive and harmonious manner to promote the values that they have had throughout the community since its inception. He thanked the Planning Commission for their support and offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair DeLuna commented that Mr. Fogg presented a letter to the Planning Commission, and asked if anything in the letter substantively different from the presentation that staff has made. Mr. Fogg responded no. He said the points they make are very similar to the points staff made in response to the point-by-point issues raised by the one opposition letter, which they received late yesterday. The one thing they expand on in their letter is that they provided the Planning Commission with a number of examples of specific lots, elevations, and different constraints that 7 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 are present. He stated that they concur with the City Attorney and staff in terms of how the CC&Rs function and the issues that were raised. Mr. Hargreaves asked Mr. Fogg if the Development Plan is approved, would it materially change the kind of developments that are approved by the HOA Mr. Fogg replied no. He stated that the HOA and Architectural Commission will continue to function as it has. Commissioner Limont stated that staff pointed out that Bighorn allows for 60 percent of the lot to be developed, and asked if that was correct. Mr. Fogg responded that is what the standard would allow, which would include a total coverage area of the primary structure, accessory structures, patios, and any sort of improved paved surface. He doubts many lots are developed to that, but they want to make sure that there is sufficient coverage to allow for terracing and other features. Commissioner Limont asked if the Bighorn architectural guidelines allow for the 60 percent lot coverage, as well as what the City allows. Ms. Aylaian responded that the percentage varies in different zones. Mr. Fogg added that he does not believe there is a specific requirement within the CC&Rs. This requirement would apply if they felt it was a reasonable balance on an individual lot-by-lot basis. He said there is substantial open space that is required with transition zones. MR. GREGORY HATTON (attorney representing Mr. Lawrence Pasternack), 20281 SW Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California, stated Mr. Pasternack is present along with Ms. Lisa Neal who is a municipal law specialist from Rutan & Tucker LLP. Mr. Hatton referred to a booklet given to the Planning Commission before the meeting. The book illustrates their objections, and requested that the Planning Commission take time to review the book. He noted that the book has new matter, and there is no urgency in reaching a vote tonight. There is an appendix raising legal issues regarding constitutionality and enforced ability of the provisions in the appendix. He recommended the Planning Commission get an independent legal review of the appendix. Mr. Hatton stated they are concerned there is an allegation that 596 notices were mailed. He has not seen a list that documents proof of mailing, although he has no reason to doubt what Mr. Bagato has said. Mr. Hatton noted that there is a loose leaf memo in the book, which is a memo by a subdivision map act and planning expert by the name of William Ross. The memo is about the lack of a General Plan consistency analysis, and why the CEQA analysis is incomplete. He thinks this matter also needs 8 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 an independent legal review before the Planning Commission moves forward. He stated the book has a copy of the proposed Development Plan, the Planning Commission agenda for this evening, a summary of the lot owner's objections, and itemized objections. Mr. Hatton referred to photos under tab K of the booklet. He stated the Development Plan would allow property owners in Bighorn to place swimming pools and amenities up to the property line with no setbacks. Mr. Hatton said the representation to the Planning Commission is that the Bighorn HOA has an interest in preventing that; it is flat out not borne out by the facts. He stated that this manner of development was brought to the attention of the Riverside County Superior Court and an injunction was issued. The Development Plan being submitted to the Planning Commission is in direct response to that injunction. He stated a court took a look at it, and said that they are building into the setbacks. After 14 years of development under vested Tentative Tract Map 25296, it is too hard for developers of a multi-billion dollar development to figure out the setbacks that they themselves requested and were able to get the City Council to adopt under 25296. Mr. Hatton referred to tab A and tab B of the booklet, which shows the Development Standards chart and lot diagrams. He also referred to tab F; deposition of Mr. Carl Cardinalli, and the quoted material from the deposition. In tab G, he stated that property owners have contract rights in the CC&Rs under Section 5. Mr. Hatton went to tab E; copy of the injunction and a stop work notice. He stated the purpose of getting approval of the Development Plan is so that Bighorn could go back into court to get the injunction lifted. Mr. Hatton mentioned that the current setbacks on the lots result in side yard setbacks of 10 to 20 feet depending on the lot size, and refered to the Development Standards. He stated under the PR zoning code, if there are not any special standards adopted by the City Council governing the lot coverage the code applies. He noted that the lot coverage in the PR zone is 35 percent not 60 percent. After approximately 15 minutes of testimony, Mr. Hargreaves interjected, and asked Mr. Hatton how much longer he intended to speak. Mr. Hatton replied a couple of minutes. He continued that under the proposed plan, they are going to change all the setbacks and Bighorn estate lots that are not owned by the applicant are going to have five feet for each side yard with amenities built right up to the property line and 60 percent of lot coverage allowed. He referred to the exhibit under tab L. He respectfully urged the Planning Commission to take a cautious look at the Development Plan. He voiced that it will be subject to a legal challenge in court. He said this is Bighorn's problem. They are coming to the Planning Commission to clean up a mess they made at Bighorn, which is only going to result in further litigation with the City. He stated the existing property owners who bought properties in .. reliance on the desert estate setbacks are entitled to those rights under the 9 G\Planning\Monioa OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 CC&Rs. He asked that the Planning Commission not allow for a "McMansion" to be built right up to the property line. MS. LISA NEAL (attorney representing Mr. Lawrence Pasternack), 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, California, stated that they strongly oppose any recommendation to the City Council for consideration of the amended Development Plan. She strongly encouraged the Planning Commission to review the book that Mr. Hatton has provided. She said the book has an in-depth review of the severe impact of an approval of an amended Development Plan would have with regards to the Bighorn community. She concurs with Mr. Ross' conclusions that the amended plan is inconsistent with the General Plan, which she thinks it needs to be taken seriously by the Planning Commission. She also concurs that the CEQA analysis is incomplete at this stage. She believes the Planning Commission has a copy of the letter dated December 17 that Rutan & Tucker provided outlining their objections to the amended Development Plan. Ms. Neal stated the proposal is to reduce the side yard setbacks on all of the lots in the Bighorn Development regardless of size to five feet on each side, which is inconsistent with the General Plan. She communicated that this would reduce the setbacks from the largest lots in the Bighorn Development from a minimum of 10 feet on one side and 20 feet on the other side down to 5 feet on both sides. She voiced that is simply unacceptable. As Mr. Hatton indicated to the Planning Commission, it is not true that the Bighorn HOA has a„ implemented increased requirements with regards to the setbacks. She said Bighorn has violated the current development standards approving development plans in the community in direct violation with the applicable setback requirements. The CC&Rs that Bighorn HOA follows provide that it is the requirement of the City that is going to be followed by the Bighorn HOA. Ms. Neal stated if the Planning Commission were to find that the applicable setbacks are five feet on each side for the side yards that is what the CC&Rs would therefore be bound by. She said Mr. Hatton is correct with regards to the litigation that is occurring. The superior court did issue an injunction in favor of Mr. Pasternack. She stated Mr. Pasternack's neighbor is in violation of the setback requirements, and that this is nothing but an attempt to come to the Planning Commission to try to get that retroactively changed to say that it is now okay to build six and half feet from the property line. Ms. Neal commented that Mr. Hatton did an excellent job going through all the points as to why the Planning Commission should not make a recommendation to the City Council, with which she concurs and would submit that the Planning Commission deny any consideration to the City Council with regard to the amended Development Plan. She thanked the Planning Commission. Vice Chair DeLuna mentioned that in Mr. Dahl's letter it is alleged that many, if not, most of the homeowners purchased homes specifically because etc, 10 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 etc . . . She asked Ms. Neal if she has been retained by or represents anybody other than Mr. Pasternack. Ms. Neal responded she only represents Mr. Pasternack. Vice Chair DeLuna stated to Ms. Neal for clarification that she seems to express concerns on behalf of other residents. Ms. Neal commented that it is her understanding that those are Mr. Pasternack's feelings and feelings of other property owners as well. She said she does not represent other owners in the community. Vice Chair DeLuna asked Ms. Neal that the information provided in that paragraph comes by word of hearsay from someone else and not directly because she represents anyone other than Mr. Pasternack. Ms. Neal replied that is correct, but if the Planning Commission would like her to provide more information with regards to that as the Commission does their review and analysis she would be happy to do so. MR. MARTIN MUELLER, Mueller, Olivier, Whittaker Attorneys LLP (attorney representing Dr. Bruce Fagel, Mr. Pasternack's neighbor), 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Rancho Mirage, California, urged the Planning Commission to recommend and move forward to the City Council. He mentioned that he has lived in the valley his entire life, and has practiced law in the Coachella Valley since 1984. He has seen the desert grow and has seen Bighorn be built. It is a credit to the City and a credit to Bighorn that it is what it is, which may be one of the finest residential golf communities in the country. He shared that he has traveled and played golf everywhere, and has seen clubs developed. He stated that Bighorn has evolved and developed into being a special place where properties are so valuable that people will spend $1 to $5 million on lots. Bighorn was developed with this flexible model to create views to the golf course. He stated that he has walked Bighorn and has been to many homes at Bighorn, and the views are not of a side wall of an adjacent home. The views are of mountains and the golf course. If you stand at Mr. Pasternack's property, the view is not to the east across an adjacent lot, the view is down to a panorama of the golf course and other fine homes that are built there. Mr. Mueller stated that his client is now in litigation with Mr. Pasternack. He said that a repeated misstatement to the Planning Commission is that the plans that were approved for Dr. Fagel's home are at a six and a half foot distance from the property line which is patently false. He said they know and it is true that those plans would provide for a home that is eight feet from the property line. He stated he knows because he measured it. He said there are some folks that approach life as a series of conflicts and litigations. He asked of all the people that own homes and lots in the Canyons of Bighorn, how many of +� them are up and arms about the plan that Bighorn has developed with a more 11 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 flexible model that has oddly configured lots with setbacks that are sometimes less than 10 feet like Mr. Pasternack's and like Mr. Fagel's, if it were built as it is presently designed. As far as they can tell, only one person would come here and threaten to sue the City if it proceeds to memorialize this Development Plan a process which has been going on since 1991. He urged the support of the plan simply because it is an endorsement of Bighorn as it is developed with all the practical realities of the homes that are out there. He thanked the Planning Commission. MR. STEVEN SEDACH (attorney representing Canyons at Bighorn), 1221 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600, Los Angles, California, commented that before purchasing the property at 1018 Cahuilla Falls, Mr. Pasternack saw the property. Mr. Pasternack saw the proximity of the vertical walls relative to the berms that are between his dwelling and the neighboring lot. He stated Mr. Pasternack saw the actual space between those walls and the berm, and he saw the view from his rear patio out to the beautiful fairway and golf course. Mr. Pasternack cannot deny that he saw this view, and what he saw on the exterior and the proximity of the dwelling and the non-dwelling improvements were the cause and fact for his purchase of the property. Unfortunately, after he purchased the property and the close of escrow about November of 2006, there was a series of punch list items that Mr. Pasternack wanted the developer who sold him the property to repair. To Mr. Pasternack's dissatisfaction, the items were not repaired and the developer initiated an action to recover $65,000 for a $7,065,000 purchase price for a room addition. Mr. Sedach stated the $65,000 claim led to Mr. Pasternack's cross complaint against the developer. He noted that the claim never involved the setbacks that they are hearing about today. These setback claims came about after a year or two of litigation. He stated that Mr. Pasternack wants to fuel his litigation with as much criticism and complaints as he can to recover his $7 million. It is not being offered for purposes of claiming that somehow his rights when he purchased the property and he saw the proximity of the dwelling and the non-dwelling improvements on the property was something that was unacceptable to him. They were acceptable to him. He said the sole purpose of this objection is to substantiate Mr. Pasternack's his fraud claim in Superior Court to try to recover his money. Mr. Sedach respectfully requests that the Planning Commission accept the recommendation by staff, and that the recommendation is approved so it can be considered by the City Council. Mr. Fogg stated that the CEQA exemption does apply, and there are no unusual circumstances that have been cited. He commented the issue has been well covered by staff. Mr. Fogg continued that there is no inconsistency with the General Plan; no setbacks are required. The Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan in every respect. He again urged the Planning Commission to support the Development Plan. 12 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Hargreaves communicated that there has been an allegation that Best, Best, & Krieger has a conflict in this matter, and he would like to set that sow straight. He stated Best, Best, & Krieger has represented the City for decades. They have also from time to time represented Bighorn on various issues over the years. He said the principal attorney that was involved in representation was Mr. Mike Andelson who retired two years ago. He stated that he does not believe Best, Best, & Krieger has represented Bighorn in anything within the last couple of years, and they have never represented Bighorn on the Development Plan. Mr. Hargreaves shared that they do represent the City with respect to the ongoing litigation; therefore, there is not conflict. The matter was discussed with the City Council, and they are comfortable with Best, Best, & Krieger advising them on this matter. Mr. Hargreaves stated that in respect to the legal issues that are raised by the various attorneys. The City's analysis is consistent with the analysis of Bighorn on the CEQA issue. He said CEQA has a categorically exemption for minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent. He stated at Bighorn the average slope is less than 20 percent. In the City's view, this a minor alteration of land use criteria. He stated the approval of the Development Plan would not change what happens in the development considerations at Bighorn. Mr. Hargreaves commented that there has been confusion on what the setbacks are. If you go through the process and look how the setbacks and maps change, there is good reason for that confusion, but the reality is that Bighorn and the HOA has been much more focused that the development proceeds in an aesthetically pleasing manner. He does not believe there is evidence that the standards are going to change dramatically, based on that, the CEQA exemption applies. He mentioned there has been a suggestion that somehow moving forward violates someone's vested rights or contractual rights. He said that is not the case, and explained that the City has the ability to modify its land use criteria after giving an appropriate notice and hearing, which is what they are doing tonight. He said there are limited exceptions where if you change your land use standards in a way it precludes someone from developing their property in an economically viable way, then you can interfere with their vested rights. Mr. Hargreaves stated that under the circumstances for the approval of the Development Plan he does not believe there is any vulnerability or challenge on vested rights or contractual rights. Mr. Hargreaves communicated that there was a preliminary injunction with the court that said "there is enough evidence here to create some issues so he [the judge] is not going to allow the homeowner to go forward with the building with a pending trial." He stated that there has been no final determination with respect to the preliminary injunction. Last, he stated that he had a chance to review the booklet, and does not believe there is anything that the Planning Commission has not already been informed of in the staff report and 13 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 presentations. Mr. Hargreaves did not see any reason that would compel the Planning Commission to continue this matter while the booklet was reviewed. Vice Chair DeLuna asked for clarification on the side setback for Mr. Pasternack's house. Mr. Hatton responded 9.3 feet, which is supposed to be 15 feet. Commissioner Limont commented that when someone from Bighorn comes to the City for their permits to build, and has gone through the approval of the HOA, the City checks that it coincides with the City requirements. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Bagato responded that is correct. Staff would rely on the HOA, and that is how it has been done. Commissioner Limont asked if it is a private matter. Mr. Bagato replied yes. Commissioner Limont asked if the Development Plan is retroactive. Mr. Bagato replied yes. Commissioner Limont inquired how many homes are in violation of the setbacks. Mr. Bagato responded that he did not know. He would have to go back and look at every plan. He explained that he has been with the City for 12 years, and was trained under the former Director. The process was to take the letter from Bighorn if their HOA approved it, and staff made sure it was not in violation of any health or safety code. He mentioned that the original map approved in 1991 had a condition that said the setback was five feet on both sides. He said what happened with the Fagel residence, the architect came in literally four days before his [Mr. Bagato's] deposition on the Pasternack lawsuit. Four days before, he had a different opinion because he looked up the setbacks from the map approved in 1991 thinking he had the original conditions. He found out after his deposition that it did not meet that. Commissioner Limont asked with all the other homes that have been built, have there been any other issues. Mr. Bagato responded that there could be other homes that do not meet the setbacks on the map, but it would not violate the proposed Development Plan. He stated out of all the homes approved in the twelve years he's worked 14 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 with the City, staff has never had one complaint or one issue from a homeowner or Bighorn. Commissioner Dash commented he understands the City has certain standards, but the City allows some flexibility on the part of Bighorn to adjust to the typography or whatever to allow for differences with what the City has as a guideline. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Bagato responded that is correct. He briefly discussed the conditions and standards of the approved maps. Commissioner Dash inquired if there has been a problem with flexibility in any other complex because of the typography. Mr. Bagato replied no. He said most of the problem is that there have been changes in the approved maps. Most of the developments will have setbacks written in their resolution that are clear cut. In Bighorn's case, the condition states it should be shown on the exhibit. He stated the problem is the map that was physically built does not match the exhibit that was recorded, and that is where the inconsistency has come through. With no further testimony offered, Chair Campbell declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, for approval to recommend to the City Council a Development Plan creating uniform development standards for the Canyons at Bighorn. Motion was seconded by Limont and carried by a 4-0 vote. Commissioner Limont commented that this is a heated situation. She believed from reading the staff report and hearing everyone speak that the City's position is simply that we need to have clear guidelines as a City. She said that it sounds from everyone that has spoken that there is a personal issue at Bighorn, which needs to be addressed within Bighorn. She has seconded this motion because she thinks they need to move forward otherwise they would be leaving staff without any guidelines in the Bighorn area. Commissioner Dash agrees with what has been said, and he is also listening very closely to what the City Attorney has said. He stated that what the City is attempting to do is to have something that is uniform. Commissioner Dash commented that whether this is going to retroactive or not, it is a matter for the courts. He said he is looking at this in terms of doing what staff is requesting for Planning Commission to do in order to have uniformity throughout the City with zoning. 15 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Vice Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2594, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Limont and carried by a 4-0 vote. B. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration of a remodel and expansion to the existing 111 Town Center to accommodate a new grocery store and retail use. The project is located at 44459 Town Center Way. Case No. PP/CUP 12-223 (Aubrey Cook McGill Architects, 1045 14'" Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA, Applicant). Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, stated that updated plans were distributed to the Planning Commission. He noted the drawings in the packet had an error. He reported that the applicant is proposing a portion of the building heights at 41 feet, and two tower elements at 45 feet. The applicant has informed staff that the renderings are incorrect, and the actual height to the tallest point of the building is 42'/2 feet with the two tower elements remaining at 45 feet. Staff reviewed and analyzed the applicant's updated request. He stated staff is satisfied with the overall height of 42Y2 feet, but staff is recommending that the proposed 45-foot towers be reduced to the same height of 42'/2 feet. Mr. Swartz commented that he would go into more detail in the presentation regarding the height. Mr. Swartz stated the project site is located on the west side of Town Center Way between Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. The site borders the Palm Valley Storm Channel, and the site is currently referred to as the Best Buy center. The zoning for the project is Planned Commercial, Regional Commercial. To the north is Planned Residential (One Quail Place), to the south is Office Professional (Palm Springs Art Museum/Henderson Building), to the east is Planned Commercial (Westfield Shopping Center), and to the west is Planned Commercial (Fairfield Marriott). He reported that the project consists of demolishing the existing Banner Mattress building, the Floor Store, and a portion of the former Best Buy building to accommodate Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods. Mr. Swartz displayed a photo of the site plan. The applicant is modifying a portion of the parking lot in front of the proposed Whole Foods to improve vehicular circulation. He said the applicant is also relocating the existing utilities for Southern California Edison (SCE) and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). In addition, they are proposing to modify the median along Highway 111 to provide a left turn pocket into the shopping center. Last, they are modifying the landscaping to remove all turf and replacing it with drought tolerant landscaping, as well as providing new trees and removing four eucalyptus trees. Mr. Swartz reported that the property is zoned PC (3), which has a maximum height of 35 feet. He made clear that the applicant is not asking for a height exception. The proposed project height is in accordance with the zoning code. low He displayed site drawings and photos to point out the heights of the 16 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 buildings and towers. He stated that the applicant is proposing two signs on one tower, and three signs on the other tower. He noted that the Architectural Review Commission approved the three signs on the towers, but staff has concern with clutter created on the towers. Staff recommended reducing signage to two signs on the towers. He stated staff is recommending approval to reduce the two tower elements from 45 feet to 42'/2 feet height, installing no more than two signs per tower, installing tower signage no taller than 35 feet in height, and adopting Notice of Exemption Form B. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Dash inquired if the other buildings would be changed that are not part of Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods. Mr. Swartz responded the other buildings would be repainted and would have new finishes. Commissioner Dash asked if there will be improvements to the median along Town Center Way. Currently there is a driveway, but you are not allowed to make a left hand turn going north on Town Center Way. Mr. Swartz replied there are no proposed improvements to the median on Town Center Way. loo„ Commissioner Limont asked why they are adding a tower by World Gym. Mr. Swartz replied that he will let the applicant address that question. Vice Chair DeLuna mentioned that Vons requested towers at the old Mervyn's store. She asked how tall their request for the towers was. Mr. Swartz responded that Vons was entitled 35 feet. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired if the new towers are 42'/2 feet, will there be some consistency in the overall height as you look down Highway 111 since the towers sit down seven feet. Mr. Swartz replied that he assumed so with the grade differential of seven feet. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired if food deliveries for Whole Foods are limited to certain hours, and if delivery trucks would drive through the parking lot all night long. She noted One Quail Place is across the street. Mr. Swartz displayed a site plan, and pointed out that trucks would use the access off Highway 111. The trucks would go directly to the Whole Foods and .. Nordstrom Rack loading docks. 17 G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Vice Chair DeLuna asked when they would make deliveries. Mr. Swartz responded that they could add a condition of approval or ask the applicant about the hours. Vice Chair DeLuna stated there is residential across the street, and would like to add a condition to not deliver all night long or after 10:00 p.m. Ms. Aylaian interjected that she understands her concern. She pointed out that from the loading docks there is a CVWD channel, and across the channel there is a hotel. She noted One Quail Place is on the north end. Vice Chair DeLuna reaffirmed that trucks would not drive along the channel to the residential part of the center. Mr. Swartz said he did not believe so, but that they could ask the applicant. He mentioned that Vons, Albertsons, and Bristol Farms are adjacent to residential, and the City does specify delivery hours for those stores. Vice Chair DeLuna said she would not impose a condition, as long as the applicant could assure her that delivery trucks would not interrupt residents that want to sleep. 6"W Commissioner Limont said she visited the site. It was mentioned that trucks would back into the dock, but only be one way out. She also mentioned that there is a hotel on the other side of the channel, and believes it is a subject worth looking into. Mr. Swartz noted that delivery hours for Vons are 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but would let the applicant address the hours. Vice Chair DeLuna commented that they have done a nice job of laying out the signs on the towers. She voiced her concern with having three signs on a tower. She does not want it to start looking-like a billboard, and would only prefer two signs on the towers. Chair Campbell asked if the Architectural Review Commission approved the 45-foot towers. Mr. Swartz replied yes. Chair Campbell commented that the tower with the open area does not look as tall as the others that are solid. She stated that the 45-foot tower she would be in favor of, as long as it is open. .. Mr. Swartz said he would let the applicant address that. 18 G\Planning\Monioa OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Chair Campbell inquired where the towers would be located. Mr. Swartz displayed a site plan and pointed out where the towers would be located, and noted the height of the towers. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and invited the Applicant to address the Commission on this matter, followed by any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MR. DAVE MOORE, Senior Vice President, Harsch Investment Properties, 1121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon, stated that he brought many members of his team, which they will be able to answer more of the specific questions. Mr. Moore expressed that they are very excited about the project, and excited to announce the first desert location for Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods. They believe the stores would bring approximately $75 million of taxable revenue when the project is built out. He thanked Mr. Swartz, and commented that staff has been great to work with. He communicated that the general principle behind the site plan that exists is to maximize their exposure to Highway 111. He said less than 10 percent of their frontage for this project is on Highway 111, and eight feet below ,o, Highway 111. He stated that is what drove them to grab as much attention with these tenants, and keeping it in scale and nicely built. Mr. Moore stated that he understands staff's recommendation for 42'/2-foot towers, but they are requesting 45-foot towers given their neighbors (Westfield). He also appreciated the comment about the open towers. He proposed that the sign area for the three tenants on one tower will not be greater than the two signs on the other tower so it does not look like a billboard. This would keep the signing area the same whether there are two or three signs. He added they are asking for three tenant signs on the tower on the left because the tenants are located hundreds of feet from Highway 111, and they want to give those tenants a chance for a tower element sign. He mentioned that in another three weeks he would be able to announce a third national tenant that he thinks will be well received. Mr. Moore responded to one of Commissioner Dash's comments. They intend on doing minor improvements to bring the rest of the center up to standard. He added they are making a conscientious effort where possible to be water and energy conscious. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner DeLuna inquired what the massing and dimensions of the towers are. 19 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Moore responded 20 by 20 feet. Commissioner DeLuna asked what the massing proportion above the 41- or 35-foot level is. Mr. Moore replied that the building heights are 42Y2 feet so it would be approximately 16 to 17 feet. He also wanted to note that the new right-hand turn off Highway 111 is a right-hand in turn only. It will be a one way street dedicated for delivery trucks only. He said he did not know what time Whole Foods makes deliveries, but said the trucks would only be backing up at the far end of the center (near Highway 111). Commissioner DeLuna voiced she does not want to add a condition that might hamper business, but she would like to remain sensitive to the residents' needs. She asked if there are any recommendations. Ms. Aylaian noted that one of the loading docks is at the same location as the Best Buy loading dock. She is not sure of when they made deliveries, but she did check with the Code Department to see if there were noise complaints associated with the loading docks. Code Department indicated that they have not received any complaints. Ms. Aylaian stated it is possible to impose a condition to review the operation and request a report in six months to see if there have been concerns. too Chair Campbell commented that at Vons, Sandpiper is across the street and they have not complained. If Sandpiper has not complained, she does not think there would be a problem. Vice Chair DeLuna noted noise was an issue when Vons was being considered at the old Mervyn's building. Ms. Aylaian interjected that there is only a wall separating the residents and the Mervyn's building. Mr. Swartz pointed out that when trucks are leaving and exiting onto Town Center Way, you can only make a right turn. Trucks would not go towards One Quail Place. Ms. Aylaian stated that the best sound attenuation is not landscaping or walls but buildings. She said there is a building and Fred Waring Drive between the trucks exiting before you get to One Quail Place. Mr. Swartz stated that they could add a condition that if the City receives noise complaints, the City could then come up with certain hours for deliveries. 20 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Chair Campbell voiced she was not comfortable adding that restriction. Vice Chair DeLuna expressed that she is not trying to be restrictive, but sensitive to people staying at the hotel and the residents. Ms. Aylaian stated that staff looked at the distance between the loading dock and the nearest sensitive receptors, which would be the hotel. She said the hotel is 230 feet with a channel in between. She noted that other stores which have restricted hours are less than 100 feet to residential. She mentioned at Bristol Farms, the City does receive complaints if there are deliveries late at night. The distance between Bristol Farms and the residents is approximately 65 feet. Mr. Bagato interjected that he thinks the distance at Bristol Farms is about 40 feet. He added that the City does have a noise ordinance. If there are complaints and they are violating the City ordinance, they would have to address the complaint. The City could also have them come back and impose a condition to comply with the noise ordinance. Mr. Swartz added that there is already a condition that they must comply with the noise ordinance. Vice Chair DeLuna stated she is comfortable with that condition. tow Chair Campbell asked if the 35-foot towers would have signage. Mr. Moore responded that they are proposing that they have one tenant sign. Vice Chair DeLuna inquired how far down would the sign be located from the roof. Mr. Moore replied approximately seven or eight feet below. He mentioned they are proposing to do multi-tenant signage similar to the back of the Whole Foods tower for the tower by World's Gym. Vice Chair DeLuna asked if they are asking for three tenants on that sign. Mr. Moore replied that is correct. Vice Chair DeLuna clarified that staff's recommendation has changed from what they originally received so that the two tower elements would be 42'/2 instead of 41 feet. Ms. Aylaian responded that is staff's recommendation. IRMO 21 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Swartz commented that for the other tower and signage by World's Gym, the applicant is working on a sign program that still needs to go to the Architectural Review Commission. For that reason, it was not included at tonight's meeting. Commissioner Limont asked if it would come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Swartz replied that a sign program usually does not come back to the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission wants to see it, staff could bring it back. Chair Campbell asked if the 35-foot towers are going to be solid or can they have an opening. Mr. Moore responded that at this time they are going to collect all the information then figure things out. MR. JORDAN SCHNITZER, President, Harsch Investment Properties, 1121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon, mentioned that he has been coming to the Coachella Valley since the early 50's. He briefly talked about his family in the valley, and provided a little history of his family's business and ownership. He stated they are committed to Palm Desert. If the three mom signs aesthetically do not look good, then they will not do it. He said ultimately they want to create a sense of place, sense of mind, and an emotion with all their projects. He commented that he met with Councilman Bob Spiegel, and Councilman Spiegel told him their center is boring. He left the meeting thinking that Councilman Spiegel was right. He said that is what led them to do a major redevelopment. Last, he commented that Mr. Brian Williams has worked for them for a year. Mr. Williams is Mr. Stuart Williams' grandson, and mentioned his family's connections in the Coachella Valley. He noted that if they did anything in the Coachella Valley that is not right, they would hear it from the family. He thanked staff and stated they have been great to work with. MR. BRIAN WILLIAMS, Vice President, Harsch Investment Properties, 1121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon, stated he was born and raised in Palm Springs, and that his parents still live in the Coachella Valley. He shared that it is a pleasure to be back in the valley, and to be the lead project manager on the project. He is proud to upgrade the center to a degree that it is going to be a high quality development that will bring in high quality retailers, which will do great things in the City of Palm Desert. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Limont stated to Mr. Williams that they know the City of Palm Desert and the desert, and asked why the center does not have solar panels. 22 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Williams responded that the solar panels have been left up to Whole Foods. He noted they are an environmentally conscious company, and they moo look at doing environmental upgrades to their building. He noted they are bringing in reclaimed wood for the trellis of the Whole Foods building. Commissioner Limont interjected that reclaimed wood does not cut their carbon emissions. Mr. Williams stated that they are contractually obligated to provide them with a building with the ability to install solar panels, if they choose to. It is ultimately their decision whether to add solar panels or not. MR. TOM AUBREY, Architect, Aubrey Cook McGill Architects, 1045 14tn Street, Suite 100, San Diego, California, stated that they have worked for many years with Harsch Investment Properties. He said Harsch Investment Properties looks for quality in terms of longevity in the materials, and they look for quality in terms of the aesthetics. Last he mentioned that they would like to keep a variety in the towers so they do not all look the same. With no further testimony offered, Chair Campbell declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair DeLuna thanked the applicant for considering Palm Desert, and looks forward to working with them, She stated that she would have to defer to City staff; our staff is second to none. She commented that it is going to be difficult for her to go against their recommendation. She stated she likes the differences in the towers. If staff is saying 42Y2 feet, it is going to be hard to override staff's recommendation. She stated that she is concerned with height and overall height of the City. She also understands the heights at Westfield Shopping Center, but that is a different type of a structure. Vice Chair DeLuna stated she is excited to know who the third tenant is. Commissioner Limont commented that she loves Whole Foods. She said she has been to several Whole Foods, and other stores do not have towers. She stated she concurred with her fellow Commissioner with regards to the towers, but she also knows that you need to have a presence on Highway 111. She voiced her concern with the left hand turn off Highway 111 into the center. She encouraged the applicant to look at solar panels on the project. She also mentioned she could not approve the towers at 45 feet, but will approve of staff's recommendation of 42'/2 feet. Commissioner Dash commented that he welcomes the project, and said it would add to the economy. Chair Campbell stated she was excited when she heard Nordstrom Rack and Whole Foods coming to Palm Desert. She concurred with staff's 23 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 recommendation with the tower heights at 42%Z feet, and stated she is in favor of the project. Vice Chair DeLuna asked staff how they felt about the signage on the towers. Mr. Swartz responded that they would look at the signage when the applicant submits their proposal. Vice Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, staff's recommendation for approval to recommend to the City Council of a remodel expansion to the existing 111 Town Center with signage of two tenants on the towers, 42'/2-foot towers, and 42'/z feet in height for a portion of the Whole Foods and Nordstrom Rack buildings. Motion was seconded by Limont and carried by a 4-0 vote. Vice Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2595, subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Limont and carried by a 4-0 vote. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Limont wished everyone Happy Holidays. Vice Chair DeLuna thanked staff for their time and effort they put in, and their standards of excellence. She stated staff contributes strongly to make Palm Desert a wonderful place to live, shop, and work. Chair Campbell asked when is the next Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Aylaian responded they would meet for the second meeting of January. Commissioner Limont inquired when they would get a new commissioner. 24 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 2012 Ms. Aylaian said that the City Council will not have interviews until after the beginning of the year. She anticipated it will go to the first City Council meeting in February. XII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Limont, second by DeLuna, and 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m. SONIA CAMPBELL, CHAP ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY - PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION tows Ws 25 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2012\Minutes\12-18-12 min.docx