Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 783 CZ 90-12 Amendment 1 The Crest CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Pre-annexation zoning of PCD/HPR (Planned Community Development, Hillside Planned Residential - 228 .5 acres) O.S. (Open Space - 411 . 5 acres) and a zone change from HPR to PCD/HPR for -_ 4 acres; for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills area" and 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums . III . APPLICANT: Miller/Richards Partnership c/o The Geritz Group 5353 West Sopris Creek Road Basalt, CO 81621 IV. CASE NO: C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 V. DATE: July 13 , 1995 VI . CONTENTS : A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C . Draft Ordinance No. 783 D . Planning Commission Minutes of June 20 , 1995 E . Planning Commission Resolution No . 1694 F . Planning Commission Staff Report of June 20 , 1995 G . PCD Text , Appendices and Legal Notice H . Conceptual Initial Grading Plan A . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt findings . 2 . Adopt Ordinance No . '" 3 approving C/Z 90- 12 Amendment #1 and pass to second reading, subject to inclusion of Option 3 language and open space dedication requirements specified in June 20 , 1995 staff report . B. DISCUSSION: The applicant previously requested 209 units and later scaled the project back to 185 units for which an EIR was adopted . But since the majority of the land was unincorporated, consideration of what the county would allow was critical in determining what type of density increase was being requested. The county answered that STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 JULY 13, 1995 the maximum was 83 units on their portion and that was used as the basis for the city' s approval of only 104 units . The county later revealed they did not fully analyze the project as a general plan amendment and that a separate application with the county would have to be filed for the project to be analyzed as such. The applicant did this and the county then recommended 120 lots - plus or minus 10 - as the maximum on the county portion. The plus or minus margin was to be determined by other departments ( i .e. transportation and flood control) at the tentative map stage - as the city would do. The 130 lot figure that the county would recommend together with the 21 lots maximum in the present city portion comprise the 151 now requested. The number of units , however, is only one part of restrictions placed on hillside development. Grading restrictions also apply and staff required - with planning commission' s concurrence - that the city' s grading restrictions (based on slope studies done at the tentative map stage) also apply to the project which could also ultimately affect the lot count if the numbers are not there. This compares to the county' s letter which stated that the final lot count would be based on, for the most park engineering issues (which the city would be doing also) and not on a detailed slope analysis which the city' s planning department requires . Additional city restrictions such as location of homesites and re- naturalization, not required by the county, would assure that the project ' s development follow guidelines spelled out in the PCD text . Tne planning commission, besides requiring the additional grading restr : ctions , also heard positive testimony from adjoining prcperty owners , and a concern from Sommerset residents that the en.. ryway on Highway 74 not block their down-valley views . The cor-: scion approved the amendment 4 -0 ( Jonathan absent ) , citing the project ' s environmental sensitivity and positive benefits to they surrounding area and to the commercial developments within the City . Prepared by : ,Z -�,� PP by : Reviewed and Approved J PJ/tm 2 ORDINANCE NO. 783 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PCD TEXT FOR "THE CREST" FOR A MAXIMUM OF 151 UNITS, SUBJECT TO INCLUSION OF OPTION 3 AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION LANGUAGE SPECIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF JUNE 20, 1995 . CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of June, 1995, and the City Council did on July 13, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by MILLER/RICHARDS for "The Crest" ; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project has been previously assessed (SCH #91021034 ) ; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1 . Proposed zone change is consistent with general plan designation that was part of a previous application. 2 . Proposed zone change is consistent with recommended county general plan amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert , as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case . 2 . That the city council does hereby approved Change of Zone 90- 12 Amendment 11 . PASSE, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council , held on this day of , 1995 , by the following vote , to wit : AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN : BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . ,"� VI I I . PUBLIC HEARINGS • , c A. Continued Case No. C/Z 90-12" :d t #1 - MILLER/RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP, Applican "` • sh Request for approval of an amendment to t the existing pre-annexation zoning �/S+QC1/.� increasing the density from 104 y homesites to 151 homesites for "The Crest" - a project on 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums and 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" area - that would include 411 acres of dedicated open space. Mr . Joy stated that this application was an amendment to the 104 units approve3 by the city two years ago based on the county' s recommendation at that time . The county did not give the plan a full analysis and did not look at it as a general plan amendment, which the city was doing at that time . He noted that the subject property was a beautiful site and deserved a nice project developed on it , which was what was being proposed by the applicant . Staff was ensuring that the project met the city' s hillside standards . In terms cf the city standards versus county standards , the applicant went back to the county and asked for a general plan amendment and the county recommended a general plan amendment that would allow a maximum of 151 units on the property . The applicant came back to the city saying that the county changed their mind and presented a letter verifying that . He reported that the city' s lot margins were based on a slope analysis for the piece of property and individual lots developed within the property, while the county in their letter drew attention to the engineering issues , transportation, and flood control , which the city would review also when reviewing any type of tract map for the property . Staff felt the city would give that a full analysis . When the applicant came back to the city after county approval , they asked for 151 units without much slope analysis details being given as far as the implementation of the tract maps that would be filed in the future . Staff wanted more slope analysis data when the tract maps were submitted and did receive that. City staff felt comfortable with the submittal . Staff felt the project would benefit the 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 general area by providing a better entryway to this section of the city and some of the lots in the area and the city in general in terms of providing a high quality estate area. At the same time it would provide the missing segment to the Santa Rosa Mountains Conservancy Plan by dedicating 411 acres of open space area and tying together open space dedications made previously to the north and south of the site. With that staff recommended approval of the project and asked for any questions . Commissioner Whitlock asked if the commission would get a report from the developer as to where the additional homesites ( from 104 to 151) would be placed. Mr. Joy replied that the applicant would be providing a map, but the increase in density all occurred in the county unincorporated section of the property north of the Cahuilla Hills area which was well away from the Sommerset area. Commissioner Whitlock noted that the initial project commission approved a few years ago had not changed much; Mr. Joy replied that in terms of the 54 acres within the city boundary, it had not. Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. EUGENE GERITZ , 5353 W. Sopris Creek Road in Basalt, Colorado, informed commission that he was the land planner and development consultant that had been working on The Crest project for six years . As indicated, this was a unique piece of property . He said there were a number of people in the audience that had not seen the project , as well as several commissioners , and it was his intent , even though they had changed nothing from their original submittals , he felt it would be worthwhile to run through the project with them. In terms of history, when they filed their application originally , the EIR was written for 215 dwelling units for the entire project . Because when they started the planning process and began working with the city, that was where they were at that point . The actual EIR that was certified by the commission and council was for 215 dwelling units . During the course of many meetings with staff , commission and council , they modified their application down to 185 dwelling units on the entire property, which at that time was 21 units on the triangular city piece and the balance ( 163 ) on Section 25 . Since that time relative to the text he distributed, the only things that had been changed in that text from the original submittal was to incorporate into the document the various suggestions that came from the commission, staff and the city council in the approval of the project. There were a number of things 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 worked out in that process which always occurred and they incorporated all of that back into a final document for when they went to the county for the clarification on the general plan issue, although they did not intend to build the project in the county. They wanted the county to have a document that reflected exactly what had been approved by the city in terms of the constraints in development standards that they were putting in place. That was the document before the commission. He gave an overview on the project. He noted that the entrance to the project was immediately opposite Homestead and they worked out an agreement with Caltrans to signalize the intersection at a future time to provide access to the property and improve the flow of traffic into Homestead and help the access into the Sommerset project and it was felt the signal would slow down the traffic to give better access . They also worked out an agreement with CVWD to allow a bridge over the channel to get access to that area. That was a fairly key point not just to them, but to their neighbors because this meant there would now be more direct access to other parts of Cahuilla Hills where development plans had been approved over the years . Access would be by potentially locked gates . That would allow a second way out for the two "trapped" areas . One of the primary original decisions was that if the area was to be developed, what was the nature of it going to be . He wanted to be able to say that he thought up the concept in terms of how they would control it, but he borrowed a tried and true planning measure that had been used extensively in the Scottsdale area and they came up with a concept that said they would create very selective individual homesites and development would occur only on those homesites and everything else on the property would go toward open space of one type or another . They felt this was critical because it was a fragile desert area , a very beautiful one and the value of the area to them was that it remain in its natural state . That was key number one . Number two was to determine whether or not they could gain access to the property by using and modifying very slightly the existing jeep trail that goes up through the canyon. He felt it was critical that they not scar the area . They did a lot of studies and found that with some minor re- routing they could make that work. There was one area they went outside their development boundaries and through an easement to gain access between two pieces . The area above there was unusual in two senses , one cannot be seen from the valley floor--what was seen were a set of ridges or from city hall , a different set of ridges . In the central area they, called the area a 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 "hanging valley" that was the mirror of the valley that contained Bighorn. The topography was almost identical . They were both essentially debris basins that went back for hundreds of thousands of years when this area was originally being formed. There was an area in the middle that was sloped rather gently at four to six percent going from the toe of the foothills down toward the Cahuilla Hills area. . That was the area they identified as potential development area. The other critical decision was that they would take all the balance of the property and set it aside as dedicated open space. That was a little over 411 acres at this time because there would have to be some adjustments made to the boundaries through the city council hearings . That area would be dedicated jointly. They had already filed an irrevocable offer of dedication with the Coachella Mountains Conservancy, which was filed in 1993, and they made a fee dedication offer to the city which was contained in the planning document. One of the requests made by staff as part of the re- review was that they go ahead and do the dedication concurrently with the annexation and they were happy to do that . He noted that there were areas of deep ravines that scoured through the sloped plain and those would become desert park areas and be maintained as part of the project . The total site was approximately 690 acres , of that 411 acres or 60% would be dedicated open space . Of what they called the community area, of the total site some 43 acres would be devoted to homesites which was about 6 . 2 acres and they would have another 12 acres in entry roads and cul -de-sacs , and one acre in private drives going back to the houses . That was the total amount of development on the entire site . Out of some 695 acres there would be 62 . 3 acres of actually graded , touched land, which included the sloped banks and the areas along the road sides . The balance of the area within the community itself , some 32 acres , would be set aside as community open space and be subject to maintenance and control by the homeowners association . What they used to calculate the amount of development area was an average homesite of 12 , 500 square feet and they actually went out and located each and every one of the sites they would be dealing with. The actual number might be something less than that, but that would be determined by a secondary review period . He showed the commission cut sections through the site and what was up there was very gently sloping areas surrounded by extremely steep terrain. It was the sloped plain that they were using as the development area . As part of their submittal they had to do a landscaped master plan. The extent of the landscape was what he called "desert 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 woodlands" and that was where the key areas at various entries and at bridges where they would put in a return irrigation and drip system and install native palm canyon type landscaping in those key points through the project. The real objective was to leave it as it is and not alter it, but they wanted to bring in some visual interest at certain points in the project. At the entry off the highway, the road sloped around, crossed the channel and proceeded onto the project. They were taking areas that were desert woodlands before floods came through and it got torn up by off-road vehicles and they were restoring those back to their original condition. The only thing they were introducing that wasn' t there were the native palms . He showed the commission a conceptual drawing of the entry which would be down at the lower end. The access for the residents of the area would be outside the gated entry so they could come off the frontage road onto the bridge below the gate into the project. They had free access at all times and they would be using the desert woodlands theme there. Within the project another concern was how they would handle the ravines . The roads go with the terrain and were constantly changing grades because they didn ' t want to introduce any fill and wanted to minimize the cut going through it . The other was how to handle the little ravines--at the small ones they created small desert woodlands and they would use some culverts . Wherever there was a ravine ten feet deep they would work out a system of pre-cast concrete bridges that would span over and leave the terrain natural and again create a desert woodland in the natural areas associated with the crossings . They did n:)t want to alter the terrain in those areas . As mentioned earlier, a key ingredient was the homesite and what they had done was identify the boundary of the homesite and within that boundary was the only area which could be disturbed in any way or that could have any landscape planted on it or be irrigated or in any way changed from the natural desert state . The formula in the plan said essentially that the size of those homesites would range from roughly 10 , 000 square feet to 15 , 000 square feet depending upon the nature of the terrain that they were located on . The steeper the terrain or more irregular it was , the smaller the development . Everything outside of that would be dedicated as permanent open space that could not be disturbed at any time in the future. A piece of the master site plan for the project illustrated that the spacing of the houses must maintain the equivalent of one acre lots . They didn' t have lots because everything not disturbed goes back to common ownership, but they 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 wanted the spacing to exist where the houses were 200 to 250 feet apart so it wouldn't impact the terrain; also the houses would better blend into the surroundings. In the area there were rock chimneys and they plotted and identified each rock chimney in that area and looked at the homesites to insure that they would get a location that would not impinge on those and after the construction approval everything else would be dedicated open space for the homeowners association so the natural features would be preserved. They had one designated recreational area which was in the center of the site where they would potentially put in a couple of swimming pools and tennis courts for the use by the community itself . There might be tennis courts on some of the individual sites, but they would have to be in areas where the terrain was extremely flat and effectively had to come out of the 15,000 square foot envelope that could be graded because that was all that would be available to them for a house, drive, and/or tennis courts . Commissioner Whitlock had asked where the added units came from--the study they did at 185 dwelling units meant that in effect what they had done .was shrunk down as opposed to increasing up. They consolidated lots . Since they walked and located each building site in their original analysis coming back to the original 185 then down to 104 and back up to 152 , they consolidated lots and building sites and came to a reduced plan . He showed a phasing plan and explained that they would probably only open up phases of about 18-20 lots at a time working their way through the project because sites would not be graded in advance of construction of the houses . Grading would be restricted . On the lower site they went through and identified each of the homesites in the area and determined the location they felt was appropriate for development to occur . As indicated by Mr . Joy , this was the first step and formed the framework for the project . When they came back to the commission , they would be submitting site development plans , tentative maps and grading plans or. a phase by phase basis with all the calculations needed for staff to verify the fact that these meet the criteria of the ordinance and all the particulars . As a review he noted that 60% of the site would be dedicated open space and there would be 9% of the site developed in any manner whatsoever . That left 91% of the site which would remain exactly as seen today because that was the way the criteria was set up within the standards for the development of the project . Commissioner Whitlock noted that the beauty of the project had not changed from two years ago and was delighted. The 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 commentary had been that nothing could be seen from the valley floor; valley floor to her was Highway 111 and asked what happened to the residents of Bighorn and Sommerset looking toward that mountain range--what exactly would those people see when they were sitting on their patios on the golf course. Mr. Geritz noted that they took photographs from just about everywhere outside its boundaries . There were some real peculiarities that occurred. There was a ridge along the easterly side of the project that screened it from areas of the Palm to Pines Highway and the same from Highway ill . There was a prominent ridge that had several houses that sit on top of the ridge that could be seen from all around. If they were to the north of the site coming down from the Bighorn area, that ridge totally screened this site from that area. The only people that had an actual view into the site was a little piece (Dr. Meintz and his neighbors) with three or four houses immediately adjacent to the project ' s boundary line to the south. Of the 18 houses in the lower piece adjacent to Sommerset, there were three or four houses that potentially would be visible from the Sommerset project. When they walked the site they put in flags and tried to see them from below, but it was tough. He felt that three or four houses out of the 50 acre area might be visible from the Sommerset project. No development was visible from parts of Cahuilla Hills . The project was extremely contained and not visible from the outside; three or four houses would be the total visible in the lower portion. Commissioner Whitlock asked Mr . Geritz to show where the first phase would start and the location of the other phases . !!r . Geritz demonstrated on a map the counter-clockwise phasing planned . He explained that one of the things they ..anted to do was hold the best lots until the end . He felt those last lots provided spectacular views and was quite beaJtiful . The other area was more contained and within a "bowl " and the views were of the terrain itself as opposed to the long views . Commissioner Whitlock asked when the recreation center would be completed within the phasing; Mr . Geritz said they were still debating that issue . Their probable opinion was that it was unlikely that it would occur . One of the main reasons for being in that area was the privacy and the nature of the area they were living in and they were not sure that having the tennis courts and swimming pools (which would primarily serve children) was necessary. They have gone back and forth on that . If it were to occur, it would be around 50% of the way through the project. They didn ' t know and were discussing the necessity of having such a Facility. Most everyone that lived there would be involved in golfing and other facilities somewhere 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 else and he was not sure it necessary to be internal, but they wanted to reserve the site. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he appreciated what the applicant was doing to keep the natural look and felt it was a great project. Mr. Geritz said that this had been a tough project and he hoped that he gave the commission enough of a sense of the project that they would feel as strongly about it as they did. Commissioner Campbell said that she went to look at the area with Mr. Joy and the valley floor was virtually invisible coming down from Highway 74 and did not think that anyone should complain about the view if they did look at any of the homes down there. As far as the economic value was concerned, the city needed an area like this for people to live in since they had so much commercial development occurring. Mr. Geritz said that the second turn-out going up Highway 74 was a place that could see into the site. Vice Chairperson Beaty noted that it was said there would be no visual impact from Highway 111 , but asked about from the Marriott area and if anything would be visible . Mr. Geritz replied no. He noted that if you took the road up Magnesia Falls , you would have to climb 1500 feet up to see over the ridge to see back into the valley. Commissioner Whitlock asked when the applicant planned to come back to the planning commission with landscape plans for the woodlands and the actual final plan of the entry and how everything would work off of Homestead . Mr . Geritz said the entry area statements and landscaping down along the Palms to Pines Highway would come in for a detailed review with the first tentative map. With all of the different options of phasing they considered, they had to do that and get the entry established , cross the canal and up into the project, so those would be submitted concurrently with that . The drawing that had the phasing line, essentially those woodland areas and bridges that fell within the phase at the time they got to that 18 unit phase, the commission would get the details at that point in time on all of the grading that would occur in that area, in addition to the utilities and mechanical equipment, the detailed landscape plans for the various desert woodlands associated with the focal points in each phase . It would be on a phase by phase basis and any secondary landscaping that they might do at an entry to a project would again come in with each of the phases--that 18 unit increment with the site development plan and landscape plan accompanying it . There would be one more review after that which was the architectural review of the specific residences and their individual grading and landscape plans . 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 The initial one was the back bone street system and the cul- de-sacs that would go in. Commissioner Whitlock asked Mr. Joy how the general public would be noticed when the tract map, etc. , came back. Would it still be within the 300 feet and would the general public get notification of those public hearings . Mr. Joy said all property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the tract would be notified. He noted that there was one gentleman who complained about non-notification, but it was discovered that he listed his San Diego residence to receive his tax bill, not his Palm Desert residence. He said that right now staff could place the names and addresses in the file of anyone who wished to be notified to make sure they were notified when the tract map was filed. Mr. Geritz suggested that each notification be the whole boundary of The Crest, which would mean the same notification list every time. Mr. Joy replied that would not be a problem. Mr. Geritz noted that when they got to the middle of the project, 300 feet would not even get to the boundary of the project because there was a lot of land involved. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DAVID DARLING, a Sommerset Homeowner, said that some of the residents were concerned about the possibility of the entrance and if there were large trees planted in that area, they would block the view from several condos that needed that open space to see the city lights and he wanted that to be part of the record that they were concerned. MR . CAP HOMN..E, 261 Cordova Way in Palm Desert , stated that he was in favor of the project . He said that he has followed this project since its inception and where the applicant represented the bridge to be was something they could use in that area . He noted that they owned property from approximately the bridge going down Highway 74 , from the channel to the toe of the foothills - approximately 27 • acres of flat land . They had owned that property for many years . That bridge would help the whole area including his property and would help bring the utilities into their area and they were all in favor of this project. DR. JERRY MEINTZ , one of the homeowners in the Cahuilla Hills area that would see this project from his home, stated that he had lived in Cahuilla Hills for 25 years and he was amazed that with the massive development in Palm Desert that they had been overlooked and this was 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 the first real commitment to do something in and near to their community that they had good feelings about. He visited Desert Mountain in Scottsdale and had seen the prototype for this particular project and he was in awe of the project. He felt this was on the cutting edge of desert development for California and there was no other community like it in California. In Scottsdale there were communities like this and they were highly sought after for the very reasons discussed by Mr. Geritz. There was a commitment to protect the natural hillside area and to maintain it in its pristine state. Never before had a developer offered to give up the vast majority of his holdings in an effort to respect nature. Those that lived in the Cahuilla Hills area were there because they were naturalists. They loved the area and the hillside living. Most of them had nestled into the natural environment and built their homes in a way that did not scar or protrude or sit on the top of the mountain. To that extent in looking at the plans in great detail and having interaction and communication with the developer, understanding that they were willing to listen to them and hear their complaints and needs, it had been a fruitful process and had taken him to a place that this project had his support . He felt strongly that this project should be approved by the City of Palm Desert . Living in the county and being involved with the county road committee in the Cahuilla Hills area , he knew that the City of Palm Desert had a much more effective and stringent set of guidelines , precisely the hillside overlay, and he wanted to see this development held to its contract unlike what had occurred with Bighorn. Promises were made initially and promises were broken. He strongly encouraged this committee to hold the developer ' s " feet to the fire" to make them follow through on the commitments they have made . If that happened, this development would be a landmark for Palm Desert and would attract a great deal of interest from other desert cities that felt the same way. He said we should create a balanced synthesis between the natural environmental and development . They could no long^r have the developers against the naturalists--they must form a partnership with nature and with families with both having their needs met . As a representative of Cahuilla Hills , he felt this project brought to their community some help with roadways that for the last 25 years had been a struggle to maintain. For the first time the County of Riverside was attempting to work with them to create a soil cement project where they could still have their country roads , but they would be dust free and they were asking the developers like the rest of the folks in their community 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 to help participate with the financial cost that soil cement would create. The fact that they intended to use Painted Canyon as an emergency exit from that project should there be a disaster and their main entrance was blocked. He again encouraged the commission to review every step of this project and if this project maintained to the letter its commitment the kind of vision presented this evening would be great and a fine addition to Cahuilla Hills and Palm Desert. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked what the relationship was between the city and county and why they were able to proceed in this manner. Mr. Drell replied that the applicant was intending to annex into the city and in essence there was a process that gave him the ability to know what he was in for before he made that decision. Mr. Geritz stated that this was effectively the last step, this hearing and the city council hearing, before proceeding with the annexation process . Subject to the approval of the commission and council of the amendment, then their next step was to file the necessary annexation documents with LAFCO and go through that process and after LAFCO approval , they would come back to the city and the city would accept the annexation and the approvals would effectively all become final . At this time they were one tenth city and nine tenths in the county, and they wanted the project totally within Palm Desert . Yr . Joy noted that the pre-zone on the property was a requirement of LAFCO prior to application . vice Chairperson Beaty closed the public testimony and asked tor comments by the commission. Commissioner Whitlock stated that they all had their questions answered and was fortunate to go through this process a couple of years ago and repeated that she was delighted that there had not been any changes and sensitivity remained and the natural features remained the same . Because she would not be in this position when the applicant came back to the commission in the future, for the record and on behalf of the homeowners in Sommerset, she wanted to ensure that the minutes reflected the concern for the landscaping when that plan came before the commission on the entry off of Homestead and beseeched the commission to ensure that the landscaping the developer proposed did not impact the view corridor of the residents of Sommerset on Desert Flower. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Commissioner Fernandez added that he concurred with Commissioner Whitlock and said he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of this project and since it would be a controlled development and brought up to its original state after the phases were completed and added that she would like the developer to be held responsible to keep that area as natural as possible. Vice Chairperson Beaty stated that it was refreshing to have projects where there was no opposition and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Campbell , approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez , adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1694 , recommending to city council approval of C/Z 90-12 Amendment # 1 for 151 units maximum with the adoption of option 3 standards and open space dedication as specified in the staff report . Carried 4-0 . B . Case Nos . PP 95-3 and PM 28196 - MONTEREY CENTRE, INC . , Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan of design and tentative parcel map to allow construction of a 135 , 600 square foot retail center at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive in the PC( 3 ) zone . A-t : nn : !!owed by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez , approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4 -0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Campbell , adopting Planning Commission Resolution No . 1695 , approving PP 95-3 and PM 28196 , subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None . 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 X. MISCELLANEOUS None. XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None . XII . COMMENTS XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Campbell , adjourning the meeting to July 18, 1995 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . /tm 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1694 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PCD TEXT FOR "THE CREST" FOR A MAXIMUM OF 151 UNITS, SUBJECT TO INCLUSION OF OPTION 3 AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION LANGUAGE SPECIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT. CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of June, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by MILLER/RICHARDS for "The Crest" ; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project has been previously assessed (SCH #91021034 ) ; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1 . Proposed zone change is consistent with general plan designation that was part of a previous application. 2 . Proposed zone change is consistent with recommended county general plan amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2 . That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval Change of Zone 90- 12 Amendment # 1 . PASSED . APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert r : ar.n: ng Commission, held on this 20th day of June , 1995 , by the follo6. in:, vote, to wit : AYES : CAMPBELL, FERNANDEZ , WHITLOCK, BEATY NOES : NONE ABSENT: JONATHAN ABSTAIN : NONE R - PAUL BEATY, Vice Chd rperson ATTEST: PHIL DRELL, Acting Secretary City of Palm Desert, California CITY OF PALM DESERT • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 20, 1995 CASE NO: C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 REQUEST: Amendment to the existing pre-annexation zoning increasing the density 'from 104 homesites to 151 homesites for "The Crest" - a project on 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums and 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" area - that would include 411 acres of dedicated open space. APPLICANT: Miller Richards Partnership c/o The Geritz Group 5353 West Sopris Creek Road Basalt, CO 81621 I . BACKGROUND: The project was originally applied for on 03-30-90 and consisted of 209 units on 694 acres - 54 acres within city limits and 640 acres to be annexed. The 640 acres is further divided into 411 acres of steep hillside terrain to be dedicated as open space, and 229 acres proposed for development that is less sloping terrain that forms an extension of the unincorporated Cahuilla Hills area to the south. Planned Community Development ( PCD) zoning was suggested by staff as a way of holding down the density. The PCD zoning would also provide for the open space dedication while providing the property owner with some assurances of what they would be allowed to build if annexed to the city . An environmental impact report was prepared at which time it was C : fscovered that the county would not extend zoning designations trcr the Cahuilla Hills area to this site , thereby restricting the density the county would allow on the 640 acre portion of The Crest to 83 units - which together with 21 units allowed on the city portion, brought to 104 units the total allowed under those circumstances . The city council retained the 104 maximum unit total as the pre- annexation zoning on 11- 12-92 and re-affirmed it on 02-25-93 . The applicant then applied to the county for a general plan amendment resulting in a letter stating that county staff would support an amendment to allow 110 to 130 units on the 640 acres in the county which together with the city' s 21 units comprises the present 151 unit application. STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 JUNE 20, 1995 II. PROJECT: With the exception of a 32 lot reduction, the project remains the same. The site is to be accessed by a new bridge over the Palm Valley Channel opposite Homestead Road on Highway 74 . The roadway continues through the 54 acres (referred to as Property B) presently in the city to the 640 acre section (Property A) where the road loops within the 229 acres to be developed (community area) . The community is bisected by numerous deep ravines and the loop road will bridge these canyons also. The proposed homesites have been identified by the applicant and a conceptual grading plan has been prepared showing initial lot pads averaging 7177 square feet - while language in the text sets the maximum pad size at 15,000 square feet or larger. Average lot sizes are 60,000 square feet while text language sets a 30,000 square foot minimum lot size. A recreation center including two tennis courts is also shown within this community area. As the above data indicates the project, while merely a re-zoning, also is proposing some development standards as evidenced by the pad size maximums . Also proposed is a 24 foot, two story building height . While the city' s hillside code does not exclude two story structures - it does not guarantee two story which the text language does . A mitigation to this which the applicant has proposed is not to have a single wall 24 feet tall without a break . In su7mary, the applicant is envisioning an exclusive area of estates ranging in size from 5 , 000 square feet to 10 , 000 square feet with capabilities of having private tennis courts . While the ma , rity of homesites would not be visible from the valley below, chou1d be noted that the 20 homesites on the 55 acres presently %. : tt'. : n the city and approximately 10 homesites in the main cc.:-,.r. : ty area would be visible in some areas . III . HILLSIDE ZONING CONFORMANCE : The PCD text becomes the development standards for the project but there is still the underlying Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) zone which the PCD text should abide by since almost the entire site meets the city ' s hillside criteria standards . HPR zoning requires development to follow one of four options , only two of which are applicable to the site ( # ' s 1 and 3 ) . Option one bases density and grading restrictions on average slope of the site. Under strict interpretation of this option either 142 units could be constructed disturbing a maximum of 42 . 47 acres or 148 units 2 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 JUNE 20, 1995 could be constructed on 34 . 7 acres . Under a liberal interpretation, 259 units could be constructed on 87 . 55 acres . In both cases, the steep ravines that bisect the community area increase the average slope dramatically, though the ravines are unbuildable areas . Rather than re-drawing the open space area to include these ravines, use of option 3 does this automatically. Option 3 requires development of up to a 10, 000 square foot pad, to only occur on 1/2 acre sites of 20% or less average slope exclusive of the ravines . A variation of this option to accommodate the up-scale community is proposed that would allow an increase in allowable pad area per increase in lot area under 20% slope . While this would translate to a 15, 000 square foot pad for a 3/4 acre lot, the applicant has indicated a willingness to retain larger lots to maintain spacing. It is understood that the area of 20% or less slope not include areas of desert park that might bisect a lot so that only a 10, 000 square foot pad may be possible on a two acre lot due to 1 1/2 acre of desert park's existence on the property to protect it. Clarifying this hypothetical situation further, if a two acre lot may have 9 , 000 square feet of 20% slope on one side of a ravine and 13 , 000 square feet on the other, a 10 , 000 square foot pad would be allowed then on the 13 , 000 square foot site . Most of the community area lots would fall in this category while sites within the area , but over 20% average slope would fall under option one computation - which is also mandated under option 3 . Implementation of this consideration of options requires slope studies for all lots at time of map submittal . Previous studies by the applicant ' s engineer have shown that 176 units would be possible in a 283 acre community area , but similar to the previous application , the maximum number of units that coon.' y staff recommends would also be the maximum number that city staff would recommend . Even though the number of units might be s :r . : ar if developed in the city versus county , city staff feels that the city ' s hillside zoning is far more environmentally sensitive than county regulations in terms of grading restrictions , location of units and re-naturalization of disturbed areas . It was also staff ' s suggestion that if the recreation center was deleted it could be replaced by an extra homesite since a homesite would be less offensive than two tennis courts and a clubhouse - but in any case would still follow option 3 criteria of the hillside zoning code . Staff ' s only other concern was that the open space recordation be made or agreed to at time of annexation rather than at time of adjacent map recordation - which the applicant has agreed to . 3 STAFF REPORT C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT #1 JUNE 20, 1995 IV. RECOMMENDATION: A. Approval of findings . B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to the city council approval of PCD text C/Z 90- 12 Amendment #1 for 151 units maximum with the adoption of option 3 standards and open space dedication as specified in the staff report. V. ATTACHMENTS : A. PCD text, appendices dated 3-15-95, legal notice (previously delivered) B. County letter dammed 12-5-94 Prepared by "%U'4 Reviewed and Approved by PJ/tm 4 �y, h ./ • ©Bf @ °@Otn Desert ^ y•- 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE.PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346 0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. C/Z 90-12 AMENDMENT 11 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held'before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by MILLER/ RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP c/o THE GERITZ GROUP for approval of: pre-annexation zoning of PCD/HPR (Planned Community Development, Hillside Planned Residential - 228.5 acres) O.S. (Open Space - 411.5 acres) and a zone change from HPR to PCD/HPR for 54 acres; for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills area" and 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums. APN's 628-320-001, 631-020-001 thru 004 & 631-030-004 _ M ( R A G E PROJECT SITE ` it1 'T 1 ite0=== �A ele-711 "War GIi, _ 1 -T I - • j maim=km L PROPERTY-a- - t I - , M \ . e_ ., 77�T:.T. 'r -.:-.-: - • -------------- r� A. ... KJ r-��—,ems•— / • II I •_- . t ,'.-r . . _ k — SAID public rearing will be held en Tr,,.-r-- y day, July 13, 1995, at 7:00 ; .m in th. ;cuncil Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice ?hall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5-00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The project has been previously assessed for CEQA purposes. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described it this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk June 28, 1995 City of Palm Desert, California -, LO I LINE -..-• ....,..,. 1 and \ MI \ 1141) 1... \ •`,...a.„... GRADING STUDY .-4 .. \ C i 1. ..... f ..........:::. ..,) •Ao•AZ-1-6;.... '''.'" . , ) k,, ‘ " .271 • , HeA V / LINJLc \.._I) \ i..)\ II •• ( • .„... \<'.," !:-.. .'..,,,\ ,1 '- 2, 1. 1.it r LLIQTC Q \ ,-P.‘"-P*,-.'", N, • litiii •• -or.- •... - ( ... 1 , _,i .t,.. 1-14-r) '-)5. / ... . . s...._ - V C ....._, r ,...- ',--`. -•-ci• "1-. 4 1 : .. .A • N• ' '\ _.. - a : ,,\.._ . •, -i: iii,-..,_ .. .. ), , i -' i la l,,,,,.....,..,. , , ••_... ,.. ..,.. . 4----:) -'` •\--i -r-z n --. :r--- , ---„,,...-- -:---i . lb : • 1 1)::) t..2 ..,*,\• ,.. • .-.• , , ;•• ----------'--- ( • \ 1.1 ! l L..-..;- . . ...c., ----.x... _ \,---, ,....... ___,N,k,,..)•-r""., • ;IT) I A,„. •-1. ••-...-.„..., .......4.• % s: t , ./ :, 4, • •c-' 1:' ? a- AWN, LIM/17 pp __, '''' ,..11--".... . ,.... -...--,.,, .... ,:____„ u, • \__, ----, • . r---:, --.. ....... _..11 • (CL Alit/ t \..........Z...: / --‘, ----.- *N. I •. --...4 j--\ '.\4\ 1--;-_).. Y —-- •...7 , C ) N , A 4.) '-----\ 'I-- 1 ' ) ...- I. - --------/t ki /)f. ---.t c•--,--/•.,./'• , \.-e--_--..-..)• ifctur"... C.- •./\.....-_c.- Y4.,/ `N- . C •-• ) - , ....., 2 A 7,_ /‘, - , • t, ....„.., ,..6 --. • ,....:r.,,,,...... • ...-.,.../ , 1 c7_, _ . -•=1 , .....-M•.....1 , . . a•. 1 • • s, 1— . 1...f) C .‘i il -It •'• ' \.i • . %t • • •...- -7" •\,_1 n...,. . ., _ • . , ) • . ' • \\:_ __ , • . "--.........._./ __.) . • • , , , . • - \‘ 40411710 f..,, •••• ‘,((.'-----•• , , ) ,-, •'',,,, ,.-.,..„:\;\',\ •)• • _ . , • ) /• •• • • • • / h �hs COIJIV 1'Y OF RIVERSIDE f TRANSPORTATION AND ,�: _'�; . o LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY '�+ `''`p 44. a as4� Phnning Department Aleta J. Laurence • Director of Planning • December 5, 1994 . .- Mr. Eugene Geritz, AIA . The Geritz Group �, _ i,. • 2505 Ardath Road c� �---�. La Jolla, CA 92037 .. - �t A v -. RE: Review of Addendum,Material for the Crest Project ,,"" _ f" .- � a l, `,, iDear Mr. Geritz: > � ,? ''.. �: na - I am addressing, by this letter, the additional material submitted Zo the Riverside County - • Planning Department dealing with The Crest Project (CGPA No. 382).- Your cover letter of .. October 4, 1994 Indicated that this material included an original colored 'constraints' map and an original colored 'slopes over 25 percent" map as well as a land use analysis" table • showing areas available for development for 148 proposed lots. Based on the new date • submitted, I understand that you ultimately desire to develop up to 148 residential lots within this property. Should this be an error, please inform me directly. I also understand that the addendum material is information and analysis which were in response to the - Deoartment's requests, and were not part of previous submittal Items to the City of Palm Desert--at least in the same format as recently provided the County. Alter havuig t►hu udditional materials carefully reviewed. I have concluded that 120 lots, plus or minus 10 lots. would likely be tound acceptable by staff under Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan land use standards. Final determinations of the number of lots • ar'd their design and improvements would be made at the tentative tract map stage. and thus t"e margin of ten lots. primarily as other County departments, such as Transportation or od Control. could influence project configuration. As you are aware, staff cannot predict v•'-a; the Planning Commission's or Board of Supervisor's reaction to your proposed map m. g t be. I r'ope this provides a response to your questions regarding the likely disposition of your project as far as the staff recommendation is concerned. I have instructed my staff to prepare a cost estimate of review time to date and this will be forwarded to you under secarate cover. Should you have further questions, please contact Mr. Paul Clark at the Department's Desert Office at (619) 863-8277. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aleta J. Eaurence, AICP, Planning Director '"'° �. • r : 95 39:54HM tl0HrRi i Jr =Lrtr:V i u r. r/ ("--------." COUNTY OF RIVERSIDETRANSPORTATION AND o itfr�4`�'- ''-0-s • tfit i LAND MfANA AGENCY 4.'- a 4- Liu 6 # 41. � � A n ov o- Planning Department Akta J. Lawrence Director of Planning MEMORANDUM IDATE: March 30, 1995 TO: Roy Wilson, Fourth District Supervisor Attn: Robyn Nagle ,,,v,„,..— .�.,�, FROM: Aleta Lauren , AI P, Pir rila D 7 le RE: Crest P so; n ar I i Pal ` r't'% '� 4',, >� ,.,,�� r� . r ,.. t� The following ire s imm r "h K:, ' '%' . w � ofi�,� Chain' leadltid'to o !e �t�v December 5, 1994. r • `..., In December 993; . e a• • 41 �! !> 0 an .*5• +- e ;�� ja a .i3 .� .,at `" . e.,i tern- Coachella Valley Plan (CGPA o. 38 �� ',, . r"' Ili: dment a•`!�c i"'1,i�`�. ; ,•r'Yr t' ft� ith the bepartment In the wake of, do - • `=•n on th, project.by the Ity . , ):44'.i-ii: ile the project was under review by the City, an EIR was prepared send th:'1,1 i�'. 'aA mr•rented on the docume`rt. Among the comments at that time were concerns :i'1. the lack of detailed slope anl giadinp data, which were never fully1satfsfled. 0'4 z Ing.public hearings on the mattet to City, the Department's:staff wa= requested by tlit ► staff to comment reglirdlin what the county would approve on the project afte. fltli reluctance, as this sort of common +4est b d', : {fit an,a turs• :�+. :;,.�i:�•. let'feerv�tas forwarded to the city Inditatin w t`���sl�a eaterrt ' �.a .,r . %. ..f.. ; �t,.stt - en yule envision • approximately av tb 5 Io-r: .- .;tr+'1 h Al pi • , -1,17)1,'a'"'t ;,ti the„ ,In December 1993 the appiicahkt do appr1 a��u <, ? •r� ,,r ;ei1• �:.t• ‘ =(ii g aro`?eAietailed review of densities. To echiei►e thig,a - 'ft ik=jf jj l rda•i't74L,,hi fR:,. • cation 1'wig' led. CGPA No. 382 is st,li active with .the D ,4"rims F fli.. . i4iv • • icatio s fie then filed. , - . p In the earty stages of the lant mandr'nent r c s, tre Iicant requested a letter of supportability to gage whether t4i.lrther roc usIngwh the County would be worthwhi;e. This took the form of two epolea. During the first stage, the applicant asked the Department to review only the documentation which had been submitted to the City leg., EIR, specific plan text, etc.). The Department did this as a courtesy and issued a letter dated June 10, 1994 (copy attached), coming to the conclusion that 90± tots might be supportable. 401101 sue, 9131 Ploor•itiverei4s, alifbuia 42501*(909)275-3200 P. 4. Box 1409•Rlve*ide, California 92S02.1409•FAX(909)275-3157 Z 'd 9' '0N T : 19t 266T 'L1 '08 '1480 9NISNeld n1NO ^tb uoa� APR 13 'S5 39:55AM BOARD SUPERVISORS r pr 0 i Supervisor Ron Wilson 7 Crest Project March 30, 1995 Page •2- During the second stage, the applicant followed up on the June correspondence with additional Information for further review of the Department's staff. The additional information included lot specific grading data and a series of slope analyses and environmental constraint maps which remain on file with the Department, The additional information addressed the project from the point of view of the County general plan, including slope and erosion policies. The information helped address the Issues raised by the Department regarding the City's•EIR but had not been dealt with to the Department's satisfaction up to that time. It is also our understanding that the additional information was data not previously reviewed•by-cttVi i ie t lea t such data was reformatted to met County review practic ,4'`"+ r My December 5, 1994f ett �reflect xl'�e's di s aa, r f the review of the submitted additlonat�ln p atior i Wkuld eerrr rcthi tt ana1I $Fat some kind of general plan erne d .. ,• • „Ha, .0 . .ns.of -' test • • *lit • : a. - dependenz flit de.- ► io $ made'. in. _ ". • ' .. - iii•.�'•Gdn.eral�ti1'an :mendments do not normally g -rar►tge s•ec► - of . e da but reflect a genera re e v 1 i which development o�fd'oc4ur, D , • ti s i�°� - j, "`•.. the 130 lot ure ¢erved in the February 24, 9t5:J letter •�,,i.., 44:r,`;; �'%t".• p: ;i-, Dese•;; ity ;nn i' D ector my letter presented a range it K6-.ti •p'.>� it lots.''';t i t,:ce T.' P.1r4o pcember15, 1994 letter, discu=sio of • '..lit': ni *s of lots m� ti :+ �' • j"'>,�r ,R ... � j';�� � f tentative subdivision Madrw ere t e real des( n and improvement '-w1�, .� . o,i es W se the acceptable t quantity. ;.� .. ;'- AJWPCI b \ r \ • " t:.:.:_ f ��,~ 12 \ \\4.rr,.a6. .I� %}'., ........_�_...._:. 1,,_ ;:(s'�'Nf,u,i +. , ,_,..., ,. cc: Pc./1 C7irk1L r: `;_ ,=� , k>t • zr: •4 j l i ,.4 �,y , Jim MC1ef • 0 -z a.:. rlrr �I'• ''�, S ..,. f:lwps.t1382_BDLT.aP/1�' w 10 a r. .. - ,>>:' """ ,� �.t a� �. . ' • �, r w, ., ,: 1-1 C 'd el ':M f1t91 S66T '7.1 'I '14:130 9NI4l101d A147 1I>! AObd