Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0620 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JUNE 20, 1995 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I . CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Beaty 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: Paul Beaty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Carol Whitlock Absent: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Phil Drell `.r IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the June 6 , 1995 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the June 6 , 1995 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0 . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent June 8, 1995 city council actions . VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. %00 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 VII . CONSENT CALENDAR r! A. Case No. PMW 95-8 - SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow lot line adjustments to accommodate revised building plotting in Tracts 26123-1, 26123-2 and 26757 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 - MILLER/RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the existing pre-annexation zoning increasing the density from 104 homesites to 151 homesites for "The Crest" - a project on 54 acres opposite the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums and 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hills" area - that would include 411 acres of dedicated open space. Mr. Joy stated that this application was an amendment to the 104 units approved by the city two years ago based on the county' s recommendation at that time. The county did not give the plan a full analysis and did not look at it as a general plan amendment, which the city was doing at that time. He noted that the subject property was a beautiful site and deserved a nice project developed on it, which was what he felt was being proposed by the applicant. Staff was ensuring that the project met the city' s hillside standards . In terms of the city standards versus county standards, the applicant went back to the county and asked for a general plan amendment and the county recommended a general plan amendment that would allow a maximum of 151 units on the property. The applicant came back to the city saying that the county changed their mind and presented a letter to staff verifying that. Mr. Joy reported that the city' s lot margins were based on a slope analysis for the piece of property and 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 r•. individual lots developed within the property, while the county in their letter drew attention to the engineering issues, transportation, and flood control, which the city would review also when reviewing any type of tract map for the property. Staff felt the city would give that a full analysis . When the applicant came back to the city after county approval, they asked for 151 units without providing much slope analysis details as far as the implementation of the tract maps that would be filed in the future. Staff requested more and did receive that. City staff felt comfortable with the submittal . Staff felt the project would benefit the general area by providing a better entryway to this section of the city and some of the lots in the area and the city in general in terms of providing a high quality estate area. At the same time it would provide the missing segment to the Santa Rosa Mountains Conservancy Plan by dedicating 411 acres of open space area and tying together open space dedications made previously to the north and south of the site. Staff recommended approval of the project and asked for any questions . Commissioner Whitlock asked if the commission would get a report from the developer as to where the additional homesites ( increased from 104 to 151 units) would be placed. r.r Mr. Joy replied that the applicant would be providing a map, but the increase in density all occurred in the county' s unincorporated section of the property north of the Cahuilla Hills area which was well away from the Sommerset development. Commissioner Whitlock noted that the initial project commission approved a few years ago had not changed much; Mr. Joy replied that in terms of the 54 acres within the city's boundary, it had not. Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. EUGENE GERITZ , 5353 W. Sopris Creek Road in Basalt, Colorado, informed commission that he was the land planner and development consultant that had been working on the Crest project for six years . As indicated, this was a unique piece of property. He said there were a number of people in the audience that had not seen the project, as well as several commissioners, and even though they had changed nothing from their original submittals, he felt it would be worthwhile to run through the project with them. In terms of history, when they filed their application originally, the EIR was written for 215 dwelling units for the entire `` 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 project. Because when they started the planning process and began working with the city, that was where they were at that point. The actual EIR that was certified by the commission and council was for 215 dwelling units . During the course of many meetings with staff, commission and council, they modified their application down to 185 dwelling units on the entire property, which at that time was 21 units on the triangular city piece and the balance ( 164) on Section 25 . Since that time relative to the text he distributed, the only things that had been changed in that text from the original submittal was to incorporate into the document the various suggestions that came from the commission, staff and the city council in the first approval of the project. There were a number of things worked out in that process and they incorporated all of that back into a final document for when they went to the county for the clarification on the general plan issue, although they did not intend to build the project in the county. They wanted the county to have a document that reflected exactly what had been approved by the city in terms of the constraints in development standards that they were putting in place. That was the document before the commission. He gave an overview on the project. He noted that the entrance to the project was immediately opposite Homestead and they worked out an agreement with Caltrans to signalize the intersection at a future time to provide access to the property and improve the flow of traffic into Homestead and help the access into the Sommerset project and it was felt the signal would slow down the traffic to give better access . They also worked out an agreement with CVWD to allow a bridge over the channel to get access to that area. That was a fairly key point not just to them, but to their neighbors because this meant there would now be more direct access to other parts of Cahuilla Hills where development plans had been approved over the years . Access would be by potentially locked gates . That would allow a second way out for the two "trapped" areas . One of the primary original decisions was that if the area was to be developed, what was the nature of it going to be. He wanted to be able to say that he thought up the concept in terms of how they would control it, but he borrowed a tried and true planning measure that had been used extensively in the Scottsdale area and they came up with a concept that said they would create very selective individual homesites and development would occur only on those homesites and everything else on the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 r.., property would go toward open space of one type or another. They felt this was critical because it was a fragile desert area, a very beautiful one and the value of the area to them was that it remain in its natural state. That was key number one. Number two was to determine whether or not they could gain access to the property by using and modifying very slightly the existing jeep trail that goes up through the canyon. He felt it was critical that they not scar the area. They did a lot of studies and found that with some minor re- routing they could make that work. There was one area they went outside their development boundaries and through an easement to gain access between two pieces . The area above there was unusual in two senses, one cannot be seen from the valley floor--what was seen were a set of ridges or from city hall, a different set of ridges . In the central area they called the area a "hanging valley" that was the mirror of the valley that contained Bighorn. The topography was almost identical . They were both essentially debris basins that went back ` for hundreds of thousands of years when this area was originally being formed. There was an area in the middle that was sloped rather gently at four to six percent going from the toe of the foothills down toward `. the Cahuilla Hills area. That was the area they identified as potential development area. The other critical decision was that they would take all the balance of the property and set it aside as dedicated open space. That was a little over 411 acres at this time because there would have to be some adjustments made to the boundaries through the city council hearings . That area would be dedicated jointly. They had already filed an irrevocable offer of dedication with the Coachella Mountains Conservancy, which was filed in 1993, and they made a fee dedication offer to the city which was contained in the planning document. One of the requests made by staff as part of the re- review was that they go ahead and do the dedication concurrently with the annexation and they were happy to do that. He noted that there were areas of deep ravines that scoured through the sloped plain and those would become desert park areas and be maintained as part of the project. The total site was approximately 690 acres, of that 411 acres or 60% would be dedicated open space. Of what they called the community area, of the total site some 43 acres would be devoted to homesites which was about 6 .2 acres and they would have another 12 acres in entry roads and cul-de-sacs, and one acre in �"" 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 e private drives going back to the houses . That was the total amount of development on the entire site. Out of some 695 acres there would be 62 . 3 acres of actually graded, touched land, which included the sloped banks and the areas along the road sides . The balance of the area within the community itself, some 32 acres, would be set aside as community open space and be subject to maintenance and control by the homeowners association. What they used to calculate the amount of development area was an average homesite of 12,500 square feet and they actually went out and located each and every one of the sites they would be dealing with. The actual number might be something less than that, but that would be determined by a secondary review period. He showed the commission cut sections through the site and what was up there was very gently sloping areas surrounded by extremely steep terrain. It was the sloped plain that they were using as the development area. As part of their submittal they had to do a landscaped master plan. The extent of the landscape was what he called "desert woodlands" and that was where the key areas at various entries and at bridges where they would put in a return irrigation and drip system and install native palm canyon type landscaping in those key points through the project. The real objective was to leave it as it is and not alter it, but they wanted to bring in some visual interest at certain points in the project. At the entry off the highway, the road sloped around, crossed the channel and proceeded onto the project. They were taking areas that were desert woodlands before floods came through and it got torn up by off-road vehicles and they were restoring those back to their original condition. The only thing they were introducing that wasn't there were the native palms . He showed the commission a conceptual drawing of the entry which would be down at the lower end. The access for the residents of the area would be outside the gated entry so they could come off the frontage road onto the bridge below the gate into the project. They had free access at all times and they would be using the desert woodlands theme there. Within the project another concern was how they would handle the ravines . The roads go with the terrain and were constantly changing grades because they didn't want to introduce any fill and wanted to minimize the cut going through it. The other was how to handle the little ravines--at the small ones they created small desert woodlands and they would use some culverts . Wherever there was a ravine ten feet 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 r..► deep they would work out a system of pre-cast concrete bridges that would span over and leave the terrain natural and again create a desert woodland in the natural areas associated with the crossings . They did not want to alter the terrain in those areas . As mentioned earlier, a key ingredient was the homesite and what they had done was identify the boundary of the homesite and within that boundary was the only area which could be disturbed in any way or that could have any landscape planted on it or be irrigated or in any way changed from the natural desert state. The formula in the plan said essentially that the size of those homesites would range from roughly 10, 000 square feet to 15,000 square feet depending upon the nature of the terrain that they were located on. The steeper the terrain or more irregular it was, the smaller the development. Everything outside of that would be dedicated as permanent open space that could not be disturbed at any time in the future. A piece of the master site plan for the project illustrated that the spacing of the houses must maintain the equivalent of one acre lots . They didn' t have lots because everything not disturbed goes back to common ownership, but they wanted the spacing to exist where the houses were 200 to �.. 250 feet apart so it wouldn't impact the terrain; also the houses would better blend into the surroundings . In the area there were rock chimneys and they plotted and identified each rock chimney in that area and looked at the homesites to insure that they would get a location that would not impinge on those and after the construction approval everything else would be dedicated open space for the homeowners association so the natural features would be preserved. They had one designated recreational area which was in the center of the site where they would potentially put in a couple of swimming pools and tennis courts for the use by the community itself . There might be tennis courts on some of the individual sites, but they would have to be in areas where the terrain was extremely flat and effectively had to come out of the 15, 000 square foot envelope that could be graded because that was all that would be available to them for a house, drive, and/or tennis courts . Commissioner Whitlock had asked where the added units came from--the study they did at 185 dwelling units meant that in effect what they had done was shrunk down as opposed to increasing up. They consolidated lots . Since they walked and located each building site in their original analysis coming back to the original MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 185 then down to 104 and back up to 152, they consolidated lots and building sites and came to a reduced plan. He showed a phasing plan and explained that they would probably only open up phases of about 18-20 lots at a time working their way through the project because sites would not be graded in advance of construction of the houses . Grading would be restricted. On the lower site they went through and identified each of the homesites in the area and determined the location they felt was appropriate for development to occur. As indicated by Mr. Joy, this was the first step and formed the framework for the project. When they came back to the commission, they would be submitting site development plans, tentative maps and grading plans on a phase by phase basis with all the calculations needed for staff to verify the fact that these meet the criteria of the ordinance and all the particulars . As a review he noted that 60% of the site would be dedicated open space and there would be 9% of the site developed in any manner whatsoever. That left 91% of the site which would remain exactly as seen today because that was the way the criteria was set up within the standards for the development of the project. Commissioner Whitlock noted that the beauty of the project had not changed from two years ago and was delighted. The commentary had been that nothing could be seen from the valley floor; valley floor to her was Highway 111 and asked what happened to the residents of Bighorn and Sommerset looking toward that mountain range--what exactly would those people see when they were sitting on their patios on the golf course. Mr. Geritz noted that they took photographs from just about everywhere outside its boundaries . There were some real peculiarities that occurred. There was a ridge along the easterly side of the project that screened it from areas of the Palm to Pines Highway and the same from Highway 111 . There was a prominent ridge that had several houses that sit on top of the ridge that could be seen from all around. If they were to the north of the site coming down from the Bighorn area, that ridge totally screened this site from that area. The only people that had an actual view into the site was a little piece (Dr. Meintz and his neighbors) with three or four houses immediately adjacent to the project' s boundary line to the south. Of the 18 houses in the lower piece adjacent to Sommerset, there were three or four houses that potentially would be visible from the Sommerset project. When they walked the site they put in flags and tried to see them from below, but it was tough. He 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 ir.. felt that three or four houses out of the 50 acre area might be visible from the Sommerset project. No development was visible from parts of Cahuilla Hills . The project was extremely contained and not visible from the outside; three or four houses would be the total visible in the lower portion. Commissioner Whitlock asked Mr. Geritz to show where the first phase would start and the location of the other phases . Mr. Geritz demonstrated on a map the counter-clockwise phasing planned. He explained that one of the things they wanted to do was hold the best lots until the end. He felt those last lots provided spectacular views and was quite beautiful . The other area was more contained and within a "bowl" and the views were of the terrain itself as opposed to the long views . Commissioner Whitlock asked when the recreation center would be completed within the phasing; Mr. Geritz said they were still debating that issue. Their probable opinion was that it was unlikely that it would occur. One of the main reasons for being in that area was the privacy and the nature of the area they were living in and they were not sure that having the tennis courts and swimming pools (which would primarily serve children) was necessary. They have gone back and forth on that. If it �.. were to occur, it would be around 50% of the way through the project. They didn' t know and were discussing the necessity of having such a facility. Most everyone that lived there would be involved in golfing and other facilities somewhere else and he was not sure it necessary to be internal, but they wanted to reserve the site. Commissioner Fernandez stated that he appreciated what the applicant was doing to keep the natural look and felt it was a great project. Mr. Geritz said that this had been a tough project and he hoped that he gave the commission enough of a sense of the project that they would feel as strongly about it as they did. Commissioner Campbell said that she went to look at the area with Mr. Joy and the valley floor was virtually invisible coming down from Highway 74 and did not think that anyone should complain about the view if they did look at any of the homes down there. As far as the economic value was concerned, the city needed an area like this for people to live in since they had so much commercial development occurring. Mr. Geritz said that the second turn-out going up Highway 74 was a place that could see into the site. %N0 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Vice Chairperson Beaty noted that it was said there would be "d no visual impact from Highway 111, but asked about from the Marriott area and if anything would be visible. Mr. Geritz replied no. He noted that if you took the road up Magnesia Falls, you would have to climb 1500 feet up to see over the ridge to see back into the valley. Commissioner Whitlock asked when the applicant planned to come back to the planning commission with landscape plans for the woodlands and the actual final plan of the entry and how everything would work off of Homestead. Mr. Geritz said the entry area statements and landscaping down along the Palms to Pines Highway would come in for a detailed review with the first tentative map. With all of the different options of phasing they considered, they had to do that and get the entry established, cross the canal and up into the project, so those would be submitted concurrently with that. The drawing that had the phasing line, essentially those woodland areas and bridges that fell within the phase at the time they got to that 18 unit phase, the commission would get the details at that point in time on all of the grading that would occur in that area, in addition to the utilities and mechanical equipment, the detailed landscape plans for the various desert woodlands associated with the focal points in each phase. It would be on a phase by phase basis and any "NO secondary landscaping that they might do at an entry to a project would again come in with each of the phases--that 18 unit increment with the site development plan and landscape plan accompanying it. There would be one more review after that which was the architectural review of the specific residences and their individual grading and landscape plans . The initial one was the back bone street system and the cul- de-sacs that would go in. Commissioner Whitlock asked Mr. Joy how the general public would be noticed when the tract map, etc . , came back. Would it still be within the 300 feet and would the general public get notification of those public hearings . Mr. Joy said all property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the tract would be notified. He noted that there was one gentleman who complained about non-notification, but it was discovered that he listed his San Diego residence to receive his tax bill, not his Palm Desert residence. He said that right now staff could place the names and addresses in the file of anyone who wished to be notified to make sure they were notified when the tract map was filed. Mr. Geritz suggested that each notification be the whole boundary of The Crest, which would mean the same notification list every 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 +r..► time. Mr. Joy replied that would not be a problem. Mr. Geritz noted that when they got to the middle of the project, 300 feet would not even get to the boundary of the project because there was a lot of land involved. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. DAVID DARLING, a Sommerset Homeowner, said that some of the residents were concerned about the possibility of the entrance and if there were large trees planted in that area, they would block the view from several condos that needed that open space to see the city lights and he wanted that to be part of the record that they were concerned. MR. CAP HOMME, 261 Cordova Way in Palm Desert, stated that he was in favor of the project. He said that he has followed this project since its inception and where the applicant represented the bridge to be was something they could use in that area. He noted that they owned property from approximately the bridge going down Highway 74, from the channel to the toe of the foothills - approximately 27+ acres of flat land. They had owned rr.. that property for many years . That bridge would help the whole area including his property and would help bring the utilities into their area and they were all in favor of this project. DR. JERRY MEINTZ, one of the homeowners in the Cahuilla Hills area that would see this project from his home, stated that he had lived in Cahuilla Hills for 25 years and he was amazed that with the massive development in Palm Desert that they had been overlooked and this was the first real commitment to do something in and near to their community that they had good feelings about. He visited Desert Mountain in Scottsdale and had seen the prototype for this particular project and he was in awe of the project. He felt this was on the cutting edge of desert development for California and there was no other community like it in California. In Scottsdale there were communities like this and they were highly sought after for the very reasons discussed by Mr. Geritz . There was a commitment to protect the natural hillside area and to maintain it in its pristine state. Never before had a developer offered to give up the vast majority of his holdings in an effort to respect nature. Those that lived in the Cahuilla Hills area were there �b" 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 because they were naturalists . They loved the area and the hillside living. Most of them had nestled into the natural environment and built their homes in a way that did not scar or protrude or sit on the top of the mountain. To that extent in looking at the plans in great detail and having interaction and communication with the developer, understanding that they were willing to listen to them and hear their complaints and needs, it had been a fruitful process and had taken him to a place that this project had his support. He felt strongly that this project should be approved by the City of Palm Desert. Living in the county and being involved with the county road committee in the Cahuilla Hills area, he knew that the City of Palm Desert had a much more effective and stringent set of guidelines, precisely the hillside overlay, and he wanted to see this development held to its contract unlike what had occurred with Bighorn. Promises were made initially and promises were broken. He strongly encouraged this committee to hold the developer' s "feet to the fire" to make them follow through on the commitments they have made. If that happened, this development would be a landmark for Palm Desert and would attract a great deal of interest from other desert cities that felt the same way. He said we should create a balanced synthesis between the natural environmental and development. They could no longer have the developers against the naturalists--they must form a partnership with nature and with families with both having their needs met. As a representative of Cahuilla Hills, he felt this project brought to their community some help with roadways that for the last 25 years had been a struggle to maintain. For the first time the County of Riverside was attempting to work with them to create a soil cement project where they could still have their country roads, but they would be dust free and they were asking the developers like the rest of the folks in their community to help participate with the financial cost that soil cement would create. The fact that they intended to use Painted Canyon as an emergency exit from that project should there be a disaster and their main entrance was blocked. He again encouraged the commission to review every step of this project and if this project maintained to the letter its commitment the kind of vision presented this evening would be great and a fine addition to Cahuilla Hills and Palm Desert. z 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 �..� Vice Chairperson Beaty asked what the relationship was between the city and county and why they were able to proceed in this manner. Mr. Drell replied that the applicant was intending to annex into the city and in essence there was a process that gave him the ability to know what he was in for before he made that decision. Mr. Geritz stated that this was effectively the last step, this hearing and the city council hearing, before proceeding with the annexation process . Subject to the approval of the commission and council of the amendment, then their next step was to file the necessary annexation documents with LAFCO and go through that process and after LAFCO approval, they would come back to the city and the city would accept the annexation and the approvals would effectively all become final . At this time they were one tenth city and nine tenths in the county, and they wanted the project totally within Palm Desert. Mr. Joy noted that the pre-zone on the property was a requirement of LAFCO prior to application. Vice Chairperson Beaty closed the public testimony and asked for comments by the commission. Commissioner Whitlock stated that they all had their questions answered and was fortunate to go through this process a couple of years ago and repeated that she was delighted that there had not been any changes and sensitivity remained and the natural features remained the same. Because she would not be in this position when the applicant came back to the commission in the future, for the record and on behalf of the homeowners in Sommerset, she wanted to ensure that the minutes reflected the concern for the landscaping when that plan came before the commission on the entry off of Homestead and beseeched the commission to ensure that the landscaping the developer proposed did not impact the view corridor of the residents of Sommerset on Desert Flower. Commissioner Fernandez added that he concurred with Commissioner Whitlock and said he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of this project and since it would be a controlled development and brought up to its original state after the phases were 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 1 completed and added that she would like the developer to be held responsible to keep that area as natural as possible. Vice Chairperson Beaty stated that it was refreshing to have projects where there was no opposition and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1694, recommending to city council approval of C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 for 151 units maximum with the adoption of option 3 standards and open space dedication as specified in the staff report. Carried 4-0 . B. Case Nos . PP 95-3 and PM 28196 - MONTEREY CENTRE, INC. , Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan of design and tentative parcel map to allow construction of a 135,600 square foot retail center at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive in the PC( 3) zone. Mr. Drell informed commission that the proposed project was located on a triangular piece of land against the Monterey/I- 10 off-ramp and was originally purchased by the county when they thought the interchange would be a different design that would acquire that area for the interchange. When it changed, the property became available for development. He report that the property is zoned for regional commercial, is 135,000 square feet, consists of five buildings and a gas station/car wash. The architecture would be contemporary in nature and had been reviewed by the architectural commission and received conceptual approval with some minor changes . The plan conformed in most respects to the PC( 3) zone standards with the exception of parking. The PC(3) zone requires 5 . 5 parking spaces per 1, 000 square feet. Historically larger centers have gotten that reduced down to five per 1,000 . The reason why the parking requirement for the shopping center was greater than the four per 1,000 usually required by retail was that it was assumed that a 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 rr.. large portion of at least 20-25% would be restaurant uses . There was a blend between the higher parking demand of restaurant uses and the lower parking demand of a retail store. The applicant was providing initially 4 . 1 spaces per 1,000 then with an agreement with the county when that interchange was redesigned the large ramp would be moved and more land would be created for additional parking, increasing the total to 662 and 4 .48 spaces per 1,000 . It would still be below what other center have provided. The applicant, based on the fact that this was not made up of any small stores that could have restaurants, proposed that in spaces 1-3 they would not provide restaurants . Building 5 was the only potential location for a restaurant use at 5, 000 square feet and instead of the typical 20% restaurant, he was agreeing to limit himself to 5,000 square feet, which was only 3% . Based on that restriction which the applicant agreed to and was a condition of approval, staff felt comfortable that the parking provided would be sufficient. Therefore that exception was justified. Staff recommended approval . Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. ur.. MR. RICK BLUMGREN, Encore Enterprises, stated that he was the architect for the project. He was one of three people that would be speaking on the project, the other two would be Lori Moss with the county representing the ownership of the parcel, and Mr. Jean Harris, the applicant for the project. He said his role was to address a few minor issues on the staff report that they had questions about and he would defer that to after Mr. Harris and Ms . Moss had an opportunity to give statements . He noted that this was a 15 . 85 acre parcel and they were planning two phases based on the realignment of the overpass . On the site plan there was a piece shown that represented the bank of the existing overpass and when Monterey Street was realigned, that would become an area that they could reclaim and add the additional parking at that time. They took a look at the site plan for building in that area and it wasn' t feasible. It made more sense to look at the site as an entire unit and design the site with that in mind. It would also be difficult if the building was tucked behind the overpass . The other impact on the site was a 60 foot easement for the water district and Edison that ran parallel to the railroad tracks that wasn' t usable to them. It represented a loss of about 1 . 8 �' 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 a i g acres . Phase 1 was about three acres less than the No 15 . 85 . They were dealing with about 12 . 8 acres of usable property in that phase. He said that he would be back to address a few items on the conditions of approval . He introduced Mr. Jean Harris, the applicant. MR. JEAN HARRIS, 41557 Armanac Court in Palm Desert, stated that he was appearing at the meeting as the president of the corporation and applicant. He said he expected Ms . Moss to address the commission next, but he would go ahead and address one of the issues that the county was concerned about. It dealt with parcel 7, the parcel vacated by the realignment of the interchange. That was the parcel that would be used for the additional parking spaces . In their conversations with city staff, the city had taken the position that technically when that land was vacated, it wasn't county land, but city land, but that the city would dedicate that land to the county to be included in this development site. It was isolated and there were no other uses other than parking. The site was 1 . 3 acres and their request was that be added as a condition of approval of the map, because it seemed to him that that issue must participate in the filing of the final map so as an added condition to the tentative map, they were lud requesting that the city quit claim parcel 7 to the County of Riverside. He said that Ms . Moss would speak on that issue also. The two conditions of approval he wanted to address was the public works condition no. 17 on undergrounding, which appeared to be a standard condition of approval . He noted that the condition seemed to be at odds with the letter received from Edison. The Edison letter was one that addressed the expensive undergrounding of utilities . As a practical matter, there was only one utility pole on this site and it was located on parcel 6 , which was the parcel to the extreme east. He asked how that condition would be handled in light of a letter from Edison that really was not supportive of undergrounding these major utility lines . Mr. Drell noted that the condition states "per the respective utility district' s recommendation" . If the recommendation was such that it was economically or practically infeasible, then they could proceed that way. He said that based on that letter, the commission might want to make an addition to that condition saying that it appeared that it was infeasible and that if undergrounding would ever occur, they would be part 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 r.. of an undergrounding program and the applicant would agree to participate. Mr. Harris stated that they would like that qualification because it was unfeasible to underground one pole and, secondly, the size of the facility from experience that he had seen further west really was not economical . The other condition was no. 21 dealing with the contribution to the cost of the realignment of the overpass . He was under the impression that there was a district that was set up for that and that this particular parcel, having previously been involved in some litigation some years ago, had made its contribution to that improvement. Mr. Drell stated that he believed that was the case and beyond that, the City of Palm Desert through the Redevelopment Agency might make the entire payment for everyone for this district. Again, if those previous agreements specified that all costs associated with the interchange have been paid, then they've been paid. Mr. Harris said he just wanted to state that for the record. Mr. Drell clarified that this condition would not supersede those previous agreements . Mr. Harris apologized that he had not brought this to staff ' s attention earlier regarding parcel 7 , but that was something the county and he had been discussing and something that had been discussed with Mr. Diaz that the city had no interest in that property and they would appreciate that added condition. Mr. Drell agreed that it was something that the city could agree to, but as a condition on a tentative map was another issue. Typically conditions on maps did not have things that the city was supposed to do. They were conditions on the developer which had to be implemented. He referred this to the city attorney and noted that if that could not be done, an agreement could be entered into. Mr. Harris clarified that the final map had to conform with the tentative map and they had the tentative map before the commission now. He said it seemed necessary in his mind to address parcel 7 so that when they filed %N' 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 the final map, it would be in the name of the county at Roo that time. Mr. Drell said that just to make it clear, a statement describing what will occur--the final map would be consistent with this map--will be contingent upon the steps provided by Mr. Harris . He did not believe that conditions on the map was where the city would agree to do certain things, but would mention that these were the events that would occur prior to the recordation of the final map, which was the moving and dedication/transfer back to the county/developer. There would be an agreement, but did not feel the conditions was the place for it. City Attorney Marshall Rudolph agreed. He felt it was an unusual condition, it probably could be done, but his initial reaction was to address it in a separate way--as an agreement or some separate statement that contemplates certain events happening. Mr. Harris stated that one of the issues was that they were not necessarily in agreement that the land would be the city' s when the realignment occurred. It seemed to be a little issue that since they had the map, would be reasonable to resolve that issue so that when they filed the final map, they still didn' t have that issue "hanging out there" . Mr. Drell agreed that the agreement should be executed prior to recordation of the final map. Mr. Harris asked if a condition could be placed that the developer would enter into an agreement with the city. Mr. Drell and Mr. Rudolph said that was acceptable. Mr. Harris clarified the condition to say that the developer would enter into an agreement with the city transferring the title of that property to the County of Riverside prior to recordation of the final map. Mr. Drell suggested that Mr. Harris initiate a draft and send it to Mr. Rudolph. Mr. Rudolph stated that it would ultimately have to go to city council because the city council would have to approve a contract; the commission could not bind the city to an agreement like this . Mr. Harris said this would raise the owner' s (county' s) comfort level and his comfort level if there was a something in the conditions that it would be done. In 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 `.. the future when they went to the city council they could say this was contemplated and maybe as a consent item it could be approved. If they had the agreement that the condition would be added that the developer shall enter into an agreement with the city for transfer of parcel 7 . Mr. Drell concurred, but noted that if the city refused to do it, then the applicant would not be able to final his map. Mr. Harris noted that his engineer was also present to answer any questions, as well as Lori Moss . MS. LORI MOSS, Riverside County Economic Development Agency, agreed with Mr. Harris and recommended that it be condition no. 24 . She stated she knew that the county would take responsibility for preparation of such an agreement if the commission felt that was a better condition so that it was not the responsibility of the city. Mr. Rudolph stated that ultimately it would have to be acceptable to the council and it was usually phrased to be acceptable to the city attorney, so regardless of who �... prepared it, it would have to be acceptable. Ms . Moss asked if this proposal would go to the city council for the precise plan and parcel map approval . Mr. Drell replied no, unless it was called up. Mr. Rudolph noted that any agreement would ultimately have to go to the city council . Ms . Moss asked if that condition would be added before the conditions were finaled after this meeting. Mr. Drell said that if the commission agreed to it, yes . In reality, since that land was part of this development as shown and part of the parcel map as shown, to implement this map the condition would have to be fulfilled. It didn't obligate the city to do it, but put the onus on the county and the developer to convince the city council to do it. Ms . Moss noted that this was an unusual situation with hostage parcels on both sides and Caltrans ' proposal elected to take the westerly most hostage lot, which was four acres on the Price Club side for the expansion of the intersection. She wanted to go on the record for %NW 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 a having a concern for condition no. 15 . She noted that Mr. Drell covered the 5, 000 square feet, but her question was if some accessory type of restaurant, like a yogurt store or Subway sandwich shop went in, if that counted toward the 5, 000 square feet. Mr. Drell stated that under Palm Desert ' s ordinance a take- out restaurant could have up to eight seats and not be considered a restaurant. Theoretically, at some time in the future once the center was up and running and operating they could request more. One big "if" was when the off-ramp would change and the parking spaces would be available and the overall impact of the stores in the center once the center was operating. Then there would be some opportunity to come back and request an amendment if the applicant could show that the mix of uses was such that there was plenty of parking available. Ms . Moss stated that either of the two boxes might have some accessory type of restaurant inside, but it wouldn' t be a stand alone where someone would go there just to eat at that restaurant. It would definitely be accessory. Mr. Drell noted an example of such a use was the snack facility inside of Target; he stated that the city did not look at that type of use as a restaurant. Commissioner Whitlock asked if there were potential tenants already in mind or commitments in place. Mr. Harris replied that the way Palm Desert had been "gobbling" up commercial boxes lately, there wasn't a lot left. They did have tenants they had contacted and did have some that have expressed an interest and commitments that were in the process . He noted that he had a meeting with staff tomorrow about maybe not "gobbling up" any more stuff on Highway 111 because there was already enough congestion there now and perhaps this location was a good spot for expanding some commercial in Palm Desert. They were marketing the property and right now it looked very positive. Commissioner Whitlock asked if construction would commence even though they might not have a commitment of a tenant so that they could potentially have empty spaces out there. a 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 �.. Mr. Harris stated that they would not build it that way- they would not build empty boxes . They would not start construction until they had a tenant and long term lease. Commissioner Fernandez asked how many parking spaces would be on parcel 7 . Mr. Harris replied 103 additional parking spaces . Commissioner Campbell asked what kinds of signs were being considered at 35 feet high. Mr. Harris said that the type they were talking about were they type they could get approved. There were two large signs proposed and they were hoping in that location next to the freeway that it would be considered appropriate, but staff had made it clear that it was not approved yet. They expected at least one at that location and anything more than that they would be happy ' with, but it was yet to be approved by staff or a recommendation for the sign made. Mr. Drell stated that given the current city philosophy, they �.. have been going with the halo lit signs . In terms of height, as long as the architecture of a building supported that height, they had been directing toward a limit of three or four colors and halo lit that showed only black and white at night. Mr. Harris noted that this site would be very prominent from the freeway and the sign should be in scale to the mass of the project and it seemed to him by observation from driving on the freeway that he could see the sign for Home Depot for miles up the road. This project would block that view. There would be some signs on the back of the building and some signs visible from the freeway that should be in scale, they just didn' t have approval yet. Commissioner Campbell asked about the signs at the corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore. Mr. Harris stated that there would be a sign there, but it wasn' t before the commission for approval and it would be whatever they could talk the staff into recommending and then what was approved. He said they %NW 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 w would not build anything ugly sitting on the intersection. Mr. Drell explained that the ordinance provided for signs as high as ten feet tall; anything above that would require approval by city council . He said that staff did look at exceptional topographic situations which did exist on this site with the ramp coming down. Mr. Harris asked the commission to keep in mind that this extension of Dinah Shore referred to as Tamarisk was pretty much a dead end and there didn' t seem to be a lot going out there. The railroad tracks were at an angle, so the signs would not be obstructing the view of anyone or anything. The railroad tracks weren't the best part of town where they needed to be the most sensitive about their aesthetics; this was commercial and communication with travelers was important. He felt that if they were going to think about something that needed to be communicated, it was the ideal site for it. Commissioner Campbell noted that if this applicant wanted it, then Price Club would probably want the same thing. Mr. Harris said that the two sites were quite different, this one had a higher elevation. The Price Club site was down in a hole and it had tamarisk trees blocking the view--they could put a pole sign up the height they were requesting and it would still not be seen. Mr. Blumgreen readdressed the commission and indicated that they reviewed the rest of the conditions and did not have any problems with any of the rest of them, except for the three changes as discussed. Ms . Moss asked the commission to delete condition no. 21 because it wasn't really applicable. She noted it was the one that dealt with funding any overchange that might come along. They had discussed two strong potentials that the county had already made their commitment and that the city was considering through redevelopment additional funding of the bridge and thoroughfare. She wanted that condition deleted. Mr. Drell deferred this to the public works department. He noted that the condition was qualified as to the extent as determined appropriate. Mr. Greenwood said he also believed that this property had paid its portion, but he was not 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 �r. positive and the wording in the condition "as determined appropriate" would cover the city. Mr. Drell suggested the wording "as determined appropriate by previous agreements" or a qualification that this condition would not supersede previous agreements concerning this subject. Mr. Rudolph stated that he would rather see something like that instead of removing the condition completely. If there was any doubt at all, or they could qualify it to the extent that the conditions not supersede previous agreements between parties- that language would not hurt anything. Mr. Harris stated that was acceptable. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Campbell noted that this area was already zoned commercial and she wanted to see something different come into that area and wished the developer could tell them what a kind of stores he was planning to put in there. She said that otherwise the proposal was acceptable. Commissioner Fernandez agreed with the project, the only `... question he had was if the city council would make the adjustments the commission was considering regarding the map and those items . Mr. Drell explained that it would be up to the county and applicant to ultimately pursue it with the city council before the map was recorded. Commissioner Whitlock stated that Mr. Harris ' assurances that they wouldn' t build a box without a signed tenant would help with Commissioner Campbell ' s concerns as well as her own, and unless the chairperson had anything further to add, she would move for approval subject to the amended public works condition no. 21, to the addition of the city council approval on parcel 7 as stated earlier, and the undergrounding issue. Mr. Harris clarified that the condition was no. 17 on page 6 . Mr. Drell stated that if the commission felt that based on the letter from Southern California Edison that condition was not necessary, that was up to them. Commissioner Whitlock felt that for one pole, it was unfair to put the burden on a particular development. Mr. Drell said that condition could be changed, but the condition stated that if it was determined to be unfeasible, the applicant would agree to participate in an undergrounding district. That condition could be changed to say as described in their letter of June 1, 1995 from Southern �"" 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 California Edison it was determined that undergrounding at the present time would be unfeasible and the applicant shall agree to participate in a future undergrounding district. Mr. Rudolph stated that case law seemed to be suggesting that a person couldn't waive their right to protest in the future, so whereas this used to be a standard condition--if undergrounding was put aside completely for whatever reason, that was one thing. He would rather keep it in there as a possible future thing rather than agree to participate in a future undergrounding district. Commissioner Whitlock stated that the caveat used for St. Margaret ' s Episcopal Church should be added. Mr. Rudolph concurred that the condition could be extended out five years . If during that time a district was formed, in all likelihood the developer would want to participate or participate in a future improvement agreement. Mr. Harris said that as he understood it the commission wanted to modify the condition to require participation in some assessment if it occurred in five years . They would not protest that and asked if it went beyond five years, if this condition would be eliminated. Mr. Rudolph stated that rather than having the condition the way it was now as agreeing to participate in a future district, which had proven problematic to enforce, it was more just giving them five years in the future to comply with the condition and at that point if during the interim the district was formed, they wouldn't be required to participate in it, but they would probably want to participate in it as opposed to having the condition to do it later. Mr. Harris said that since even public works would verify that there was only one pole at the extreme end of this property, he said a simple alternative would be to strike condition no. 17 . Mr. Rudolph said that was a judgement call for the commission to make whether to waive the undergrounding all together, but if they wanted to keep it in there as a possibility and reserve that, instead of having the applicant agree to participate in a future district, it would be structured as a five year completion condition or subject to entering into a future improvement. Mr. Greenwood stated that public works would support maintaining the condition, but putting a five year extension on this condition. Mr. Harris asked if that would be a cap. Vice Chairperson Beaty said that would not be a cap, but would be subject to review in five years . Mr. ri 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 ,r Greenwood said that the five year extension would require that the utilities be undergrounded within five years whether there was an assessment district or not. Mr. Rudolph said that it would up for review again at the end of the five years . They would be keeping the condition and giving the applicant a five year period to complete it. Mr. Harris stated that raised another issue--taking this condition, which was a standard condition, and then looking at this map. He knew no one would say that it was ever going to be economically feasible to underground one pole and so in five years this development would not underground that one pole. It wouldn't in 10 years or 20 years . It would never be undergrounded. He asked why the condition wasn' t being deleted. Vice Chairperson Beaty explained that they were sympathetic to the problem right now, but the city had a goal to underground everywhere. If it became feasible to do it in ' the future, the city wanted it done. Mr. Drell said that what Mr. Harris was saying was that in reality one pole would not be undergrounded; per the ordinance they would have to go to the next two poles on either side of the property. Mr. r.. Rudolph suggested that what might happen within the five year period was that a district might be formed and the logical thing to do was to participate in that, which would be more cost effective than trying to underground. Mr. Drell explained that basically what they were saying was that they would force the applicant to give him a choice to voluntarily participate in some future district, but first they would make him execute a future improvement agreement that said the city had the power to make them underground at some time in the future and at some time in the future if there was a district, it would be more feasible to enter into that district than to have the sole cost of the undergrounding over their head as a result of the agreement. Commissioner Whitlock stated that the condition was subject to review in five years, so if there wasn't the probability of an assessment district, that could conceivably go away at the end of the five years . Mr. Harris stated that he was "hung up" on the abstract versus the fact and they had the fact of the letter from Edison saying that they didn' t want to underground anything this size--it was too expensive, it was not economically feasible, it was too burdensome on development. If it was passed on, how would the 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 3 developer cover that five years from now, how did they pass it on. He said it was a fact before the commission that it wasn't going to happen here and he was concerned about the condition. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked Mr. Harris when he received the conditions . Mr. Harris replied Friday. Vice Chairperson Beaty stated that if Mr. Harris needed more time to review the conditions, commission could continue this matter to the next meeting. Mr. Harris indicated that would not be necessary and that they were okay with the conditions . Vice Chairperson Beaty summarized by saying that the commission would like to keep the condition in there, put a five year extension on it subject to review at that time. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1695, approving PP 95-3 and PM 28196, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . Mr. Drell noted that there was a 15 day appeal period and indicated that there had been some interest from the city council on this item. Mr. Harris thanked commission and staff. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. X. MISCELLANEOUS None. XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 XII . COMMENTS Vice Chairperson Beaty noted that this was Commissioner Whitlock' s last meeting and stated that she would be missed. Commissioner Whitlock said that it had been a good nine years . She thanked the planning department staff and felt that Palm Desert had the greatest staff in the valley to work with and appreciated everyone ' s help over the years . She wished the other commissioners the best of luck. Commissioner Campbell said she would miss her very much. Commissioner Fernandez concurred and hoped Commissioner Whitlock could keep guiding them with her knowledge and experience as she had in the past. XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting to July 18, 1995 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . PHIL DRELL, Acting Secretary ATTEST: PAUL BEATY, Vice Ch irperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm tow 27