Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0516 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - MAY 16, 1995 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * �.. I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan 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: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez ' Carol Whitlock Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Phil Drell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: `.. Request for consideration of the May 2, 1995 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, approving the May 2, 1995 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Diaz summarized pertinent May 11, 1995 city council action. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos . PMW 95-3 and PMW 95-4 - MARK TEMPLE CONSTRUCTION, Applicant Request for approval of two parcel map waivers to allow lot line adjustments �, within Tract 19814-1 . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 B. Case Nos . PMW 95-5 and PMW 95-6 - MR. AND MRS. KENNETH HARRIS AND MR. AND MRS. STEFAN P. WILK, Applicants � Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine lots 19, 20 and 21 into one lot and a parcel map to combine lots 17-21 into one parcel . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued 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 informed commission that based on the commission' s comments from the last hearing, the applicant redesigned the subdivision map. The circulation and lot layout had been revised. Issues directly addressed were recreational amenities--in the new plan in addition to the 2 two acre retention basins, the applicant included a two acre fully improved park. At this time it was unclear what fully improved meant, but whether this would be a city accepted public, fully maintained park would be ultimately a decision by the parks and recreation commission and city council, as would the design. Commission would have to hear from the applicant as to their intentions of what they considered to be a fully improved park. That park was adjacent to one of the retention basins which could also provide some recreational use like a soccer field--potentially it could be the size of a four acre park. The two retention basins had been elongated to provide a better buffer between the units and railroad tracks . The number of lots that backed up directly to the tracks was reduced from 38 to 27 . The issue regarding the adjacent industrial subdivision at the northwest, on the map the developer designated a 40 foot building setback and an eight foot wall and landscaping from the 40 feet. A few of those lots they still could not place their smallest unit on and meet the 40 foot setback. Somehow � a few of those lots had to be deepened a little bit to 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 realistically achieve that 40 foot setback. While most of �''�' the houses would only have front yard landscaping, these houses would have rear yard landscaping provided as well . There would be large trees, etc. , that would soften any potential view of the industrial area. That design would be part of their architectural review. For Gerald Ford and Portola Avenue, right-of-ways had been widened to allow the 20 foot parkways, which had been 12 feet. They had a condition to widen it to 20 and the new map incorporated that condition as well as the acceleration and deceleration lanes at each entrance. The additional parkway, especially along Portola, would allow for the additional landscaping required for blowsand protection in terms of sufficient numbers of trees . The net result/project data was distributed to the commission--there had been a decrease in the number of units from 439 to 433 in terms of lots and the average lot sized increased from 6431 to 6558 square feet. While previously the largest number of lots was in the 5500-6000 square foot range, now the largest was in the 6000-7000 square foot range and the number of 7000-8000 had also increased. There was a decrease in the larger 8000 square foot lots and the smaller 5500 square foot lots . Gross density also went down from 4 . 14 to 4 . 08 . On the advice of the city engineer, the circulation system was redesigned to allow a few collectors . The new design provided enough collectors to make it easier '�"" to get in and out, especially for emergency vehicles . Additional analysis was done on the prices and how they compared relative to moderate income standards and in the draft agreements, all of the 20� controlled units would meet a moderate income standard. The smaller 1000 square foot unit would meet the affordable by a four person household earning a median income. The larger three bedroom unit would meet 110� of inedian; and the four bedroom unit would meet the 110� of inedian for a five person household. In general, families earning between $40, 000-$50,000 per year would be able ta afford these homes . They would meet the general plan standards and would go toward the general plan goals relative to the produce of moderate income housing. No additional work was done on the agreement. Mr. Drell stated that his only comment on the agreement was that they had a provision in terms of termination that had it go out of effect after five years . "The agreement shall terminate automatically on the earlier date when 20$ of the lots within the property are sold. " If all of the lots were sold, then the agreement would terminate and the restrictive covenants would be in effect, to the date which would be five years from the date of the execution of the agreement. For a project like this, he noted it might take longer than five years to build out and sell, so five years he felt was insufficient time. He �, felt that "I" of this agreement should be in effect as long 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 � as the 20$ were unsold. Staff recommended approval of the '� map as conditioned, ri Commissioner Campbell asked what the in-lieu of fees meant in terms of the park provision. Mr. Drell explained that the city park or community facilities improvement ordinance required dedication of land; typically unless a project was specifically located where the city wanted a park, there was an in-lieu fee that the city collected equivalent to the value of land which would be required to be dedicated ( i .e. this project would be required to dedicate approximately six acres worth of land) . That was based on five acres per 1000 projected population in the subdivision. In this case they were proposing that their park requirement would be filled by a combination of dedication of the two acres and the improvement of the two acres . It would be a combination to fulfill their park requirement. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the park would be public and maintained by the city; Mr. Drell stated that was an issue that would be decided, with the commission' s input, by the parks and recreation commission and city council, who would decide given a choice between cash or land or land plus improvements, what the city would rather have. If it was decided that credit would be given as part of their park � requirement, but the city did not want to maintain it because � this park so exclusively serves this one subdivision, that was an option. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there wasn't going to be a homeowners association so it would be difficult if the city didn't maintain it. He asked if the commission was in a position to approve a project and a development agreement if that issue was not addressed. Mr. Diaz believed the commission could if they placed on the development a condition that the developer would agree to establish an assessment district under the 1972 Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance Act for this facility. That would allow the commission to approach the parks and recreation commission and council and would answer the questions the planning commission might have in terms of maintenance. Also, it would give them some latitude in terms of relocating that park if the parks and recreation commission did not have a problem with it and recommended that the city maintain it after the developer developed it as long as it was somewhere else, so in essence what they would be setting forth was that: 1) they would be getting at least two acres; and 2 ) that it would be developed by the developer subject to the final location by the city council and parks and recreation commission. If they had any questions or doubts about what � was finally approved, it would come back to the commission, but by placing the condition that the developer agrees if � necessary to establish a lighting and landscaping maintenance 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 district. Mr. Drell felt they would need that any way for '�"'' the retention basins . Chairperson Jonathan asked if the there would be a 20 foot greenbelt within the 40 foot setback and if it would be within the project or outside the walls . Mr. Drell said that typically on a perimeter where there was a street, there was a parkway. Where there were two abutting properties with no parkway, all the development had to be inside the wall because they did not want a "no man' s land" between two properties . They were proposing that they would landscape this area as opposed to the rest of the lots that would not have rear landscaping. These lots would have rear landscaping specifically designed with big trees and they were only talking about three or four lots . Chairperson Jonathan asked about the project ' s perimeter on Portola; Mr. Drell replied that the 20 feet would be landscaped parkway between the curb and the perimeter wall . Chairperson Jonathan asked if that included curb, greenbelt, sidewalk, a little bit more green and then the wall; Mr. Drell replied yes, similar to the front of Marriott, Desert Falls, and the Lakes . That would be on Gerald Ford and Portola. Mr. Diaz noted there would be an assessment district needed to maintain that. Chairperson Jonathan noted that public works condition number 13 on page six addressed ingress and egress and said that there would be only left-turn ingress on those two points on Gerald Ford and Portola; Mr. Drell clarified ""�' that basically it had been the policy to allow left turn entering off these major arterials where there was a controlled median that did not allow exiting; they would only be building a half street right now that would be two lanes, but ultimately when the full four lanes were developed and the median was installed, the people in the subdivision would know they would only be allowed left turn in and right turn exit. Mr. Drell did not feel the proximity to the corner would be a problem. Chairperson Jonathan said that if there was an island that only allowed left turn in that was fine, but if there wasn't, then traffic cou.Zd be backed up into the intersection. Mr. Drell said there would be a left turn pocket provided. Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that on the development agreement itself, there were a few provisions that required some mechanism to monitor them ( i .e. the annual adjustment to the selling price and the resale restrictions that went on for ten years) . He asked if the city was equipped in some way to monitor those requirements; Mr. Drell said that there were controls on other rental units in the city and there would be a lot of resale controls on the Desert Rose project that would go forever. He noted that exhibit A of the agreement would be a restrictive covenant which would be placed on each one of the properties which would require notification of the city at the time of resale. ,� Mr. Diaz indicated that the city had hired a housing coordinator and her position would be to look at this as well 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16 , 1995 as other housing agreements . Chairperson Jonathan said that f the five year termination clause Mr. Drell referred to, even � if it were modified, there were restrictions that would go past the point of the agreement termination. Mr. Drell concurred, but indicated the recorded covenants on the property would outlive the agreement. Whether the agreement was in effect or not in effect was a technicality. Chairperson Jonathan said that if there was going to be a termination clause, he asked why it could not be made that when the last unit was resold within that 10 year period, subject to restrictions . Mr. Rudolph stated that it could be done that way. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. PAUL HUDDLESTON, Forest Falls, California, stated that he was with Hunsaker & Associates, representing Kaufman and Broad on the project. He said they had redesigned the site to give better circulation throughout the project; entry into the project was much more easy for anyone wanting to get into the project; going through the project would also be easier. In order to reduce the number of lots along the highway and railroad, they oriented the retention basins along that � portion of the boundary to keep as many lots as they � could away from the highway and railroad. They were also required by CVWD to dedicate a well site and that was oriented along the freeway. The park site was put in that area and reduced the number of units by about 20 that were along the highway and there was some buffer now between the residential units and the highway/ railroad. In response to the industrial zoning, they plotted a product on there that was basically 80 feet deep and that gave a 20 foot setback in the front and a 60 foot product. He said that would still gave 40 feet in the back yard. In the first 20 feet adjacent to the industrial zone, they would have the eight foot wall and 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone where there were some trees and some amenities to give some kind of buffer between the two zones . The 80 foot product would fit on the lots without any adjustment. He noted that Mr. Drell ' s figures were correct and the numbers on the map were wrong. Mr. Huddleston stated that he spoke to Steve Fortner, the owner of the project on the northwest corner--the industrial property. He told Mr. Fortner about what they were doing and faxed him a copy and he was in general agreement with what they were proposing � and felt the mitigation measures were adequate. The 20 foot parkways were being dedicated extra; they were � standard 12 foot parkways that they were widening to 20 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 feet along Portola and Gerald Ford and providing the r.�, acceleration/deceleration lanes in all of the entrances/ exits into the project. He appreciated the city' s help in working with staff and their comments and felt the overall design had been dramatically improved. Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant would pay for the backyard landscaping; Mr. Huddleston replied yes . Chairperson Jonathan asked for and received clarification on the final lot mix. Mr. Drell noted that the handout showed the revised lot mix. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Beaty noted that the developer put in the park at the suggestion of the commission, but he felt the assessment district should be established to pay for it. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan in that he really did not like the lot size, but given the area, he was leaning toward approval . Commissioner Whitlock thanked the developer for returning with the improvements that the commission requested and felt +.�. they improved the project. She was concerned about the public park issue because of the exclusive use for the community; an assessment district would be a resolution. For the number of lot mix, she was disappointed that there weren' t more of the larger lots at the 8000 square foot size, but given the overall development, it was something the city needed and the developer should have success with. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he was happy with the addition of the park and the changes that were done. He was in favor of the proposal . Commissioner Campbell stated that she liked the park and did not see the need for it to be a public park for everyone in Palm Desert because of the location. She was in favor of the project. Chairperson Jonathan stated that the park was not a big issue and indicated that the condition regarding the assessment district needed to be added so that there was a mechanism for paying for it. It would be a public park, but two acres was not very big and would end up being used by the residents only. He commended the developer for making some changes. He felt they were a step in the right direction and wished they could have gotten more. He believed that moderate �" income housing was necessary and that this area justified the 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 � very significant departure from their normal standards in � terms of lots sizes, amenities and appearance. He understood � what they were trying to achieve and felt the departure was appropriate in this case. He asked that staff in the future do more of their work for them--if they demanded a little more at the beginning, when it got to commission and they demanded a little more, then they could have something that was better suited to the city of Palm Desert and would serve the community better. Given that they started out with plan A and were at plan B right now, it was enough of a step forward that he could live with. If the developer decided to reduce the density even more, it would be okay with him. The only other thing he wanted to add was in the development agreement, paragraph 4, that the termination clause be reworded to where it self-terminated at the point that the last unit, subject to the resale restrictions, was resold, which was the natural ending of this agreement anyway. That way they didn't have to risk potential conflicts when the agreement was terminated but there were still houses subject to the resale restrictions . Mr. Drell noted that the resale restrictions, regardless of how many times it resold, were in effect for ten years . Commissioner Beaty asked if the commission or developer knew � what school district this project fell into; Mr. Drell � indicated that it was in Palm Springs Unified School � District. He noted that there was some discussion when they did the annexation of trying to get some dialogue between the two school districts, but since there was no development, there was no compelling reason at that time to pursue it. Mr. Diaz noted that he has been asked by the Mayor to look into the possibility of the area of the city north of Frank Sinatra Drive being switched to the Desert Sands Unified School District. He said that in the past PSUSD had been reluctant to let any of their land go. Mr. Drell noted that there was a piece of Bighorn Country Club that was in PSUSD; Commissioner Beaty noted that was changed. He said that this had nothing to do with their area of expertise, but it was a particular interest of his . He felt those residents would assume they would be attending Palm Desert schools . If possible, he said he would like that disclosed in the sales agreement. Mr. Diaz stated that was supposed to be in the white sheet. Commissioner Beaty felt the real estate sales people should know this also. Chairperson Jonathan called for a motion. Action: � Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner � Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. � Carried 5-0 . 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner i... Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1690, approving TT 28158 subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0 . Chairperson Jonathan said he wanted to follow up on the school district boundary issue. He felt that residents of Palm Desert should be attending Palm Desert schools . He stated that he felt it would be appropriate to make a motion to have the city council consider alternatives or pursuing the possibilities . Mr. Diaz stated that the Mayor has already instructed him to look into that. The thing they had to be careful of was the distance--this area was not that far from Cathedral City High School and might be closer than Palm Desert High School . Staff was looking into that and would see what the position of the school districts were. They had to make sure what arguments they would be presenting. He noted that Commissioner Beaty could tell the commission what he went through. Commissioner Beaty said it was a long and complicated story, but the major problem with that particular parcel was that there were some redevelopment agreements between the City of Palm Desert and Palm Springs Unified School District and about $10-$20 million involved in developer fees, redevelopment agency fees, and the people of Palm Springs were upset when this was proposed and was � defeated. Chairperson Jonathan said that they would run into geographic distance situations with any city. There were parts of Rancho Mirage that were almost adjacent to Monterey where COD was and were much closer to Palm Desert schools, but went a further distance to the Rancho Mirage elementary schools . He ' did not feel that was the critical issue. When someone moved into the city they expected to be part of the Palm Desert school system and had a right to get that. Mr. Diaz clarified that there was no Palm Desert school system--there was the Desert Sands Unified School District, which has schools outside of Palm Desert and depending upon the programs and the attitude of that school district, they could have kids bussed--Palm Desert kids could be bussed into Indio. If the city wanted to get involved in fighting the school districts on their boundaries, it could be done, but he felt that in terms of what they were going through now and the agreements that were there, the best way to do it was to see exactly where they were to do it quietly if possible. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he did not have a problem with that, but wanted the council to know that he felt that a resident of the city of Palm Desert should not have to attend a Palm Springs School District school . Mr. Diaz asked if a Palm Desert resident should attend La Quinta High 'r School . Chairperson Jonathan felt it made more sense because 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 it was within the same school district. Mr. Diaz said that right now, particularly since they had been through the +�r► Cahuilla Hills fight, rather than going out of our way and embarrass another school district and cause problems, see exactly what could be done. What were the where with alls they would have to go through; if they could make the exchange easily, then it should be done that way, but make sure of what they were talking about first. Right now for them to make a big deal when they were already looking at it he felt was the wrong way to go, but if the commission wanted to pass that motion, he would carry it forth to the council . He said it was a council issue right now and staff was making initial in-roads . Part of the reason they did not push it with the Cahuilla Hills exchange and Bighorn exchange in the area was because there was an understanding reached at that time that the area north of Frank Sinatra would be left alone. Now they were going into that area and that agreement wasn't signed there, but they had to proceed slowly. They didn' t even know if Palm Desert High School could accept additional students in terms of students generated by additional areas . They had to look at both school districts . Chairperson Jonathan stated that he had no intention of having the commission entering into politics, that was the city council was for, so he didn' t want to ruin what they were involved in. He did not think it was making a big deal of an issue to have a consensus statement that advised the �/ council of their interest in having Palm Desert residents attend Desert Sands Unified School District schools. He said it was not a mandate, but if Mr. Diaz felt it would "stir up the pot" and have some adverse results, then he would back off of that. Mr. Diaz said that they could say that the planning commission would like to have the council look into having all citizens of Palm Desert attend the same school district. Chairperson Jonathan said it was to explore the practicality and advisability of doing that. Mr. Diaz felt that was acceptable. B. Continued 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 � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 opposite the Palm Valley Channel from � the "Sommerset" condominiums . Mr. Diaz stated that staff would recommend that this case be continued to June 20, 1995 . Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 to June 20, 1995 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . C. Case No. CUP 95-5 - MANUEL AND FLORA ABARCA, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the issuance of a beer and wine license for Las Parrillas Taco Shop located at 72-785 Highway 111, #B. Mr. Diaz noted that the commission had the staff report. The � request was for a beer and wine license in a mexican restaurant and staff was recommending approval . Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public testimony and noted that no one was present. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony. Commissioner Beaty asked if it was usual to not have the applicant present. Mr. Diaz stated that usually if there was an opponent present, but the applicant was probably at the business . Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant was notified. Mr. Diaz replied yes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he would be voting against this proposal was because there was a precedent that he felt was appropriate that if the applicant was not present, he would not vote for what was being applied for. Commissioners Fernandez and Beaty concurred. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the request were denied if the applicant would have to go back to square one. Mr. Diaz said that was right, and would recommend that the case be continued to the next meeting. � Commissianer Whitlock withdrew her motion, Commissioner Campbell her second. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 Chairperson Jonathan reopened the public testimony and asked for a motion of continuance. +� Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing CUP 95-5 to June 6 , 1995 by minute motion. Carried 5-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. XI . COMMENTS � Mr. Diaz noted that the joint dinner meeting with city council was scheduled for June 7 , 1995 . XII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 5-0, The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 00 p.m. . • RAM N A. DIAZ, cr ry ATTEST: SABBY JONAT N, Chairperson Palm Desert lanning Commission /tm � 12