Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-06 PC Regular Meeting Minutes CITY OF PALM DESERT low PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2013 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Nancy DeLuna called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner Ken Stendell Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Sonia Campbell Vice Chair Roger Dash Chair Nancy DeLuna a. Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, City Attorney Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair DeLuna led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of July 16, 2013. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. REQUEST FOR RATIFICATION of a two-year extension granted by Assembly Bill 116 for tentative tract and parcel maps approved after January 1, 2000 and unexpired as of July 11, 2013, unless a development agreement provides otherwise, for the following: B. Case No. TT 28818 (Marriott Shadow Ridge, Project) A tentative tract map for 999 timeshare units and an 18-hole golf course located at 36-750 Monterey Avenue. Project has a 20-year development agreement, which expires December 10, 2018. C. Case No. TT 31490 (Ponderosa Homes II, Project) A tentative tract map for subdividing an 87.45-acre site for 237 single- family lots located at 74-000 Gerald Ford Drive. AB 116 extends the expiration date to September 21, 2017. D. Case No. TT 31676 (Cornishe, south end of Canyons at Bighorn, Project) tow A tentative tract map for subdividing 11.98 acres for two home sites located west of Indian Cove adjacent to the Canyons of Bighorn Golf Club. AB 116 extends the date to February 12, 2017. E. Case No. TT 32655 (Desert Wells 237, Project) A tentative tract map subdividing 69.26 acres into 270 single-family lots located at Gerald Ford Drive, Portola Avenue, and Cook Street. Project has a 10-year development agreement, which expires March 8, 2017. F. Case No. TT 33719 (RJT Homes/Catavina, Project) A tentative tract map for 159 single-family homes on an 18.67-acre site at 38-301 Portola Avenue. AB 116 extends the date to May 11, 2016. G. Case No. TT 33837 (Taylor Woodrow/Desert Emerald, Project) A tentative tract map for 755 residential units, 605 condominium/single- family units, and 150 apartment units at 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive. AB 116 extends the date to December 8, 2017. 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 H. Case No. TT 34055 (Palm Desert Funding Company — University Park, Project) taw A tentative tract map for 244 single-family homes on a 42.2-acre site at 74-255 Gerald Ford Drive. Project has a 10-year development agreement, which expires March 8, 2017. I. Case No. TT 34057 (Palm Desert Funding Company — University Park, Project) A tentative tract map for 141 single-family homes at 36-200 Pacific Avenue. Project has a 10-year development agreement, which expires March 8, 2017. J. Case No. TT 34074 (Palm Desert Funding Company — University Park, Project) A tentative tract map for 72 single-family homes on an 81.6-acre site at 74-300 College Drive. Project has a 10-year development agreement, which expires March 8, 2017. K. Case No. VTTM 36284 (5-Star Hotel, Project) A tentative tract map for a proposed 82-room hotel and 59-unit residential am condominium with ancillary uses and amenities on 4.97± gross acres of currently vacant land (4.27± acres) and to be vacated frontage road (0.7± acres) located east of Highway 74, west of Ocotillo Drive, and south of the Image Art Gallery. The subject property is located at 45-640 Highway 74. AB 116 extends the date to June 21, 2017. L. Case No. TT 36342 (Highpointe Communities, Project) A tentative tract map for 196 residential homes, 78 detached cluster homes, 69 attached homes, 49 single-family homes, and a private recreation facility located on the northwest corner of University Park Drive and College Drive within the University Park Master Plan. AB 116 extends the date to May 3, 2017. M. Case No. TPM 34211 (Wilson Johnson CRE, Applicant) A tentative parcel map subdividing 83.2 acres into 22 parcels located between Portola Avenue and Cook Street north of Gerald Ford Drive. AB 116 extends the date to December 31, 2017. 3 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\201 3\M inutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 N. Case No. TPM 34437 (Gerald Ford Business Park, Applicant) A tentative parcel map for a 100,500-square-foot mixed use retail/office center with a two-story parking structure including one 4,500-square-foot bank, four retail/restaurant spaces totaling 16,000 square feet, and 2 two- story office/retail buildings totaling 62,000 square feet located at 75-300 Gerald Ford Drive. AB116 extends the date to August 24, 2017. O. Case No. TPM 35483 (GF Cook & 1-10 Investors, Applicant) A tentative parcel map to map a 1.42-acre parcel into nine parcels located at 75-178 Gerald Ford Drive. AB 116 extends the date to July 17, 2016. P. Case No. TPM 35982 (William Pope/JHA Engineering, Applicant) A tentative parcel map subdividing a 1.16-acre parcel with an existing 21,262-square-foot office/industrial building into 13 separate parcels including air space for condominium sale purposes located at 74-794 42nd Avenue. AB 116 extends the date to August 5, 2017. Q. Case No. TPM 36210 (Amir Engineering, Applicant) A tentative parcel map subdividing a .41-acre parcel into four condominium air space units with a common area for sales purposes. The property is located at 73-765 Shadow Mountain Drive. AB 116 extends the date to April 6, 2016. R. Case No. TPM 36338 (Amir Engineering/Avondale CC, Applicant) A tentative parcel map creating three new residential lots for Avondale Country Club located on the northwest corner of Country Club and Eldorado Drive. AB 116 extends the date to January 18, 2017. S. Case No. TPM 36363 (Carlos Ortega Villas, Project) A tentative parcel map to allow the construction of a 73-unit senior living and affordable housing project known as Carlos Ortega Villas located west of Washington Street and south of Avenue of the States. AB 116 extends the date to March 8, 2018. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve the Consent Calendar ratifying the two- year extension granted by AB 116. Upon a motion by Campbell, second by Stendell, and a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT. 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to approve a comprehensive update to the Palm Desert Municipal Code Title 25, Zoning. Case No. ZOA 13-223 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, commented that the items on the agenda represent greater than 18 months worth of work. She stated that Mr. Bagato has led the way and has done a great job. She also stated that staff did not receive communications in favor or opposition to a complete and comprehensive zoning ordinance update, which is testament to a job well done by Mr. Bagato. Chair DeLuna said that she agrees with Ms. Aylaian's sentiments. She said Mr. Bagato's report was thorough and it was put into a form that the Planning Commission could understand. She complimented Mr. Bagato and staff for the work. Chair DeLuna stated for the record that she works for an affordable housing developer. The approval of the zoning ordinance amendment includes updates to affordable housing standards based on State law. She stated that the changes are applied citywide, and the public hearings are not part of any particular development. Approval of the State law changes does not pose a financial or legal conflict for her or her employer. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, orally presented his staff report and PowerPoint presentation. He reported that the update will establish a new Zoning Ordinance that is user-friendly, better organized, consistent, and provides new sections that are required by State law and the City's General Plan. He showed onscreen the new proposed tables and images for sections of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that there was one letter of support for the update to the entire code. Staff recommends approval to the City Council, and Mr. Bagato offered to answer any questions. Vice Chair Roger Dash complimented Mr. Bagato for his work. He mentioned that he found an item in the ordinance that he did not understand on page 16-6, item G. Medical Services, accessory. It reads "permitted only when ancillary to and in conjunction with the operation of a hotel." He asked what they are talking about. Mr. Bagato responded that it is in the existing code, and that he was not sure himself. After a little research, he found that it allows a medical office for large scale hotels. 5 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 Vice Chair Dash clarified that it is for onsite first aid. NW Mr. Bagato replied yes. He said that he is not aware of any of the hotels in Palm Desert that have a medical office. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. With no testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 13-223 amending Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25, Zoning, in its entirety. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Dash and carried by a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT. Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2606. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Dash and carried by a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to modify Section 25.56.080.D. Window Signs, allowing illuminated window signage and establishing standards for those signs (Section 25.68.080.D. current zoning ordinance). Case No. ZOA 13-224 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Commissioner Sonia Campbell recused herself from this vote as she has a business on El Paseo. Mr. Bagato noted that the next three cases were separated due to being more controversial, and requiring longer discussion. Mr. Bagato orally presented his staff report and onscreen presentation. He stated that in 2010 the City Council directed staff to look into allowing illuminated window signs (neon signs) after receiving complaints from business owners. Later in 2010, a subcommittee was formed with two City Council members appointed, Mayor Harnik and former council member Kroonen, to study the matter further. The subcommittee drove around the City and reviewed signs. Mr. Bagato showed onscreen photos of various types of illuminated window signs. The subcommittee believed that clutter was the main issue with some of the businesses. Staff believes if a business owner chooses to have an illuminated sign that is 25 percent of the window area, then no other window signage would be allowed. He listed the items that would replace the current code. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Ken Stendell inquired how signage will be enforced to clean up the clutter. 6 GAPlanning\Monica ORellly\Planning Commission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 Mr. Bagato responded that once the code is adopted, the City will work with the business community. The City will send out letters to inform the businesses of the code, and give them a timeframe to come into compliance. Commissioner Stendell asked if some of the older businesses, such as Country Club Liquor, would be amiable to follow the rules which he believes could become a legal battle. Mr. Bagato replied that potentially it could be a legal battle; however, technically they are not in compliance today. He explained that some of the signage provisions have not been enforced since the economy took a downturn in 2007- 2008. He commented that Country Club Liquor would not be grandfathered in, nor would any of the other businesses. Vice Chair Dash inquired if the City is permitting neon on El Paseo to the same extent as other areas of the City or will El Paseo be addressed differently. Mr. Bagato replied that the proposed amendment will be citywide. He said that staff could look at separate standards for El Paseo, if the Planning Commission prefers this as a recommendation. Vice Chair Dash stated that he feels a different approach should be taken for El Paseo than what is being considered citywide. He feels El Paseo should retain the dignity and classic appearance. Mr. Bagato asked Vice Chair Dash for clarification. He said that in his mind El Paseo functions in two ways. There are the businesses that front El Paseo, and then there are the businesses that front on the Presidents' Plaza parking lots. He asked if the concern is with the pedestrian walking areas or the parking lots. Vice Chair Dash replied that his concern is with the pedestrian areas. Chair DeLuna agreed with Vice Chair Dash. She stated that she is troubled by the complexity of this issue, and that she wants to be sensitive to the needs, requests, and wants of business owners; however, she also feels that the character and nature of El Paseo is different than anything else in southern California. She said with the possibility of a five-star hotel coming in, the hotel could bring in a more upper scale clientele than they have today. She also said that when she thinks of El Paseo, she thinks of places such as Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, California; Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, Florida; and Fifth Avenue in New York, New York. Chair DeLuna stated that when you enter Rodeo Drive or Worth Avenue, you do not see a corridor in neon signs. She does not think the businesses on El Paseo need to have large illuminated window signs, and feels they could be distracting. She commented that the Apple sign was very bright when it was first installed and then it was toned down. She asked if there is a limit or level of lumins that could be adjusted so signs are not bright while you are driving down the street. After voicing her concerns, she stated that there should be a study on illuminated signs on El Paseo. 7 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 Vice Chair Dash commented that El Paseo is the signature attraction for Palm Desert, and agreed with Chair DeLuna. He said it is something that needs to be thought about. Mr. Bagato responded that illuminated signs on El Paseo could be studied further; however, he recommended opening the public hearing for public testimony. He noted that the Planning Commission could direct staff to study further. He also noted that most of the El Paseo storefronts are going to be anywhere from 10 to 12 to 15 feet from the curb so there is a lot more glass closer to you as you are driving by. Although, he said he does not see Gucci or Ralph Lauren wanting an illuminated sign other than an "open" sign. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. SONIA CAMPBELL, owner of Spectacular Shades, 73910 El Paseo, stated that she has a neon sign that does not blink and is on all the time, but is facing the Presidents' Plaza parking lot. She said that she only sees open signs on windows along El Paseo, and nothing that is not in good taste. She stated that if the Planning Commission decides to make El Paseo a different corridor she's fine with that. She also agreed that Country Club Liquor has too many signs on their window. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Chair DeLuna asked if a business owner has signs on their window that are technically within the 25 percent coverage area, would it be considered cluttered. Mr. Bagato responded that it could be considered cluttered; however, it would be in compliance with the ordinance. If the City wants to control or have a uniform look to the window, the City would have to require permits. Chair DeLuna asked if the signs could be redundant under the new ordinance or would they be required to have a different message on the signs. Mr. Bagato replied that under the code two wall signs are not allowed, but the sign text could be repeated on the window. They can also have a blade sign that projects from the side. He stated that the business could have the same sign text, but on different types of signs. Chair DeLuna asked if a barber pole outside on the building considered a sign or advertising. Mr. Bagato said that a barber pole is not technically defined as an advertising device. He also said some people might consider it a decoration. Vice Chair Dash inquired if a modification in the ordinance could read no more than one or two signs, whichever is appropriate, within the 25 percent area. 8 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2013\Minutes\6-6-13 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 Mr. Bagato responded that it could be difficult because there are some stores with bigger storefronts, and the business may want multiple signs. He noted that the City has always tried to limit per the percentage and not the number of signs. He said that changing the number of signs would change the existing code without addressing neon signs. Vice Chair Dash stated that he would support limiting the amount of signs within the parameters of the general limit. Ms. Aylaian stated that she is hesitant to add more restrictions to the number of signs or the amount of signage all in one area simply because there are so many different windows, different businesses, and different sizes. She said if a store has 10 big glass windows along the front, and you force them to put all of their signage in one portion of the 10 windows, you are limiting the creativity in what they do. She said it is different for a small store that has a single window. She stated because there is so much variety in windows, signage, and architecture for the buildings, she is hesitant to be that restrictive. Vice Chair Dash stated he understands Ms. Aylaian's concern. Vice Chair Dash inquired about the product signs (Budweiser, Miller Beer, Red Bull, etc). Mr. Bagato responded that in past discussions regarding signage regulations, the City could only set parameters for size and light, but they cannot get into content. He said the City cannot dictate who the business is advertising for because it then gets into freedom of speech. Ms. Jill Tremblay, City Attorney, agreed with Mr. Bagato's assessment on the content regulation. Chair DeLuna asked if television and other media have different First Amendment standards from signage. Ms. Tremblay responded that there are different regulations for media, which are under federal regulations, and not what they are looking at in this instance. Chair DeLuna asked if there are ethical or moral standards for signage. Mr. Bagato replied that he believes Chair DeLuna is referring to adult entertainment. He said that there is a basic public decency standard in the code. Ms. Tremblay stated that not all speeches are protected by the First Amendment so some indecent speech would not necessarily be protected. The City would have to look at those instances as they come up. Chair DeLuna asked if the City has certain discretionary powers when someone applies for signage as well as for a conditional use permit. 9 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 Ms. Aylaian stated that for an adult themed bookstore, as an example, the business would be able to cover 25 percent of their window area with signs. The signs would be able to say things like "adult books, videos, & novelties." However, if they were to install a sign with sexually explicit graphics in it, then the City would be able to prohibit that. Ms. Tremblay commented that would be correct. Chair DeLuna said that she is getting a consensus to continue the hearing or designating that El Paseo and Highway 111 corridor be considered differently from the rest of the City, and asked how they should proceed. Ms. Aylaian responded that there seemed to be a unanimous concern with neon or illuminated signs on El Paseo. She stated that the Planning Commission could make a motion with staff's recommendation, but prohibiting neon signs facing El Paseo for the length of El Paseo. The same request could be made for Highway 111. She stated that an additional study is not necessary, and a motion could be made at this meeting. Commissioner Stendell commended Mr. Bagato and staff for the report that was put together. He said he understands some of the concerns that the Commissioners have shared. He stated that staff is trying to establish a zoning ordinance that will be simplified and hold Citywide rather than having an individual Part A for one place, and a part B for a different place. He said that the cost basis of the tenant that is going to rent on El Paseo versus Dinah Shore Drive is going to be a different type of business. Commissioner Stendell stated that he would hope the businesses going into El Paseo would self-police themselves to a point of not cluttering up windows. He said that he's seeing what is being presented to them, and how it affects the City as a whole rather than surrogating into subsections. Chair DeLuna voiced that she still feels El Paseo should be set apart. Vice Chair Dash asked if there are requests for neon signs on El Paseo. Mr. Bagato responded that they do not receive requests for neon signs; staff was directed not to prohibit neon signs or enforce them. He recommended moving forward by removing neon signs on El Paseo or recommend moving it forward as-is. Commissioner Stendell asked if advertising cannot be dictated. Ms. Tremblay replied that is correct. Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 13-224 modifying Section 25.56.080.D. Window Signs, allowing illuminated window signage and establishing standards for those signs with the exception of El Paseo by not permitting illuminated signs along the 10 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 frontage of El Paseo only. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Dash and carried by a 3- 0-1 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT and Commissioner Campbell *me ABSTAINING. Vice Chair Dash clarified that the exception does not include the Presidents' Plaza parking lot. Chair DeLuna replied that is correct. She said she has no concerns with the parking area or the alleyway. Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2607. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Dash and carried by a 3-0-1 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT and Commissioner Campbell ABSTAINING. Ms. Aylaian indicated that they now have in the current and new ordinance a clause that says 'any new sign installed with illumination levels that the Director determines is annoying to neighbors could be changed.' She said if they see new signs that are too bright to please report it to staff during the first 30-day period. C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to modify Section 25.56.080.G. Pedestrian-Oriented signs to allow A-frame signs and to modify the standards related to El Paseo (Section 25.68.080.G. current zoning ordinance). Case saw No. ZOA 13-225 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Ms. Aylaian noted that Commissioner Campbell will not participate in this vote as she has a business on El Paseo. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, orally presented his staff report and PowerPoint presentation. In 2009, the City Council approved a new sign ordinance. During the meeting, an El Paseo merchant asked the Council to allow A-frame signs. He said a committee was formed with two property owners, a merchant and former Councilmember Kroonen. Mr. Bagato showed onscreen photos of various A-frame and pedestal signs. He noted that the code only allows signs using two colors and the word "open." After being discussed by the pedestrian sign committee and staff, they believed the code should be amended to allow A-frames. He said that they also had concerns with visual clutter, and they discussed limiting the usage to only allow them during the summer months (June 1-October 1) or during early morning hours. Mr. Bagato continued and listed the modifications to Section 25.56.080.G. Pedestrian Signs. He offered to answer any questions. Chair DeLuna asked if there is a regulated set of business hours for merchants on El Paseo. Mr. Bagato replied that there are no restrictions. 11 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 Chair DeLuna commented that she has seen some businesses with more than one sign. She asked if they are limited to one sign. Mr. Bagato said yes. Chair DeLuna clarified that the sign would only say "open" with their business name. Mr. Bagato responded that the sign could say "open," business name, and logo; no sale signs. Commissioner Stendell stated that businesses and commercial industrial can have an A-frame or pedestal sign, if they meet the guidelines and apply for the City sticker. For businesses on El Paseo, he asked if pedestal signs are only allowed for the summer months. Mr. Bagato explained that A-frame signs will be allowed Citywide, and that the pedestrian-oriented signs apply to the whole city. There is a section in the code that states anyone in the city that has a pedestrian-oriented business can have an outside sign, which allows for A-frame or pedestals signs. El Paseo would allow the A-frame and pedestal signs as well; however, El Paseo will have restrictive time usage. Commissioner Stendell reaffirmed that El Paseo is limited to the summer months. Mr. Bagato replied that is correct. Chair DeLuna clarified that El Paseo is allowed to have an A-frame or pedestal sign. Mr. Bagato replied that is correct. Chair DeLuna referred to one of the photos in the presentation. She addressed the clutter in the photo. She believes there should be some uniformity, color, and what they are allowed to say. She said she is not trying to be restrictive she is only trying to keep El Paseo a cut above during the summer. Commissioner Stendell agreed with Chair DeLuna. He said every A-frame sign is going to be an advertising sign. He also said that he sees the need for pedestal "open" signs especially in the summer months. He asked if there is a way to restrict A-frame signs on El Paseo. Mr. Bagato responded that they could restrict A-frames if that is what the Planning Commission wishes to recommend. He reminded the Commission that the City Council directed staff to study allowing A-frame signs on El Paseo. He reaffirmed that the signs are only supposed to say "open." Mr. Bagato noted that ,ter, only the signs on El Paseo will need approval and City stickers, which would be the only way to have it enforced before it is placed in front of the store. 12 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 Commissioner Stendell inquired if the number of feet could be limited from the actual storefront or uniformly placed. w..r Mr. Bagato responded that it would be difficult to have them uniformly placed because some of the storefronts have different depths. He noted that the current code states that the signs have to be on private property, and that it is a matter of being enforced. Chair DeLuna asked if they are limiting El Paseo to only "open" signs, is there any reason to permit A-frame signs. Mr. Bagato replied that they could. Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. SONIA CAMPBELL, owner of Spectacular Shades, 73-910 El Paseo, stated that she has been on the El Paseo Business and Improvement Board for the past 20 years, and president for about 8 to 10 years. She said that they have had this discussion many times concerning the "open" signs. She stated that they limited it to two colors and "open" for many years. At the last meeting with staff, she brought up the fact that many years ago the board came up with a decision that since in season the stores should be open, they do not need an "open" sign. Then there was discussion among the board members that some of the stores are opened later and some close earlier, which she thinks does not make a difference. Ms. Campbell agreed that there is clutter in the photo shown, and does not approve of the A-frame signs. She stated she is in favor of the pedestal signs that say "open" with two colors during the summer between June 1 and October 1. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair Dash commented that there are cases when there is construction going on, and it impedes on the adjacent business. He feels that the business should be allowed to use a sign to indicate that they are open. Vice Chair Dash moved, by Minute Motion, to recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 13-225 modifying Section 25.56.080.G. Pedestrian-Oriented signs to allow A-frame and pedestal signs. For businesses on El Paseo, A-frame signs are not allowed, signs should only be two colors, and a sign is allowed during construction of a storefront. Commissioner Stendell clarified that A-frame signs are allowed in business and commercial areas and that pedestal signs are two colors only. Staff replied yes. 13 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by a 3-0-1 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT and Commissioner Campbell ABSTAINING. Vice Chair Dash moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2608. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by a 3-0-1 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT and Commissioner Campbell ABSTAINING. D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to modify Section 25.46.040.A. Parking Requirements Table 25.46-1, changing the number of parking spaces required for different land uses (Section 25.58.310 current zoning ordinance). Case No. ZOA 13-226 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Mr. Bagato orally presented his staff report and onscreen presentation. He said reducing parking requirements has been discussed by staff and the Citizens' Sustainability Committee to be more environmentally sustainable. Based on a study done by staff and the Sustainability Committee, it was reported that about 40 percent of parking spaces were vacant. Over built parking lots increase rain runoff, create heat islands, and increase concrete glare and light pollution. He said that if parking requirements are reduced, it gives a developer more square footage for more profitable uses and potentially more sales tax for the City. He briefly highlighted different uses and the parking stall requirements. He noted that staff verified the validity of the parking study with the Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, and found that the numbers match the Parking Generation Manual. Mr. Bagato offered to answer any questions. Chair DeLuna asked if there is a minimum size for a parking space. She noted that the spaces at Bristol Farms are small and cars get hit by car doors. Mr. Bagato responded that there is a standard size. He said the stalls are supposed to be nine feet wide with double pin stall dividing lines, which actually nets 10 feet. He explained that Bristol Farms had trouble meeting the amount of parking spaces required so the City allowed them to have stalls at nine feet and single striped dividing lines. Chair DeLuna inquired if the City is going to require removal of asphalt if a shopping center is over parked, and have it returned to a more natural state. Mr. Bagato replied no unless someone comes to the City requesting to add a building to the parking lot. Commissioner Stendell commented that he looked at Figure 25.46-1: Parking Lot Design Requirements, and it indicates a nine-foot with a single-stripe parking stall. He asked if that is the current code because it does not show a double stripe. 14 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2013Winutes\8-6-13 min.dou MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 Mr. Bagato responded that the current code has that indication, and it may not have been transferred to the new code. He will make that change, and noted that Now there are other changes that he needs to make. Commissioner Stendell asked at what time was the study done. Mr. Bagato answered that it was over several months between February and April at different hours of the day. Vice Chair Dash inquired if staff has enough flexibility to make adjustments without having to go back to the Planning Commission or the City Council. Mr. Bagato responded that there are two different provisions under the adjustment section that allows the zoning administrator (staff) to approve a parking reduction of 10 percent. If there is a scenario that staff believes someone is going to demand more parking than the City demands, then those scenarios will be brought back to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Commissioner Campbell asked if the City could make it mandatory for Westfield Shopping Center employees to park in the north parking lot. Mr. Bagato said that he would have to read the parking management agreement. He noted that the City provided funds for the parking and has an easement. He stated that any time there is a CUP, the City could add those restrictions. Chair DeLuna 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. With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chair Dash moved, by Minute Motion, to recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 13-226 modifying Section 25.46.040.A. Parking Requirements Table 25.46-1, changing the number of parking spaces required for different uses. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell and carried by a 4- 0 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT. Vice Chair Dash moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2609. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell and carried by a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT. Chair DeLuna thanked Mr. Bagato for his work done on the Zoning Ordinance. Vice Chair Dash commented that he was talking to someone in a shopping am center, and they mentioned that there are restrictions on the colors of the signs. He asked if the City is involved. 15 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013 Mr. Bagato replied yes and no. He explained that if it is inside the mall, the City does not have restrictions. For shopping centers, the landlord will submit a sign program for approval by the Architectural Review Commission. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XI. COMMENTS None XII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Dash, second by Campbell, and a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT, Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. NANCY DCAUNA, CHAIR ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 16 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2013\Minutes\8-6-13 min.docx