Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0418 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - APRIL 18, 1995 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE �.r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Carol Whitlock , Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Dick Folkers Marshall Rudolph Mark Greenwood Phil Drell Tonya Monroe �' IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the March 21, 1995 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the March 21, 1995 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Whitlock abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent March 23 and April 13, 1995 city council actions . VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 95-2 - SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments for `, lots 11, 12 and 18 of Tract 26123-2 within Indian Ridge Country Club. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, I995 B. Case No. PMW 95-9 - SUNTERRACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, "'� SYLVAN/CONNIE HAMBERGER, ALVAR/ELLEN KAUTI, AND JOHN/GAIL BUDD, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments for lots 1-4 and lots C and D within Tract 23940-1 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS Upon recommendation by staff, and concurrence by planning commission, it was determined that since the applicant for public hearing item no. B was requesting a continuance, that item should be dealt with first. B. Case No. C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 - MILLER/RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP, Applicant � Request for approval of a pre-annexation zoning of PCD/HPR (Planned Community Development , Hillside Planned Residential - 228 . 5 acres) O. S. (Open Space - 411 . 5 acres) and a zone change from HPR to PCD/HPR for 54 acres; for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills area" and 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums . Mr. Diaz reported that the applicant was requesting a continuance to May 16 , 1995 . Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she would make a motion to continue the matter. 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 'r"'� Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 to May 16, 1995 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. A. Case No. TT 28158 - KAUFMAN AND BROAD, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and 441 lot, 439 unit single family subdivision located on 106 acres within the PR-5 zone at the northeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue. Mr. Drell described the location of the project. He reported that this property was designated in the general plan for both commercial and high density residential use. In the North Sphere Specific Plan it was specifically identified as � a high impact noise area because of the proximity of the railroad and increasing noise impacts of I-10, which was the justification for the potential commercial use on the property. As part of that designation, the General Plan required that any residential development of the site �"' mitigate noise impacts so that the exterior levels of noise wouldn' t exceed 65 CNEL or 45 CNEL in the interior. He noted that this site had been owned by the redevelopment agency and purchased specifically to develop affordable housing back when a large resort development was to occur, and as part of the overall affordable housing program this site was planned for a variety of uses including apartments and single family homes . In response to the noise impacts they had designated 400 feet next to the railroad tracks as mixed commercial/ industrial use. The Housing Element as required by state law called for policies implemented by the city to help reduce the cost of housing and promote affordability. Mr. Drell noted that the project was a conventional single family detached subdivision consisting of 439 lots that contained 2 two acre retention basins and under the city grading ordinance they must contain 100$ of a 100 year storm onsite, which was the purpose of the retention basin. There was also a 50 foot easement to the Coachella Valley Water District for a future Mid Valley Storm Channel that would collect stormwater in the center of the valley and take it down toward Indio. It also included the dedication of the improvement of half streets for Portola on the west side and Gerald Ford on the south side. The majority of the lots in �.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 the subdivision were between 5500 and 6500 square feet. ..� While the overall gross density of the subdivision was below the five units per acre, it was evident that the lot sizes did not currently meet the standards currently set for the PR zone. As of now the applicant was proposing three different floor plans . A 1, 000 square foot 3 bedroom unit, a 1,216 square foot 3 bedroom unit, and a 1,441 square foot 4 bedroom unit. As conditioned the development would meet the standards of the Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance and State Map Act. In regards to the zoning ordinance, as mentioned, it did not meet the requirements of Section 25 .24 .250 relative to lot size. The PR zone, which was originally designed for planned developments, included condos and golf courses which had common open space and in general 50$ open space. The city subsequently created an amendment which allowed for single family detached subdivisions without common open space, but specified that those developments must meet the standards of the R-1 zone depending on their lot size. In the R-1 zone minimum lot sizes were 8,000 square feet. These standards could be amended and exceptions could be qranted by the planning commission under Section 25 .24 . 310 if planning commission found sufficient justification or a furthering of a city policy which would be accomplished by the granting of that exception. In this case the applicant �: was requesting an exception from the 8,000 square foot � minimum lot size based on the applicant' s desire to meet a specific target price for the units . Subsequent to the writing of the staff report, staff received a draft agreement which was distributed to commission. The applicant' s goal was to provide affordable housing and agreed to restrict and allow sales and price controls on at least 20� of the units . The draft report in front of the commission varied from the initial correspondence relative to this program and under their new proposal, of the 20�, 4� or approximately 1/5th of the 1, 000 square foot units would sell for no more than $114 ,000; 1/5th would be the larger three bedroom units and would sell for no more than $122 ,990; and at least 1/5th of the units would be the four bedroom units and would sell for no more than $132 ,000 . The remaining 2/5ths could be any mix of the unit sizes and would be priced accordingly. If the market price of the remaining 80� of the units was more than 5$ more than these controlled units, then there would be a resale control on these "affordable units" which would limit increase in the resale price of the units over a ten year period, based on upgrades that the owner put into them originally or future improvements and adjustments by increased median income index as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He indicated this was � 4 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 'r"' still a draft agreement and it was a condition of the tract that this aqreement be ultimately approved by the city and the city attorney in that the development complies with zoning density and the planning commission had the ability to grant exceptions; technically this was within the power of the commission to approve. Right now the condition read "the city will approve it" and the commission could be the body to approve it. He said that under an agreement which the city would ultimately approve, 20$ of the units would be controlled at an affordable price and the goal of lot size reduction was implemented on at least Z0� of the units . The agreement did not restrict them on size or price on the remaining 80� of the units . He said that the applicant submitted an analysis showing the impact on price of an increase in lot size to 8,000 square feet. This property was somewhat unique because the land cost was relatively low because of the distance to certain utilities, and because they have to put in a great deal of offsites in terms of the road dedication and construction; their offsite and onsite " improvement costs exceed the actual land cost and as a result density had a significant cost on the unit price because those were the things that were fixed regardless of how many units were built. According to their analysis, going to 8,000 square feet would add approximately $15, 000 to the ''�" price of the houses and increased the monthly payment $121, which included the increase in the property tax. He said it was the applicant' s feeling that the site' s location and the current market would not support the higher price. He noted that the plot plan showed how the houses fit on the lots . The houses did meet the setback criteria and in most cases exceeded them for side yards and rear yards . Achieving and promoting housing affordability could be used as a justification to grant exception to the lot size standards in the PR zone. He stated that the project created some significant environmental impacts and was subject to some impacts of the environment. It was adjacent to TT 26502 , the Rancho Portola country club project for which an environmental impact report was done, as well as biological studies . The general environment of the proposed site was virtually identical to the Rancho Portola site and on that site there was identified habitat for the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard and the Coachella Valley Milk Vetch. He noted that for the Fringe-Toed Lizard there was an established habitat conservation plan which allowed the incidental taking and destruction of the lizard habitat with mitigation being payment of a $600/acre fee used to buy habitat north of the freeway. Right now there was a multi- species habitat conservation plan underway which would � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 r propose mitigation measures for all of the potentially .,,rl threatened and endangered species in the valley which once approved would address all these issues into the future. Per a "gentlemen' s" agreement with Fish and Wildlife Services, projects were being required to contribute to the cost of preparation of this plan. The agreed upon amount was $30, 000 for a project this size. As a result this project would be subject to that fee since the multi-species plan covered the milk vetch. He said this project would result in local and regional impacts on traffic. The current planning efforts were designed to accommodate the impacts of this project, including the dedication and improvement of Gerald Ford, payment of signalization fees, and participation in an existing assessment district that paid for the construction of Gerald Ford, Portola and Frank Sinatra. For regional impacts the project was subject to a $386,OQ0 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for implementation of the CVAG Regional Transportation Plan and would be required to participate in the Cook Street/I-10 Interchange assessment district. The project was subject to significant impacts to it from the environment. The first was blowsand. The project was located in and surrounded by undeveloped and unstabilized sand dunes and until such time as the area to the west was developed, it would experience significant effects from the sand transport process . As mitigation, on � the landscape plan provided walls along the west and included windbreaks to try and reduce this problem. To a certain extent the north was already protected with the embankment of I-10 and a line of tamarisk trees. The other impact was noise from the railroad tracks and I-10 . Right now the noise levels for the lots relatively close to the railroad tracks exceeded the general plan standards for a residential area and they would have to conduct an acoustical analysis to determine both the current and projected noise levels as traffic on the rail line increased and include mitigation to reduce those levels to 65 CNEL. In conclusion, Mr. Drell stated that as conditioned the project met the subdivision standards and standards of the State Map Act. It was consistent with the PR zone with the exception of lot size; it was a designated affordable housing site and was appropriate to act in such a way to promote housing affordability. The question was if what the applicant was proposing in the agreement was sufficient. With the mitigation measures required relative to biological impacts, traffic, noise, and blowsand, the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration could be approved. He noted an addition to 6 '� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 �.. condition #11 that a summary of the noise study approved by the city shall be provided to all prospective buyers . This was to make sure that everyone was aware that trains would run and generated a certain level of noise. Condition #13 would be amended to reflect the amended schedule in the agreement with the 1200 square feet and less being changed to $113,990, etc . He said because of the unit sizes, with the exceptian of the 1, 000 square foat units, it would result in a higher price per unit on the larger 3 and 4 bedroom units than described in the report since the threshold was dropped just enough to move those units into the higher category. Commissioner Whitlock noted that the state required a certain percentage of affordable housing in every city. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the City of Palm Desert had achieved that percentage requirement. Mr. Drell replied no. Commissioner Whitlock asked if this project would assist in that endeavor. Mr. Drell replied yes; for the 20� the city would have control over, it would. For the other 80�, the city would get some credit in that they have reduced the cost of housing. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the agreement presented to the commission was a requirement. Mr. Drell stated that it was a required condition of approval, #13, that a satisfactory agreement had to be +•► included as a condition of the final map. Commissioner Whitlock asked who would monitor the agreement to insure that ' what was bound to would be followed. Mr. Drell replied the planning department because it was a city condition. The agreement required that a covenant/deed restriction be placed on those units, which had not been written yet, but would require that on resale units, the city would have to be notified to confirm that the resale was within the parameters . One of the things missing from the agreement was an enforcement provision, a monitoring provision, reporting provisions, and that would have to be included. Commissioner Whitlock asked if what they saw in the agreement was not sufficient at this time and would need to be expanded upon. Mr. Drell replied that this was a first draft. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he found it incredible that on a 5,500 square foot lot that the side yard and rear yard setback requirements could be met and on previous projects with larger lots they hadn' t been able to. Mr. Drell stated that it was a function of house size. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff knew the exact number of affordable units and where the city was in terms of ineeting the requirements . Mr. Drell stated that with the project on Fred Waring Drive, there were approximately 1,000 units . The goal in the � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 � General Plan as set by SCAG was 1, 700 units in 1989 through � 1994 . Subsequently they extended that deadline. In terms of this particular price segment, the city had no units . The housing element required the provision of housing opportunities throughout the entire economic spectrum and most of the assisted programs went from the median income down. This project would probably start closer to 120$ of median and go to 140� of inedian. Chairperson Jonathan asked what the selling prices were for the homes on Fred Waring; Mr. Drell replied $101,000 for the three bedroom units and $105,000 for the four bedroom units . Chairperson Jonathan asked what the average lot sizes were; Mr. Drell replied that they were smaller than the proposal and were approximately 5,000 square feet. He noted that those were attached units and the density was seven units per acre. The proposed density was approximately five units per acre. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the city was about 700 units behind the quota. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the commitment on the sales price limit on 20$ of the units was what the applicant was giving and asked what the city was giving; Mr. Drell replied the exception on lot size. He clarified that the applicant was not asking for money or increased density, but the exception to lot size. Chairperson Jonathan noted that even without contributing � money this project would still be construed as complying with � assisted housing programs; Mr. Drell clarified that they were promoting affordability and this would reach the upper end of the moderate income market. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it would apply toward the 1,700 objective. Mr. Drell replied that it would apply, but noted that the city was under a lawsuit settlement and it would not apply toward the lawsuit settlement units . It would account toward the moderate income regional housing needs assessment. He said it depended upon what the interest rates were at any one time. Chairperson Jonathan suggested that since only 20$ of the project was being subjected to the price limitation, why couldn' t they give the ordinance exceptions only to those lots . He felt the city was being a little generous . Mr. Drell said they could expand the restrictions, but part of the applicant' s statement was that the project site could only accommodate so much and it seemed to be their intention that most of the units would be sold at these prices . Chairperson Jonathan asked why the agreement was given to the commission in such a preliminary form when the project had been scheduled for public hearing for a while and was a part of what they were to consider. He asked why the commission couldn't get these types of things ahead of time or a request to continue matters . Mr. Drell replied that the idea was to ;; 8 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 �"" lay out the basic parameters of the condition and to see if those basic parameters were sufficient in the mind of the commission to approve this map. If the commission's conclusion was that no, these lot sizes could not be approved regardless, there was no reason to spend a lot of time and money on attorney fees perfecting the details of the agreement. Chairperson Jonathan felt the document should at least have been presented with the normal packet. He felt the commission should not be put in a position of having to read the document during the staff presentation or during the hearing and trying to form an opinion. Mr. Drell stated the original thought was to have it as a condition and spell out the basic requirements that the agreement had to contain, but the problem was that when it came in it had provisions that were different than what were described in the staff report and he felt that as long as he was talking about conditions, the commission should see the document. Initially staff did not expect to have it done, but would just inform them what had to be accomplished as a condition of the map which they ' would have to do prior to recordation. Chairperson Jonathan stated that in the future he would appreciate receiving these types of things ahead of time. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked 'r"' the commission to address the commission. MR. KENT GROVER, 180 N. Riverview Drive Suite 300 in Anaheim Hills, stated that he represented Kaufman and Broad. Also present was Hunsaker & Associates, their land planning and engineering firm. They were present to answer any technical questions . Mr. Grover stated that he didn't have much to add. He thanked staff for their help in getting to this point and in response to the issue of whether the 20� only should be granted for the smaller lot size versus all of them, he felt it was two different questions . The first was where the market was at that site given the remote location and the physical restrictions it has given the freeway and railroad. He did not believe in today' s market the price for all of the units would be different than what they were committing to for the 20� . The reason they were not willing to go further than the 20� was because the market could get better. They felt it was necessary to get a lot size reduction on all of the lots to amortize the real extensive infrastructure costs associated with the development of the property to get it to where all the units could be offered at a reasonable price that they felt the market would bear in �.. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 that location. On previous density bonus type � developments he had worked on in the past, the standard was a density bonus of approximately 25$ of the base number of units in return for offering those units at restricted prices. He felt it was a market driven thing based on historical projects they have been involved with. Chairperson Jonathan noted that the applicant said price restricted, but at $134 ,000 asked how much could a four bedroom 1200 square foot home on a 5500 square foot lot by a railroad go for if it wasn't price restricted. Mr. Grover replied not much more in today' s market. Alternatively though, if looking at 8,000 square foot lots, that translated to $15,000 more in costs, and they felt the market was not there. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would like to see something in that area but was not convinced that this was the best solution and wanted to review some things that might be reasonable alternatives. He said they had seen condo developments and garden units where there was one or more common wall being shared, and they had seen split projects where part received higher density and was almost self ; contained or limited to a portion of the development. In ,� this case it could be the perimeter units because of the proximity to the railroad, but the rest of the development could be a normal unrestricted project. He asked if that had been considered for this location. Mr. Grover said they looked at a various combination of lot sizes . On this one there were 5,500 and 6,500 square foot minimum lots set up in zones and they looked at it more from a marketing standpoint and felt that it was a single family detached residence today's market was looking for. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS. KATRINA HEINRICH STEINBERG, 471 Monte Vista in Palm Springs, stated that her family' s company was the seller of the land to Kaufman and Broad. She said that there were always good reasons to sell a piece of property, but after a lot of contemplation, they sold the property to Kaufman and Broad for almost $2 million less than what they took it back from the city for when the sale exchange transaction took place two years ago. They 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 r""' didn't usually like to sell at a loss of this type, but they felt that this area was in need of a major player such as Kaufman and Broad. They would not have sold this property to anyone with a weak financial background and less than the sales record of Kaufman and Broad. They felt it would benefit the surrounding properties that were located within the city of Palm Desert and would provide an impetus to create something good, unencumbered by surroundings . They sold to Kaufman and Broad knowing that it would be something that had been thoroughly researched as to the marketability of the end product. She also had something in mind such as a mixed use project, but for the past four and a half months she has done extensive research as to what was selling in the entire Coachella Valley. She had been from Coachella to Desert Hot Springs and what was selling was a single family residence appealing to the low and low middle class income, young families with two or more children who were seeking housing and paying up to $800 ' and $900 per month for a three bedroom apartment in Indio. There was no parking or security and no landscaping. The projects that had been extremely successful in the market range proposed by Kaufman and Broad were the projects in the Bermuda Dunes area built �"' by various builders Iike Century Homes and others like them and in the cove of La Quinta that ranged in price from $105,000 and $149,500 on lots between 5,200 and 5, 800 square feet. That did not provide for a pool, but most were not interested in pools . In the sales office, customers told her that it took money to maintain a large yard, was expensive to landscape it, both parents were working and sometimes there was an elderly parent taking care of the children. She felt this would be an ideal unit. If today a young family with two wage earners bought a house for $120, 000 and they provided a 10$ down payment, they would end up with a $110,000 mortgage. With FHA, they would pay approximately 8 1/2 percent so that would be $650-$670 per month. From Indio to Coachella, in the La Quinta cove, and in Bermuda Dunes, those were young families and they didn't want an attached house. They didn't even like duplexes . Right now the Coachella Valley had an inventory of 9 ,500 attached units that remained unsold. The market changed and the profile of the buyer has changed. Ten years ago the average homebuyer was between 38 and 44 years old; today they were between 29 and 36 years old. This was where the market was . She could show the commission condominiums for sale with 900 square feet for $55,000 +�r. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 ; and she couldn' t sell them. Also $50, 000-$75,000 two �„� bedrooms and two baths condos and they couldn' t sell them because even single people preferred a small home with a garden. She urged the commission to look at this project; the economics were favorable and Palm Desert did not have anything like it right now. This was a good thing because it would create attention for an area that has been looked upon as a stepchild by potential buyers . Whenever she showed land along Gerald Ford between Monterey and Portola, people did not want to be the first ones out there. They wanted to be closer to town. They needed someone like Kaufman and Broad to go into that area and open it up and the fallout would be beneficial to the community. Once Kaufman and Broad was there it would create excitement. She noted that Merano at Monterey and Country Club, out of 42 homes in the first phase they had 130 reservations for the next phase. They had over 500 people in body counts over the Easter weekend. This proposal was needed and would open up the area. The neighbors would develop and other developers would come in. The supermarkets would like it because this was the permanent population leaving the money within the community. People buying these homes were presently working in Palm Desert and commuting into � Palm Desert from the surrounding communities because � this kind of housing was not being provided for them. She urged the commission to not get "hung up" on the lot size; it was not a hang up with the buyer; it was something that was successful everywhere else and suggested that the cammission look at existing projects . She noted that when Century Homes opened up Topaz homes, they sold 27 units the first weekend and only had one fall out. Everyone else closed escrow. MR. STEVE FORTNER stated that he was representing Henry Melby, the Trustee of V.H. Fortner Testamentary Trust, and they owned a parcel of property where a small corner touched the proposed project. Their property has an approved parcel map, #27419, and their property was mapped in conjunction with a neighbor further down the railroad tracks almost down to Monterey, PM 24255 . He indicated that a lot of environmental impact reports went into getting the final map approvals . The maps were subject to a pre-annexation agreement with the City of Palm Desert. His concern was that this project should be consistent with what had already been approved on adjoining land. He did not want to say anything negative about Kaufman and Broad, or anyone that wanted � 12 � Mzrru�rEs PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 �"" to build something out there right now because it was hard to find someone with a good reputation and financing. He liked the idea of extending Portola down. In the pre-annexation agreement with the city, there was a requirement that Portola be put in at no expense to the two parcel maps and he believed this would satisfy that criteria. One of his concerns was to make sure that all of the letter and spirit of the pre-annexation agreement was followed through on this . He was concerned in that their zoning was service industrial so that there would be one acre of service industrial parcels across the street from 5,000 square foot single family residential lots . His map predated theirs, but they would probably be building before him and he did not want to come in with a potential buyer later on and then have concerns raised that it was inconsistent with the area because of there being single family residences next to it. He noted there was a lot of discussion on his maps regarding Dinah Shore being a fairly major traffic corridor to take traffic off I-10 and Country Club Drive; he noted on this plan that Dinah Shore would dead end at Portola. In the past it was shown to go all the way to Cook Street parallel to the railroad tracks . He also indicated there was quite a bit of discussion on "`"' drainage issues . Chairperson Jonathan felt that some of these issues should be addressed. He asked if the service industrial zoning was taken into consideration by staff and the applicant and confirmed that in some way the existing zoning was recognized and a commitment to the zone was made. Mr. Drell stated yes; the one anomaly created by this map was that typically there was a street separating the uses . Here on most of the length on Portola was a 126 foot right-of-way. When the existing parcel maps were first planned and there was an agreement in the county, when they went through the annexation, Dinah Shore was part of the Mid Valley Parkway, or an extension of the Mid Valley Parkway that stopped at Monterey but was shown continuing on to Cook Street. He noted that when RDA owned the property their plan showed the road and it was the basis for having the commercial area of their project. Subsequent to that the Mid Valley Parkway had been shifted downward and at that time Gerald Ford ended at Portola. When the Mid Valley Parkway shifted down to Gerald Ford, Gerald Ford was the street that would cut through to Cook Street and it curved down at an angle and intersected Cook Street about a half mile north of Frank Sinatra. That was the reason why this began to look inconsistent with the maps done five or �.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 six years ago. Now Dinah Shore merged into Portola. It did ,,,,,� not dead end, but would be a free movement into Portola taking traffic down to Gerald Ford. If someone wanted to go to Cook Street, they would take Gerald Ford. That area north of the turn there was industrial zoning backing right up to this residential zone. That was probably something that was not anticipated when the zone was established in the North Sphere Specific Plan. He noted that our industrial parks were closer to office parks; they were not smoke stacks or clanging machinery; therefore, given Palm Desert 's ability to do some sensitive site planning, staff did not see it as a problem. It was something that both buyers should know about and the Kaufman and Broad buyer could come in and see what the zoning was . Mr. Fortner stated that when Dinah Shore was supposed to be part of the Mid Valley Parkway there was a number of restrictions put on their properties as far as encroachments . They didn't want any driveways onto Dinah Shore. If it wasn' t going to be that type of road anymore, he asked if it could be smaller and if they could have encroachments . Mr. Drell indicated that it could be brought up for discussion again. ,� Mr. Fortner said the drainage ditch was a big issue on how wide and how deep; there was some inconsistency with what Rancho Mirage was requiring on their side of Monterey and what the City of Palm Desert was requiring on our side of Monterey. He asked if the requirements here were consistent with his requirements . Mr. Drell stated that it was 50 feet wide and was per CVWD requirements . Mr. Folkers said that supposedly they were consistent. Mr. Drell indicated that staff followed CVWD' s recommendation in requiring the easement. He was not sure how deep it was; they were not constructing the ditch, they were providing the right-of-way. Mr. Fortner thought they were conditioned to construct the ditch. Mr. Diaz noted that what was before the cammission right now was the proposed tentative map. The conditions of approval placed on Mr. Fortner' s map and what they were with the county and CVWD and if the alignments have changed should be checked out with CVWD. As far as commitments for future 14 � Mzrru�rEs PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 '�" access onto Dinah Shore, that would have to be determined when the development came in. He did not think the city could commit itself to anything at this point. Mr. Fortner said he just wanted to point out the consistency issues with the adjoining maps that had already been approved. Mr. Diaz stated that consistency did not necessarily mean identical to. Mr. Drell said that the problem was that for certain conditions the plans have changed and if under the new plan, they might have opportunities to come in an amend the existing maps to take advantage of this particular alignment as opposed to the other. Mr. Fortner said he did not wish to discourage any developer, especially one with as good a reputation as Kaufman and Broad and he would like to see Portola extended down. He also would like to have his engineer talk with their engineer since they had their final map engineered that had not been submitted and he did not want to have to re-engineer their map to try and line up with their infrastructure. He would like to coordinate that now. � MR. GALE MESSICK, 935 Palm Springs Lane in Glendora, owner of the piece of project adjacent to the proposal stated that he did not see how the project would hurt any of them and he was looking forward to having someone build out there. His property was zoned service industrial and he did not think the type of building going in next to the tracks would have a big problem on the housing. They wanted to see Dinah Shore go through. Once the road went throuqh there it would only be a mile to the Price Club. He felt that road was badly needed. With the type of housing being put in, it was something the city needed. He thought it was a good idea. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . Mr. Drell stated that on the affordability of the controlled units, the smallest unit at $114 ,000 would be within the moderate income range. The $123,000 and $132,000 might be just beyond the 120� of inedian. Unless interest rates dropped significantly, they were providing a unit not available in the city, but were not technically moderate income affordable. �.. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL I8, 1995 Chairperson Jonathan indicated several concerns with the � project: 1) The city was giving up a lot in terms of exceptions to the ordinance and getting essentially nothing in return. According to the applicant himself the price represented no reduction from market values . 2) Looking at this project, there were no amenities--no community pools, tennis courts, green areas or park areas . There would be children with very small yards. He felt that was lacking for a development of this size. In over 400 units, there would be approximately 1600 people. 3) He understood the market demand for low income single family residences that Mrs . Steinberg spoke about, but in his opinion the City of Palm Desert should not be all things to all people. He would like an $80,000 home in Indian Wells Country Club but that did not mean the City of Indian Wells was obligated to give it to him. He understood consumer demands, but also understood the broader picture of what the city should and should not provide. 4) The lot sizes were not just a little too small, but way too small . That was a very small compact space with very small compact houses and a large number of them. Not only were the houses small, and the lots small, but the resulting density was not appropriate for what Palm Desert was trying to accomplish. He did not have a problem with low income housing or with the various things that had been very creative that the city and other developers had done, but did � not see any of that creativity here. He just saw small houses with small lots and lot of them. 5) With the recognition of the adjacent service industrial zoning, a design on this type of project needed to anticipate that and the west end of this development lent itself to greenbelts and community areas in a way that would distance residences from service industrial uses . Service industrial could be garages, car washes, noisy or smelly uses, and there were some structures in the service industrial zone that had 18 foot high walls with zero setbacks . He did not think there were too many people who wanted an 18 foot wall at the end of their backyard when their backyard was 20 feet away from their living room window. He felt there was some incumbent responsibility on this developer to recognize what was zoned to be developed adjacent to them and there was an opportunity before there was a problem to defer them. That responsibility fell partly on this developer. In general, the concept of residential development in this area made a degree of sense, but there was plenty of room for creativity, whether that was commercial buffering so that the entire site wasn't taken up with residential, or whether it was a split project that had some high density, small lots or some normal-no ordinance exception housing. He felt there was ; 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 '"" plenty of opportunity to be creative here and that there should be plenty of room between cost and profit to create something that should be feasible. He could not approve the project as it was now and he wanted an opportunity to read the agreement. His personal feeling was to either continue the matter and allow the applicant an opportunity to get creative and give the commission an opportunity to read the agreement, or he could not approve the project as it presently was . Commissioner Whitlock concurred with the lack of creativity. What made an impact on her was the service industrial zoning across the street. She suggested that the setbacks to that zoning use greenbelts as a buffer versus a wall, which might be beneficial and she would be receptive to it if Kaufman and Broad could do something like that. The comment about lack of amenities was not as crucial to her. In trying to find affordable housing, she did not feel that additional amenities were what people were necessarily looking for. Her main concern was the density with the lack of creativity, the buffering that she would like to see between the service industrial because there was already a problem with the proximity of the railroad tracks and noise concerns . She would like to see something with a setback, whether it was "'� greenbelts, parkways, or whatever that might open it up. If Kaufman and Broad were amenable to something like that, rather than denying the project, she would be in favor of continuing this matter as well to see what they could come back with. Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner Whitlock. As far as affordable housing was concerned she did not feel that people were looking for swimming pools, but wanted to have a home. As far as the greenbelts were concerned, she suggested a few less homes and more garden areas that would be taken care of by the developer. She also felt that Kaufman and Broad should be continued. Chairperson Jonathan stated that pools and amenities were not as important to him, but wanted to ask the other commissioners about the proposed lot size. He felt the lots as designed were too small to accommodate pools . He asked if the other commissioners had a problem with 400+ families that didn't have pools in the backyards or pools in the development when it came to summer months . Commissioner Whitlock felt that was what the YMCA was for, the city park, the ballfields, and the proposed stadium; she felt they were looking toward activities in that area for the young families � 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 and the commission did not need to be as concerned about .�i providing those activities for them within the development. This wasn 't a condominium project or a gated community, but a single family residential development. She felt that they might have become too accustomed to looking at country club resort environments and they needed to look to areas where the young people could go and get their first starter homes . Mr. Diaz stated that as far as the lot being too small, he had a 16 x 32 foot pool on a 4700 square foot lot, which was smaller than the proposal . He said that the lot was designed by Mr. Hunsaker many years ago in West Covina, but in that location there were zero side yards on the homes, so it could be done on that size lot. Mr. Drell noted that the site included 2 two acre retention basins; whether the design of the retention basins could be used he was not sure; while the city did not have a policy of accepting retention basins as city park dedications, it did not prevent their development to a certain extent as recreation areas . Along with common recreation came homeowners associations and fees that often developers like Kaufman and Broad wanted to avoid, but they did have four acres that could be used to provide some amenities . Commissioner Jonathan felt Commissioner Whitlock' s point was very well taken, that this was not a country club or a gated development, but a residential area. The problem he was having was looking at 800+ kids at ' buildout and right now there were quite a few youth facilities, but no swimming pool . He felt the closest thing to that was the Palm Desert High School and College of the Desert which were in high demand. During the summer he believed there were no summer times available. He was looking at an overall planning issue. He said he would not get stuck on that point because he felt that Commissioner Whitlock was right that this was a housing development and it was hard to encumber a developer with that type of social responsibility, but it might be something for them to consider. Mr. Drell said that for the project ' s population, they were required to dedicate or pay in-lieu fees equivalent to five acres per 1,000 people in projected population. Using the average household size of 2 . 27, he projected the population to be around 1300 people, so they would be required to dedicate or pay in-lieu of the cost of land for six to seven acres . That could go toward future facilities in that part of the city. Chairperson Jonathan felt that maybe they could build a couple of pools instead. Again, there was room for creativity. He heard a consensus among the commission for a continuance to give the applicant an opportunity to address some of the concerns expressed. He - asked if the applicant agreed. Mr. Diaz stated for the � 18 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 �"" record that he would like the applicant to ask for the continuance. Mr. Grover requested a continuance. Chairperson Jonathan reopened the public hearing and asked for a motion of continuance. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing TT 28158 to May 16 , 1995 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . Mr. Drell requested any comments by the commission on the agreement before that meeting. Commissioner Whitlock asked if the commission would be given the opportunity to review the attachments that the attorneys would provide. Mr. Drell said it would be included in the next report and if the commission had specific feedback to give the attorneys for provisions they would like to see included he would like to receive them as soon as possible. Chairperson Jonathan noted a few things that were discussed were clauses for " enforcement, penalty, and monitoring. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B �""' None. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Diaz indicated that the March 30, 1995 EDAC subcommittee dealt with the cooperative survey being taken of the commercial areas to determine what actions some of the retailers felt might be necessary on the part of the city and redevelopment agency to encourage expansion and retention of businesses . It was a study being done by the California State University San Bernardino and was a graduate business administration seminar. He said the survey would probably begin in May because the classes started in April . He noted that the next meeting was scheduled on April 20 and one item to be discussed was the project at Deep Canyon and Highway 111 . Commissioner Whitlock asked why it was going to EDAC when commission had already recommended approval of the project to council . Mr. Diaz stated that they requested a `r. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 presentation on the project. There was no assistance being � requested by the project, so it didn't go to them previously. XI . COMMENTS 1 . Mr. Folkers introduced Mark Greenwood, the new transportation engineer, who would be attending some of the meetings . 2 . Commissioner Whitlock asked Mr. Diaz to "put a fire" under the RDA/city council to do something about the abandoned building on the corner of De Anza and San Carlos . She said that it had been boarded up and abandoned for months . The swimming pool was not in a good condition and it had become an area for the homeless . She said it has been like that for a long time and felt that something needed to be done. Mr. Diaz stated that he would send a memo to RDA and the building department. Commissioner Whitlock noted that they were trying to upgrade San Pablo and there were some businesses going there and it was a shame that nothing has been done. Mr. Diaz said he would send a copy of the memo to the commission. � 3 . Chairperson Jonathan noted that he voted to continue the Crest project, but would be abstaining from voting on the project. Mr. Rudolph stated that he would not have to change his vote since no discussion occurred. 4 . Chairperson Jonathan stated that he read in the paper that an indoor stadium was being proposed near the Price Club and it came as a surprise to him. As chairman of the planning commission he did not like to be surprised about a major project being proposed. Mr. Diaz said that his response to someone that called him regarding the article was that right now discussion was very, very preliminary. He said there was also discussion regarding an ice rink, a bowling center, and others . As soon as there was something ready to go, it would be before the commission as a study session item. Chairperson Jonathan noted it had been a while since there was a joint meeting with the city council . Commission concurred that they would appreciate a joint meeting with council . Chairperson Jonathan asked that staff get back to the commission at the next meetinq or within the next month with a specific date. 20 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1995 �" XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. C ied 5-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 32 p. . e �����Z�/// ° �f '�",�'+ RAMON A. DIAZ, Sec ary ATTEST: SABBY JO HAN, Chairperson Palm Dese Planning Commission , /tm �.. � 21