Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0517 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 17, 1994 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE ` * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ,r * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Spiegel called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Whitlock led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Bob Spiegel, Chairperson Paul Beaty Carol Whitlock Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan Staff Present: Ray Diaz Joe Gaugush Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Steve Smith IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: �► Consideration of the May 3, 1994 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Chairperson Spiegel, approving the May 3, 1994 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 2-0-1 (Commissioner Beaty abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent May 12, 1994 city council action. VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. 4285 SA - FIRST BANK OF PALM DESERT, Applicant �, Request for approval of an exception to the city' s sign code (Section 25 . 68 . 300) MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 to allow the relocation of .r identification signs above the 20 foot height limit at 73-000 Highway 111 in the C-1 S.P. zone. Mr. Diaz stated that this item was before the commission because the sign ordinance required planning commission approval or denial to the architectural commission' s recommendations . The architectural commission looked at the request for the modification on the height limit and recommended that commission approve it. Staff concurred. Chairperson Spiegel noted that there were two abstentions on the architectural commission vote and asked why two members abstained out of five. Mr. Smith explained that one of the abstentions would have been Mr. Holden who was the representative of the applicant. He did not know who the other abstaining party was . Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICK HOLDEN, a Palm Desert resident, stated that the other abstention on the committee was Wayne Conner, the landscape architect for the bank. Mr. Holden explained .r that when they originally designed the bank, they had the sign on the upper facia. Most of the work they did was custom residential . It was always the bank' s intention that the sign would be located there before they found out it was above the height limit. He indicated that when the sign ordinance was amended, height limit was something there was no rhyme or reason for, an arbitrary height was just decided on. The bank asked him to present this request mainly the trees were growing up in the parking lot and in front at a height where they were beginning to cover the low sign on the low band. They had the option of further trimming the trees or allowing them to grow and moving the sign up. They were also looking at the fact that there has been several other signs approved above the height limit including the Palomino restaurant. In the bank' s situation, when going by on Highway 111, the bank sits about three feet below the street grade. The signs were bronze in color and when lit up a ligh� white at night. They did not really glow. He did not feel the sign would be detrimental in any way. 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 �► Chairperson Spiegel stated that he drove by there and while he had no objection to the height request, he felt it would be more visible where it currently was then where it was proposed to go. Mr. Holden felt that the bank was specifically looking at the sign on the side facing Highway 111 approaching from the east. The further away the more directly visible it was down the frontage road. Also, the ones on the opposite side on the corner--right now there was a street sign and a bunch of other things happening there. Going by in a car right up at the bank it was a lot easier to see at a lower level, but when farther away it read better higher. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal; there was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0 . """ Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1645, approving 4285 SA. Carried 3-0 . Mr. Diaz stated for the record that the arbitrary height limit that Architectural Commissioner Holden spoke about was established prior to November 17, 1980 . B. Case Nos . GPA 93-4, C/Z 93-4, PP 93-6 and TT 27882, - ROBERT L. MAYER TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map for a 143 unit single family subdivision on 31 acres and a general plan amendment and change of zone from medium density residential (PR-7) to PC- 2 (district commercial) on 9 . 1 acres with a precise plan of design allowing for up to 89, 970 square feet of neighborhood shopping center at the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. ..�. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 Mr. Smith reviewed the history of the property and previous � proposals, described the proposed project highlighting main issues from the staff report. He indicated that the applicant was before the architectural review commission a week ago and that body reviewed the proposed architecture. They had some concern with the architecture as presented. The concerns involved the height of the structures and the overall "massiveness" . The buildings shown to them were 18 feet high and they were mostly gable-roofed structures . The architectural commission continued the matter to see if the proposed lot sizes proposed were approved by planning commission. Mr. Smith noted that Lots 1 through 16 on the tentative map backed onto the proposed neighborhood commercial to the south. Staff had some concerns that the delivery driveway across the north side of the commercial development might impact on those lots . Staff was requesting as a condition of approval that a noise analysis be conducted there, as well as for the lots that backed onto Monterey Avenue, Lots 16 through 25 . That was due to the traffic volume on Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith noted there was written correspondence from 25 residents in the area generally indicating support of the project. One of those letters and a verbal conference with Mr. Befeld, the property owner of the Suncrest Country Club, indicated there might be a problem with stray golf balls from the driving range located to the � east of this property, as well as stray balls from hole number 2 on the Suncrest course. Staff discussed this with the city attorney and came up with condition #13 that was included with the staff report as an addendum that identified this problem. Mr. Smith noted that staff was prepared to recommend approval of the applications but because there was no architectural commission endorsement for the architecture he was suggesting the matter be held until architectural commission action. Mr. Smith indicated that the planning commission was being asked to recommend to city council approval to create a nine acre parcel on the corner and then change the general plan from residential medium density to neighborhood commercial and to change the zone from PR-7 to PC-2 and approve a precise plan of design on the 9 . 1 acre property for an 89 ,970 square foot neighborhood commercial center, as well as approve tentative map 27882 creating 143 single family lots ranging in size from 5, 000 to 8,000 square feet and approve lot number 144 which was the 9 . 1 acre parcel on the corner, but direct staff to not forward the matter to city council until the architectural commission has had an opportunity to review and comment on the commercial and residential architecture. If it was the commission' s desire to see that architecture before it went council, then the � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 ` whole item should be continued. If commission wanted to leave it in the hands of architectural review, then the commission could act on the matter tonight and staff would forward it to council after architectural review commented on the project. Commissioner Whitlock asked Mr. Smith to review the number of pads and planned tenants . Mr. Smith said there were a total of six pads; two on the north side adjacent to Monterey, two on the corner and two on the east side of the property. He stated there was an area described as area 8 right at the corner of the main street from Country Club--that area 8 would be a proposed art park. He indicated that to the east of the main access driveway there was a park area, lot B, that showed tennis courts and a retention basin for drainage purposes . Commissioner Whitlock asked if there were only two retail shops planned on either side of the major tenant plus the additional six pads; Mr. Smith stated that the retail shop to the west at 10,000 square feet would likely be divided into a multi-tenant situation, but could conceivably be taken by one. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the number of 5, 000 and 8,000 square foot lots were broken down; did we know how many 5,000 versus 8,000 square foot lots there were planned in the 143 unit development. Mr. Smith replied that '•"' he did not have a breakdown but felt the engineer might. Chairperson Spiegel asked for and received clarification on the proposed access and traffic signal locations . Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TIM BARTLETT, representing the applicant and a resident of Palm Desert, stated that he would be introducing the group assembled to develop the project, give a general overview of the development, and then turn over to each individual to describe their portion of the development. As stated by staff, there were two main issues : the residential component and the commercial component. Mr. Bartlett said that when they addressed the site from the very beginning, they recognized certain peculiar characteristics--the property was surrounded by Suncrest Country Club with approximately 360 mobile estates, and Palm Desert Greens with approximately 2000 mobile estates . On the opposite corner in the city there was a nine and a half acre Lucky' s shopping center of about 95,000 square feet and the balance of the 40 acres was the single family ... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 residential Sagewood development. He stated that when .,�► the city incorporated this property, the property was zoned PR-7 and Monterey Avenue dead-ended at Country Club Drive. During the course of traffic and growth the population in the last ten years had doubled in the valley and was expected to do the same in the next nine years, so the commission was faced with the task of determining which projects made sense in the community, which projects were compatible with surrounding developments, and what projects brought value to the community and which projects the community liked. The city asked them to contact the surrounding homeowners . Essentially the project was a 40 acre development surrounded by higher density development. The PR-7 zoning would allow seven units to the acre. They took out a commercial section on the corner because they felt a residential use on this high traffic corner was not appropriate. He heard comments about the last proposed project that Country Club Drive was residential in nature; he felt that if Country Club was followed from Highway 111 to Washington Street, every major intersection had at least two, and most four, commercial corners . They planned to take a commercial piece out of the corner, which was actually shorter in length than the Lucky center. They tried to compact the commercial � and still make it a viable project. The commercial corner itself was a smaller site than the Lucky's center with about 20� more parking. He said they down-zoned the residential project. They were allowed on 30 acres 210 units and they were proposing 143, which was a slightly higher density than Sagewood, but was much more compatible to the surrounding density of Suncrest and Palm Desert Greens . In general, what they were creating was a community that served the needs of surrounding homeowners . He described the elevations along Country Club and Monterey--starting from the eastern end there was a CVWD well site which they considered relocating, a two and a half acre green belt, two tennis courts and a large open park area. On the commercial side would be a sculpture gallery that would actually be a retail gallery similar to the civic center site, but the sculptures would change on a regular basis . They would be working with the College of the Desert to come up with a central focus point and Mr. Bartlett showed the commission a bronze statue of children chasing birds . The sculpture gallery would be behind the pads . He felt a restaurant type use with an outdoor patio overlooking a sculpture garden would be good. Separating the 6 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 � residential portion would be stamped concrete. The green belt would be covered by berming and excessive landscaping. The pads at this location would have a water feature similar to the Ritz Carlton's cascading waterfall, which went along with the name of their development "Country Club Falls" . How that would evolve right now was undecided. They would be installing medians, traffic signals, and assisting traffic flow on Monterey and Country Club. One issue mentioned was no left-hand turns onto Monterey. In conjunction with working with the surrounding owners and the neighboring city, one of the comments was they did not want to add more signals on Monterey. He noted that Monterey was one of the major arterials in the desert. One thing that had come up in conversation with the city was how the surrounding homeowners felt about this project. He said he personally walked Sagewood, which has about 100 homes, and met with 53 homeowners personally and talked an additional 6 . Out of the approximately 60 people he talked to, there were three negative comments; one from a property owner along Monterey and one who lives directly behind Kenny Rogers . Sagewood liked the choice of a different market and the single family residential use. He said of the 60, four did not have an interest "�' either way and the balance liked the project. About 80$ liked the project as presented, 20� had issues which were overcome by the design, but they had concerns about the traffic flow. He explained that traffic levels right now were at a D and F level at this intersection, which meant about a 45 second wait; with their improvements it would be lowered to a C level, which was a 15 second wait. He stated that included in the commercial center would be Albertson' s, which was the strongest market chain with stores from Florida to San Francisco. Mr. David Paynter was present to discuss the commercial portion of the project and was involved in the development of over 40 shopping centers of this type. For the residential development, Mr. Steven Sandberg was the developer. He felt they put together a team of professionals that understood the marketplace and introduced Mr. Paynter. MR. DAVE PAYNTER, Paynter/Willsey Properties, stated that his company dealt in retail/commercial uses only. He concurred with Mr. Smith' s comments about errant golf balls and had played Suncrest ' s course. He said it was kind of the nature of living on a fairway, although it was a nice place to play there. Mr. Paynter stated that � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 ; '> he had carefully reviewed the staff report and as w�i mentioned, they had already made many of the changes that were suggested in the staff report in terms of setbacks, circulation and other items and had no problem with those stipulations . In regard to the architectural review committee, they recognized the need to go before the commission and would be happy to do so prior to the council meeting. It was their intention to come up with an architectural style that would be compatible with the desert community. He said they recognized the recommendation of staff to have an acoustical study done to address noise and they were supportive of that and were willing to abide by any mitigation measures that could be required by the acoustical study, whether it be heavier landscaping or screen walls . He noted that this was always an issue when there were adjoining properties of a different nature. The staff report talked about glare and light and suggested that the wall pack lights not be on the back of the buildings, but on the rear wall of the property to face away from the residential use. This was acceptable to them. There was a traffic signal planned off of Country Club; this signal location would line up with the entrance to the Lucky shopping center. He noted that the Lucky' s center had its own � problems with ingress and egress and even though they � would be bearing 100� of the cost of the signal, it would benefit traffic circulation in the area, not just for the proposed project. The streets would be widened to handle additional traffic. This would enhance traffic movement in the area significantly compared to what it was now. The proposed Wal-Mart project would have had a tremendous traffic impact to the intersection. That project was of a regional or community type designed to draw customers from outlying areas of the community. The proposal was for a neighborhood project that would be shopped by the neighborhood and those living in the area. It should not add more traffic to the intersection than what would already be there anyway. The zoning they were asking for was not speculative. They had a commitment from Albertson' s Grocery Company to locate a store at this location and they had completed their studies and analyses to determine the need and demand for an additional grocery store and they felt it was more than justified. It was not just a zoning to enhance value, but was borne out by a commitment of a grocery company. He noted that Scott Thayer was present to speak to the commission on behalf Albertson' s to answer any 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 � questions . He said that he had touched bases with some of the Suncrest residents and there had been good neighborhood support. The scope of the project was much different than previously submitted and seemed to generate a favorable response from people they talked with. Chairperson Spiegel said that when exiting the shopping center on Country Club, there was a right turn only. Mr. Paynter said that on Country Club there would be a signal that would also serve as the entrance to the subdivision and they would use the same entrance. Chairperson Spiegel asked if coming out in the middle, there would only be a right turn possible; Mr. Paynter said that was correct. Exiting on Monterey, the only way to turn was right unless you went to the signal to turn left or make a U-turn. Mr. Paynter noted that a retailer would like to have every opening be a full movement in all directions, but they studied this carefully and it did work. Chairperson Spiegel expressed concern about the limited access from the residential portion in the event of an earthquake/disaster. Mr. Paynter indicated that the residential developer could address that issue. MR. SCOTT THAYER, real estate manager for Albertson's, ""°' stated that they have two stores in the valley and were excited about this project. They had 680 stores nationwide. He said they would try to address any concerns of commission or homeowners . MR. VINCE BARBATO, with Developer Sales Network, stated that he would address the residential part of the development. He had been hired by Sandberg & Partners to sell and market the development. When asked to define the best use he was faced with the challenge of finding out what type of development would be compatible with the surrounding area. Their goal was to develop a community that would be consistent with the various surrounding developments . Suncrest Country Club surrounded the bulk of the development and was a collection of mobile homes with 4,000 square foot lot sizes . Across Monterey was vacant land in Rancho Mirage, and across Monterey was the Lucky' s center. He felt an apartment complex or condominium complex would not be welcomed nor would it be feasible from a marketing standpoint for various locational and economic reasons. The normal minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet was also not compatible with the 4 ,000 square foot mobile home park and the unknown commercial area. The ... 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 proposal called for 5,000 square foot lots, or 55 feet ..n► in width by 95 feet in depth which averaged out a little bigger than 5,000 square feet. As mentioned by staff, there would be some larger lots . The larger lots were primarily in the pie shaped areas . He felt this was the best use of the development because it would be compatible with the area, would provide an economically sound development, and would provide a good "marketing niche" . He felt that with the lot size there was a lot of use that their potential buyers would have. He noted there was an engineer' s rendering distributed to commission that showed the potential for the lots in that they would provide the potential home buyer with enough space for a patio, swimming pool/jacuzzi, grass area, or play area. The primary market appeal would be to the mature buyer who did not want a lot of yard work and one reason this tied into the best use was because he felt there was a strong demand in that particular market. He also felt that would provide a community that was compatible with Suncrest Country Club in that it was an age restricted community. He stated that the design of the homes made good use of the lot sizes and provided a lot of drama, an attractive street scene and livability. He felt that the residential community would be a strong asset to the city and because of its �+ compatibility with the surrounding area, it should be a strong success . Chairperson Spiegel noted that Mr. Barbato said initially that a condominium project would not be welcomed and asked for clarification. Mr. Barbato stated that when they looked at a condominium project, the site size being approximately 40 acres didn' t provide them with what they felt was enough room to build a condominium complex that would be successful in regards to competing with various communities without a golf course. It wasn' t large enough for a golf course and tennis clubs had not been big winners lately. From a neighborhood standpoint and other developments they have had negative responses from neighbors in terms of condominiums because they felt it would effect their property values . From a locational standpoint he felt that a condominium or apartment complex did not take full advantage of the locational assets of this site. Commissioner Whitlock asked how many of the 143 lots would be 5,000 square feet versus 8,000 square feet. Mr. Barbato said he did not have a tabulation. It was something they could provide and in looking at the map he could not tell the � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 � commission the exact Iot sizes, but noted that the larger lots were the lots that were pie shaped in the corners . Commissioner Whitlock noted those were fewer in number and asked if a majority of the lots would be 5, 000 square feet. Mr. Barbato replied that the majority of the lots would be smaller than 8,000 square feet, although without knowing the tabulation, it might not be correct to say the majority would be 5, 000 square feet. Commissioner Whitlock asked for an approximate dollar amount for the cost of the homes; Mr. Barbato said they had not determined the exact dollar amount and they probably wouldn't determine that until the day before they opened, but they anticipated their buyer profile to be the mature buyer who was seeking a home outside of a planned community. There were several concerns they had with planned communities--the association fees, because many were on fixed incomes and didn't want a fee that could go up on them. He said this would probably lend itself to a development that would be of a year round residential community in that the second home buyers tended to buy in country clubs where they could go on the weekends and have fun and go back home to their principle residences . Sun City had spent millions of dollars in establishing the Coachella Valley as a retirement destination. He found through marketing other developments that there were a lot of people ``"' that fit their demographics from an age standpoint but that didn't want to be "herded" into that type of community. They did not wish to have that type of lifestyle, yet they were attracted to the desert for all its value. The locational assets of this project would lend itself to this buyer profile and they were within a few blocks of Eisenhower and they would greatly benefit from the commercial center right on the corner. He found they liked to be within walking distance of stores, restaurants, entertainment and did not want to jump in their cars to drive far distances to go places . It came down to not only an exciting project from the standpoint that it is compatible with the surrounding area, but also that they felt it would be a big winner. Commissioner Whitlock did not feel that answered her question and asked how much these homes would approximately cost once they were built. Mr. Barbato said they envisioned a price range in the mid $150,000 to the low $200,000 level . MR. BARTLETT readdressed the commission`�said that it was important to understand that it was a compatibility issue and they were taking a PR-7 higher density zoned property and cutting that density down on the residential portion and putting in a smaller commercial �... 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 site that was essentially a neighborhood commercial use, ri not a destination type commercial complex. They were increasing the traffic benefits, increasing open space areas, as well as adding the sculpture garden and water features . They were creating a project that would provide revenue for schools and parks and with a 65$ senior market they would not be taxing the schools and parks as much as a single family development geared toward young families would. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. PETE GENOVESE, a resident of Palm Desert Greens, stated that he came to the meeting to discuss item C but he felt this project would be a traffic problem and in item C they were asking for 363 units . He said there were plenty of apartments on Country Club now and there would be five stop lights between Monterey and Portola. In the wintertime when they had 4,000 people in Palm Desert Greens, they were lined up to get through Monterey. He was not objecting to the project, but questioned how the traffic could be handled. If there was a traffic signal that abutted the Lucky entrance, ` people coming from Monterey/Country Club would have to �' come to Country Club, make a left turn, make a right turn at the light to go into the property, then go through the residential area to get to the commercial area and then double back the same way. The other 360 people from the new project across from Palm Desert Greens would do the same thing. Traffic would be tremendous . He stated that he was not for or against this project, but wanted the commission to be aware that when Palm Desert Greens had 4,000 people in the winter time, plus all the rest of the traffic going to the Marriott and other places, there would be nothing but trouble in traffic and five stop lights between Portola and Monterey. MS . ANN GOLDMAN, a resident of Sagewood, stated that she was opposed to the development because of the commercial aspect of the proposal . When she moved into Sagewood three years ago the realtor she bought from said that the lot across the street from her was zoned residential and she would like to see it stay residential . She was not opposed to the proposed houses, but she did not think they needed another grocery store. They had Lucky' s and if people did not want to get in their cars rf 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 � and drive, they wouldn't have to drive to Lucky' s . One gentleman said that it would not increase the traffic flow; she totally disagreed. She said that you couldn' t tell her that 143 homes with maybe one or two cars and Albertson' s and other stores wouldn't increase traffic. Monterey was her back yard and her house lined up to Monterey. In three years she had noticed traffic increase tenfold and the people moving here from her perspective were young families with children. Homes for younger families were needed. New schools were being built and they were overcrowded, so she asked that planning commission be aware that as a homeowner, she was opposed to this project and said that others in Sagewood might be opposed as well . MR. GERHARD BEFELD stated that he would only speak to the residential aspect of the project. He said that single story with less density was all he could reasonably ask for, but there were a couple of concerns he had. One was to what extent could they insure that the residential would be built if the commercial was approved. He wanted to make sure this wasn't just a ploy to come back later and ask for more commercial . As mentioned by Mr. Smith, the golf course being right next ""' to the residential was going to be a potential problem and liability to the city, the development and for him. He was not trying to push all of the load onto the developer because it was his golf course and it had some problems that included the driving range, which was only 230 yards long and the average range was 300 . He was only bringing this up so that these issues would be addressed and he did not have liability later because the golf balls would break the tile on the roofs and cause potential injury. One specific thing he wanted to bring up was that the developer was proposing using some wrought iron instead of a block wall and he did not think that was a good idea. With golf shots, the lower the golf balls were, the faster they were moving. That would be one level of protection and then they might end up with some form of netting which they would try and do as aesthetically as possible. One last issue was that they would go to three lanes in front of this project on Country Club, and Country Club in front of Suncrest Country Club was two lanes . He questioned the transition between the two and three lanes and where the transition took place since he owned the vacant piece of property next to this, which could have a potential impact on him. �... 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 Mr. Gaugush replied that as it was currently proposed, � transition would occur as part of this project, not in front of the vacant property. Mr. Befeld asked if the model with the loft was going to be built. All applicant indicated that the unit with the loft was removed. Mr. Diaz noted that in terms of liability regarding stray golf balls, the responsibility was the developer of the golf course and driving range, not the owner of the vacant land. MR. SANFORD SKLAR, a resident of Suncrest Country Club, stated that he had three points he wanted to make. First, he believed that Country Club should remain zoned residential except where the city' s master plan had commercial development zoned. Secondly, he felt the traffic impact of the notorious corner would be a lot less if the whole corner was developed residential, rather than the residential/commercial split as proposed. Third, what assurance or safeguard would there be if the residential development did not go as i planned. Could the developers come in and request � further extension of the commercial aspect. Chairman Spiegel noted if the project were approved, and later if the developer wanted an expansion of the commercial into the residential area or visa versa, the request would have to come before the planning commission to be heard. They couldn't just go ahead. MR. SKLAR said he realized that, but what he was saying was that maybe there would be another group of commissioners . Mr. Diaz said that he was sure the current property owner would be willing to sign an agreement with Mr. Befeld that the area so designated as residential here would continue to remain residential as long as the property that he owned was residential and remained in the same use. That could be worked out later. As indicated, they would have to come in with a change of zone and go through the whole hearing process . Right now there was no guarantee that the property that Mr. Sklar lived on, that the owner would not ask for a change of zone on that property once the leases lapsed. Mr. ; i 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 � Diaz felt that something could be worked out between the owner of the proposed project and Mr. Befeld. MR. FRED RUSSELL, a resident of Palm Desert, was also opposed to the commercial aspect of this property. When he left the hearing on the Wal-Mart issue about a year ago, he came away feeling very comfortable that this block area would continue to be zoned residential . He saw now that there was a proposal to zone part of it commercial . There was a Lucky' s store and a Safeway store within the confines, five stop lights between Portola and Monterey, and he felt the traffic impact would be horrendous despite all the concerns that had been raised. He was opposed to the commercial aspect of the project. Chairperson Spiegel asked if the applicant wished to address the commission in rebuttal . MR. BARTLETT noted that most of the comments related to traffic. One of the things they all recognized as an existing condition with that corner was the second highest traf f ic corner in the city, if not the Coachella Valley. Traffic between Portola and Monterey was "`�' greater on Country Club than on Highway 111 . What they were doing was the commercial aspect of the property and the traffic study showed that neighborhood commercial type centers had traffic patterns spread out throughout the day whereas residential projects typically had high traffic peaks at 8 : 00 a.m. and 5 : 00 p.m. He said it was conceivable that if the whole site were residential, there would be a greater traffic burden on this corner than if the site was commercial because of the peak hour differences . Neighborhood markets were not typically destination places; people did not travel past two markets to get to a third and the Von' s Pavilion was an example. He felt that it was unsuccessful because there were other markets locating closer to the neighborhoods they served. If they expected to draw traffic from Palm Springs, Palm Desert and Indian Wells, it did not happen. Their primary goal as a neighborhood market would be to serve the neighborhood. They would have restaurant uses, a bank, and other retailers like a video store and/or dry cleaner. A good family dining restaurant might draw traffic from other locations, but typically those traffic peaks were in the evening hours during dinner time. When considering traffic, the peak hours had to be considered. He noted that the desert is ... 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 growing and the commission was faced with the decision � of making sure the growth was acceptable to the surrounding developments/owners and was something that was valuable to the city. He felt that Mr. Befeld' s concerns regarding how the outer perimeter was placed would be easily managed. Another thing he wanted to point out on the traffic was that there seemed to be some misunderstanding as to the traffic flow. The additional signal would provide an easy access back to Monterey, which would eliminate some problems . Another issue was the number of lights . Without a signal at Sagewood, Sagewood homeowners would have a difficult time getting out of their development. In addition, he understood from the public works department that the traffic signals would be synchronized so that if there was a continuous flow at peak hours, at 8 : 00 a.m. or 5 : 00 p.m. when going to and returning from work, that the flow would be continuous . As it was currently, those lights were not synchronized and there was no hard wire between the lights at Palm Desert Greens, Suncrest or Monterey and by providing this "missing link" they could synchronize that whole flow and continue traffic all the way through the peak hour differences . In his opinion, in the opinion of the traffic engineers, and � public works staff, they were actually improving the � traffic flow and the circulation pattern, especially how it now affects negatively on the Sagewood homeowners . Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony. Chairperson Spiegel stated that the city had a good general plan. It has been given a lot of thought and there were areas in the north sphere (everything from Country Club north to I-10 he considered the north sphere) that had the PC-2 designation. There were areas that had residential/ commercial zoning where it made more sense than at the one of the busiest corners in the Coachella Valley. He said he was not happy with the width of Monterey and Country Club and felt they should both be enlarged to make it easier for residents of Palm Desert and adjacent cities to travel on Country Club because it would only get more congested and there would be more building. To change the zoning to create additional commercial when there was already a Lucky store across the street and a new Ralph' s market a mile and a half away in his opinion didn't make sense when there were other commercial areas zoned for a grocery store that could be placed within the north sphere. � � � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 r Commissioner Whitlock stated that she felt commercial on this corner made sense. She felt it would be hard to plan a residential development on this very busy corner and that made good sense as a buffer. She liked the fact that they reduced the size of the commercial area and the amount of acreage and suggested that it could be reduced a little more. Maybe there didn't need to be six pads and the commercial could be reduced slightly because she had concerns about the 5, 000 square foot lots and a home that could potentially sell for $150,000 to $200, 000 on a 5,000 square foot lot. She felt it was nice that the developer came down from 210 units to 143, but she would like to see more of the 8,000 square foot lot sizes and wanted to know how the project would be laid out with more 8,000 square foot lots . With that in mind, she had a great deal of respect for the architectural review committee and although she would feel comfortable making a decision and turning it back to architectural review for their opinions prior to going to city council, she would still like it to come back before the planning commission. She wanted to hear what the architectural review commission had to say. They have a great deal of expertise and she did not feel comfortable in passing this on one way or another without knowing their opinion. Therefore, she recommended ` that this matter be continued and the questions answered. Commissioner Beaty said he echoed Commissioner Whitlock' s comments . He did not have a major problem with the commercial/residential blend. He did not like the traffic on the corner and did not know if there was a better way to do it, but if staff felt three lanes would handle it he would rely on them. Also, he did not like the five traffic signals in that short of a distance, but realized it was just a matter of time with city growth. He also wanted to hear what the architectural review committee had to say. Mr. Diaz said staff would recommend a continuance to the first or second meeting in June. Mr. Smith informed commission that he did some rough counting of the lots and basically about 80� of them were 5500 square feet or less . Commissioner Whitlock stated that was too much. She favored the 8, 000 square foot lot size and felt it made better sense. That was why she needed the opinion of the architectural review commission. She felt they had a better handle on the layout and the expertise. Commissioner Whitlock said that Mr. Smith made a good statement in his opening remarks that the commission needed to decide if this was an acceptable development plan. She felt it could be, but was not prepared �.. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 to go any further without having a better handle on the � architectural aspect and the amount of lots/sizes . Mr. Diaz said that he would recommended the continuance be to the second meeting on June 21 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, continuing GPA 93-4 , C/Z 93-4, PP 93-6 and TT 27882 by minute motion to June 21, 1994 . Carried 2-1 (Chairperson Spiegel voted no) . Mr. Diaz said that it was quite obvious that the commission was sending a message to the applicant to go back and get comments from the architectural review commission. Chairperson Spiegel agreed with Commissioner Whitlock that a 5500 square foot lot for a single family home might not make sense in the city of Palm Desert and possibly the commission should look at 8,000 square foot single family homes as a minimum, which had been the minimum since city incorporation except for condominiums and mobile homes . Mr. Smith stated that he believed that was correct. Chairperson Spiegel said that by minute motion he would like to direct staf f to set up this item for a hearing within the next 60 days so that the commission could determine if that would make sense for the � city of Palm Desert. Mr. Diaz stated staff would like to set this matter up for discussion at the next commission meeting and go on from there. He got the message that staff should prepare a zoning ordinance amendment to create a minimum 8,000 square foot lot size. It would be set for a hearing after that. Chairperson Spiegel said that should also include the 70 foot frontage. C. Case No. TT 24632 Revision #2 - McBAIL COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 80 . 6 gross acres into 241 single family lots and an additional 10 acre lot set aside for 162 future apartment units at the southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive. Mr. Smith explained that in July of 1989 the planning commission approved the creation of 169 8,000 square foot lots and at that time two remainder parcels were created that � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 '� were set aside for up to 220 apartment units . In January of 1990 staff received another proposal on this same property. The applicant wished to revise that previous approval and enlarge the lots into the range of 10,000 square foot lots, but the community became a development of private streets and gate guarded. The proposal, revision number 2, would return the development to public streets, eliminate the gates, and provide 241 single family lots . The previous proposal had the two lots for the apartment units located on the east side of the property and wrapped about the fire department and extended along Country Club Drive. This proposal relocated that multifamily portion to the west end of the property. Access would be provided from Country Club and Portola. The Country Club main access would be at the existing signalized intersection with Palm Desert Greens to the north. The Portola access would be near the southerly end of the property. There would be a series of cul-de-sacs and a connector street that would run from Portola to Country Club. The circulation as proposed was deemed acceptable. The applicant also planned to phase the development. Commissioner Whitlock asked for clarification on the exit onto Portola and if it was a right turn only. Mr. Gaugush indicated it was proposed to be a full access movement with ""' no traffic control on Portola itself . Mr. Smith stated that the lots as proposed conform to the 8,000 square foot minimum, the 70 foot width minimum and staff was proposing that the developer be required to adhere to the R-1 standards for setbacks and height. Staff noted that the multifamily portion of the development would be moved from the east side of the development to the west side of the development and would be located immediately adjacent to the existing multifamily development (San Tropez) to the west. The density on the multifamily portion as a result of the change in proportions increased, whereas before when it was 220 units the parcel was larger and the overall density was eight units per acre, while at this point on the ten acres 162 units nets out at 16 .2 units per acre, but it did fall under the gross density allowed for a parcel this size in that the overall total number of units, 403 units ( 162 plus 241) is permitted on the total 80 . 6 acre site. The number of units increased from 389 to 403 . The engineer explained to staff that their property had been surveyed and was larger than originally calculated. Mr. Smith explained that this project for environmental purposes was previously assessed and no further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended approval . r... 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 Chairperson Spiegel asked if this was basically the same plan ri that was originally approved by the planning commission except now the apartments were moved to adjacent to San Tropez . Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MIKE GALLAGHER, McBail Company, stated that they were the owners of this property for over 15 years . They were a home building company located in Northern California . They built Sagewood and a project in Indio, but they did not build in Southern California any more. They have had this land for a long time and worked with staff on numerous concepts for this site over the years . He said that the property was too large for some uses and too small for others and the result was that it has sat there for a long time and they had several offers to purchase it. The existing approval was an option on the property by some local people which subsequently died and came back to them. He explained that they would like to put the property in a form that would be more saleable for development on a smaller scale, which was why they were stressing the phasing program. One problem this property has had over the years was '� improvements of Country Club and Portola were quite expensive and hit the first phase of any development hard. The phasing program would allow them to do the phasing in small pieces over a longer period of time. He indicated that it could be more than one developer completing the project and he knew the protections that would be necessary for them being the owners of the property and also recognized what the city was looking for. He said he had some questions regarding a few conditions of approval . On page 4 item 11, "As part of development of phase 1 the streetscape along Portola Avenue including the masonry wall, landscape and sidewalk would be completed. " On the engineering condition for the phasing it allowed them to do Portola Avenue in phase 1 and phase 2 . He said when he talked to staff today what they said they were really looking for was a concept plan for the streetscape along Portola that would be approved prior to starting the first phase. Mr. Smith stated that he would like to insert the word "plan" after streetscape in that condition. � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 "r Mr. Gallagher said the second issue had to do with the undergrounding requirements . On page 4 item #1 and on page 6 item #20, there was a conflict as to whether they were required absolutely to underground all of the utilities or whether it was a decision by the utility company as to whether it was practical or not. He stated that in some instances the utility lines along Country Club had been undergrounded and some had not. He wanted to know which section took precedence. Mr. Gaugush stated that the primary underground concerns were the 115 KV transmission lines located on Portola. Those were very difficult to convert to an underground system. The condition represented the overhead facilities on Country Club Drive which were distribution lines as opposed to transmission lines . The 115 KV lines on Portola were not specifically called out and those were the ones staff had to look at the technology that was currently available through Edison to get those underqround, and it was a very expensive item. He again stated that the conditions were primarily directed toward Country Club and those on Portola that were not transmission lines . Mr. Gallagher asked for direction; staff was saying this ""' was very expensive, but they were also saying it was beyond the city' s control as to whether they can be undergrounded or not. Mr. Gaugush clarified that the 115 KV in all likelihood would not be required to be undergrounded because of the technology and expense; everything else would be. Mr. Gallagher asked for clarification on page 7 item #22 regarding the traffic analysis . He understood there was a traffic study done for the previous tentative map. Mr. Gaugush stated that in looking through the previous project file, he was unable to locate a traffic analysis . If one had been done, the condition would become a moot point. He was not aware of a completed traffic analysis . Mr. Gallagher asked what staff would be looking for in the traffic analysis and if it was for adding additional requirements . Mr. Gaugush concurred and explained it was a confirmation that what staff puts forth in the conditions as well as ` 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 overall analysis of other intersections that would be ai potentially impacted and the need for fair share mitigation. Mr. Gallagher said that the item that most interested them was item #24 on the phasing. He stated that he assumed that when they said phases 1 or 2 , he could start Portola with phase 1 and complete it with phase 2 or some combination like that. Mr. Gaugush clarified that the intent was to try to accommodate the developer' s needs and keep it open between phase 1 and 2 because of their physical location with respect to Portola. Once phase 1 was initiated staff anticipated an interim entry condition that would be solidified with final improvements when they went into phase 2 . Mr. Gallagher concurred and asked if there were any questions . Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. GENOVESE, a resident of Palm Desert Greens, stated that he had some questions . He asked how far west in . feet the apartment section was going to go west of the �' entrance of Palm Desert Greens . Mr. Smith replied that it went west to the existing development. Mr. Diaz clarified that it went to the easterly boundary of San Tropez . Mr. Smith indicated that it extended approximately 800 feet west of the existing signal . Mr. Genovese asked when the apartments would be built and if it would be a separate phase. Chairperson Spiegel noted it was phase seven, but that did not mean the development had to be developed in that order. If there was a demand for apartments, it could be the first phase after approval . Mr. Diaz stated that if for some reason the economy turned around and an applicant was willing to build an apartment project there for that number of units, there would be a public hearing for that number of units . The maximum number of units that could be built there was 162 and there would be another public hearing. Mr. Genovese said that he was concerned because he lived across the street from this project and if it was done in phases he would have problems with dust in phases . 22 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 .�.► Mr. Diaz stated that the developer would have to meet the city' s dust requirements for grading. He also noted that the prevailing winds generally blew from the west to the east which would also help to reduce the dust to Palm Desert Greens . There was also development across from Portola that would have to be taken care of in terms of dust. Mr. Genovese asked if staff said there would be no walls or guarded gates . Mr. Smith clarified that the developer was removing the gate guarded aspect of the development--there would be walls as the phases progressed. Chairperson Spiegel asked if the only way out of the apartment complex was the one road that took people out of the housing development onto Country Club. Mr. Smith replied that was correct. Chairperson Spiegel asked if there would be another road out of phase seven onto Country Club; Mr. Smith stated that the precise plan at that point could propose another access onto Country Club, but it would be severely restricted and staff would not encourage it; also, it would come before the planning commission for approval . ` MR. HAROLD LEVINE, a Casablanca resident, asked about the height of the apartment project, how many stories it would be; he said he wanted more information. Mr. Smith indicated that PR zoning permitted up to two stories in 30 feet. The apartments would be about 800 feet removed from the Casablanca development and there would be approximately eight single family homes between the apartment units and Casablanca. He did not think Casablanca would even see the apartments . Mr. Levine said it was not just a matter of seeing them, but density. Their community was on 30 acres with 134 units . What they were putting in with the apartment units was an increase in density that they would object to. He had no objection ta the single family units, but did object to the apartment units on the basis that the density would decrease the value of their property. Chairperson Spiegel asked if Mr. Levine felt that San Tropez had an effect on them; Mr. Levine felt it was far enough removed from them, but this apartment unit would only add to the problem, particularly to the traffic problem. � 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 Chairperson Spiegel closed the public hearing and asked for ,� comments from the commission. Commissioner Beaty asked if the intent of this request was to put the development in a more saleable condition, not a development plan to proceed right now. Mr. Gallagher said that was correct, but anything could happen. Commissioner Beaty said he had no problem with the proposal . Chairperson Spiegel noted it was basically the same plan that had been approved, except with the movement of the apartment complex to the west. The lots were a minimum of 8000 square feet with a 70 foot frontage. He had no objection. Commissioner Beaty asked if the apartments in the new plan would be farther away from Casablanca; Mr. Smith replied that the apartment units would be approximately the same distance as they were in the former plan, just moved from the east end to the west. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0 . � Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1646, approving TT 24632 Revision #2, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 3-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B MS. ANN GOLDMAN addressed the commission. She said that with the agenda item regarding Monterey and Country Club, what was the commission going to do next. It sounded to her like the developer was asking for 5,000 square foot lots and what was required in the city was 8, 000 square foot lots . Chairperson Spiegel said that the 5,000 square foot lots was set up when the city was building a lot of condominiums, so there were houses adjacent. Now there were 10,000 square feet for two houses . These were individual single family homes on 5,000 square feet. Since the city incorporated, homes have been 24 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 •'+ built on 8,000 square foot minimum lots . That wasn' t really what the zoning said; it said 5,000 square feet so he was asking staff for a review of that section to possibly change that, which would not affect this development request. Any change like that would have to be agreed upon by the commission and city council, so it would not affect the proposed project. Mr. Diaz indicated that a discussion item on 8,000 square foot lot sizes would be on the next agenda. Mr. Smith clarified that the ordinance as it presently stands for the PR zone did not prescribe a minimum lot size; not 5,000, not 6 , 000, not 3,000 . Chairperson Spiegel stated that the change would be to establish a minimum lot size. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she liked the fact that the developer reduced the number of units . Mr. Smith clarified that the 206 number of units was based on the seven units per acre. At 8,000 square feet there would be approximately 105 units and the developer was proposing something in the middle. Mr. Diaz noted that when the project was going to be condominiums, they had the maximum number of units on it and that could be presented at the next meeting. .... XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Diaz informed commission that the next EDAC meeting would be May 19, 1994 . XII . COMMENTS 1 . Chairperson Spiegel noted that he was walking the park this morning and at the walkways at the entrance from the streets there were two concrete extensions to keep cars from driving on the walkways, but some of them had been vandalized. One was missing and two were lying on the ground and where they were missing or lying on the ground, there were metal attachments coming out of the ground that a person could fall over and hurt themselves . He asked that staff look into it. Mr. Gaugush said he would check into it tomorrow. 2 . Mr. Diaz stated that regarding Wheeler' s Desert Newsletter, staff contacted them and they would be willing to provide the city with an additional subscription at a discounted price. What staff proposed ... 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 17, 1994 was to get one subscription and have it available at the r,�, meetings and in the office for commission review. Commission instructed staff to get the subscription. XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 16 p.m. . ��7�i�I • RAMON A. DIAZ, c ary ATTEST: � ' ROBERT A. SPIEGE rson Palm Desert Planning o ission +nI /tm 26 �