Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0705 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JULY 5, 1994 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson 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, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sabby Jonathan Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Gregg Holtz Bob Hargreaves Tonya Monroe Steve Smith IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: r.. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the June 21, 1994 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent city council actions of June 23, 1994 . VI. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 94-7 - BYJ PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 3204 square foot restaurant in the C-1 general commercial zone on the south side of Highway 111 east of San Pablo, known as 73-547 Highway 111 . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 Mr. Smith explained that the request was to locate an 81 seat aw Burger King restaurant in the Jensen' s center, specifically in the present Master Pools location. He said there were two other restaurant-type uses in the center, an italian restaurant at the east end and the Beer Hunter located at the southwest end of the center. This restaurant was proposed to be in the northwest wing of the center. The parking survey concluded that the overall average occupancy rate in the parking lot adjacent to Highway 111 was approximately 40% . Based on that and the fact that the applicant submitted a letter in favor signed by all the businesses in the center except the Beer Hunter, staff was recommending approval subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Also, staff notified all the tenants of the public hearing as well as the property owners within 300 feet. Commissioner Whitlock asked if any consideration had been given to reorganizing the parking lot for the traffic flow in and out of the center, specifically the exit onto San Pablo. Mr. Smith explained that matter was before the technical traffic committee a few months ago and before council a few weeks ago, but was not present at that meeting. Mr. Diaz believed that council kept the opening the way it presently exists . Mr. Smith said that the technical traffic committee suggested that they make it an entrance only and there was ••+� considerable discussion. Commissioner Whitlock stated that as a frequent user of this center, she felt it was one of the most difficult traffic patterns for ingress and egress, and to go out on San Pablo traffic on San Pablo could literally be stopped which created a tremendous traffic jam for cars trying to make a right turn. When people want to cross San Pablo they cross that lane to make a left hand turn and traffic was backed up all the way to E1 Paseo waiting for that light to change because someone was in that intersection. She felt that something had to be done about that particular exit with the possible traffic that a Burger King would encourage. Chairperson Spiegel noted that if it was made an entrance instead of an exit, then it would be easy to get into the parking lot and then go out onto Highway 111 or out the other side of the center. Mr. Diaz indicated that could be a condition of approval . Mr. Smith noted that would effectively kill the project; the technical traffic committee recommended the inversion of the traffic plan and it was rejected by council . Staff recognized the problem, but there were other considerations . He explained that some businesses used that exit to make a quick access onto Highway 111 . He said it would be far quicker than going all the way around the block. Commissioner Whitlock asked if staff was .r 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 saying that the commission could not condition the project to change the traffic pattern; Mr. Smith said it would mean the project could not go forward. Chairperson Spiegel noted that the traffic survey indicated a peak of 40% occupancy and it was done at this time of the year. He noted that Jensen' s was not a typical supermarket. It was more of an upscale supermarket and he felt that a large percentage of customers were not in town now. He was surprised that Jensen' s had no strong feeling about the additional traffic. Mr. Smith indicated that they signed the petition in favor. Commissioner Beaty asked if there was any data that related to parking/occupancy percentages for summer versus winter and if not, shouldn' t something be done. Mr. Smith noted that the traffic engineer position was vacant right now, but in the past he had heard there was a 30% difference but did not know if that was accurate. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the report indicated there were 216 parking spaces, in the survey for the west half there were 75 and in the east half 101--he asked if there was vow another 40 spaces somewhere. Mr. Smith explained they were at the back of the building in the southwest corner behind the Beer Hunter. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this was an employee-type parking area; Mr. Smith felt that a number of patrons to the Beer Hunter used the parking area and breezeway to the front door. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in the past Mr. Smith had provided analyses as to what the percentage of the center was used for restaurant use; he wanted to know if the center was over parked or under parked. Mr. Smith indicated that a quick calculation based on a total square footage of about 76,000 square feet meant the center needed 304 parking spaces under the typical requirements. He said that they lost some when the parking lot was reconfigured to the super block concept. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. CAROL HERRERA, Eltinge and Graziadio Development, stated that she was the property manager for the owners and was located at 9920 South La Cienega in Inglewood. She noted that they went to each tenant in the shopping center, not only in Jensen' s but to the tenants on E1 Paseo and they got full support from each one except the Beer Hunter. She indicated that Burger King was in the 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 front space and was set apart somewhat from the other tenants . They would have their own parking area in the front. Sixteen spaces were right in front of their front door and right off the highway. They were not putting Burger King in the middle of the whole complex and trying to swing everyone around them. She noted that Gene Fulton, the owner of Jensen' s, approved Burger King coming in. She felt that the traffic and bringing in a national chain would help the shopping center more than it would hurt them. Jensen's was a more upscale supermarket and their big times were Easter and Christmas, so they had peak times when they brought in more people, whereas Burger King brought in continual traffic into the center all year round. They had three vacancies for over a year and they felt that Burger King would be a boost to the center and was helping tenant morale. She felt it was not only helping Jensen's, but the people on E1 Paseo. She had talked to Frank Kettle, the owner of the Rose Company next door, and he fully supported them coming into the center; also to Lori Spear, the property manager for San Pablo Village and she supported them coming in also. On the access, she asked if it would be left the way it is for right now. Chairperson Spiegel replied that he did not know at this o.ri point. Chairperson Spiegel asked how many people the Burger King would seat; Ms . Herrera indicated they would provide 81 seats; Marinello's Restaurant was only open for dinner and the Beer Hunter was open for lunch and until 2 : 00 a.m. The Burger King would be open for breakfast, lunch and dinner. She did not know what their peak times would be. Mr. Diaz asked Ms . Herrera if the Rose Company was part of their center; Ms . Herrera replied no, they were part of the San Pablo Village next door. Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. TOM YEAGER, one of the principal owners of BYJ Partners, 40-041 Sagewood Drive, said he was also one of the operating partners in that he would be responsible for the operations of the restaurant. They had three other restaurants in the valley and recently opened a unit in the Town Center Mall; they owned one in Indio and one in Cathedral City. He said he had been in the business for close to 30 years and the last 13 or 14 with Burger King. 4 r► MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 +� Commissioner Beaty asked how Mr. Yeager felt about the access to San Pablo. Mr. Yeager said they studied it, but for them they were not concerned--it was fine either way. He stated it was not critical to his business, but other people in the center felt differently. Commissioner Jonathan asked with 81 seats if would it be reasonable to assume that at peak usage times that would call for 30 to 40 cars. Mr. Yeager said that if they were building a freestanding restaurant, that would be the range they would be looking for, although it turned rather rapidly because more than half of their business was take-out. He also noted that he would like to see those 81 seats full, but in reality that was not how it worked. MR. BILL HUNISACK, Master Pools, said he wanted to clarify the traffic issue. He stated that he had been a true resident of the shopping center for 25 plus years . When this concern about the entry/exit came up, they met as a group in the center and discussed it thoroughly. They knew of some problems that existed. They invited the Rose Company to join them because they were not part of their center and asked him for his opinions . From an entrepreneurial point of view they r came to the conclusion that an entry there would be harmful, an exit would be beneficial . This was brought to the traffic people and they had a serious discussion about it. They brought this up to the city council and he was present at that meeting and he felt it was covered extremely well . There was a sign that said do not block traffic to the San Pablo people going across the highway. They removed the sign, the post and the street line. Master Pools had been on that corner for a long time and from a day to day visual aspect of that corner and an egress he made of his own, that simple little line was taken out and afforded those coming down San Pablo to come up to the cross section literally blocking exit from the shopping center. By doing that they didn't allow for some people going in front of the Rose Company to block it that way. The flow cleaned itself up and that traffic light in some cases was very fast and it was possible for him to leave Master Pools, go up to the light, have it turn green and have cars go through it to the point where he can' t get through, but he was willing to forego his exit out of the shopping center momentarily because the alternative for him was more difficult. Those that lived in that center for an extended time felt the traffic people made the right 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 decision and that the city council unanimously accepted what the traffic people approved. He felt the commission could invite the traffic people to reiterate what had gone on in the past, but he was very satisfied with the professionalism with the whole matter. He felt it went very well and satisfied them in the center. He said he wanted to address Burger King and indicated it was difficult or impossible to get an unbiased opinion from anyone because if a person was willing to stand in front of a microphone, they had a bias . But he did not appreciate or make himself accessible to fast food because he was not fond of it, but when looking at the economic benefit to this center and to the city from a tax benefit, exposure from national advertising could only stimulate traffic and funds for both the city and the center. He stated that he relinquished Master Pools ' unit after 26 years and moved back so that they could come in because he felt the benefits would be a lot bigger than his loss of the street frontage. He said the center was definitely in favor of the restaurant. Chairperson Spiegel noted that Mr. Hunisack had been involved with the entrance/exit for a long time, but it was new to the commission. He asked him for the reasons why there was opposition to changing it. Mr. Hunisack indicated that as he understood it, one letter was written to the city addressed to the traffic department indicating a problem someone had with entry/egress on the corner. That one letter has taken up 100 ' s of man hours; as far as they were concerned, that one letter cemented once and for all their relationship as a center and a simple sign taken out and a line removed seemed to help the matter a lot. There was opposition to making the access an entry. He felt the simple line removal allowed San Pablo free access, closed off their exit and works well . They were all happy about it. Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Beaty said he saw where that line solved that problem and he had been through that intersection so he could see where that would make a difference. He said his questions had been answered and he had no problem with the project. Commissioner Whitlock said she would not oppose the traffic situation in light of the testimony or prohibit Burger King x 6 .r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 from coming in; since city staff was comfortable with the traffic situation, she did not have a problem. Commissioner Jonathan felt there was a problem there because that development might be as much as 88 spaces under parked and he felt that difference could be felt with Burger King addition to the center. He hoped Burger King would be very successful but it would exacerbate the existing problems of under parking and ingress/egress . He did not feel the ingress/egress problem had been solved. He felt it would be made worse with more traffic. He noted that more than half the business would be take-out. He said he was reluctant to hold up a tenant/business that would add to the quality of Palm Desert, as well as have a positive economic impact, but he was concerned about the parking and traffic. Chairperson Spiegel stated that he would like to see Burger King in this center and it would bring traffic to the center. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan and felt that the parking behind the Beer Hunter did not seem part of the count for Jensen' s or Burger King because it was too far away, but his feeling about that wasn't strong enough to keep the project from going forward. He indicated the traffic department should address these issues . He agreed that a ... stipulation should not placed on the project, but the whole situation needed further consideration by the traffic department to give the city a better feeling that there would not be a lot of problems . Mr. Diaz stated that as part of the development of the Sun Lodge Colony site, the city would want to know how the 167, 000 square feet of retail space would impact the intersection of San Pablo and Highway 111 and staff was constantly keeping an eye on it, but when that large development came in staff would have to come back with a program. Commissioner Whitlock noted that this was a conditional use permit and if there was a problem, the project would come back to the commission. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Wiwi Beaty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1655, approving CUP 94-7, subject to conditions . B. Case No. CUP 94-8 - C & J COX CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine from an existing convenience store for off-site consumption only at 73-051 Highway III (Shell Oil Station) in the C-1 S.P. zone. Mr. Diaz stated that staff was recommending approval of the conditional use permit. There was a convenience store currently at the Shell Station and the conditional use permit would allow this station to be competitive with other stations in the city. If there were any problems with the beer and wine only sales, the conditional use permit could be recalled to control it further or for revocation. Staff recommended approval . Commissioner Whitlock noted that in the staff report Bakers Square should be shown as the use immediately to the east of the project, not Carl ' s Jr. Mr. Diaz concurred. Chairperson Spiegel asked if there were plans to remodel the service station since there were three bays that weren' t being used for automobile repair. He asked if that area would be used for the convenience store. Mr. Diaz said the convenience store was already there, but the applicant could address that issue. If they did plan to remodel, their plans would have to go before the architectural commission for review. Chairperson Spiegel opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RICHARD BRUINS representing C & J Cox, stated that he lived in Chino Hills California. He indicated he had been in the business for approximately 16 years and spent several years with Shell Oil Company before going to C & J Cox Corporation. He stated he was very familiar with the convenience store aspect of the business . Chairperson Spiegel asked if Mr. Bruins planned to remodel the bays . Mr. Bruins said that it was his understanding that they were requesting Shell to do a remodel; nothing was 8 .nd I I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 absolutely planned at this point. Chairperson Spiegel asked if this would come back to the planning commission. Mr. Diaz replied that it would be an expansion of the existing convenience store, so it would come back. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification that the remodel would be to add more convenience store space rather than just a remodel of repair facilities . Mr. Bruins said it was his understanding that they would want to enlarge the convenience store, but not by much. Commissioner Beaty asked if they had abandoned having a mechanic on duty; Mr. Bruins replied yes . He said it was an economic situation beyond their control and quality of workmanship became an issue. He said they had 44 stations, 13 here and 30+ in the Pleasanton and San Francisco area. Only one still did service work. He stated that it was hard to compete with the transmission and fast brake and oil centers . Commissioner Jonathan asked if expansion of the convenience store would require prior commission approval . Mr. Diaz said to remove all doubt he would make that a condition of approval . Chairperson Spiegel noted that a big problem Palm Desert was encountering in talking to a Lieutenant with the police department was alcoholic beverage sales to minors . In the last month or two they had made 18 arrests in the Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage/Indian Wells area at primarily convenience stores selling to minors . He asked if there was a way of controlling that and if there was a problem with the 44 stores . Mr. Bruins said they haven' t had any problems recently and they require their cashiers to ID anyone that doesn't look 35 years old. The only people that get upset with that are people that can' t prove their age. It was posted on the door or at the alcoholic beverage location in the store. They reinforced that by having some of their own people that looked young, but were of legal age, go in and buy and if they didn't get carded, they dealt with it. He said it was easier to ask for ID then to deal with fines . Chairperson Spiegel asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. JOHN GOSS, Manager at the Shell Station, stated that they were also carding people that were buying cigarettes . He was having his employees card them because it was vital to the community as well as the individual that alcohol was not sold to a minor and he wr 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 would encourage his employees not to sell alcohol to �rf minors . Chairperson Spiegel closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he did not have a problem with this application and felt it met all the requirements . He would move for approval with the added condition that if there was going to be an expansion of the convenience store facility, that it come to the commission for approval . He wanted the applicant to know that he personally would not have a problem with the expansion, his concern was one of appearance. He would not want to create a convenience store within a structure that looked like a gas station. If there was going to be an expansion, his personal requirement would be that it look like a convenience store facility in the section where the bays were being converted. In terms of expanded use he would not have a problem. Commissioner Beaty said he was glad to hear there had been 18 arrests and felt that would help stop the problem. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1656, approving CUP 94-8, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . VIII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos . GPA 94-1, C/Z 94-1, and PP 94-3 - GREGORY SPREEN, Applicant Request for adoption of a resolution denying a request for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement Amendment/Change of Zone, 10 'r"r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 Precise Plan to permit development of automobile dealerships on 12 .2 acres at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and E1 Paseo. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Beaty asked for and received clarification as to the reasons the other commissioners were opposed to the project. Chairperson Spiegel called for the vote. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Beaty voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1657, denying GPA 94-1, C/Z 94-1 and PP 94-3. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Beaty voted no) . B. Discussion of the Palma Village Specific Plan Area North of Alessandro Mr. Diaz noted that at the last meeting one of the residents had concern over restaurants approved with a conditional use vow permit because of the traffic situation on Alessandro. He indicated at that time he would bring back the Palma Village Specific Plan. He stated it was adopted in 1985 . At that time commission looked at Alessandro, particularly the north side of Alessandro and the designated land uses were office professional and high density residential . The plan also called for the streets coming down to Alessandro, and if the residents wanted them cul-de-sacced they could apply to the city to do that. Since the plan was adopted San Jacinto was cul-de-sacced. Another part of the plan called for a landscaped buffer; they were going to cul-de-sac all the streets except for some that the professional traffic people felt should go through for traffic, and create a landscaped buffer between the higher intensive uses/office professional and the single family residential . That was stopped when the plan went up to city council for final hearing; some of the concerns included how it would be implemented and cost of maintenance. Basically the plan provided ultimately for a buffer between the residential areas and the commercial areas . Unfortunately, the first two lots particularly those that side onto Alessandro that were still residential have a problem. The particular commercial development under question at that time only had one access onto Alessandro and probably few people used it. He thought most of the traffic low 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 being felt on Alessandro were from folks trying to skip the rr traffic signals on Highway 111 . If no one built and nothing got done, they would continue to have the problem. Most of the lots on Highway 111 were developed, so they had the plan to address it, but as to the money and mechanics to take care of those first few lots with office professional and high density residential, the market demand just wasn't there. Any time there had been complaints from residents as far as traffic going through their area to go north, those had been addressed and San Jose was one of those where the street was cul-de-sacced. Action: No action. C. Discussion of Establishing Minimum Lot Sizes in Residential Zones Mr. Diaz noted that this matter was continued from their last meeting. Currently minimum lot sizes were spelled out under the zoning. With the annexation of the Palm Desert Country Club there were areas zoned R-1 6,000, so there were 6,000 square foot lots there. Staff believed that in the PR zones that rather than establishing minimum lot sizes that they arr identify what the concerns were; if they had to do with appearance from the street, the depth of the residential homes from the street, the distances homes were apart, both front, rear and on the side, then they could establish some minimum criteria there rather than minimum dwelling unit sizes . What impacts them in the residential areas was not so much the dwelling unit size but the density allowed. If an area was zoned PR-7, they were creating a seven dwelling unit per acre minimum lot size density. Condominiums were not selling right now; the seven dwelling units per acre could not be met unless they were condominiums regardless of how small the lots were made. The lot sizes approved for the Monterey Country Club development were an average of 7500 square feet. Looking at the present R-1 standards in terms of minimum side yards, 15 feet total and with the rear and front yard minimum setbacks they were talking about minimum lots that could meet this criteria that would be 4550 square feet. Chances were no one would develop that, but even if they did on a 4700 square foot lot with a density of 4 . 9 units per acre, individuals could develop a three bedroom 1500 square foot home with two car garages, swimming pool and extensive open area and not exceed the 35% ground coverage. He felt what should be established was a minimum distance 12 "� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 �... between the homes if that was the concern. As far as front setbacks were concerned, there was a great program that a lot of people went to in Cathedral City and people came back talking about having different front yard distances so there would not be a canyon effect on the streets; he said planners had been advocating that for over 30 years and was being re- introduced. Establishing minimum lot sizes could preclude this from happening; it could not be done in the R-1 zones where there were definitive setbacks established. In the PR zones that could be accomplish. He felt that criteria should be established for distances between homes which they have done rather than minimum lot sizes . He would rather establish criteria so if someone came up with something really great, they would have the opportunity to approve it rather than saying no, because it didn't meet the minimum lot size. Staff was more concerned about density. Commissioner Jonathan suggested doing both; setting minimum lot sizes at 8,000 square feet and better distances . If someone came in with something that had 7500 square foot averages, they could always still do that if it was in a situation that made sense. This would give better direction for an applicant. He noted that they could do both. Mr. Diaz said they could do both, but asked what they were attempting to achieve with the 8,000 square feet or with a minimum lot size that was beyond what the city already had. He indicated that the minimum dwelling unit size was 1,000 square feet and if the commission wanted they could make it 1200 or 1300 square feet and that would clarify it. There was also a 35% maximum building site coverage on a single lot. Commissioner Jonathan stated that was another way to approach it--to have a minimum house size. Mr. Diaz said that Indian Wells had a 2100 square foot minimum dwelling unit size. The 1000 square feet had never posed a problem because the market seemed to dictate the size. Chairperson Spiegel said they might want to preclude the 1000 square foot home. Mr. Diaz asked for the reason why. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that while they wanted to create affordable housing, it should was also provide room. Mr. Diaz stated that there was no such thing as low cost housing, just housing that was provided at low cost. Someone picked up the tab. They could go 1200, 1300 or whatever, but what ended up happening for senior housing as a good example, they created an exception which he felt was right. For affordable housing they could have other minimums . He noted that they have not had any 1000 square foot homes built. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they also have not had 5,000 square foot lots . That was where they ran into problems because if there 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 were no minimum lot sizes they could have 5,000 square foot V■i lots . Mr. Diaz said that meeting the minimum of front, rear and side yard setbacks in the zoning; they could have a 4550 square foot lot meet the R-1 zone setbacks and have 35% maximum lot coverage and that would provide for a 1522 square foot home on a 4550 square foot lot. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in a PR-7 zone it could be less than that. Mr. Diaz concurred; but the development approved did not have seven units to the acre. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was in favor of houses that were spaced apart with open space between houses . He agreed that the side yard limitations were a more serious problem than the lot sizes. He noted that the houses on Hovley on 8,000 square foot lots were nice big homes, but by the time they put the roof down, which went beyond the side walls, the roofs were almost touching. He did not think that was the kind of thing that helped the city. Mr. Diaz said the larger roof overhang was for energy requirements and when talking about houses being apart, to him ten feet between buildings was fine. The regulations stated that there could be a total of 14 feet combined for side yards, each of which could not be less than 5 feet. He said that if they wanted they could increase the minimum side yard setback. He said he would rather keep the ordinance where it was and it gave them some latitude. He noted that they might have created some houses they themselves would not want to live in as individuals, but there has been a market demand for them. Commissioner Jonathan noted that a lot of cities have gone down hill, and even if there has been a demand, but that didn' t make it right. Mr. Diaz noted that in a country club development with condominiums, they were joined by a common wall and the city thinks that is fine, but if there isn' t a common wall, they want a certain number of feet between them. Commissioner Jonathan felt that Bighorn Country Club was a case in point. Mr. Diaz agreed that those units were not selling right now. Commissioner Jonathan said that he had heard that part of the reason was because there were very small lots and the houses were close together. They came to them and said this wouldn't be a problem because of the amount of open space in the project. Mr. Diaz stated that he understood part of their problems had to do with having a golf course that cost $50,000 per year per person to play, which had been reduced. Also, the tremendous cost of the lots . Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would like to see firmer guidelines . He asked what the procedure would be to do that; Mr. Diaz said the commission should instruct staff to amend the ordinance to implement whatever guidelines the commission wanted. He also suggested having a special meeting with home builders to exchange information to see 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 ... what it would mean to them to increase setbacks and the impact on them as a developer. They could also ask them on what basis they make their decisions on what they build. Commissioner Jonathan said that would be fine, and he would also like to see on a typical 8, 000 square foot lot, 20 feet on the side and that was only 25% coverage. He felt they could be tying up some standards that were better for the city that wouldn' t really impact builders, but he wasn't opposed to having a public hearing. Mr. Diaz said that staff could set up a study session and have builders here to exchange ideas back and forth. Commissioner Jonathan stated it could be a study session or a miscellaneous item. Mr. Diaz said he would follow up on it. Action: Staff was instructed to set a study session to discuss this issue with area builders . X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Staff noted that the next meeting would be on July 21, 1994 . XII . COMMENTS Chairperson Spiegel noted that he would be gone for the first meeting in August and recommended that meeting be cancelled. Commissioners Beaty, Jonathan, and Whitlock stated that they would be available for a meeting on August 2, but would be all gone on August 16 . It was determined that if there were items for August 2, there would be a meeting, but the August 16 meeting would be cancelled. r.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 1994 XIII . ADJOURNMENT no Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adjourning the meeting by minute motion Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at :20 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ , a ary ATTEST: R BERT A. SPIEGEL, Gh irperson Palm Desert Planning ommission /tm 16