Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0721 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 21, 1992 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE �. I• CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 p.m. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Jim Richards Bob Spiegel Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Ray Diaz Kandy Allen Phil Drell Jeff Winklepleck Steve Smith Tonya Monroe Phil Joy III_ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Spiegel led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 25 and July 7, 1992 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, send by Commiissioner Richards, approving the June 25, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the July 7, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz indicated there were "no pertinent July- 9, 1992 city council actions. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos . PP 89-1 and PM 25799 - PAMELA SMALLWOOD, Applicant Request for approval of a second one-year time extension for a precise plan and ftow parcel map for a 46,000 square foot MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 office complex on 4 acres on the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Whitlock requested a motion to suspend the agenda item order. It was moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Richards, suspending the agenda item order by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 . E. Case Nos . TT 25296 and PM 27501 - ALTAMIRA VENTURES, Applicant Request for approval of an amended map for a 422 unit country club and creation of a 20 . 4 acre parcel southeast of Highway 74 and Indian Hills Way. Mr. Joy explained that the amended map was a result of the settlement agreement to lawsuits filed on the city's approval of a similar project last August. The main project change was the development of a buffer area which the agreement stipulated that the fences surrounding the lambing pen of the Bighorn Institute would be moved or any other arrangement approved by the California Department of Fish and Game that would either retain the 400-600 yard buffer or something else that the agency would approve. He said this was important because this is what the city relied on previously when they approved the project. Most of the buffer area was in the hillside planned residential zoning and the city council previously approved 58 units in the HPR zone, while the amended project showed only 55 units . The 20 acre parcel which was part of this application and the parcel map was to be held in trust by the Bighorn Institute until $2 . 1 million was generated to the Institute, at which time it would be turned back over to the applicant, and development was planned so that the applicant could construct all 18 holes of golf and the 20 acre parcel would only have homes built on it. He said that for the environmental review process, the services of Culbertson Adams were retained, which was the same 2 rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 environmental consulting firm as before, to prepare the assessment for this project. He noted that Mr. Dan Fricke was present to answer any environmental questions . He indicated that it was basically an addendum to the previously certified environmental impact report. He stated there were two changes to the conditions of approval which was worked out with the city attorney's office and the applicant; 1) change to mitigation measure number 20 adding, "This condition would be deemed satisfied (talking about the 400-600 yard buffer) if said buffer was on BHI property. The buffer provided may be modified with the consent of California Department of Fish and Game, which modification will also satisfy this condition"; and 2) fire department condition number 5 under OTHER should be deleted. Staff recommended approval . Commissioner Downs asked about access to the Del Gagnon property. Mr. Joy stated that access was shown to the Bighorn Institute property that could also be used for the Del Gagnon property. Commissioner Spiegel asked if the $2 . 1 million was to relocate the lambing pens . Mr. Joy replied that it was for a variety of arrangements and the city was not part of the settlement agreement--staff 's main concern was that the 400- 600 yard buffer was maintained either on the applicant ' s property or the Institutes, or some other arrangement approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JACK BECKER, President of Alta West, stated that the proposed Altamira Country Club project was originally submitted to the city for review in the fall of 1989 . When it was submitted it proposed a 350 acre site containing an 18 hole championship golf course and 450 lots . On August 5, 1991 the project was heard by the city council and they approved the project and certified the EIR. This approval was conditioned with a buffer of 400-600 yards. He informed commission that because of settlement agreements between the Bighorn Institute, Altamira, the City, and Riverside County, the buffer area previously imposed on the Altamira site had been freed up for development. The Institute would provide the buffer on its property and would receive substantial financial help from Altamira as the project developed. He explained the plans presented showed homesites in what had been the buffer area and improvements in the project 's design. The project was essentially the same as previously approved with the addition of homes in the 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 buffer area. The revised tentative tract map showed the �n full use of the removed buffer area. The map showed 422 units made up of 253 patio homes, 72 duplexes, and 97 custom lots . This was a reduction of 28 lots from the previous map. As for the original conditions, up to 58 lots were allowed in the hillside zone. This map would show 55 lots in the hillside zone and by using the buffer area 38 lots had been added, 13 of which were in the hillside zone and were included in the total 55 hillside lots. He noted that in early July, 1992, an expanded initial study and addendum to the final environmental impact report was completed by Culbertson, Adams & Associates addressing the removal of the buffer and showing the 422 lots . The analysis of the expanded initial study indicated no evidence that the underlying circumstances had changed in any way that would expose new or more severe impacts than those reported in the final EIR. He presented their exhibits and noted that Mr. Rick Zeilenga, their legal counsel, was available for any questions . Also, Ron Gregory from Ron Gregory & Associates was present to answer any landscaping questions; as well as Paul Gilmore from ASL Engineering. He explained that Exhibit A represented the original project was presented in November 1989 . It was approximately 350 acres showing 450 lots with an 18 hole rrrr championship golf course. Exhibit B was the result of the council hearing with the 400-600 yard buffer. He said that at that time they had to make the decision that maybe a solution with the Institute was not possible so they made a determination to finalize the golf course design and go into final drawings with acknowledgement that if a settlement was agreed upon with the addition into the buffer, it would be just for homes . Exhibit C was the project being proposed utilizing the buffer with 55 of the 58 allowable hillside lots, for a total of 422 units with the removal of the Del Gagnon property. He demonstrated where the access into the Del Gagnon property was located with the easement road, which also provided access to the Bighorn Institute. Exhibit D was a topo at a scale of 150 and he emphasized that there was no exaggeration and it was completely to scale. He felt the topo showed that the lots were designed around the natural hillside leaving the natural hillside as much as Possible and the site's natural background beauty would remain untouched and the golf course and unit landscaping would be able to be blended into a natural look leaving the entire site's ability to blend in with the existing landscape. He stated that Exhibit E was a cross site 4r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 section requested by staff taking an elevation from Highway 74 and the section showed the highest lot on the Altamira project, which sits at an elevation of 850 . 5 feet in comparison to Highway 74 which was 880 feet. He noted that Highway 74 was 30 feet higher than the lot. He stated that the approved Bighorn hillside lot was at 1125 feet. He stated that the actual use through these comparisons was demonstrated on Exhibit G. Their highest lot was 275 feet lower than the Bighorn Institute' s lot, which was not their highest lot. Exhibit F was a view shed analysis showing the frequency of the Altamira site from 90 view points along Highway 74 . He explained that the result of this analysis indicated there would be a low visual impact from this development. Only 3% of 12 lots on the entire site were highly visible. Exhibit G was an aerial photograph of the site. He stated that the photo was in clear conjunction with the overlay of the project to reflect how the project was designed around the natural hillside and when used with the topo would help to understand the natural slope of the site. He indicated that Exhibit H was a proposed landscape concept and a perspective that showed the transition from an approved lot to the undisturbed native surroundings . He stated that these exhibits were prepared by Ron Gregory & Associates to show the concern to preserve the native tow surrounding by blended landscaping background. He noted there was also a color board which would be made as part of the architectural conditions as far as any lots in the hillside to have earth tones to blend in with the surrounding backgrounds. He stated that of the 50 lots in the hillside, all lots would be custom lots and would conform to the architectural guidelines . Eleven of the lots were partial lots, which gave them through the hillside ordinance a total of 55 lots . He noted that the commission and council approved essentially the same project last August and the project tonight would provide substantial economic benefits to the city and community. He believed that the Altamira project would one of the premier country club developments in the desert and a valuable asset to the city. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Downs commented that this project was better than the previous one. 5 tow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 Commissioner Richards asked what would happen to the `■o properties no longer involved with the project ( i .e. Del Gagnon) to the east. He noted that the easement access was changed, their previous access was from the north on the northerly border of the Altamira project, and asked if there was anything that the settlement had done with the buffer moved onto the property of the Bighorn Institute that affected in any way the property rights of the owners referred to as the Del Gagnon properties. Mr. Joy noted there was a window period where until the pens were actually moved, nothing had really changed. They would be required to file an application and the regular procedures for any application would be followed. He said there was a waiting period until after the pens were changed, then they would no longer be within the buffer area and any proposal would be reviewed independently. Commissioner Richards noted that at one time these properties were adjoining the pen/lambing area. The properties were immediately to the north of the fence and immediately east to this project. He asked if there would be any effect on the settlement on anything being done on those properties . Mr. Joy indicated that if the fences were moved prior to the application, this would greatly alleviate the environmental concerns of those projects . Mr. Diaz stated that if the pens were not moved and that property owner wished to come in and file for a development plan, they would have to evaluate it through the CEQA process; if they would not be allowed to develop as a result of the pens ' present location, it would be a potential legal action between that property owner, Bighorn Institute, and the County of Riverside. He said that it was his understanding that the pens would be moved making that question moot. Chairperson Whitlock reminded commission that she would be abstaining on this matter. Mr. Diaz noted that some members of the Bighorn Institute just arrived and stated that they might not have been aware that the matter was moved up on the agenda. Staff asked if the commission wanted to give them a chance to speak. Chairperson Whitlock stated that she would be happy to reopen the public hearing if members of the Bighorn Institute were interested in speaking before the commission. Commissioner Spiegel asked if they were satisfied with the agreement reached; someone from the audience replied yes. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for further comments . 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 Commissioner Richards felt this project had been long studied and moved for approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1578, approving TT 25296 and PM 27501, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1579, certifying the EIR addendum. Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained) . A. Continued Case No. PM 27463 - RK DEVELOPMENT, Applicant low Request for approval subdivision of a 6 .57 acre parcel into four lots located south of Green Way/Sego Lane and east of Beacon Hill . Chairperson Whitlock noted that the applicant was requesting an additional 30 days . She opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission on this project in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Whitlock asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing PM 27463 to August 18, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . B. Continued Case No. PP 92-4 - GONZALO MENDOZA, Applicant Request for approval of a 9,000 square foot industrial building south of Sheryl Avenue between Caroline Court and Melanie Place. 7 4"r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 Mr. Joy explained that this case was continued to allow the applicant to restudy the site plan to accommodate more parking spaces on the project. He stated that the new plan showed 24 parking spaces on the project which was accomplished by adding an additional row of parking. He indicated that the project would now meet parking requirements of 1 space per every 250 square feet of floor area. Staff recommended approval . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ED STRELCZYK, representing Mr. Mendoza, explained that they cut back the first two units and made it a commercial office and left the other four units for industrial use. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Commissioner Spiegel asked for clarification as to which units were cut back; Mr. Strelczyk replied units 5 and 6 . Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing. Commissioner Downs stated that he liked it before but liked it better now because it provided the additional parking. Commissioner Spiegel indicated that the applicant had met the objective. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1580, approving PP 92-4 as amended, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . C. Case No. CUP 92-7 - SACRED HEART CHURCH, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a conditional use permit to allow construction of a new schoo.L/ administration building and new parking lot at 43-775 Deep Canyon Drive. 8 ..r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 Mr. Winklepleck outlined the salient points of the staff vow report. He explained that they were only requesting the parking lot and school at this time. The current proposal was two buildings which would total 14,400 square feet, a lunch shelter and construction of a new 94 space parking lot. Site preparation for the school included demolition of three church-owned apartment buildings which totalled six units . He indicated that the tenants in the units were given adequate assistance in either moving or were given their deposits back. Staff had not received any negative comments from those affected parties . He explained the school/administrative building would be located at the northwest corner of the subject property. Buildings would have a maximum height of 14 ' 6" and received conceptual approval from the architectural commission. The remainder of the area where the apartments were would be open space primarily for student recreation. He determined that a lot line adjustment would be required because the school would straddle the current lot line which delineates the church from the apartments . He explained that the two properties were zoned differently; one was R-1 9, 000 and the other PR-4, but a church was allowed as a conditional use in both zones. He stated that the new parking area at the southwest corner of Florine and Fred Waring Drive was 94 spaces and landscaping was adequate and met city standards . He informed commission that no access onto Florine would be permitted because: 1) staff did not want traffic intruding into the residential area; and 2) if it were permitted, staff did not want a left hand turn onto Florine, but would required that it come off of the controlled intersection at Deep Canyon and Fred Waring. He stated that the project met all city standards and recommended approval with conditions . Commissioner Spiegel asked if there was only one entrance and exit to the school and church, which was the current one on Deep Canyon. Mr. Winklepleck noted there was also an existing one on Fred Waring. The current entrances and exits would remain. Commissioner Spiegel indicated they were losing parking spaces to the right of the church; Mr. Winklepleck stated that they would pick up the additional parking at the corner and in the open area when there was over-flow parking. Commissioner Spiegel noted that currently the parking area for the church on the right-hand side was divided from the existing properties that would be torn down and replaced by a brick wall; Mr. Winklepleck clarified that the six foot brick wall would be decorative block and was something that could be discussed. Commissioner Spiegel stated that on the map it said that the existing road would be relocated and there was a swimming pool; Mr. Winklepleck indicated the pool would not 9 tow MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 be affected; only the three buildings and none of the other aw units . Staff recommended that along the northeast corner where there was a current pedestrian access, that a sidewalk run from the street by the pool down to Deep Canyon with a pedestrian gate to allow the apartment residents easy access to the church. Commissioner Downs asked if the swimming pool would be closed off and asked about the lot line adjustment. Mr. Winklepleck replied yes and explained that the applicant would come back for the lot line adjustment at a later date before starting construction. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHRIS MILLS, project architect, stated that he was present to answer any questions . He indicated that the six units to be torn down were currently vacant. Commissioner Spiegel asked if they would tear down the existing classroom. Mr. Mills replied no, that the current school would be used as a parish hall and the classrooms would be meeting rooms . Commissioner Spiegel noted that attached to the planning commission report there was a letter from Father MW Lawrence Battle who lived in the La Paz development area that said that he was moving to make room for a couple of elderly weak and vulnerable being evicted because of the unjust and uncharitable demolition of their units . He asked Mr. Mills if he knew anything about that letter; Mr. Mills replied no, other than that he had seen it. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. BART RAUL, Property Manager at La Paz, stated that he did not know that Father Battle wrote that letter but he did move out and they did not give him notice to move, he took it on his own to move. He indicated that of the six tenants that moved out, four of them stayed in the project and only two moved off the project. He said that he now had two vacancies and there was room for Father Battle to move back. MR. EDWARD PEREZ, 43-100 Florine, stated that he owned the swimming pool on the opposition side. He requested and received clarification that there would be no exit onto Florine. He asked about the pedestrian access and 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 �wrr stated that he was not opposed to the project, but would be opposed to any traffic onto Florine. He asked if there would be a block wall there. Mr. Mills replied yes . Mr. Perez said that he did not oppose the project. SISTER MARTY DILLING informed commission that her father was one of the residents of La Paz and was 86 years old and had been a resident of the valley since 1976 . She stated that his savings had been depleted by her mother being in a nursing home and had since died. Her father was extremely happy at La Paz . She said that her father lived within 10 feet of the evicted area and the residents were being assured there would be no further demolition within the next 25 years and was glad they could plan that long in advance. She indicated that the residents did not have a lot of confidence in that because the residents did not have leases and did not know from month to month about rent raises or evictions . She indicated that she had devoted much of her life to Catholic school teaching, but was presently teaching in the public school system at UCSD. She felt sorry that the educational needs of the children were being pitted against the need for elderly housing. She asked the commission and parish to consider alternatives . She felt + . it was a kind eviction, but they were still fragile people and the rest of the residents were scared about the next move. She asked the commission to consider more housing for the elderly and not less . Mr. Diaz stated that a condition would be placed on the project that further expansion of the school would not be permitted for 25 years into the La Paz area. Mr. Mills stated that he would like the owner of the property to at least hear that condition and respond to it before placing such a condition of the project. Commissioner Richards concurred. He felt there might be a better way to handle the situation. He indicated that staff could come up with a condition that said the subject be discussed with church representatives and come up with an agreement that would satisfy the concerns of the current residents and if a 25 year moratorium was necessary, then it could be conditioned, but felt there might be another way to handle it. Mr. Diaz stated that someone told the previous speaker the church was not planning to expand into that area for 25 years . """ 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 He noted that in 1980 when he came to Palm Desert there were woo problems with La Paz and expansion of the school . Someone from the audience indicated that it was brought up at a meeting by the Diocese that there would not be an expansion for 25 years . Commissioner Richards objected to adding a condition for 25 years on some comments that might have been made at a meeting. He stated that if that was to be a germane part of the approval, the matter should be continued to get someone to address the commission that could discuss that. If it was not a germane part, then it could be left to the discretion of staff and the people to work out. MR. JERRY LAGREE, a real estate broker, stated that four people relocated into the project. No one was thrown into the street and two people moved out of their own free will . He did not feel that people were evicted from the property. He also felt that the city was doing many things to provide senior housing. Mr. Diaz noted that any expansion would have to come back for a public hearing. The reason staff recommended the 25 years was that someone told the residents they would not need to expand for another 25 years and that someone was a representative of the Diocese of San Bernardino. MR. CHARLES DILLING, a resident in #10 A at La Paz, stated that he was concerned about what would happen now with the project being approved. He stated there would be an entrance off of Deep Canyon that would be within 15 feet of his door, which would destroy what little security he had and he felt it would diminish the security on the whole process . He did not believe that the people of La Paz needed a pathway or gate to the church. He felt that a few more steps around Deep Canyon was not too much to ask. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the pedestrian access was recommended by one of the other tenants at La Paz . Mr. Mills indicated that the gate would be a security gate and only the residents of the project would have access with their keys . Mr. Dilling said that key or no key, when he was laying in the sun in his back yard he did not want people climbing over him. MS. RACHEL KAY informed commission that she had lived in La Paz for almost one year. She felt that the pedestrian gate was essential and it would only be used 12 "" MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 occasionally. She stated that she felt bad that six two tenants had to be moved out to put the church school there and if they could find a piece of land somewhere else they could build a bigger school and fields for basketball and baseball . She also indicated there was a space next to the school that could be used for the school without tearing down the six units . She said they were all afraid that they would all be thrown out eventually. Commissioner Spiegel asked staff to demonstrate on the map where the gate was located. Mr. Mills stated that as far as the location went, they had some talk about moving the entrance further to the north; there were two more duplex buildings there with a 25 foot space between those two buildings . He said they discussed moving it down there to allow more privacy and travel distance would be approximately the same. Commissioner Spiegel noted the location the residents were walking through now and asked what would be wrong with the gate in the middle of that wall . Mr. Mills informed him that was the play for the children and felt it was a hard item to control and stated that it was a requirement from the school staff to not have any access through the property not only coming in, but for children going out. Chairperson Whitlock asked Mr. Mills where he would move the gate to satisfy Mr. Dilling; Mr. Mills replied to the area he mentioned between the two buildings where there was 25-30 feet between the structures. He also indicated there were ways to fence off on either side of the pathway if it was required. He said right now there was only a 10 foot area. It would accomplish the same thing if it were moved and he would have no problem with the location of the gate being moved. Sister Dilling readdressed the commission and stated that she appreciated concerns about the gate, but felt the deeper issue was being missed. She stated that the property was originally given to the parish by the Sacred Heart Guild for the decided purpose of housing for the elderly and that was the intention of the donors, which was a serious obligation that some had not taken into account. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing and asked for comments . Commissioner Richards felt the latest comment was an issue that had to be settled within the domain of the church as to what was given for what; as for the issue of housing for the elderly, the city had been very active and continued to be very active in providing 150 specific units and were adding another 72 within the next 6 months . The city had taken properties in complete areas and changed the zoning and done a great number of things to aid developers and were acutely aware of the problem. He stated that he was persuaded to seek some sort of clarification from the Arch Diocese regarding the two comments . The concern of the director of community development regarding was the amount of time, which was an important issue. He indicated that his inclination was to pass approval of the project with the relocation of the gate, but was persuaded that he would like to see in writing some sort of commitment from the San Bernardino Diocese and would like the question answered about the donation to the church, if it was a binding situation and anything the city should get involved with. Mr. Diaz stated that as far as the donation of the land, he had heard about that before and it was a matter for within the y, church itself. As far as the conditions of approval, he recommended the 25 years because a commitment was apparently made at a meeting by the Arch Diocese' representative; if they did not like that condition, they could appeal it. He did not wish to continue the matter and felt a decision could be made; he stated his concern was for the existing residents. Chairperson Whitlock suggested making the condition less stringent and noted that in the past, consensus had been given based on a response to staff to commission concerns and if commission specified what their concerns were and would like something in writing, that could be part of the conditions without having to affix 25 years . Mr. Diaz indicated that it could be to the satisfaction of staff and if something did not come back to the satisfaction of staff, the matter could be brought back to the commission. Commissioner Richards stated that he preferred the letter to be directed to the Diocese requesting further information on those two subjects and some sort of written assurance or binding assurance to the tenants currently there be given. That was what he was looking for--a written statement of intent that could be used for approval. He stated that he did 14 low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 low not like putting on a condition to a project when only the architect was present representing the owner. If someone was going to be required to maintain the status quo on a piece of property for 25 years, they should be at the meeting or have at least something in writing saying they agree or don' t agree with that. Commissioner Downs suggested opening the public hearing and continuing the case. Commissioner Richards concurred. Commissioner Spiegel felt that was the only appropriate thing to do. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Mills if he could come back in two weeks with something in writing specifically regarding the church's position on the future of the La Paz apartments and how long they intend to give some assurance in writing to those tenants and if there was anything in there regarding the donation of the land for specifically the elderly and if they had the right change that. Mr. Mills concurred with the two weeks . Chairperson Whitlock reopened the public testimony. MR. JERRY QUINTLIANI, Member of the Sacred Heart School Board, stated that as a member of the board, he did not know anything about a 25 year limit on not expanding the *MW La Paz property. He was not present at any meeting that was brought up at and wanted clarification from the Diocese on that. Chairperson Whitlock stated that was why this was being continued to August 4, to receive clarification. Mr. Quintliani stated that concerning the purchase of the property, the property was purchased with parish funds and wasn't a single donation. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing CUP 92-7 to August 4, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . D. Case No. PP 92-5 - MANSUR-WILMOT, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design for a 479,400 square foot retail complex on 50 acres on the west side of Highway 111 south of Fred Waring Drive. tow 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. He ow indicated that the plan met all conditions and received architectural commission conceptual approval . They directed the applicant to try and develop more distinct pedestrian spaces along the line of shops . It also received conceptual approval from the economic development committee and was presented to city council as an informational item and they had some concerns, although not specific ones . He stated that commission' s decision would be a recommendation to the city council . He indicated that the project would be required to implement all the mitigation measures specified in the EIR including all fees; staff recommended approval . He noted that the plan met all the requirements of the EIR, the development agreement and disposition agreement, and the PC-3 zone. Chairperson Whitlock asked for clarification as to the council ' s generally negative response. Mr. Drell stated that he could not get any more specific. Mr. Diaz stated that some of the comments had to do with the landscaping and view from Highway 111 and 2500 parking spaces being seen. Mr. Drell indicated that the exhibits addressed that issue and showed the landscaping. He stated that the landscape architect was the same as for the DSL project and assured staff that the landscaping of this project was equal to or greater than on the DSL project. He said that the setback from curb was approximately 44 feet for berming and where there wasn't berming there would be screen walls . There would either be buildings or screening so the parking lot would be somewhat obscured. He said that the project was more than two and a half times larger than the DSL site and the applicant had provided some parking in excess of the requirement, and met all of the landscaping requirements . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. NED WILMOT, partner in the firm Mansur-Wilmot from Westlake Village. He informed commission that his background was basically 30 years of planning, conceiving and developing mixed use community development and mixed use commercial with a heavy background of retail development of all types . He said that they were prepared to discuss any area the commission had questions about and their full design team was present. Ron Gregory was present and would address the landscaping and Ken Kently from McClellan, Cruz, Gaylord, their Pasadena architect, could go into more detail on the design. He 16 ""� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 said that the exercise of intelligently planning a 50 ,,ow acre site for a program of 479, 000 feet of value-oriented retail had different needs than other retail . They contracted with Ahmanson in the early fall of 1991 to undertake the development planning three of their Palm Desert sites . The 10. 7 acre site on El Paseo that would probably be at the opposite end of the retail spectrum. That would be something they would be bringing to the city this fall; it was 200,000 feet of upscale specialty retail and had a whole different kind of set of factors than 479,000 feet of value oriented retail . The basic difference was when they conceived the project on E1 Paseo, it was designed to be a compelling people place; it would be the kind of place people would go to first because it was a great kind of place to go and secondary would be the shopping. It was a more extended, relaxed trip. Value retailing was more of a destination trip and shoppers typically knew what they had in mind to buy. They usually want to park out front and the project was very oriented to the parking lot. Typically they go in and out again, not the type of shopping trip where they stroll or shop at leisure. In dealing with a large value center, the problem was how to bring them into the human scale. Twice in his 30 years he had the distinction of building the world's largest shopping mall and had dealt with this problem before in an enclosed mall environment. He felt they dealt with it very effectively. When dealing with a value center that was very in-line oriented, those retailers who are in that business have basically one entrance facing the parking lot and over the years they had determined that was what the customer wanted. He stated that Craig Christensen was also present from his organization. He noted that the plans showed an overall site plan. He indicated that the distance from the main entry and Highway 111 back to Montgomery Ward was over 1000 feet. The distance from the storm channel end of the center where Target would be located going across the frontage of the entire distance of retail was over 2000 feet. He stated that they would relocate Painters Path, which was being pushed back about 200 feet; the existing alignment would line up with Painters Path on the other side of the storm channel and would run through the center through the middle of the buildings to tie in. It was pushed back against the rear property line against that land dedicated to the city by Ahmanson, which was about 200 feet south of the old alignment along the storm channel. He felt the important thing in handling 2500 cars exiting at a peak situation 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 was providing a full four-way intersection at the main entry on Highway 111 directly opposite the Travelers Hotel and at Fred Waring a full four-way signalized intersection. Both signalized intersections would allow double left turns in and out. The key to handling this kind of traffic was dispersion and felt it would work well in this location. He indicated that Jack Greenspan was present as their traffic engineer from Costa Mesa if there was any questions . He stated that Painters Path would dead-end at the storm channel and they would pave and landscape a street to the southerly most point of their property to accommodate George Fox and his future 58 lot development on the hill . Painters Path would be a public street and built to city specifications and fully landscaped. The rear of the buildings would be dealt with substantial landscaping which Ron Gregory would explain. He stated that in dealing with the design, they took a more subdued approach to the buildings . One way to accomplish that was through color and texture. They were avoiding the machine-cut look and going to a wall with an undulation to it. He further described the architectural treatment that would be utilized. He felt that with the trellis, canvas and building overhang they could shelter people for the entire length of the 2000 feet. to MR. KEN KENTLY, architect, stated that they had a long center and the building in concept sitting in front of the mountains was a large mass that they were trying to play down with the taupe color and accent the entry portions with white and tile to focus on areas where the building focus would be broken up. He indicated that the pedestrian hardscape itself was long, but it was stepped and broken down with a series of motifs. He stated there would be a trellis and round columns with a honey colored timber that would be interspersed with undulating canopies . There would also be a colored awning in portions where the building was pulled back to give it color and open up some of the sidewalk areas. He felt with the tile focal elements at the entries and four different variations in the canopy sections, the promenade would be broken up into individual spaces . MR. RON GREGORY, landscape architect, indicated that a key fountain element would serve as an introduction into the City of Palm Desert. Starting from that point and working along the Highway 111 frontage they would use a landscape palette similar to Waring Plaza, which was in 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 .. contrast to some of the older developments in the area ( i .e. Rusty Pelican) and across the street at Toys R Us, Pizza Hut and the gas station, which had more of the old fashioned oasis style landscape utilizing a lot of lawn area. To integrate with the older developments and with Waring Plaza they would be using a lot of the same materials, but in a more water efficient format. There would be less turf and more drip irrigated shrubs . They would be having a wide parkway with substantial berming. The berming would integrate with walls in a way that there would always be a minimum of 42 inches of screening, not including any shrubbery. They were also concerned with the back side of the project and he wanted to plant heavily to rely on plant material to screen the buildings from the street and Painters Path at the rear of the development. He stressed that would be an effort on their part. They would be doing a lot of similar design ideas as utilized at Waring Plaza. There would be a pedestrian element, covered trellis work to enable people to walk around most of the project and the trellis would be heavy wood and planted with vines . Commissioner Spiegel asked why the developer would build a strip center out here where it' s a 120 degrees on 50 acres and +— not build a covered mall . Mr. Wilmot stated that there were different types of retail trips and the tenants ( i .e. Target, Montgomery Wards, Nordstrom' s Rack) don't function in a mall because it doesn't work for them. This was a different kind of trip than mall shopping. The two support each other and that was why they liked to be in close proximity to the enclosed mall . He felt this center would do about $100 million from opening year versus the $210 million presently at the enclosed mall. It was a different kind of retailing. Commissioner Spiegel asked why they would want to put this large of a value oriented strip center at the front door of the city. He stated that there were other majors out there that might be interested in moving into this area ( i .e. Dillards and Broadway) . He noted that La Quinta and Cathedral City were both trying to develop malls in their areas . He felt that this was a value oriented strip center at their front door. Mr. Wilmot stated that he thought it might be counter productive to have other stores here. He said that he looked at that issue at the very beginning because his background was building the best malls in America. He stated that he had done Main Place in Santa Ana. He indicated that Ernie Hahn had a letter of intent with Broadway before they went into Chapter 11 and it was his understanding that they 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 would go to the mall since he was planning an expansion. There were discussions with Norstrom' s and they were not ready to come to the desert. He felt that if Dillard' s came to the desert they would also want to be in an enclosed mall situation because that was their type - of trip. He felt that the center in La Quinta was on shaky ground in terms of its viability and mix. He would not want to be a business between anchor stores like Sears, J.C. Penney's, Harris and Gottshalks . He did not believe that was a viable mix today. He stated that it might help if Dillards could be added. He said that Mr. Hahn had built such a successful mall . He indicated that he talked to the Sears people at Homart because it was rumored that they had a site around Palm Springs and he was surprised to see an announcement that there might be an enclosed mall built. He said that he called the president of Homart who said there was no way they would build an enclosed mall out there. He felt it came down to anchors and who those prospects were. If Nordstrom's and Neiman' s were ready to come in and they wanted to be the lead in a new anchor in an enclosed mall, that might make it happen. He did not feel it would happen in La Quinta with Sears, Penney's, Harris ' and Gottshalks . Commissioner Richards stated that this had been a difficult piece of property. About 12 years ago planning commission approved an 800 unit tennis complex and therehad been a ..� number of different proposals during the past years . He did not feel that developers today had a lot of businesses beating down their doors. Even some of the best were not doing as well as they were. He noted that financing was non-existent except for the Kmart and Walmart type facilities . Commissioner Spiegel did not feel that the city had gone out seeking these businesses. Commissioner Richards disagreed and indicated that this land for years was under the Resort Commercial Overlay and they tried to encourage high class hotels, but hotels did not want to build unless there were golf courses next to them. The city had made some strong efforts to persuade a lot of things to happen there and the zoning was finally changed to commercial . Mr. Drell indicated that the uses on these sites like DSL were examined in detail and one conclusion reached was that staff was not sure if even a Neiman Marcus or Nordstrom's wanted to go there if the city would want them to be there. One thing the city did not want to do was draw the high end customer away from E1 Paseo and that was a conscious decision. Staff wanted to provide a range of commercial services for all citizens of Palm Desert, not just the ones wanting to shop at Neiman Marcus and 20 I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 ' Nordstrom' s . He felt that high end retail should be concentrated on the ten acre site on E1 Paseo and while staff would insist on Nordstrom' s and Neiman Marcus type architecture on these centers, staff ' s concern was what these centers looked like; they would not necessarily dictate who the tenants would be. Staff would dictate what the project looked like and the quality it represented and if that could be achieved, then the interests were served of those citizens in town who don' t shop on E1 Paseo. That would be the function of the centers on Highway 111 . El Paseo would be the magnate for the higher end retailing. Commissioner Spiegel stated that he disagreed entirely. He felt the city should have a say about which stores went into their city. Mr. Diaz indicated that the city could, when dealing with land write downs, maybe name some names as to who would go in and where. Normally, once zoning was placed on a property staff could not dictate who came in and where. As far as the city going out and knocking on doors and talking to the Dillards, Nordstrom' s and Neiman Marcus ' of the world, that they had not done. In order to get Nordstrom's it would take a lot of money to entice them here. From a planning and zoning standpoint, staff could not dictate who goes where; they could encourage people to come in and what Mr. Wilmot said was true, Ernie Hahn was speaking to Broadway at one time and they were close to coming in before filing Chapter 11 . Staff was looking for the mall to expand, Penney' s and May Co. and possibly another major locating there. He stated that what Mr. Drell said was also very true, the high end shopping area was reserved and a conscientious decision was made to keep it on E1 Paseo; the city did not want to bring in a Neiman Marcus or someone similar to that at this point and draw away from El Paseo. Mr. Wilmot stated that his specialty had been typically upscale retail and he had done a number of centers for Bloomingdales, Neiman Marcus, and Saks . One of the other things going on in the market today was that two years ago he put together a center in Oxnard/Ventura with Bullocks and Nordstrom's as the lead anchor stores; they were faced with a cost of absorbing about $40 million, but in that instance it was going to work because the city was going to step up and make that happen through redevelopment, much like Burbank just did to get Bullocks . He indicated that about five years ago he brought Nordstrom's to Washington D.C. and was an advisor tow 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 to Major Pension Funds, General Motors, and AT&T and they bought a center called Tyson's Corner and they brought in Nordstrom's and they had to absorb about $8 million in parking structure to get them to locate there. He said that now every city in the country was after Nordstroms and they were getting spoiled. They just had a check written for them for $40 million to put a store into Minneapolis . He noted the market place hanging every day. He informed commission that hew was as cworking with a major national specialty store for Palm Desert that he could not name because they did not want it known. He felt the upscale retail belonged on El Paseo. He said that he went through a number of alternatives for the 50 acre site and came to the conclusion that this was a proper use and more and more of these centers were on target for a big segment of today' s market and they dealt in quality goods and were clean and well represented. He said that when Target first came into the valley three years ago, they thought one store would serve the whole valley and they had the opportunity to take over two Gemco 's and the two were doing over $33 million and their research for this site indicated that they would open up close to $25 million in the first year. There was a real need for this type of facility. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. JIM SHUTE, 72-880 Fred Waring Drive, a broker with Emery Commercial Brokerage stated he represented Mr. George Fox, who owns a 100 acre parcel to the southwest, contiguous to the proposed project. He stated that he and Mr. Fox had a few concerns. They were not opposed to the project, but what they were looking for was a meaningful entrance to Fox Canyon. They did not want access from an alleyway through the back to enter exclusive homesites . Mr. Fox had put in over 12 years into approval of this through planning commission and council . Some of the areas of concern was the width of Painters Path. Mr. Wilmot had 60 feet in the back and they would like to see a larger, wider street of about 80 feet because of the trucks coming by there. Residents drive back there because this would be the only entrance and they would have to compete with the trucks . He felt a larger opening would be very helpful. They also felt the whole back of the project should be bermed and landscaped extensively so that they would not see any of it. He believed that Montgomery Ward would have an auto 22 law MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 repair facility and there would be trash enclosures and auto bays back there, which was inevitable. As the developer at Von' s did, a large berm covered most of the building and that helped out. He indicated they have 58 homesites and they would be multi-million dollar homes . He said that they were in negotiations with financing for the offsite improvements and felt that Mr. Fox would be proceeding with the project. They were for the project, but would like to see both developments work together. MR. MICHAEL BUCCINO, Project Landscape Architect for George Fox, stated that he had been working with George Fox for at least three years on his project and it was his opinion that the proposal was well conceived and a lot of thought went into it and it was going forward in a fine way and would be an asset to the community. In terms of the entry statement it made and the impact on the highway, it looked very positive. He felt that good land planning was that which could be best for all concerned. He said that Mr. Fox had 100 acres that was very difficult to build. He had engineering plans and landscape plans approved by the city. He felt that one of the most important things to a high scale single family residential area was the dynamics of the entry. w.. If there was a strong entry statement that gave the people inside a feeling of pride for where they live, it would carry a lot of weight toward the success of the project. He felt it would be bad and wrong for Mr. Fox to have a project up there that would never be as successful as it might have been. He indicated that what was best for the city was for Mr. Fox to have as successful a project as possible at the same time as Mr. Wilmot' s project was as successful as it could be. That was good planning and"was what the city wanted. He noted that Mr. Fox' s project had been approved by Palm Desert with an integrity and desire to see him succeed and not just make it, but to do a good job. He stated that one of the keys to his project was the narrow entry. He had a long easement that leads from Painters Path up to the body of the project. They had used that long easement as a major element in creating an entry statement and tried to build elegance and dominance that could be seen from the highway. All that was for the idea of making it easy to identify the entry to Mr. Fox' s project. He felt the changes proposed with Painters Path being moved from where it was to closer to the mountains was clearly an asset to the proposed project and in line with the best and highest use of how the buildings were arranged, but vow 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 was clearly a detriment to Mr. Fox' s project because it put Painters Path against the mountain further away from the highway and was less visible and more at the back of things rather than through the middle of things . The second change being made was that his easement would be reduced. That easement was the one thing they were using to make an entry statement. He felt the best land plan was that which would give the city two successful projects . He asked that consideration be taken so that the entry to Mr. Fox' s project would have the weight and integrity that the commission would like it to have if they were going to live there. He indicated that whatever steps needed to be taken should be taken and at this point did not know what they were, but to approve things without taking the issues into fair consideration was wrong. On one side would be a narrow road at the foot of the mountain, and service roads and service trucks and a service entry on the other side. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Buccino who would pay for the road. Mr. Buccino stated that he could not answer that question. Commissioner Richards stated that Mr. Fox would not be paying for the road. He noted that approximately 50 hours was spent on Mr. Fox' s project and Mr. Fox knew that this parcel was zoned commercial and felt that the right entrance to Mr. Fox' s project was neither of these proposals Mr. Buccino mentioned. He felt the right entrance way was for Mr. Fox to put in a bridge of the storm channel and come in on Edgehill . He stated that he could also have entry from the south of this project. He noted that someone was going to build a road to his front door and felt that a 60 foot road was wide enough. Mr. Folkers stated that they were satisfied with what the project called for. Mr. Drell stated that the actual curb to curb distance would be 50 feet, but that was still wider than almost all the roads in Palm Desert other than the major arterials. Mr. Folkers indicated that most of the streets, even the collectors, were 40 feet. Mr. Diaz felt that staff would have a tough time justifying to council a wider road to encourage hillside development. MR. BRIAN HORNICK, 74-090 E1 Paseo, an attorney representing Mr. Fox. He said that the legal concern he had that he recently discussed with Mr. Fox was that the issue had been addressed in the past, but was relevant here, and that was the easement access that Mr. Fox has pursuant to a conveyance made in 1930 that gives Mr. Fox access to Highway 111 and he believed and it was his contention that the relocation of Painters Path by this 24 Wo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 project might be in violation of Mr. Fox' s easement rights and they were concerned there was a legal problem with the relocation of Painters Path as proposed to the easement rights to Highway 111 and right of access over the channel . He stated for the record that they have those concerns . He also stated that Mr. Fox was not able to be present because of an address "snafu" and he did not receive the notice until a relatively short time ago. He said that Mr. Fox sent a letter to Mr. Diaz which he asked to be part of the commission's consideration. He added that there was concern about the legal impact of the easement on the relocation of Painters Path. Mr. Diaz stated for the record that commission received a copy of the letter from Mr. Fox. Mr. Drell informed commission that the city attorney and public works department examined the easement and found that it was specifically defined as a meets and bounds description and the plan required that condemnation of a small portion of that easement, the portion between where it lines right with Painters Path now and that distance where it was being relocated to the south. That would be an item before the city council, but Mr. Fox still had access to a roadway that got to Highway 111 . The city attorney assured staff that the city was within their powers to relocate Painters Path. He also noted that the relocation ,,,w of Painters Path would hopefully preclude any bridge extension over the channel of Painters Path so that the Sandpiper Portion would not be connected to this project. What was being proposed as a prospective future improvement was an internal link of this site with the site number 1, which would provide internal circulation from that site back to the signal which would delete any requirement for that site to have any access onto Painters Path and the entire Painters Path frontage could be a landscape buffer without any breaks . MR. DONALD STABNING, 1710 Painters Path, stated that he was astounded that the developers were stepping in with a giant plan of this sort involving millions of dollars in mid summer when most residents were gone from Sandpiper. He felt that it would be a great mistake for the planning commission to take any action or serious consideration of a plan until the majority of property owners had returned in the fall . He recommended a continuance to late fall . MR. JOHN C. HOVER, 1715 Sandpiper, stated that he was representing Sandpiper. He stated that he would like to Point some things out on the map. He felt that it looked 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 like a good project and pointed out that they live in a N residential community in which people have lived there for over 20 years . The adjacent property would eventually probably be part of the proposed project and the Sandpiper owners were very sensitive to the development of the property. He said that it was his understanding that the vacant Ahmanson property would be offices, possibly a couple of restaurants . If it wasn' t, there would be strong opposition from Sandpiper. He indicated that what he was most interested in was that there were residents living along the perimeter and were less than half a block from the project. He was told there would be a lot of trees there and saw some oleanders proposed. He felt that developers had a great ability to show all kinds of trees on plans, but when they start developing they had a tendency to put in less than that shown. He stated they were very desirous along the residential area to have the oleanders and a strong amount of trees there to give them some privacy and would look better. He did not feel that was asking much to consider that seriously. MR. STEVE MASON, 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 103 in Palm Desert, asked if an impact study report had been performed as to the potential impact on E1 Paseo. He low felt that when the city was considering building a 479 ,000 square foot shopping center and the number of vacancies currently on E1 Paseo, there should be some sort of study as to the impact. The other question was whether the developer also had a contract on the El Paseo property and why this property was chosen first and what was the time element for development of the El Paseo property. Mr. Drell added that there was a petition before commission that was signed by what he believed were E1 Paseo merchants . He said that this center was different retail than El Paseo and staff was not developing this center and the city could not make the timing decisions when a piece of property would develop. That was a private market decision. Mr. Wilmot stated that he approached the whole development in fall of 1991 with great trepidation as to money markets in 1992 . He found that conventional sources of money were almost nonexistent and they were coming up with some unconventional financing. The 50 acre site was about a $75 million deal and they had found a way to keep the overall development with the developer 26 i"'�' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 element being about $33 million because if they exceeded that it would knock out those few lenders that were out there. They did this by selling off the land in fee to Target and they would build their own store. When he first looked at E1 Paseo and all of these properties, the prospect of building an upscale specialty retail today anchorless was about nil . He indicated that it would be about 1994 for opening of the E1 Paseo location, hopefully, and he had an anchor store that he was working with. He said they had greatly improved their comfort level on the timing for E1 Paseo and were looking at some of the numbers being done up and down the street and felt it was clearly a 1994 opportunity. He indicated that the difference on the 50 acre site was that when he got involved in the property last fall, they already had Target and Montgomery Wards and several other anchors saying they wanted to be here and that made more sense now. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Spiegel felt strongly that a value center at the primary entrance to the city was not appropriate and was sorry .�. that Mr. Wilmot did not get involved until after Target and Montgomery Ward were signed up because he knew Mr. Wilmot and many years ago they had met and he knew the kind of center he could put together and the one he did in Washington. He also was opposed to a 2000 foot strip center. He felt the front area looked like the parking for Dodger Stadium with 2500 cars sticking out in front of that kind of center. He was opposed to the project for those reasons. Commissioner Richards stated that he was more encouraged that if they were going to do something with the project in the next year or two that what was before the commission was what the city would get. He felt the economics of the valley and the state could use some boost and projects like this probably made sense. He said this had not been easy and he had worked for 12 years and projects had come and gone and assured commission that three years ago he would not have approved this project either, but felt that this was well presented and disagreed with Commissioner Spiegel on the issue about what kind of retailers were going in, because one concept worked one year and another the next and all types have gone under. He felt the best thing the commission could do was look at the project for what it was; the center of town, one of the entrance ways, and noted that the real entrance ways were ' "'' 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 developing more to the north these days . He was in favor of the project and felt that Mr. Fox had a e w like to see built and noted that it had b enc a dream ofoMr. Fox' s for many years and a 60 foot wide entryway these people would be good neighbors . He noteds at Mr. Gregory had done business in the city for many years and if he said the back of those buildings would have a good treatment, he could be taken at his word and the project should move forward. Chairperson Whitlock agreed and felt the city had become very diversified and this mall would add to the mix that the community needed and would give a nice balance with E1 Paseo and the Town Center. Commissioner Richards added that there would be a great deal Of money paid for fees by the developer Places Fee - $50,000; school fees p$ 000; Art in Public $500,000) . He noted that one of the mi0tigationsuthat hadsindto be accomplished was that if people are employed in the city, housing needed to be provided for some of these people. A half a million dollars would go into a fund that the city would use to create or buy housing for the type of people that would work there. He also noted that the estimated sales tax would be 1% of approximately $100 million for the first year and money would go toward redevelopment funds as well as $1 million for signals and road improvements, although it would not be perfect and there would be more people and cars . He stated that he would move for approval . Mr. Diaz assured the gentleman from Sandpiper that the area would be densely landscaped. Commissioner Downs asked Mr. Gregory what kind of plant material he was planning for the back of the building. Mr. Gregory replied that they had not determined that, it was still conceptual, but they would put in dense material that the commission could review wanted to. He said if they that they did not know what kind of loading and unloading would be in the back yet, but once the preliminary plan was approved, they would do working drawings and it would go through the whole review rocess area. Mr. Drell indicated that if the comet ssion wanted for that to see those plans it could come back as an informational item. Commissioner Richards noted there had been some concerns and indicated Mr. Fox's representatives would probably like to see that. Commissioner Downs indicated that would be the area around the loading docks and the landscaping around it. Mr. Gregory stated they discussed putting in a berm in addition to a very solid mass of trees and they would like to be good neighbors. 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Downs, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Spiegel voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1581, recommending to city council approval of PP 92-4 , subject to conditions . Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Spiegel voted no) . F. Case No. TT 27561 - JASCORP, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to create 28 single family lots in the western portion of the Winterhaven development located in the PR-5 zoned property on the south side of Hovley Lane approximately 730 feet west of Portola Avenue. Mr. Smith explained that the request was to place a new tentative map over a previously mapped portion of the Winterhaven Development. He outlined the salient points of .. the staff report. He explained that access would be taken from the existing gate onto Hovley Lane and the lots would be limited to single story and 35% maximum lot coverage. One area of concern to staff was that the developer needed to come to some agreement as to cost sharing for the use of the gate and the long-term maintenance. He noted a condition was added to address that issue. He said that staff would recommend approval of the map as submitted subject to conditions . He explained that there was a down turn in the condominium market and an u turn in the single family market and they were P 9 Y looking to overlay the proposed map with the previous one. Commissioner Spiegel asked if there would be a problem with the new units using the existing tennis courts and swimming pool at Winterhaven. Mr. Smith replied that they needed to negotiate an agreement for the cost of the monthly fees . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOE SWAIN, JASCORP, distributed a copy of the original map to the commission. He said that the purpose of having this single family units instead of condominiums was because there was not a market for two 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 condominiums right now. He felt it was a straight low forward plan and they were utilizing most the circulation as it existed and indicated that it would be a strong compliment to the community. He noted that Hovley Lane had developed into a strong single family community and this was a continuation of that. Commissioner Downs asked about the agreement with the homeowners association. Mr. Swain stated that he introduced himself to the homeowners association in March or April and informed them that he had the intention of purchasing the property. He met with the board of directors of the homeowners association with the conceptual plan. He said that it had not changed much and wanted a reaction from commission about what they thought about the single family as opposed to the condominium. He indicated that there was some conversation about the 43 homeowners as opposed to an additional 28 homeowners because they would have less dues. In looking at the amount of greenbelt being added and an additional two swimming pools and the existing homeowners dues, they felt their dues were too high. He said that the only thing that would be offset would be the Hovley Lane greenbelt on the outside of the perimeter wall and the gate. He proposed that they would participate in that anyway, whether it was 43 homeowners or not. He made a presentation to the board from a standpoint of his going forward or not. They said that they would have to take it back to their homeowners, but if they were to vote that day, they would approve the proposal . He indicated there was also another person there, the property manager, who said that she could not vote, but would give him her moral support. He said that it was an unfortunate situation where he came before them with a plan and really wanted to have a workable situation with the homeowners association and had numerous meeting and they actually got close at one point where a suggestion was made that he offer them money. He stated that he made them a proposal and was told that this might be the grease that it would take to put this thing to rest. He said that as it unfolded, the meeting never took place and as one homeowner indicated, it was not enough of an offer. Had he been the original owner, he would not have given a cash contribution back to the original homeowners. He was doing it to come in and get the support if that was what it took. He felt there wasn't objection to the plan, but the issue was money. 30 low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 r He said that he was receptive to the conditions and if the homeowners association would work with him. He indicated that he never once received a written response. The only thing he wanted to add to the proposal was to get an agreement that if they won't come to the party, could it be done by mutual arbitration and get someone not emotionally involved with the project to make a decision. Commissioner Downs asked what the applicant would do if he couldn' t get access to the gate. Mr. Swain replied that he had an ALTA land survey title that stated that there was no other access to the project except through the gate. Commissioner Spiegel said that on the original plan Mr. Swain distributed, it showed another swimming pool . Mr. Swain indicated it showed two other swimming pools . Commissioner Spiegel noted there was at least one in the area that was proposed for development and asked if Mr. Swain was going to delete the pool . Mr. Swain replied that was correct; the theory was that every homeowner would have their own pool . Commissioner Spiegel asked if they didn't have their own pool, .w if they would have access to the other existing pools . Mr. Swain replied that they would not and proposed that they would not. He said that was a concern of the homeowners early on. In the current association he proposed to deannex his portion from that annexation and have a shared use agreement. That would be for use of the main gate, fire/emergency circulation or an evening walk and rather than have a we/they atmosphere, he wanted a community atmosphere. Commissioner Spiegel asked about the tennis court. Mr. Swain said that it would have to be negotiated in a shared use agreement and in the event that an agreement could not be made, then he did not see them playing any tennis there. He indicated that as it stood, there was not much tennis being played on those courts, but that was another thing that was part of the monetary contribution. He stated that it was a correct use for the project. He indicated that most of the units averaged 9200 square feet; the 13,900 was an unusually large lot. Commissioner Richards commented that single family homes with yards and fences had a tendency to have more children. People who buy condominiums generally liked the turn-key facet and the sharing of the expenses on a community-wide basis . He did not feel that the applicant was in a good bargaining position. He felt that the uses were like mixing apples and oranges . He �" 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 indicated that the project should be conditioned that all of these issues be worked out. He did not feel that the commission should be asked to fight the developers battle for him. He indicated that more needed to be accomplished. Mr. Swain said that the matter was brought to the city attorney who rendered an opinion regarding the access issue. With regard to fighting the battle, he had been in there on his own and did not mean to come across as asking the commission to join him in that effort. He was just stating that it had been frustrating that he couldn't get a response. He wanted a neutral party. Chairperson Whitlock reaffirmed that the planning commission would not be the party to help in that endeavor. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MRS. JOAN GOLDBERG, Vice President of Winterhaven Homeowners Association. She said that they did have a group of homeowners present this evening. She indicated that they had difficulty with Mr. Swain in regards to their negotiations. She stated that he misrepresented the truth many times to them and he failed to tell the commission that each party had obtained lawyers and have �rir had a complaint filed in the Indio Court in regard to their property. She said that Mr. Swain told them that he owns part of their gate and tennis courts . This was not true. As a result of this it had caused both of them to engage attorneys to defend their property. Mr. Swain had approached them to try and negotiate with their consent on how he wanted to develop his property. They did not want to stop him from developing his property, but they did want their fair share of what he requested from them. He did want use of the gate, the use of the tennis court, and he wanted it an enclosed community which would add prestige to his lots . That was their negotiating factor to what he would be contributing to them. At this point nothing had been settled and talk and ceased. They had meetings with their homeowners asking their views in regard to their wishes which they compiled and were willing to talk in negotiations, but they wanted the planning commission to be aware that he did not make truthful statements to the commission, their association or his own attorney. MRS. BROWN, owner in Winterhaven, commended their vice president for speaking the facts . She added that of the 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 r.r developments on Hovley, none were in gated communities . The only gated communities on Hovley were Casablanca and Winterhaven because they were condominiums . She did not see a need for the developer to "latch" onto them with their gate and did not know why he insisted upon it when he had been successful in building other homes there and not one was in a gated community. They all had street access to Hovley, which would save him a couple of homes . He was not telling the commission all the facts and she wanted this as part of the consideration. MR. DON GOLDBERG, resident of Winterhaven, stated that they had tried to work out a mutual deal and were misrepresented by Mr. Swain when he told them that half the gate and tennis courts belonged to him and there were survey markers at that point, but they were not the property line. They came to city hall and verified that the property line was never changed. He said that broke their confidence in Mr. Swain and then he admitted that was not correct and they went ahead and entered into an agreement with him for the property and one of the conditions was that they told him they had no money to spend on the gate or additional landscaping or improvements at that point and he said that he would pay `ow for all of the changes he wanted to make to the gate, the telephone system and landscaping. He would pay for everything himself. They agreed and he put it in the form of a letter from his attorney signed by him and in paragraph four of that letter it stated that they would enlarge and work on the gate and share the cost which was contrary to their verbal agreement at the meeting. After this was called to Mr. Swain' s attention, he said that his lawyer made a mistake which he did not know was there when he signed it. That letter was dated May 13 . After he admitted that was in error and he would pay for the improvements, then he came back with one or two items . They did not respond because they did not know how to respond to it because every time something was agreed to it came back different. He said that they want the property to be developed which would materially increase the value of their property, but they felt that they had to be compensated and protected. The insurance rates would go up, the maintenance for streets would go up and they did not want him to use their main gate for construction under any conditions . He stated there was cobble stone decorative paving at the gate area and wires under them for the automatic opening and closing of the gates that would be ruined by any trucks . He read the """ 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 paragraph from the letter, "JASCORP may, but only with prior approval of the board of directors of Winterhaven, make capital improvements and modifications to the front gate and its related facilities and/or the tennis courts and its related facilities . JASCORP and Winterhaven shall equally divide the cost of any such capital improvements provided the maintenance repair, replacement, reserve costs shall continue to be shared. " He said at no point did they agree to pay for that and specifically said they would not and could not pay for that. He indicated that was where the negotiations broke down and shortly thereafter Mr. Swain filed suit against them, which was just answered in Superior Court in Indio on July 16 and each and every one of his allegations were denied and were now pending on litigation on that situation. He said they were willing to negotiate with Mr. Swain to make a deal to let him build. He noted that the first builder of Winterhaven went into bankruptcy; the property was then taken over by Progressive Savings and Loan of E1 Hambra, who ultimately went into foreclosure and Mr. Swain purchased the property at a greatly reduced price from the RTC and he did not have all his plans made when he bought the property. He said they were ready to do business, but on reasonable terms . rrr Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Spiegel felt that the commission should not take any action until there was a resolution between the builder and the residents. Commissioner Richards indicated that the construction, gate and the other issues needed to be worked out before this application could go any further. He asked how much time the developer would need for a continuance. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would be willing to sit down with both parties providing they leave their legal counsel at home to see what could be worked out. If they could not work something out, staff would come back and tell the commission. Chairperson Whitlock asked Mr. Swain how much time he would need to meet with the homeowners . Mr. Smith suggested at least one month. Chairperson Whitlock noted that would be the meeting of August 18 . Mr. Swain and Mrs . Goldberg agreed to the continuance date. Chairperson Whitlock reopened the public testimony and asked for a motion. 34 "' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 err Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing TT 27561 to August 18, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . G. Case No. C/Z 92-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of a recommendation of approval to the city council of the prezoning of the Suncrest Country Club site located on the north side of Country Club Drive and east side of Monterey Avenue RIM (Single Family/Mobile Home Residential District) for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the City of Palm Desert and approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact pertaining thereto. Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. He informed commission that he met with Mr. Befeld last week and discussed the annexation. He expressed opposition at that low time for a variety of reasons, although the city' s rent control ordinance was not one of the obstacles in that he indicated he had long term leases with the majority of his residents . Mr. Befeld expressed concern that non-property owners could initiate and in effect force the annexation of his property even though he could be opposed. Mr. Smith explained that state law allows for registered voter petitions to be one basis for making application to LAFCO. In this instance the city council received a petition at this first meeting in June that was signed by 265 people, of which 15 were Mr. and Mrs . , so there was a potential of 280 total signees . He indicated this represented 227 of the 340 occupied spaces. He noted that state law allows registered voters to initiate annexation requests such as this and it took as little as five percent of the registered voters residing in the area. The city council received the petition and referred it to staff for processing. Mr. Smith stated that he spoke with Mr. Befeld before the meeting and was told he would be requesting a continuance. He also had a call this afternoon from a gentleman asking how this annexation could impact their ability to get a traffic signal at the entrance of their project in that the city had been working with Mr. Befeld for some time to get that signal . Mr. Smith stated that staff ' s recommendation was that commission recommend to '�"" 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 city council approval of the prezoning and prezone this site R1M. Commissioner Richards noted that the code section would permit LAFCO proceedings to be initiated. He asked if the commission had the ability to deny the request. Mr. Diaz replied that in regard to the annexation, commission had the right to say yes or no, but noted that city council instructed staff to process the request. The preannexation zoning could be denied. Mr. Smith stated that if the city did not process the request, the people who signed the petition could go directly to LAFCO, who would then come back to the city and ask what was wanted for the prezone on the property. Commissioner Richards felt it was strange that the property sits like an island along with Palm Desert Greens in the county and wondered why LAFCO would allow this small part to proceed along without the whole area. Mr. Smith indicated they did that when the area to the north was annexed in; LAFCO wanted to know why Palm Desert Greens was not included and the matter was held up six months and they said to find out what the people of Palm Desert Greens wanted. Staff sent post cards to 1,980 properties and got a response rate of 80% and 99% of those said they were not interested. At this time there was serious interest from the residents of Suncrest. Commissioner Richards noted that it was a little different situation since the Palm Desert Greens �Il residents own the property, but Suncrest residents don't. He stated that he just wanted to explore all the options . Commissioner Spiegel noted that in the staff report it said that the reason that people wanted to come into the city evolved around enhanced police, fire and paramedic services . He asked if they used the Riverside Sheriff ' s and Fire Departments . Mr. Smith replied yes, but the city provided an upgraded level of service. They would be required to pay into the city' s fire assessment district and for that received the higher level and quicker response by the sheriff and paramedic services . Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. NORLEY FEINSTEIN, 73-450 Country Club Drive, stated that on behalf of some of the Suncrest residents in the audience and also on behalf of the over 200 household petitioners unable to attend who desire an upgraded health and safety factor and that was the only major concern to being annexed into the City of Palm Desert. 36 "' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 He expressed the gratitude of all of Suncrest to the city for their May 28 city council directive to staff to proceed with a formal application to LAFCO for Suncrest Country Club' s annexation. He stated that he had been in touch off the record with LAFCO and everything had been done in accordance to their guidelines . He hoped commission would understand why they were so intent on becoming part of Palm Desert. He said that one primary example was that one resident fell and broke the femur in her leg and it took 45 minutes for the paramedics to get to her house to take her to Eisenhower. He went to the Sheriff ' s department to ask how many deputies were on duty from Beaumont to Indio in the evening because he was told there was only one. He went to the Sheriff ' s Department in Indio and asked how many, two or three, and was told something like that. He said that all of the residents wanted to be part of Palm Desert and would like the commission to express their concurring approval of prezoning and facilitating the annexation into the city. Commissioner Downs added that when looking at the fine print, just the paramedic services alone was worth coming into the city, not including the fire department or sheriff ' s department. MR. WALT RESTER, Suncrest resident, stated that he was present because he believed that right now was not the time for them to go into the city. He felt that the Greens and Suncrest should go together. The reasons being given to go into the city was for medical care, but he had insurance that would take care of the fees . He felt it would be better to stay in the county right now. He would agree if they came in with Palm Desert Greens, but not alone. He did not feel it was worthwhile to proceed without the Greens. MR. HENRY SHELTON stated that he was the person who called Mr. Smith. He indicated that they had worked 20 months now on the traffic light. They had a person killed and had quite a few accidents . His question was if the annexation would effect the traffic light situation; would it be an advantage or disadvantage to them. Mr. Folkers stated that the present status was they were working on retaining a consultant to do the design, so whether the annexation took place or not, the City of Palm Desert was still proceeding with a design for a traffic signal and the tow 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 financial arrangements would be worked out after that to pay .■r for the cost of the installation. Commissioner Richards asked what the cost was and Mr. Folkers replied approximately $125, 000-130,000 . Commissioner Richards asked if it was normal for the owners of the property to pay for that and Mr. Folkers stated that staff had been in discussion with Mr. Befeld about paying for up to 50% of it, but that was something that would be worked out; if the city took over, the county' s portion would drop out. He said they talked about percentage on each light: 25% city, 25% county, 25% Suncrest, and 25% San Tropez . Because there was a concern about San Tropez not having the money, at one time there was discussion about having Mr. Befeld paying 50% of the cost. Regardless, staff was proceeding with getting the design done. MS. KATHY MOLIVER, Sagewood Drive resident, stated that she was present to express concern on behalf of her parents and their friends who live in Suncrest and primarily to consider their needs for health and safety and the speed and efficiency that would be improved if the annexation took place. It was a concern for her because her father had a heart attack in 1982 . She said that if anyone looked at a map showing how Suncrest was laid out, there was no sequence or semblance of order if an emergency vehicle was called in. She noted there were signatures of 285 homeowners who want the annexation who live there and it was their health and safety that should be considered. If an absentee land owner opposes this, his health and safety was not of the same concern because he was not living on the property. She asked the commission to consider that issue. MR. GERHARD BEFELD, Suncrest Country Club owner, stated that this was an interesting situation because he was the owner of all the real property and half the assessed evaluation, so normally he would be the applicant. He said his problem was that this was noticed June 19 but he was not able to get the staff report until four days ago. He did not feel there was enough time to review the report and develop a position on this issue. He requested an extension of time so that his people could look at it and see what the pros and cons would be because there were a lot of issues being addressed. He stated that the matter of the signal was extremely important to him because they did have a woman killed at their gate and there was an unsafe situation. He wanted to verify with the county that this would not effect their funding or their political support, because they 38 woo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 WSW have the support of Supervisor Larson and she would be influential in seeing it through because it had been an on again, off again project. To address the question of emergency services, he said that the police do respond from Palm Desert in an emergency situation, but if there was a fender bender it usually took about two hours because it would be a county sheriff who responded. He stated that he was not speaking in favor or opposition to that, but was clarifying that was the way it worked now. MR. JERRY BAKRACK, a Suncrest resident, clarified that it was his wife who fell and broke her femur in their house. They immediately called 911 and the fire department from Palm Desert responded very quickly and were very helpful and did everything they could to make her comfortable. They waited 45 minutes for the ambulance to take her to the hospital . One of the policeman said that if they were part of Palm Desert, the ambulance would have been there in five minutes . Because they were in Suncrest, they were serviced by Riverside County and it took close to 50 minutes before an ambulance came while his wife was on the floor in pain when someone should have been there in ten minutes. *MW Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Richards commented on the discussion that the applicant had not had enough time to review the report and felt that commission should recognize that there was a parcel of this land, 12 acres, that clearly aught to be considered for another use. There had been discussion with Walmart and the 12 acres would sit between Walmart and Suncrest. He felt that if the city got to the point of saying that the people had the right to force an action upon the owner, he did not feel it should be an annexation that forced it on the property not governed by the registered voters . He did not feel the registered voters should be able to control the 12 acres that they don't own or vote on. That was one reason for a continuance. Mr. Befeld indicated that he would like four weeks . Commissioner Richards felt this was a big deal . The other question he had was that no one present had mentioned rent control and found it hard to believe that if he was living somewhere that did not have rent control and the city had rent control that, it would not be an issue. Mr. Smith informed commission that the county had a slightly different rent control; he discerned that the difference came down to the county taking a certain number of people to force an to' 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 action whereas in the city one person could force an action. , With respect to the cost of living adjustments, the city was 100% and the county was 75% of the cost of living. He stated that in his discussions with Mr. Befeld, he indicated that he had long term leases with most of the people so that would not be an issue. Commissioner Richards stated that he wanted that brought up because it was still a concern. He noted that being able to come to Palm Desert City Hall versus going to Riverside was a big benefit to residents also. He felt this was a unique situation and with someone requesting a change that might effect the nature of the ownership in some manner, the owner should be given some time to study the options . Commissioner Downs noted that the city was proposing the same zoning that the county already has on the property. Mr. Smith stated that the proposed prezoning was Palm Desert' s most closely resembling zoning for the land use approved for the site. Commissioner Richards stated that to take the 12 acres and prezone it R-1 was wrong without further study. He felt the applicant should be given a chance to study it. Mr. Smith indicated that in his meeting with Mr. Befeld last week they discussed an alternate zone which staff would be prepared to recommend. That would be a planned residential zone with a high of seven units per acre (PR-7) , which was consistent with the zoning on the property to the west (Mayer property) . He said that it was a consistent zoning with the mobile home usage and would be in keeping with the general plan given the low density nature of the entire north sphere. Commissioner Richards noted that there had been many discussions and did not agree that seven units per acre was what was in the plan. He said they almost put in a mixed use development there that included a bowling alley and other uses. He indicated that Walmart was being discussed and asked why time should be wasted in prezoning something that was not going to happen. He said that the way it was going now, it was going in a different direction and if the owner wanted some time, he should be given it. Commission concurred with the continuance. Chairperson Whitlock reopened the public testimony and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing C/Z 92-3 to August 18, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 H. Case No. ZOA 92-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant low Request for approval of a resolution recommending to city council an amendment to the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance Title 25, Chapter 25.58 and Chapter 25 . 76, changing the parking standards in the industrial zone. Mr. Diaz recommended that the item be continued two weeks until Commissioner Jonathan was present for the hearing. Commission concurred and Chairperson Whitlock asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing ZOA 92-1 to August 4, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . VIII . MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. TT 27546 - STERLING PARTNERS, Applicant t, Request for adoption of a resolution denying a 161 unit single family tract map implementing conditions of approved Precise Plan 91-12 on 23 acres on the north side of Fred Waring Drive, 1400 feet easterly of Cook Street. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1582, denying TT 27546 . Carried 4-0. B. Correspondence from the Coachella Valley Water District Action: None required. 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 Mr. Diaz noted that with a four-fifths vote an item could be added to the agenda. He requested a minute motion adding an item that needed a determination of use as to whether or not a church could apply for a conditional use permit in the industrial zone. It was moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adding the item by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 . C. Determination of use to allow a church use to apply for a conditional use permit in the industrial zone Staff recommended that commission allow an applicant to apply for a conditional use permit to allow a church in the industrial zone. Commission determined that it would be allowable for a church to apply for a conditional use permit in the industrial zone. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS Commissioner Spiegel noted that a project was approved on Highway 74 and there was a lot of building going on across the street. He indicated that several commissioners lived in that area. He stated that the traffic on Highway 74 was horrendous and the speed was approximately 65 mph and the city could not control the speed because there weren't enough police in the city. He asked if the speed limit could be lowered. Mr. Folkers stated that was an issue that had been discussed many times . Highway 74 was under the jurisdiction of Caltrans . They had talked to them about lowering speed limits and at this time there was no reduction. Staff had also talked with them about getting a traffic signal at Haystack and Highway 74 . As of the last fiscal year they did not have funding for it even though they agreed to put it in. He indicated that Palm Desert also set aside money for it. He said that public works would approach them again about the speed limit and the situation with the traffic signal . With regard to enforcement, the sheriff ' s department did strategically place officers for traffic control . 42 'N MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1992 Commissioner Richards asked if Altamira and Bighorn were conditioned to place a signal at either Cahuilla Way or at another determined point. Mr. Diaz said the condition was there. Mr. Folkers indicated that at a meeting a gentleman said that Caltrans was enthusiastic about putting a traffic signal at Altamira--he said that when Seyed Safavian got back from vacation he would find out what discussions he had with Caltrans about this . He indicated that he had not received the same feeling about those discussions . Commissioner Downs suggested a signal at the entrances . Mr. Folkers said that he would find out what was conditioned and report back at a subsequent meeting. XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adjourning the meeting to August 4, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 32 M. 0 RAM]! A. I Z, cr ry ATTEST: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 43