Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1005 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 5, 1993 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 Sabby Jonathan Paul Beaty Carol Whitlock Diane Cox Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Paul Shillcock Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe Joe Gaugush IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: low Consideration of the September 21, 1993 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the September 21, 1993 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent September 23, 1993 council action. VI . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. TT 24530 - KEVIN McHUGH JR. FOR BARON'S FINANCIAL GROUP, Applicant Request for approval of a one year time extension for a tentative tract map subdividing 90 acres into 277 single family lots located south and west of Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street. Commissioner Jonathan noted that initial approval was granted in July of 1989 . He asked for clarification on the 36 month rule and the final map recordation. He asked if it was MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 normal for a map to come before the planning commission for a first time extension when it was already four years old. Mr. Diaz replied that it was not normal and indicated that the Governor approved legislation requiring an additional two year extension on a map. Commissioner Whitlock asked Mr. Gaugush to explain his letter of 1992 . Mr. Gaugush stated that the requestor took the position that he needed to keep the tract active by virtue of extensions . In reality, the provisions of the map act that kicked in place by phasing and recording of previous final maps under the phased map created extensions automatically. The applicant ' s engineer was establishing a comfort level to assure that they have an active map. Mr. Gaugush explained that there were specific guidelines that provide time lines for the maps themselves, versus a project approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VIII . MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Spiegel suggested consideration of the Miscellaneous Items before the public hearing section. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, to suspend the agenda item order and consider the Miscellaneous items first. Motion carried 5-0 . A. Case No. CUP 93-3 Section 4 - RONALD ODEKIRK, Applicant Request for adoption of a resolution approving a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 20 acre multi- use, pay for play, recreation facility to be located on 20 acres of City of Palm Desert owned land zoned R-1-M located 800 feet south of Frank Sinatra Drive on Portola Avenue. Mr. Diaz stated that the applicants requested a clarification of the condition regarding video games . As far as the minutes were concerned they are not verbatim minutes and were not a transcript. This issue came up during the hearing and while there was no formal vote on the issue of video machines, one of the persons objecting to the use spoke on that issue and he indicated that staff could place a condition prohibiting video machines . That was the condition before the commission. The commission could vote on that issue separately; there was discussion on that issue and one member of the commission did indicate that he had no objection to the video machines . The reason the condition 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 was placed was to resolve some of the concerns raised by the opponents . Through the entire hearing process on this application as well on the Hovley application the issue and use of video machines did not appear to be that important. That was the only condition that appeared to be questioned at this time. Commission could ask the applicant if he has a problem with that condition. Staff recommended that commission adopt the resolution exactly as written. Chairman Spiegel noted that this was not a public hearing, but felt it was fair to allow the applicant to respond to any condition that he felt was inappropriate. MR. RICHARD ODEKIRK, 43-670 Lisbon Way in Palm Desert, said that his only question, and it was not that he had a big problem with it, was that at that hearing although they did discuss video games it was never raised to him that it would be a condition that they could not have them and he would like the option to do that. It was never a big issue on any of the former plans, but there was never a motion prohibiting them from doing so and he wanted that opportunity. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she not remember it ever being specified as an option that they had or didn' t have until the last public hearing when it came up. Mr. Odekirk said that an issue was never made of it but it was always something they had as part of their restaurant. It was not a big arcade, but he wanted the opportunity for the kids to come that were watching their parents and eating their dinner to be able to play some games . He said that was where he was coming from on that. He was not trying to make a big issue out of anything, but the commission never made a motion prohibiting him from doing that and when he got the report, it said he could have no video arcade games permitted on site. Commissioner Whitlock asked what his intent was for the video games and if they were to be a part of the restaurant. Mr. Odekirk said yes, there would be some kids attending the facility with their parents and while the parents were having dinner like a pizza parlor atmosphere, if they wanted they could get up and play some games . He wanted that opportunity and that was his intent. `OW 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 Commissioner Jonathan stated that he felt uncomfortable discussing the pros and cons of video arcade games because he felt the insertion of the condition was in error. It was not in the original conditions and not part of the motion to add the condition and did not belong there. If they were going to discuss the pros and cons, they would have to open up the public hearing. He felt condition #23 was there by error. Mr. Diaz noted that there were six conditions that were not in the original resolution, which was why the resolution was before them. If the commission wished to reopen the public hearing they could. Commissioner Jonathan stated that those conditions were moved on. His understanding was that the additional conditions were the ones they voted on at the last meeting. Mr. Diaz clarified that the commission did not vote on the conditions individually; staff was instructed to prepare a resolution of approval and staff attempted to address all the objections that were raised. The video game question was raised and while agreeing or disagreeing with the person who addressed those questions, staff indicated that one of the ways that they could address that was to not permit video games and that was why the video game condition was there. Commissioner Jonathan felt that was inappropriate because the commission voted to add the five or six conditions and the video games issue was not one of those. They limited the alcoholic beverages, time, and several other items--video games were not discussed. It was simply a comment and did not belong in the conditions . This was not pursuant to the motion approved by the commission at it' s last meeting. Mr. Diaz said that staff would stand corrected. Chairman Spiegel said that he would have to go on record by saying that he told one of the people that attended the last meeting that video games were not part of the project. He specifically said that during the meeting. Commissioner Jonathan stated that it was corrected, because subsequently to that there was discussion and he made the comment that he felt video games were an appropriate recreational activity and the minutes reflected his remark that if kids weren't playing video games, they'd be spray painting homes and buildings . That was part of the reason it did not get into their final discussion and their final motion. Commissioner Whitlock indicated that a citizen brought up the video games; the chairman acknowledged there were no video games and Commissioner Jonathan did ask what was wrong with video games, so she felt everyone was all right. It was discussed to the extent that there would not be any and Commissioner Jonathan' s comments reflected that he personally did not have 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 a problem with them. Chairman Spiegel quoted from the minutes on page 13 that, "Chairman Spiegel stated that video games were not part of the complex nor was it ever part of the complex. He asked Mr. Odekirk to correct him if he was wrong. Secondly, the planning commission was not there to debate the financing of the project, that decision would be made by city council and the planning commission was there to decide if the facility was appropriate for the planned location. " Commissioner Jonathan said he did not disagree with any of the discussion that took place. He was saying that the final motion that was made and approved by the commission did not include condition #28. Commissioner Whitlock felt it substantiated what the commission more or less understood. There were not going to be video games unless corrected and there was no correction to that. Commissioner Jonathan disagreed; his understanding was that because there was never any discussion of any video games, that the commission did not intend to limit video games and therefore it was not added as a condition of approval . It wasn't in the original resolution and was not added on. Mr. Diaz felt there were two ways to resolve this particular difficulty: one would be to revise the conditions to say that no video games shall be allowed unless a separate conditional use permit is applied for and then the commission could `"• separately discuss the issue of video games . The other was to delete the condition. It was staff's intention to try and solve all the concerns and objections because of the time constraints they were under on this project. The other thing they could do was re-advertise the hearing, or the commission could approve the resolution as is and the applicant could appeal that condition. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she would hate to see the project delayed because of that condition and liked the alternative: no video arcade game shall be permitted on site without a review of the conditional use permit or coming back for a conditional use permit. She felt that solved the issue--the applicant felt they wanted to do it but didn't know yet, and it hadn't become an issue. Mr. Odekirk stated that he was not trying to make it a big deal and all along it was an assumed part of their facility. It never changed. Chairman Spiegel assumed Mr. Odekirk heard his statement at the last meeting. Mr. Odekirk replied that to be honest with them, he thought that was addressed later in the meeting. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 Commissioner Jonathan quoted from the minutes on page 34, "Chairman Spiegel said for the record that those conditions (referring to the conditions to be added) were beer and wine only, an eight foot wall, major league fields, conditions on the lighting study and that the detailed plans come back to the planning commission, in addition to the 15 day staging and ones mentioned earlier" and which did not include the video games . He felt it was wrong process to go back and discuss attributes of an additional condition. The only way they could do that was to open up the public hearing again. He was not discussing the merits and the pros and cons of video games. That was not the issue. The issue was that they voted on one thing and could therefore not now pass another. Chairman Spiegel asked for clarification from Mr. Diaz . Mr. Diaz said that the matter could be continued and the minutes transcribed to decide exactly what they voted on. As he indicated, the reason the condition was in there was because he was attempting to resolve all the concerns that were raised by the public. The city attorney could indicate whether it was correct--there was no doubt the issue was raised and they were trying to resolve all the issues raised. Mr. Hargreaves stated that once the public hearing was closed the commission was free to discuss any conditions it wished ter+ to impose--the fact that another condition might come up did not materially change the project and wouldn't necessarily mean they would have to reopen the public hearing. He did not see any reason why they could not just vote now and clarify what they meant at the last meeting and go on. MR. RON ODEKIRK stated that they did not want to delay this any longer and they would do whatever the commission wanted. He asked for a clarification as to what was meant by video arcade and how the condition was worded. Mr. Rick Odekirk indicated it said no video games on the site and asked if they were trying to keep them from having a video arcade on the site. Commissioner Jonathan suggested setting a limit to the number of machines that would require a conditional use permit. Commissioner Beaty asked the applicants how many machines they envisioned, two or three or 50 . Mr. Ron Odekirk replied five or six as part of the restaurant for the kids . 6 low MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 Commissioner Jonathan suggested that more than four would require a conditional use permit. Mr. Ron Odekirk said that was fine. If the commission wanted to make them go back for a conditional use permit for any video games they would live with that also. Commissioner Whitlock thought that arcade envisioned a separate room with a lot of video machines . An arcade to her was something separate. Making it part of the restaurant like a Shakey' s Pizza or something like that was a different situation. Commissioner Beaty said that Shakey's had its own little room. Commissioner Whitlock said it had been a long time since she had been to Shakey' s . Chairman Spiegel indicated those places had tokens and kids running around. Mr. Ron Odekirk said they would not have that--it was a family park and parents would bring their children and while the husbands were playing softball the kids might want to play video games . Chairman Spiegel asked if Mr. Odekirk would have a problem with a maximum of four video games . Mr. Ron Odekirk replied that they would like to have six, and if the commission wanted they could come back with a conditional use permit on it. Mr. Diaz stated that if the applicant was asking for six, staff would recommend six. Chairman Spiegel asked for a motion with the one change on item #28. Mr. Rick Odekirk stated that he would like clarification on condition #11, "Special events shall require a special permit to be issued by the director of community development. A special event shall be defined as a single event intended to draw more than 200 people. " He said that the only reason he raised this issue was that he did not want someone coming back to him saying he was doing it wrong. He wanted to know what that was entitling him to and if this was for a celebrity type event, a special event, and not a softball tournament which 200 people attend. A special event which meant an event open to the general public which brought more than 200 people. He asked if that was Mr. Diaz ' s intent so that he understood his limitations . 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 Mr. Diaz stated that the intention was any event that was designed to attract 200 people, and that would include a tournament specifically designed to attract 200 people. Mr. Rick Odekirk said that it was his understanding all along that it was for a celebrity event, a spectator type event of that many people and that was his interpretation. Mr. Diaz indicated that if they had a softball tournament with Class A softball teams where there was a tournament designed to attract more than 200 people, that would be a special event. It was not a big deal, it was just to allow the city to have control . He asked what Mr. Odekirk wanted. Mr. Rick Odekirk stated that he would like it to be worded as "an event that is open to the general public designed to have more than 200 spectators" . Mr. Diaz said that right now the Marriott Hotel, every time they wanted to have a fireworks display for one of their corporate conferences, had to come in and ask for a special permit and that was how the city controlled it. It was an attempt to give the community some comfort that the city was controlling it. He noted that the project was a conditional use permit and if for some reason the events got out of hand, the conditional use permit could be revoked. Commissioner Jonathan said that where the problem came in was there were three fields and a lot of the activities going on were tournaments . For three fields the players alone equalled 120 people and with a few spectators it would easily be over 200 almost every night if the project was successful . Mr. Ron Odekirk stated that every weekend they would have a tournament. Commissioner Jonathan asked what would be easier from a control standpoint--to allow up to 250 or 300 people. Mr. Diaz stated that the easiest way from a control standpoint was to have exactly what the city wanted; in this particular instance considering the concerns that were raised, the controls could be placed and made less stringent if they were not necessary at a later date. He reiterated that this was the exact same condition that was placed on the other resolution. Staff recommended the condition as is . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he also interpreted the condition in error as well . He thought special events were 8 1W MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 ,,.. non-softball events like rock concerts or corporate picnics-- what Mr. Diaz was saying was that it would include softball tournaments . Chairman Spiegel noted no rock concerts would be allowed. Mr. Diaz stated that when in doubt, the applicant should ask for the permit and the director of community development could say no, it was not required in a particular case, or yes it was . If there was an event and there were a lot of complaints and a special permit was not required, he guaranteed that people would come to staff and ask why one wasn't required. It was an attempt to control it; the intent was not to deny it. If staff did deny it, the decision was always appealable. If no one came in for a particular special event, they wouldn't even know it happened, let alone be able to impose any special conditions on it. That was the reason for the condition and to attempt to ease the fears of the individuals that were present opposing the project. Mr. Ron Odekirk stated that right from the very start they outlined a program for the planning commission and city council that included nightly league play, tournament softball games, corporate picnics; those were part of their basic program. They also said that five or six times per year there would be special events that �..., would have between 2 ,000 to 3,000 spectators and they would not like to have to come in for every time they had a planned program, which was the basics of what they were raising revenues from and was their basic softball, basketball weekend tournaments . That was how they brought tourists into town. They thought the special events were the special celebrity events that would bring more people in and they had to make parking arrangements, police arrangements, and had to get those things approved. They were staffed to do regular tournaments in basketball and softball almost every week. Chairman Spiegel noted that regular tournaments were not special events . Mr. Ron Odekirk said that was what they thought. Chairman Spiegel said that was what the facility was providing for, so if more than 200 people attended on an evening to watch and play softball, that was not a special event. %WW 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 Mr. Ron Odekirk agreed and said that they were just .rr concerned that a special event was defined as an event intended to draw more than 200 people. Chairman Spiegel stated that if they put something in the Desert Sun to say they were having Stan Musial come out, they might only get 200 people, but they might get more and from the standpoint of police control, etc . , hopefully they would get more and they would want to get a special event permit. Mr. Ron Odekirk said they would be happy to do that, they just didn't want to get one every weekend under normal business operations . Mr. Diaz felt the definition of what a special event which required a special permit, that should be left up to the city. Therefore, when in doubt they would want to fall on the side of conservatism in that they wanted the applicant to come in. Maybe after a year or two of working this out, they could say that on this particular instance, they would not need to do that. In terms of special permits and to show how difficult it was to get, there were people coming in with one day' s notice and it is approved at the counter. When the Palm Desert High School group comes in to have a car wash, they approve it and they know it' s going to happen and if .rr there were any problems or potential problems, they can advise them and control it. That was what staff was asking for. Chairman Spiegel said that under normal circumstances on a given Saturday with the regular program with basketball and baseball and so on, if more than 200 people show up and just happen to come to see the game, would that be in opposition. Commissioner Cox said that it was not a special event. Commissioner Beaty felt the facility was designed to draw more than 200 people every weekend. Mr. Rick Odekirk said it was not every weekend, but every night. Every night because softball was not all they were playing: they were playing volleyball, basketball, batting cages and those in the restaurant. Commissioner Jonathan stated that was what their facility was designed for; he did not think a church for Sunday mornings required a special use permit because they were designed for that. McCallum Theater was another example of that because they were approved and designed for that use. What commission was saying was that they've approved the designed 10 "r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 �... use which was these tournaments which would draw anywhere from 100 to 200 to 300, whatever it was . A special event that they were referring to in condition 11 was the non tournament play, non corporate uses . Mr. Diaz asked for a clarification of that condition from the commission to make sure the right thing was done, because this was exactly the same condition that was there when it was placed on the Hovley site and this issue was not raised from that standpoint. Staff would implement what the commission wanted and whatever clarification was adopted here, staff would like it in the resolution, so that they would know that a special permit was being required for the right things . Commissioner Cox clarified that where they were saying that it was the exact same thing that was on Hovley, now they were pulling apart what special events meant. When she agreed on the condition before both times, she looked at it as a special event with more than 200 people, they need a permit to have that function. She agreed that this facility was built for a certain number of people and was grateful that they would have those kinds of people so that the city would receive the revenues, fees and tax dollars that they would get. She didn't think they needed to put chains around people to make them come in every week if they were being successful doing what they had planned to do. Mr. Diaz said that was fine, low but he needed a definition from the commission of a special event. Chairman Spiegel said he would read the condition and his interpretation of it, "Special events shall require a special permit to be issued by the director of community development. A special event shall be defined as a single event intended to draw more than 200 persons . " He said that there were three different fields, those were three events . Basketball was an event, etc. Mr. Rick Odekirk said that the only thing that didn't encompass that he wanted covered was a corporate picnic; if they wanted him to do that, that was fine, but he did want the corporate to go into that. What Chairman Spiegel was saying was right and he agreed that the total addition of all the games going on at once was right--they could single those out and he could live with it. If every time he held a corporate picnic if the commission wanted him to come in and get a permit, he would do whatever the commission told him to do. Chairman Spiegel suggested waiting to see how it worked out and do it that way if everyone interpreted single event that ""' 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 way he read it. Commissioner Whitlock said a corporate ..r picnic was a single event. Chairman Spiegel agreed and said that gave them 200 people for a corporate picnic and if there were going to be more, they would come in to get a permit. Mr. Rick Odekirk said that was fine. Chairman Spiegel noted that the only change would be on condition #28 which would be changed to say that, "No more than six video arcade games shall be permitted on site in the restaurant. " Commissioner Beaty indicated that in condition #27 he was not aware that the exterior of the facility was going to represent the major league parks, he thought it was just going to be the interior. He asked if that was true. Commission clarified that it was the inside of the outfield facades . Mr. Rick Odekirk said that for the commission' s information, they planned to do the inside and out. His last comment before the motion and vote was that although his advisor, Ron Odekirk, agreed that six games was permissible that was not what he thought they were doing at this time. He did not think he was being limited to how many games and despite all that was said, he agreed that it was never a condition that was placed on him--how many games he had. He was not interested in building an arcade or going into that business, but how many games he was limited to he did not think was fair. Commissioner Cox said that she would be happy if Mr. Odekirk would agree with six and if he wanted more at a later time, he could come in for another permit. Mr. Rick Odekirk said that was fine. Mr. Diaz noted that in most cities the definition of a video arcade was three games . Commissioner Cox suggested not even having the word arcade in the motion; just video games. Commission concurred. Chairman Spiegel read the condition, "No more than six video games shall be permitted on site in the restaurant. " Mr. Rick Odekirk apologized for bringing this up, but he wanted to know what he was supposed to do. 12 wo MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 Commissioner Cox asked if "corporate picnic" was going to be added to condition #11 . Chairman Spiegel said that if more than 200 people were going to it, it needed a permit. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting the findings as submitted by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1630, approving CUP 93-3 Section 4, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. B. Request for a determination of use to allow a coin operated car wash in the industrial zone at 74-894 42nd Avenue. Mr. Diaz indicated that at the last meeting the consensus was that there wasn't a problem with this particular use at this particular location. Staff could define uses for site specific locations and recommended that the resolution of interpretation would be one that would say that a particular coin operated car wash would be permitted in the industrial low zone when within 300 feet of other automotive uses that were not coin operated car washes . This would limit this use to this particular location and any other location where there were automotive uses, which he didn't anticipate happening in the industrial park, and staff would prepare that resolution of interpretation and have it at the next meeting. He said there weren' t other automotive uses within 300 feet of anything else out there. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the area on the east side of Cook Street near Harv's, which was zoned industrial . Mr. Diaz said that another car wash couldn' t go within 300 feet of Harv' s based on this interpretation. Chairman Spiegel asked if Mr. Diaz would bring a resolution back; Mr. Diaz said yes or that the resolution of interpretation would be that it be allowed in the industrial zone within 300 feet of other automotive uses that were not car washes . Chairman Spiegel stated that he did not have a problem with that and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Cox, by minute motion approving preparation of a resolution of 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 interpretation to allow coin operated car washes in the „W industrial zone when within 300 feet of other automotive uses that were not car washes . Carried 5-0 . VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. GPA 93-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for recommendation of approval to city council for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and an amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements . Mr. Diaz noted that the commission had the staff reports in addition to the EDAC subcommittee report to the council regarding certain critical sites as far as the land use element was concerned. There was also a memo to planning commission from the city' s public works department relating to the circulation element, specifically on Monterey Avenue. He suggested that they deal with the circulation element first, take public testimony, and then continue the entire matter because of the issue of Fred Waring Drive. He explained that in the circulation element the maps showed new elements and changes . Some of the principal changes were that the old Kansas alignment which was a road to be the Highway 111 Bypass to go adjacent to the freeway--that would be deleted. Also there were additional streets added and were part of the additions made to the north sphere specific plan in an attempt to get folks traveling east/west, or northwest and southeast, and encourage them to get off the freeway and make it easier to circulate within that north sphere area. That would include some extension of Frank Sinatra, and so on. Regarding the Fred Waring Drive issue, on the current general plan it was identified as a four lane street through the city. There was some division on staff with that designation. He recommended that it be maintained as four lanes, specifically from Highway 111 to Cook Street, however, there was a great deal of discussion going on and there was a meeting that day with the cities of Indian Wells, La Quinta and Indio concerning what their ultimate plans were for Fred Waring and whether it should be four lanes or six lanes . They would be reporting to city council at their first meeting in October on that. While they were the recommending body to the council with regards to the entire general plan and the particular issues involved with Fred 14 .�r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 Waring Drive, the general plan did not designate a specific date when something should be done. For example, Country Club Drive as an eight lane through-way with overpasses and underpasses within the next five or ten years; however, as they have learned on Fred Waring Drive, folks who live along that street want a certain degree of certainty as to what would happen and when it would happen. It was easy as a planner to tell them not to worry, it might not happen in their lifetime. But when you are living along that street you want it narrowed down and specifically with Fred Waring Drive and the discussions going on, staff wanted to wait and bring back to the commission the position of the council on that, which might be that they would make it six lanes, or designate it four lanes with a commitment to not widen it to six lanes for a specified number of years to let people know what they can count on in the future. He said there were some minor changes to the circulation text, in addition to continuing to work on the bikeway plan, which would ultimately be part of this . Some of the changes included page 28 the last sentence, "a minimum two foot (should be five foot) wide graded area shall be provided adjacent to pavement. " On page 29 under Class II, the Class II minimum bikelane width was four feet and should be addressed as minimum, rather than absolute and five feet. Those were minimums and if the city could get more, they would. Under Class III, it should be noted that streets that have a parking lane designed on them but no one parks on them because there was virtually no access to them (i .e. on the south side of Mesa View, where the homes back onto Mesa View) there was a parking lane planned for there, but no one would park there except in an emergency situation, and a Class III or Class II bikelane could be there. Commissioner Whitlock noted that was a golf cart lane. Mr. Diaz concurred. He stated that from the standpoint of the circulation element the commission might want to continue that issue. Chairman Spiegel noted that the plan was to have two major thoroughfares that interchanged with Interstate 10, Monterey and Cook Street. Mr. Diaz concurred. Chairman Spiegel asked if there was a plan for Portola Avenue to cross I-10 . Mr. Diaz said that if this plan was approved, the crossing of Interstate 10 would be a separate issue that would have to be approved by Caltrans . By having Portola designated to go up to Interstate 10 it left that option open to the city. He did not feel the city would pay for it, but if they were to cut Portola off at Gerald Ford, then they could not require dedication and improvement of Portola up to Interstate 10 . ""w 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 He said it was part of the plan, but over the freeway would air require approval from Caltrans and a separate discussion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that Mr. Smith did an excellent job on the circulation element, but had a question on exhibit 3, which was the circulation element bikeway network. He asked if that was something that was provided elsewhere. Mr. Diaz said there was a map, which was not included, but basically north of Country Club the plan called for all major streets to have both Class II (painted bikelanes on the street) as well as Class I (separate bikelanes) . He said they could accomplish that and as part of the north sphere plan the city was requiring 50 feet from curb for landscaping and right of way. South of Country Club from Country Club to Fred Waring Drive the city was attempting to have painted bikelanes on every major north/south street. Monterey could not be accomplished on the west side; the city tried to get grants for that but the City of Rancho Mirage did not want a painted bikelane on their side. On Portola, where there was not a need for parking along the street and where the city could get it, a bikelane would be placed; where they couldn' t, it would still be a bike route. On Cook Street, they would have a designated bike lane; what staff would rather have on and around Cook Street north and south was a separate Class I bikeway on the CVWD property or possibly air utilize the street that was going to be north/south on the westerly boundary of the Sunterra project. He felt that Cook Street was too busy to encourage folks to have a separate bikelane. One problem when painting a bikelane was that folks felt that white line meant they were safe there and sometimes it was better to not have that false sense of security. As far as east-west, Hovley was looked at as being the major east-west Class II painted bikelane because there were very few in the city right now. Between Washington and Pennsylvania, there were some homes that front on Hovley that may be a problem in having a painted bikelane, but there was not that much traffic on Hovley. Once west of Eldorado, there were virtually no homes that had parking on Hovley all the way to Portola; from Portola north they could be brought to Monterey. Commissioner Jonathan felt there would be a challenge between Cook and Portola on Hovley because there was barely enough room for the two lanes on each side. Mr. Diaz said there was no demand for parking there which gave the city an advantage, so they might be able to have a painted bikelane there. As they go further south, there was an existing bikelane east and west along the Whitewater Channel . The bikeway committee, in terms of long range and possible "dream" type planning would like a regional bikeway 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 going through the Monterey Country Club. He realized there was a problem there with golfers, but right now they were using Magnesia Falls and Parkview. There were existing bikeway connections from Monterey to Cook Street. The one problem area was Portola because of the view problem of cars coming out there. Heading south of Highway 111, they were trying to keep the bicyclists having the most direct route possible but separating them from traffic, for example using Shadow Mountain rather than E1 Paseo. On Mesa View and Haystack there was not a problem as far as east-west was concerned. On Highway 74 and Portola there was the Living Desert Bikeway connecting Portola to Haystack. He said the plan attempted to accommodate both the professional cyclist (Class II lanes) and the cyclists that want to relax and enjoy the bike ride, the Class III lanes . Chairman Spiegel asked how this interfaced with the golf carts . Mr. Diaz said that one problem staff had internally was when the legislation to allow the golf cart study program was passed, there was a great deal of potential opposition from bicycling groups . Their fear was that the golf cart program could impinge on state grants and other bicycle programs . The city assured them that it would not and so far there had not been a conflict. There might be a situation .+,,. where there might be golf cart lanes, not bicycle lanes because the criteria although similar, was not identical . They were trying to achieve that but one of the biggest problems right now was those lanes marked for both golf carts and bicyclists . To date there had not been a conflict. If the golf cart program was successful, and right now it was just a study program to allow the city after monitoring to have the state permit golf carts similar to bicyclists, but in terms of what was promised to bicycling associations to allow the program, staff wanted to insure there wouldn't be a conflict and that they did not use bicycle lane money to create golf cart lanes . They were making sure that was separated. Commissioner Cox asked if there was a golf cart lane map available. Mr. Diaz replied yes . Chairman Spiegel asked if it would be appropriate for the commission to act on the general plan elements with the exception of Fred Waring. Mr. Diaz felt it should be continued because it could impact the commission' s decision as to what they might want to recommend. One big issue and one reason that Fred Waring had to potentially accommodate more traffic was that other cities had designated Highway 111 to be four lanes, rather than six. -" 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 Those were issues that would be brought up to council that wo could impact them. Mr. Diaz stated that as far as the land use element was concerned, the section 4 area bounded by Frank Sinatra, Country Club, Cook Street and Portola was designated as Planned Community Development which included the conditional use permit area for the complex approved earlier in the meeting. In terms of the ultimate area within section 4 that would come under PCD, it would not go outside of that section. However, there could be areas within section 4 that were designated other than planned community development that would be included in the community development. What the city was attempting to do was take as much of section 4 as possible to make it community development zoned so when staff came to planning commission with the plan for section 4 and that zone change, their recommendation would be that it is consistent with the general plan if they have to dip into that rectangular area that was not designated as part of the PCD. The area on the northwest corner of Cook and Frank Sinatra, staff would like that area designated for a Cal State Campus if there is one in Palm Desert. The city acquired that section and staff recommended that it be placed on the general plan designated P, public designation or study designation. The reason he was hesitant was as part of the proposal to the Cal State system which had gone out, the city indicated that we realize the entire area won't be developed immediately. What they would need first was 40 acres, so approximately 160 would be left and the issue was what should the city do with the 160 acres . As part of the proposal, they would do a plan to indicate how rapidly they would need the additional acreage and how they would develop it. The city would want some ability to use the remaining land while still in the city' s ownership to utilize some kind of revenue producing to help offset some of the costs the city was facing. The P zone would allow the facility. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he thought that was deleted from the final proposal that went to Cal State. Mr. Diaz replied no, what was deleted from the final proposal was that the city would hold 30-40 acres forever. By designating the zone P, or Public, the city could accomplish that and still be consistent with the plan, or study zone. If for some reason Cal State were to reject the offer, then the city would come back with a specific study for that land. Staff was recommending that kind of dual designation on that site. Another reason for recommending another continuance was so that staff could come back to the commission with the proper 18 �rrr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 .,.� wording and designation on the map. Also, the land designated residential study zone that was exchanged with the property owner to develop should be altered to be consistent with the ( from future extension of Cook Street to Portola) other area which was north and west which was both a dual designation of industrial and potential residential . The reason for the dual designation was to assure that the city could not be in an inverse posture. When the city developed the north sphere plan there was more potential industrial there than the city would ever be able to absorb within the future. However, there was a problem north of that in terms of consistency with the noise element of the general plan in that unless there are specific noise mitigation measures they could not allow that area to be developed residentially and be consistent with that element. By having the dual designation staff felt the city was being protected and would protect the ultimate decisions on land use as potential uses become available. Realistically, he felt it would be a while before anything happened north of that area, but the property owners would have the option and what the city would be telling them if they wanted to develop residential there, they could do so but they would have to have some very specific noise mitigation measures to protect them from the noise from the freeway as well as the railroad. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the 200 acres for the Cal State use and if that extended to the freeway or to the noise barrier line. Mr. Diaz replied roughly to the noise barrier. Chairman Spiegel asked if staff wanted everything continued to the next meeting. Mr. Diaz replied yes . Mr. Diaz said that if the commission had an opportunity to read the EDAC subcommittee report, staff recommended that the commission instruct staff to include those recommendations in that report and revise the map accordingly. Chairman Spiegel noted that one of the items in that report was a consensus that the city should study the desirability of expanding the city' s sphere of influence north of the I-10 freeway. Mr. Diaz said that staff would not have a problem studying it, but might have a problem recommending that the city do it. Chairman Spiegel noted that if the city didn't do it, the city would become land locked with nowhere to go. Commissioner Jonathan asked if, as on the EDAC memo, they wanted the commission to give thumbs up or down on their recommendations . He asked if they should go through them one by one and what they expected. He noted they initially wanted this to go directly to city council . Mr. Diaz said """ 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 that he didn't believe the report got to the council, but MW rather than continue this indefinitely and, two members of the commission sat on the subcommittee, felt that it should be brought forward and at this point see what the commission's thoughts were. In looking at the parcels, these parcels had some degree of sensitivity as far as the city was concerned, either currently or in the past, and there were some other studies that would have to come back to the commission. Commissioner Whitlock informed commission that each parcel was studied in depth with the committee. Commissioner Jonathan asked what they wanted from the commission. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she wasn't aware that it was even going to come to the commission since they didn't have that option; she thought it would go directly to council. She felt that Mr. Diaz was trying to apprise the commission on how this tied in with the overall general plan. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it looked like Councilman Wilson requested that it come to the commission. He had no problem with just passing it along and would rather do that. Mr. Diaz said that if there were some comments the commission had on any of the recommendations staff would like them. Chairman Spiegel indicated that staff was recommending a continuance to the next meeting and at that point staff would woo have a more definitive idea as to Fred Waring from a circulation standpoint and also on the potential college. Mr. Diaz stated that Fred Waring as far as the circulation element and other issues facing them was probably going to be the most critical issue. Not only from the sensitivity standpoint, but also cost. He noted that a meeting was being held the next day in the city manager' s office to list possible city projects and the money available to accomplish them and like most cities, the city had more desires than funds . Ultimately those recommendations would go forward and would impact the general plan. As indicated earlier, it was easy for him as a planner to say there were no definitive dates, but when someone had to live on Fred Waring or in a certain area with that uncertainty, the city had an obligation to let them know. Chairman Spiegel clarified that staff would come back and what he was asking was that commission look at the EDAC land use subcommittee results and if the commission had any problems with those the commission should bring them up at that point. Mr. Diaz stated that he would also bring the commission up to date on the negotiations that had taken place on the properties and current developments . He said 20 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 ,., there had been a lot of people ready to develop except for the financing. Commissioner Whitlock asked about the next agenda and if the commission would be full . Mr. Diaz replied no. Chairman Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairman Spiegel asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing GPA 93-3 to October 19, 1993 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. X. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Cox said that she did not hear it personally, but was told by two different people that there was a report out on the radio that per capita Palm Desert had more crime than the city of Los Angeles . She asked that some input be provided from the Sheriff ' s department to talk to them and let them know what their dollars were going toward and what type of crime Palm Desert had in the city. She said that a couple of months ago someone told them that there was no gang activity here and she wanted to find out what types of crime Palm Desert had and what the city was planning to do about it. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would check into that and report back. 2 . Commissioner Cox said that they have a lot of feelings about where they would like to see their city go and knew that the city council felt the same way and was concerned about what was happening in the city and where the tax dollars should be spent. She felt it would be nice for the council and planning commission to get together and have a brainstorming session to understand where everyone was coming from and talk about what everyone would like to see in the next few years and the kind of things they would like accomplished. She thought it would good to have that two-way conversation mow 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 once in a while. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they rl used to invite the commission out to lunch once a year. Mr. Diaz said that if the commission wished, staff could arrange a meeting. Commissioner Whitlock noted that it wasn't long ago that there was going to be a meeting with the planning commissioners from Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage to try and discuss various developments on Palm Desert's borders and open up a line of communication and that had "slipped through the cracks" too. Mr. Diaz concurred. 3 . Chairman Spiegel stated that he read somewhere that Rancho Mirage was not interested in putting a bridge over Monterey at the wash. Mr. Diaz said that was correct. Chairman Spiegel asked if a bridge did go over at the wash, if it would be a 50-50 deal or if the state would be involved. Mr. Diaz stated that the city council at the last meeting read the letter from Rancho Mirage. If the bridge went up, the issue was raised that what if other sources of funding were available; the council indicated that if other sources of funding were available, Palm Desert might wish to spend it elsewhere if the City of Rancho Mirage did not feel it was to the benefit of their citizens to have a bridge over Monterey. He felt this was going to be an ongoing r,.r condition and would be one of the issues discussed. He stated that staff had an obligation to indicate that Palm Desert doesn't have the money to do everything it wants to do. An example was that for the city to do the project on Fred Waring Drive, the project cost was estimated to be $9 . 6 million and $4 . 2 million for right of way acquisition. The CVAG study had an estimate of $198,000 for land acquisition, so they weren't even in the same state, let alone the same ballpark. These were things that had to go to council and come back. Back in 1980 the first bridge that was going to be put in was at Portola, because it was in the center of the city at that time. It wasn't because overtures were made to the city that half and half would be done. Something may have to be done on Monterey and that would be cost benefit decisions . He said that one problem with the bridge was the same with the bikeway program and that was that the west half of the street was in Rancho Mirage and the city had to get permission to build it. 22 "'i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 1993 XI . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Cox, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 :24 p.m. .' • 6�•T .,99 RAM ON A. DIAZ, Mcpdyary ATTEST: ROBERT A. SPIEG an Palm Desert P1 n ir�g ommission /tm ""' 23