Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1020 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 20, 1992 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairman Bob Downs Sabby Jonathan Randy White Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present : Ray Diaz Phil Joy Bob Hargreaves Joe Gaugush Steve Smith Tonya Monroe HIV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the October 6, 1992 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the October 6, 1992 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz indicated there were no items directly impacting the planning commission at the October 8, 1992 city council meeting. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 92-18 - DSL SERVICE COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust certain common parcel lines within Parcel Map No. 27065 to conform with existing buildings and parking area improvements . `W MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 B. Case No. TT 25102 - DESERT COMMUNITY PROPERTIES, No Applicant Request for approval of a second one-year time extension of a tentative tract map to subdivide 20 acres into 68 lots for future residential development located east of Deep Canyon Road, north of Fred Waring Drive. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. TT 27524 - WILSHIRE WEST, INC. , Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 17 . 64 acres of PR 17 . 5 zoned land located on the south side of Hovley Lane, 1930 feet east of Portola ar Avenue into 82 single family lots having minimum lot sizes of 7200 square feet and minimum widths of 60 feet. Mr. Smith stated that staff had received a letter from the applicant that indicated they would be meeting with redevelopment agency staff and county housing authority people in the near future and were requesting an additional 60 day continuance. Staff had no objection. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, continuing TT 27524 to December 15, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 `+ B. Continued Case Nos . 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. See attached verbatim minutes by Court Reporters of Palm Springs . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner White abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1589 , recommending to city council approval of C/Z 92-3 with a prezone of PR-7 . Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner White abstained) . C. Continued Case Nos . C/Z 92-4, PP 92-6 , PM 27400 - COOK PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative parcel map and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a retail/commercial center at the northwest corner of Country Club Drive and Cook Street. Mr. Smith stated that the revised plan provided parking in excess of 5 . 5 spaces per 1, 000 square feet. He said they maintained approximately 360 spaces at nine and a half feet in width and approximately 895 were at nine feet. He indicated the total parking spaces provided brought them in at an approximate ratio of 5 . 62 spaces per/1, 000 square feet of 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 building area. Mr. Smith indicated that part of the r/ application was on the rezoning of approximately five acres adjacent to the north and west from PR-5 and PR-10 to the PC-2 zone. Other issues were the color situation on the building; there was a revised color material sample board provided. He said it was the applicant ' s intention to use it as the basic pallet with the working drawings being reviewed by the architectural commission for specifically the acceptability of the colors utilized. That was a condition of approval on the resolution. He said the building elevations had not been revised; the applicant wanted to maintain the one section on the Ralph's building at 46 feet and the other sections . He noted a model had been provided. Staff ' s position was that the 32 foot maximum height should be provided on the site, on the other end of the Ralph' s building. The rest of the site would comply with the 32 foot maximum requirement, except for the accent towers in the pools . He said the applicant would be withdrawing the sign request at this time and he would come in with a full sign program package at a later date that would go through the architectural commission for approval and may or may not come back to the planning commission, depending what the request included. Staff recommended that the sign height not exceed the 20 foot ordinance requirement. Mr. Smith said that with the revised site plan providing the additional parking, staff recommended approval of the project. Commissioner White asked how the additional parking spaces had been accomplished; Mr. Smith noted that on the previous plan the applicant had most, if not all, of the parking spaces at nine and a half feet in width; code allowed a minimum of nine feet. The applicant provided 895 nine foot spaces and retained 363 at nine and a half feet. Most of the wider spaces were located in areas of high turn over parking. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the applicant was going to comply with the 32 foot height requirement. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant could address that issue. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. KEN FEENSTRA, representing Cook Partners Limited Partnership, stated that the height issue revolved around two small accent towers that he felt was part of the overall architecture of the project. They did not house anything, they were simply there to create more interest in the scale of the project. He said that the sign 4 um MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 .� program was being restudied and would be submitted as a whole package. Commissioner Downs noted that an owner of a project had a right to put signage in for the whole project and whatever he initiated, all tenants would have to comply with, i .e. the color scheme. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Per questioning by commission, Mr. Smith clarified that the sign issue would be addressed when the sign program package was submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Downs stated that the commission could stipulate that they did not want the sign higher than 20 feet; Mr. Smith said that was a condition of approval already. Commissioner Downs moved for approval of the findings; Commissioner Jonathan asked if that motion included allowing the monument at 46 and 42 feet; Commissioner Downs replied yes . Commissioner Jonathan said that he would second the motion. Now Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1590, recommending to city council approval of C/Z 92-4 . Carried 5- 0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1591 , recommending to city council approval of PP 92-6 , subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . %MW 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner ri Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1592 , recommending to city council approval of PM 27400 . Carried 5- 0 . D. Continued Case No. CUP 92-11 - MR. SEAN SUNTAG, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to expand the existing Louise' s Pantry restaurant by 600 square feet (enclose the existing east patio area) located in the 111 Town Center at Highway 111 and Town Center Way. Mr. Smith explained that this item had been continued from the last meeting. He indicated that the applicant was before the architectural review commission and their position was that the plans as presented were not approvable; however, with a variation of that plan, they felt they could approve it. They felt that rather than going with the flat roof structure over the addition, they wanted a hip roof section so that it would fit in with the existing hip roof on the building in the background and they wanted the corner portion of the building opened up more, i .e. push the addition further from the �1 intersection. The applicant brought to their attention that if it was pushed too far to the south, his area was being depleted. ARC looked at that and understood he was trying to get approximately 600 square feet of additional area. They felt the width of the addition could be expanded towards the street by approximately three feet without impacting further on it. They felt it was more important to move the addition away from the corner even if it meant moving the addition closer to the street. Mr. Smith said that he had not received revised plans and recommended a continuance to November 17 , which would allow the applicant to go back to architectural review. Commissioner White asked if the building was extended out towards the street, if it would invade the normal setback. Mr. Smith replied yes . Commissioner White asked if it would impede the vision of drivers leaving the parking lot going onto Town Center Way; Mr. Smith replied it would not--the impeding of vision would occur to the left of the intersection while exiting the parking lot; the concept of architectural review was that by moving it away from the corner, they would put in several large trees to screen the building. He did not feel the building would impede the view, though the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 landscaping treatment might. Mr. Gaugush informed commission that there was a line of sight ordinance that would come into play for any item, structure or landscaping within the 40 foot triangle setback area. That was one thing that would be kept in mind when reviewing the final plan for the addition. Chairman Spiegel opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. There was no response. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one. Mr. Diaz noted that the applicant knew that staff was recommending a continuance and that was why he was not present. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing CUP 92-11 to November 17, 1992 . Carried 5-0 . E. Continued Case Nos . GPA 90-3 AND C/Z 90-12 - MILLER RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a general plan land use designation for 640 acres of unincorporated land from Mountainous (414 acres) and R-4 (226 acres) to Open Space ( 394 acres) and Hillside Planned Residential (246 acres) ; pre-annexation zoning from W-2 to O.S. and HPR/PCD (planned community development) ; zone change for 54 acres from HPR to HPR/PCD; and recommendation as to adequateness of an environmental impact report for a project known as "The Crest" on 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" and 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from "Sommerset" . Mr. Joy stated that this case was continued from the last meeting to allow the commission to tour the site. Staff also used the extra time to revise the study table and incorporated the numbers from the staff report showing the different densities allowed, number of acres allowed to be graded, etc. He said another issue from the meeting was whether or not staff received input from the Bighorn Sheep Institute. He noted that input was received from the California Department 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife wf Service. He said that Bighorn Institute did provide input into the preparation of the EIR, and staff provided them an EIR and they replied back at a very late date. They also provided input through the environmental consultants . He also noted that as pointed out in the addendum, staff was still recommending retention of the present county land use designation for the site which would allow a maximum of 84 units on property A for this project. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. EUGENE GERITZ , 2505 Ardath Road in La Jolla, stated that he appreciated the opportunity to tour the site with members of the commission and asked if there were any questions . Chairman Spiegel noted the recommendation of the planning staff that the number of buildable homes be limited to 84 units on property A. Mr. Geritz stated that after reviewing some of the conversations at the last meeting and staff ' s most recent memo, he felt there were two diverse views operating here awi with what appeared to be no common ground for agreement. Staff presented a numbers game driven by formulas in which there was a process to go through to arrive at a number and that number was the point of focus . What they tried to do was present a quality issue relative to the quality of the development they were proposing, coupled with analysis, and had an on-going planning process which would determine in the end what would be built on the site. Two very different kind of approaches . He believed that planning should not be a matter of numbers and formulas . He felt it was a matter of people as users having a feel for the land and then determining what was appropriate and proper for a site that had certain kinds of particular characteristics . He also felt that in spite of the number games being played, staff agreed with the approach the applicant had been taking. He said that in response to this whole thing, he wanted to go through one more set of numbers, or simply a menu that laid out what they were doing and hopefully commission would come to the same conclusion. He felt the proposal was a qualitative approach to planning and clarified that they were not simply proposing the HPR zone; this proposal was a combination of PCD overlay and HPR zone. The HPR gave 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 �.. them a basis for the hillside analysis and very limited basic standards . The PCD overlay enabled them to put in place detailed standards and an implementation process that was a development agreement with the city that would require the applicant to do what they said they would do. He said that in the HPR ordinance, option 1, it was not applicable because it was not intended for examination of large acreage. There was no evaluation involved, it was just a formula and depending how the formula was applied, there would be between 149 and 160 dwelling units for the entire project. He said that the existing county general plan with no analysis and presuming there were no services available, no studies, and no input, came to a conclusion that there could be 109 dwelling units . On his table lA and 1B, they were not applicable, no evaluation was involved, and there was a formula that said there could be 199 to 259 dwelling units . Option 2 he felt was not applicable at all . Option 3 was the same thing, but got much closer to what they were proposing. If it was placed on the site, the conclusion could be drawn that theoretically there could be 257 dwelling units on the property, which they were not proposing to do. Option 4 , if the commission decided to put it in place, deferred development areas and applying some formulas again, there would be conclusion that there could be 180 to 200 dwelling units on the site. What they were proposing by way of the HPR/PCD ordinance was a very specific plan and process with a detailed review of each site and detailed review by commission at each phase of development to ensure they were doing what was set out in the plan. He believed the site had the capability with very high standards to carry between 185 and 209 units . He said that with the HPR ordinance, option 1 and 2 essentially did not establish standards for the development of the site. Option 3 put in place some minimal standards, established a 10,000 square foot building pad, and did not have a building limit. Option 4 did give the planning commission and architectural review commission full discretion as to what would occur with the development. He took the essence of that and put it into their detailed standards which he felt met all the concerns that had been raised with regard to development of the site. He said the number of units was not guaranteed; the only guarantee would be that the commission would get to look at their project in light of the standards in the proposal . Their recommendation was that a qualitative, not quantitative, approach be used for the planning of the site. He felt what they were %0W 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 doing was sensitive to the characteristics of the aw property and hoped the commission would adopt the proposed PCD/HPR proposal . He said that one thing that was not obvious was that what they were asking for was that the maximum number of homesites would fall within the range of 185 and 209 units as determined by detailed review by commission. The minimum number of homesites-- there was no minimum. It was a matter of the applicant ' s ability to satisfy the commission that their proposal, phase by phase, homesite plan by homesite plan, did all the things they said it would. He said they were happy to take that risk because he believed what they established was a really good project. The individual homesites would be between 8, 000 and 15,000 square feet. Commission could stipulate the square footage, but noted that the vast majority of sites on this property would not be on property with a 20% slope; it was on property with a three to eight percent cross slope. He said they were not building on sloping land. With regard to the implementation process, he felt that was the beginning. They had not done enough detailed studies to determine the exact capacity and would have to be determined area by area as they worked their way through. He again noted that each plan would come to the commission for review and implementation. He requested that commission approve +r the PCD/HPR submittal as contained in the March 6 , 1992 draft. Commissioner Downs asked staff if the zone could be changed to PCD/HPR. He stated that a lot of effort had gone into establishing that ordinance and did not think it could be easily changed. Mr. Joy stated that what staff was doing was there were different ways to interpret the hillside ordinance to allow this type of PCD ordinance. Mr. Diaz clarified that if commission concurred, they recommend approval to city council . Staff was recommending approval of a maximum of 84 units . The hillside overlay ordinance gave the city a great deal of options and latitude in terms of looking at a project so that assurance was available that development was in a manner that was consistent with the city' s overall goals and objectives . That was why it was there, as opposed to the previous ordinance that would not allow any development at all . Mr. Geritz felt it was a matter interpretation as to whether this was a liberal or conservative use. He said when taking the literal language of the HPR ordinance and literally apply everything in there to the project 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 tow depending on which option was chosen, and taking into account the transfer of density from open space areas, what they were proposing was substantially less than the number of units that would be allowed under at least three of the interpretations listed. It was slightly more than would be allowed under two interpretations . His point was that what they were setting up was a self- limiting situation that more than met the objectives of the ordinance. Looking at option 3 of the ordinance, substantially under one acre lots could be done. One of his standards because they did not feel that was desirable, was the fact that the spacing of the houses was to be 200 feet apart so that there would be one acre lots in terms of the home spacing anywhere and every where within this development. Under the normal conditions of the HPR ordinance, there could be lots adjacent to each other. He was saying that they won' t look at sites where that kind of spacing would result. They put in a greater deal of control and said the units had to be spaced farther apart and they were putting in a greater degree of control than even the ordinance from the point of view that they would come to the commission on a phase by phase basis with their plan for each increment that the commission could look at in conjunction with the topography. Commission could tell them on a participatory basis whether or not they thought it made sense, and if it was in accordance with the essence of the HPR ordinance or not. He believed the commission would come to the conclusion that was true. He did not want the commission to just give him an approval that said they could build a certain number of units because he did not feel that was the answer. He wanted to continue to work with the commission to come up with a more detailed and better plan for the project. He felt it would be worth the effort. He said that was the reason for the PCD overlay--it allowed them to put in place all of the standards that he felt was more stringent than the current city standards . Chairman Spiegel asked for a response from staff as to the difference between the number of units staff was recommending and the number of units proposed by the developer. Mr. Joy stated that the input council gave staff during the Altamira hearings was that the city hillside ordinance was not intended for large parcels of property. Not only did council take the strictest option that could be applied to Altamira, but also made some strict interpretations of the strictest option, which resulted in very significant changes to the project. r.. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 That was staff ' s marching orders for reviewing this project . That was why they used the current existing county land use plan as their recommendation to allow 84 units rather than 183, which was currently being proposed. In his conversations with a county planner, even though that language was in their general plan about utilities, there was no guarantee that any general plan amendment would be granted on this property once the utilities were brought in. The fact that there was Bighorn Sheep usage of the area would also confirm that this might be an area that just because utilities were being brought to the site, it did not guarantee any type of general plan amendment. As far as applicability of any options that commission had to follow, it was also in the staff report that if the commission was to choose one of the hillside options the option that staff would choose would be option 3 which would result in 184 units maximum on the present property and the number might go down a little because there were areas where development would have to be pulled away from because of current Bighorn Sheep usage. Staff recommended option 3 as the most appropriate. Chairman Spiegel asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. GERHARD BEFELD, resident in Cahuilla Hills, asked for low clarification that the developer was requesting between 180 and 200 units in the upper large section and staff was proposing 82 . Mr. Joy explained that there were 695 acres, 55 acres were presently within the city limits, and the application was for a maximum number of 209 units on both properties . Staff was recommending 84 units on the large parcel and 25 additional units on the 55 acre piece for a total of 109 total . Mr. Befeld asked if under some criteria this was considered a not developable site. Mr. Diaz stated there was no such thing as a non-developable site--it was just a matter of how much it would cost to develop a site. Staff was recommending 84 units and stressed that it was not just a numbers game--it would be 84 units in the right spot, as opposed to 187 units . Mr. Joy noted that the current HPR development required quality development in the hillside area, so anything being built would have to be of high quality. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 �•+ Mr. Befeld stated that he considered the hillside areas to be very important and felt staff ' s recommendation of less units was good. He also requested that particular attention be paid to the grading. He felt that with the Bighorn Country Club there were a few items that slipped by in terms of the way the sides of the hills were being "knocked off" . He did not feel that had been presented to the Cahuilla Hills residents . When their presentation was originally made, they indicated they would stay quite a bit lower in the valley. Mr. Geritz indicated that as presented at the last meeting, if the current general plan designation was applied to Cahuilla Hills, which was applied to that area because it did have services, access, utilities, etc . , there would be an allowable density on this site of 276 dwelling units and they were not suggesting that many. That was simply to put it in perspective with the adjoining zoning that exists and that was placed by the county, knowing that the area was suitable for development and had the ability to be developed. Secondly, he wanted to remind the commission that there was a very specific plan of the upper site. What they proposed and what was before the commission was 162 dwelling units on the large section. As of this point in time, that was the number of homesites they had been able to determine were possible and appropriate for development in that area. They had not found more than that. They also identified 23 on the lower site that totally met the criteria of the HPR ordinance from that point of view. He reminded commission that representatives from both of the Cahuilla Hills property owner associations testified at the last meeting--they were strongly in favor of this approach, as well as all the neighbors on the adjoining property line. Chairman Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Downs stated that further clarification was needed as to the specific numbers . Commissioner White indicated that the site could be developed without impacting too greatly on the lower areas around Highway 74 and the residential developments . Although there might be a view point, a little window through the one canyon where it could be seen, it would not have that much of an impact. He was concerned about the density issue and did not elm 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 feel it was necessary to rely totally on the numbers, but on the qualitative answer, rather than a simply quantitative answer. He stated that he was not certain that it was appropriate to assume the county standards, since he was not familiar with the basis for the county standards . Some of the comments made by staff, in particular that there were some areas which though they may be developable at great cost, were probably going to detract from the remainder of the area if they were developed. Commissioner Whitlock stated that based on the presentation, the visual window from Highway 74 would be minimal and supported The Crest development as it had been presented to them. However, she expressed concern about the numbers and requested some clarification on the maximum units . She said that with that information she could move forward. Commissioner Downs said that in conjunction with Commissioner Whitlock' s comments, he was for the project, but the numbers game before the commission did not sound like the same project that was presented at the last meeting. Chairman Spiegel suggested a continuance to see if some agreement could be reached between staff and the applicant and then they could come back in with a specific number. He noted that there was approximately a 50 percent difference in staff ' s recommendation and the applicant ' s request and stressed that this was a sensitive area. Mr. Diaz stated that the problem from staff ' s standpoint was that the recommendation was based on the policy direction from the city council and for staff to recommend contrary to that would mean that staff would be recommending against council policy. Commissioner Whitlock noted that there was a big discrepancy between the numbers . She felt that the developer' s comments were very persuasive. Mr. Diaz said that the commission might want to say that if the developer could comply with certain conditions, that commission would be favorable towards the developer' s numbers; if they couldn' t, then commission wouldn' t. The applicant indicated they would come in to show commission individual sites, but from the standpoint of numbers he did not see where staff could come in and recommend contrary to council policy. z 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 Chairman Spiegel asked if one of the main items they were discussing was whether to recommend to city council annexation of this land. Mr. Diaz said no; part of the land was in the county, but this was the same as preannexation zoning. He said it was an issue of zoning. Commissioner Downs said that he wanted to see part of this go through because he would like to see more roads for the existing residents who needed roads along the frontage of the wash. He said that after comments were done, he would make a motion. Commissioner White stated that it would be helpful to the commission to know what the foundation was for the 84 units that the county would recommend and the basic differences without going into great detail between what the county would recommend and what the city might recommend. Also, one reason for the difficulty was that the land area, although not particularly large, was so varied in terrain. To generalize what the commission would do on the entire parcel with numbers would be extremely difficult to do. If dealing with a smaller portion, such as the 55 acre parcel, it would be much easier for commission to make an intelligent decision. When dealing with all the nooks and crannies in this area, it wasn't easy "■" to generalize over the property. Commissioner Downs noted that there was a built in safety factor by having each area of the project coming back to the commission. Also, this would give the City of Palm Desert another 400 acres of open space they didn' t have now. He noted that the county could also change their zoning and that would eliminate the city' s control . He stated that he would rather act now and send it up to the council , but to add as many safeguards as necessary because the presentation made two weeks ago with a maximum of 209 units was an excellent presentation and was one of the finer presentations made in the ten years of his service. He said he was prepared to move for approval with the maximum number of 209 units with each individual parcel coming to commission for approval before it was started. Mr. Diaz suggested that commission recommend to council the 84 units unless it could be demonstrated to the council ' s satisfaction that the additional number of units as requested by the applicant met the goals, policies and objectives of the council as they felt were adopted when they adopted the hillside planned residential ordinance. That way, the project em 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 would be proceeding with a minimal number of units to the rf council . Commissioner Downs felt the other side of the issue was just as valid. The project could proceed with the 209 units as proposed and if the council did not like it, they could lower the number of units . Chairman Spiegel commented that the presentation was one of the better ones he attended. He stated that he had mixed emotions because he was totally opposed to any building in the hillsides . He felt that anything done to corrupt the hillsides more than they were already corrupted would be wrong. He realized that this was really in the county and a developer that had land in the county could do whatever he wanted to as long as the county agreed to it. He viewed the site and it was like a bowl--the only houses that could be seen were the houses of other neighbors, but there would be a road going up the hill and the road would be visible. There would be one or two houses that at a point on Highway 74 would be visible. He said he had tremendous mixed emotions about the project. Commissioner Downs felt that this was a premier project with the way it would be developed and the city' s best bet was to go with it for the best protection and preservation of the hills . It was evident what the county had already allowed to be done to the hills . He said that the council could always reduce the number of units . Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings with a maximum of 209 units . Motion failed on a 2-2-1 vote (Chairman Spiegel and Commissioner White voted no, Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . After discussion, commission determined that it would be appropriate to send this item to city council without a recommendation, but their view point as outlined in the minutes . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner White, to send GPA 90-3 and C/Z 90-12 to city council without a recommendation by minute motion. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained) . 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 r VIII . MISCELLANEOUS A. Magnesia Falls Development - HAROLD HOUSLEY, Applicant Mr. Diaz explained that the there was a portion of property that abutted a mobile home park on Portola at Magnesia Falls . The area was already outside of the park, but was zoned R1M. He stated that the property owner was proposing to subdivide parcel TT 27601 . He requested that commission allow the applicant to give a brief proposal and if commission felt the proposal was consistent and would be a good development, staff would proceed with an appropriate application. Mr. Diaz explained that the R1M zone would allow smaller lots, but the R1M zone allowed 5,000 square foot lots as part of a project, but in this case it would be outside of a project. Mr. Harold Housley addressed the commission and indicated he had been working on this property' s development for many years and felt he had a proposal that would improve the area. He said they originally presented the city with an application to divide off the piece of land that was undeveloped, but staff had some concerns . He stated they came up with this concept after several meetings with Mr. Diaz and staff . Basically, they would complete the development, even though it was separate and outside the existing project. The 3 . 3 acre project was being proposed at 6 ,000 minimum square feet, instead of the existing zoning of 5, 000 square feet. He said they tried to be sensitive to the driveway access and streetscape. They did some conceptual plans as to how the lots could be developed with either manufactured housing or other housing. He said that some alternatives worked better than others . He pointed out that the sites were on an average 51 feet by 120 feet, which was substantially larger than the 23 acre development recently approved on Fred Waring Drive across from Desert Horizons . He described each plan. Mr. Housley said that Mr. Richard Elias was present and was the manager of the existing Palm Desert Mobile Estates, in addition to the owner, Mr. Ray Van Alstine. Mr. Housley said that the benefits included an upgrade from the existing parks north and south, and they would be completing their half of the street and finishing that off up to the bridge. He indicated that the other half of the street would be completed in conjunction with the conversion of the mobile home park to the south into a subdivision. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 Chairman Spiegel asked why this matter was before the W4 commission at this time. Mr. Diaz stated that because of the confusion with the R1M zone as to what could or could not be done, he wanted a determination from the commission as to whether or not there was a problem with this project. The property was zoned R1M, but it was outside of the developed park. The R1M zone allowed 5,000 square foot lots . If the applicant were to turn the lots around and put them inside the park and come in with a street on the inside, it would not be before commission. He wanted the commission to indicate if any of the alternatives were acceptable. Chairman Spiegel asked if the new section would have access to the park or recreational facilities . Mr. Diaz replied no. They would be single family detached units that could either be manufactured housing or "stick" housing. The recreational facilities would be the civic center park and they already had the bikeway and walk path bridge there. Commissioner Downs said that he thought the roadway was going to be abandoned; Mr. Diaz said that at this point it had not been abandoned and the applicant would not be putting in the bridge. That was up to public works . He said that by state law, the city could not require a condition on a map that they could not impose on a building permit. Mr. Diaz said that if the proposed concept was acceptable, a formal application MW would be filed. He said that the units would be market units . MR. RICHARD ELIAS, property management agent for Palm Desert Mobile Estates and the adjacent acreage. He said that he had been involved with the property for almost six years and the owner had the property for about 14 years . The three plus acres had remained undeveloped and they had entertained expanding the mobile home community, but felt there could be better use made of the property. After meeting with Mr. Diaz in the hopes of making 6 , 000 square foot lots on the parcel, they started looking at different ways to develop the property to its best use and provide affordable housing. He felt it was appropriate in the area. To the north was Palm Desert Mobile Estates at 144 sites, and to the south the Portola Palms Mobile Home community. He noted there were four floor plans . He said that the homes were manufactured homes, they were built in a factory, shipped on site where it received stucco treatment and a tile roof application and a two car garage was built at the site. The homes could be manufactured in 30 days and could be site delivered and set up within three weeks . He said that cut down on the cost of building the unit and on the 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 �+ disruption to the immediate neighbors . Mr. Elias indicated that some of their preliminary figures for a 1700 square foot home was about $52 to $54 per square foot. He felt that $90, 000 or less for a home and lot within Palm Desert was good. He said this type of application for lots of this size would lend them to their best use. He indicated they considered having a joint entryway through the existing mobile home park and putting in an alleyway between the park to the north and this development and putting in mobile home sites, but the owner did not want additional rental property. He felt this type of unit would be affordable and well received by the community. Chairman Spiegel asked if the project would back up to the existing chain link fence. Mr. Elias said it would back up to the existing mobile home park, where there was a chain link fence that separated the mobile home community from the undeveloped acreage. He felt if they went with the 6 , 000 square foot lots, they could provide an improvement to the break between the existing mobile home community and this acreage. MR. RAY VAN ALSTINE, owner of the park, 1006 Amelia Drive in Long Beach, stated they had been working with the residents of the park concerning their purchase of the park and when this was first presented to their representative, they did not want this extra land included in the purchase because it would increase the price of the project and they had no use for it. He felt this would be the best usage of the property and they had talked with Peter Sterling regarding this land and he had done a lot of research as to cost of improvements . Because he got involved in the project on Fred Waring, he dropped out of the project temporarily. The reason for coming together was to lay on the table all the facts because he knew it did not conform strictly with lot size requirements . He informed commission that for 38 years he had lived in Lakewood on a 5,000 square foot lot, so he was very familiar with the quality of house that could be provided that size of lot. He hoped this would meet with the commission' s approval . MS. CHARLOTTE FREDERICKS, with Palm Desert Mobile Estates, stated that the property next door required an exit at the back of the property. They had been allotted $100, 000 to put extra improvements, Portola Palms, and they would be exiting at the back of their property and %WW 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 would have to cooperate with putting in the street and aw pay for half of it. She said that would take care of the street issue. Commissioner Downs asked for comments from Mr. Diaz . Mr. Diaz said that it was his understanding that there was redevelopment money involved in establishing the acquisition of the park by those residents . In terms of requiring it as a condition of the tract map, the improvement of that street on an already existing development could not be done and legally upheld. He said there might be a requirement for the driveway. Mr. Diaz indicated he would obtain the answers and report back at the next meeting. Commissioner Downs stated that he personally had no problems with what the applicant was proposing. Commissioner White said that he had some concerns . Because Magnesia Falls was a planned major thoroughfare in that area, a better use would be for the property to become part of the existing park. He indicated he had safety concerns with adding that much traffic to that area which could become congested very shortly after it was open. He said it would be a busy thoroughfare. He also had concerns about the number of vehicles which would be allowed to park on the street and the wo width of the existing area to form a major thoroughfare. He felt this was something that should be rethought. Commissioner Downs noted that Mr. Folkers was present at a previous meeting and when discussing Magnesia Falls, this was not going to have a bridge over it. Mr. Gaugush said that the circulation element identified the road as a scenic secondary. As far as a bridge over the San Pascual Channel, that was a matter of funds and direction by city council . He said it was not an actively pursued structure and the city did not have any plans for that construction. The roadway was identified as a scenic secondary and in order to complete the link, the bridge had to be built. As pointed out, there were some discussions for a park site, which looked to abandon the property west of the channel . That did not take place and would not take place, so the city was still looking at a physically terminated roadway segment. Commissioner Downs said that was why he was in favor of the project . In a prior meeting this was discussed and until after the year 2000, there was nothing the city would even consider because of the cost of building the bridge . 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 Commissioner White stated that he attended that meeting as well , and felt the year 2000 was not that far away and the city should be planning along those lines . If those secondary access roads were not available, the circulation pattern would be dramatically limited, and simply because there were certain residents in a particular area who did not want that as a thoroughfare, he did not feel that was in the best interest of the whole citizenry. Commissioner Jonathan informed commission that he was not going to comment on the proposal because he felt it was inappropriate to be discussing this . When a project comes before the commission with full information, then he could comment in an intelligent manner. Right now, they were trying to draw conclusions based on speculation and insufficient information. There was no traffic report or comments from public works . He had concerns about 6 , 000 square foot lots . He noted that when a project goes through all the normal channels, the commission was provided lots of information and there was some assurance that various issues had been looked at . If there was a working session with idea proposals, fine. Otherwise, he felt unprepared to give comments . Mr. Diaz said that the reason the commission was going through this was that staff would prefer to have a determination that if some concept was totally undesirable, then the person be informed as soon as possible to save time and money. As far as traffic and the ability for the street to carry that traffic, all that would be before the commission on the tentative map. If the idea that was before the commission in terms of how the houses would be built facing out as opposed to an alley in the back, if this idea was superior to that, then staff could be instructed to go forward and come back with the issues of traffic addressed. If the concept was totally unacceptable, then it would be over. Commissioner Jonathan felt that every developer had to come in and that their chance, just like everyone else. He did not feel he could provide staff with a determination. Also, if he was a Monterey Country Club Homeowner, he would resent this discussion taking place without proper notification. Commissioner Whitlock stated that it might have been better as a study session item. Chairman Spiegel concurred. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that residents should be notified. Mr. Diaz indicated that staff could have the applicant file for a development agreement and would have this before the commission with a staff report and go from there. %.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 Commissioner White said that from his perspective this ad reminded him of certain areas in the San Gabriel Valley where Interstate 10 and the 60 and other freeways go through and abut against the properties--homeowners were subject to the freeway noise and that was possibly what was being created with these small lots on what could turn into a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Whitlock concurred with Commissioner White ' s comments . The applicant requested clarification. Chairman Spiegel stated that if there was going to be a street, if there was going to be a bridge, then it would become a high traffic area. Right now there was Highway 111, Fred Waring and Magnesia Falls . With the growth in the area it would be a high traffic street running from Monterey over to Portola. The comment from commission was that a high traffic street, next to 6, 000 square foot lots, would not be acceptable. The applicant asked if there would be a problem with 8, 000 square foot lots . Chairman Spiegel said this was something that would have to be worked out with the planning department. Mr. Diaz concurred that the applicant could work with staff on this, but also stated that if it was an 8,000 square foot lot no or larger was not the issue facing that street--it was an issue of the amount of traffic on that street and the impact on any homes fronting on the street would be there regardless of the size of lots . Therefore, an alternative would be to turn the design around and make it part of the existing development, but that was something that could be worked out. The applicant noted that the street would be at least 70 feet wide, because they were giving up 30 feet and there was 40 feet on the other side that had already been dedicated. So it was not a regular street even under normal circumstances . He thanked staff and the commission for their comments . Action: No action was required. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 22 too MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 X. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Jonathan stated that within the discussion of The Crest project, which he abstained from, there were comments about the desires and expectations of the city council . He felt the commission should not be unduly influenced by the commission' s perception of what the council ' s desires were because the whole point of having a planning commission was to have an independent review of a project and council, with other concerns, could review the project with their own perspectives . He said that he didn ' t mind it being brought up and perhaps directed at staff, but hoped it would not influence commission. Chairman Spiegel felt the comment was well taken, but noted it was a tie vote, and the issue of whether or not it should go to council was a decision that had to be made. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that his comment was independent of The Crest project. Mr. Diaz stated that from staff ' s standpoint, they never wanted commission to have to say to the council that the commission didn't know what the policy was because of staff not telling them. He said the commission should vote how they feel, but it was staff ' s job to explain tow what they felt was council ' s policy. 2 . Commissioner Downs stated that he had a comment that he did not want to make, but he was resigning and this was his last meeting. He indicated there were personal reasons he did not want to give at this time and was glad to have worked with everyone. Commissioner Downs said that he was on the commission a year longer than he intended to be and when the Carver project was passed, that was what he was waiting to happen and they had worked so hard on the WRT and north sphere area and he felt there was a lot work done and many hours put into the project and he had fulfilled his obligation to council . Commissioner Downs felt that the Carver project with the golf courses would make the north sphere one of the finest areas of any city in Southern California. 3 . Chairman Spiegel noted that there would not be a November 3, 1992 planning commission meeting because of the election. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1992 XI . ADJOURNMENT w Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner White, adjourning the meeting to November 17, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 08 p.m. RAM ON A. DIAZ , sbc Vary ATTEST: OBEAT SPIEG man /tm �i 24