Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1003 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - OCTOBER 3, 1995 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +rr City Clerk Sheila Gilligan officially swore in James Ferguson to serve as the new planning commissioner. Commission and staff welcomed him to the commission. I . CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell James Ferguson George Fernandez Members Absent: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Staff Present: Phil Drell Jeff Winklepleck to. Marshall Rudolph Mark Greenwood Steve Smith Tonya Monroe Phil Joy IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the September 5, 1995 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Vice Chairperson Beaty, approving the September 5, 1995 minutes as submitted. Carried 2-0-2 (Commissioners Campbell and Ferguson abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent September 28, 1995 city council actions . VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 93-5 AND VAR 93-5 - HOLDEN & JOHNSON ARCHITECTS, Applicant Request for approval of a second one- year time extension for a 1568 square foot dental building at 73-071 Fred Waring Drive. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked for clarification on the number of time extension requests . Mr. Drell stated that it was not unusual to grant four or five extensions; staff looks at the project to see if the project still meets all the city standards . He noted that this project had been approved once by the planning commission and architectural commission, but they had not proceeded to pull building permits yet, hence the need for a time extension. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS Vice Chairperson Beaty asked how many people were present for the Kaufman and Broad proposal . He asked if they were from out of town. He noted that Chairperson Jonathan requested a continuance because he had concerns to share with the commission. Vice Chairperson Beaty noted that he was absent from the meeting because of a religious holiday and asked for commission comments . He personally felt the item should be heard since people came from out of town. Commissioner Fernandez asked the representatives from Kaufman and Broad how they felt about a two-week continuance. Mr. Jack Reimer, Director of Development for Kaufman and Broad out of Anaheim Hills, California, stated that they would comply with a continuance, but they would prefer to be heard tonight. Vice Chairperson Beaty did not feel it was fair to have the applicant come back. Commissioner Fernandez agreed. Mr. Drell noted that it was a noticed public hearing, so the commission would have been required to hold the public hearing and voted on as a group, regardless of when the request was received. Mr. Drell explained that the commission could take the item out of order now and see if there was a consensus for continuance. Commissioner Campbell felt the applicants had come a long way to be heard and did not feel it would be fair to continue the item. Vice Chairperson Beaty said they would proceed with the agenda as scheduled. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 A. Case No. TT 28270 - DESERT COMMUNITIES, INC. , Applicant tier Request for approval of a 12 lot subdivision within Bighorn Golf Club on both sides of Kiva Drive, 500 feet north of Palowet. Mr. Joy stated that this was a simple subdivision of the casitas site that was identified within Bighorn Golf Club and rather than do something exotic on this site, Bighorn elected to do a conventional single story single family residential design. He felt this matter was a routine matter. On a related matter, he stated that he noted that the general plan land use designation for Bighorn Golf Club was recently changed and he would be doing some investigating on that, but it would not effect this application and recommended approval . Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CLARK WARDELL, an Indian Wells resident, stated that he represented the applicant as their Vice President of Planning and Development. He noted that the proposal was in close proximity to the clubhouse and rather than doing a high density product as they originally intended, they decided to go with a lower density product of only 12 units on this site, rather than the 30 they were entitled to. He felt it would be an asset to the community and was intended to be 12 units at 2300 square feet, with very highly amenities in close proximity to the clubhouse. He felt it would be a marketable product and a new asset to the development and to the city of Palm Desert. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Vice Chairperson Beaty said it was interesting to see someone requesting fewer units and he was happy to see it. Commissioner Campbell asked if the present homeowners were concerned about the size and value of the units in comparison to their own homes . Mr. Wardell stated that they discussed this product with many customers, existing homeowners and the club members and found that there were a number of club members interested specifically in this product and the homeowners did not see that this product would cause a low diminution of the values to the surrounding properties . It would be built to about the same standards of construction 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 that the much larger residences were built to; instead it was ) a product for those people who might be spending shorter periods of time in the desert or traveling. He felt there might even be existing residents or homesite owners in the community who might purchase this while their other residences are being constructed or who may purchase these units as guest houses for visitors . Commissioner Fernandez agreed with Vice Chairperson Beaty that it was nice to see a reduction in the density being requested. Action: Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699, approving TT 28270, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . B. Case No. 4513 SA - PALM DESERT, LTD. , Applicant Request for approval of an exception to Section 25 . 68 . 310 (A) of the zoning ordinance to allow an additional freestanding sign at 72-605 Highway 111 (Palms to Pines shopping center) . Mr. Winklepleck said that the applicant was requesting to locate an additional freestanding sign not to exceed 50 square feet in size or six feet in overall height on the south side of Highway 111 approximately 200 feet east of E1 Paseo. The sign would identify the center as well as three additional tenants (The Wherehouse, TGI Friday's, and Little Caesar' s Pizza) . The existing freestanding sign for this part of the center was being used by Von' s as a directional sign. There was some small lettering that identified the center, but did not serve as the center identification sign. The sign had been through the architectural commission and they recommended approval to planning commission for the sign, which was concept 'C' . Staff also recommended approval . Commissioner Campbell said that the Von' s sign was just a directional sign and this was just another freestanding sign, but there was another freestanding sign by Plaza Way. Mr. Winklepleck concurred; he clarified that the sign would be the second sign for that portion of the Palms to Pines center. Mr. Drell explained that this was a different 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 center--it was contiguous, but the other center was built by a different developer sometime before city incorporation and Palms to Pines was considered a different center. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if they had not had a sign previously. Mr. Drell replied that they had the Von' s sign, which was installed when the center got the driveway, which was to tell people that they could enter the center there. Commissioner Campbell asked if the sign could be consolidated to include Von ' s and put the sign where the present Von's sign is located without having so many signs there. Mr. Winklepleck said that was mentioned at the architectural commission meeting and the applicant said that Von' s would not give up their sign. Commissioner Campbell noted that there would the signs for Von' s, McDonald' s, G. Edwards, and a small sign for Humphrey' s Yogart. Mr. Winklepleck concurred and noted that the McDonald's and Humphrey' s Yogart signs served as directional signs . The other factor brought up at ARC was the fact that the retail tenants in the center were setback behind the institutional buildings ( i .e. the bank and real estate offices) . With the new Desert Crossing shopping center, it was felt that these tenants could use a little boost and the sign would help them be more identifiable along the Highway 111 corridor. Commissioner Campbell asked if more tenants would want to be added to the sign. Mr. Winklepleck said the recommendation from ARC was for three tenants and if they were to ask for more tenants, staff probably could not support it. He noted that the sign would read, "Palms to Pines" and in response to a question by Vice Chairperson Beaty indicated that the colors would be the colors of the individual tenants ( i .e. The Wherehouse in blue) . The sign would be internally lit--the ARC reviewed the sign twice to allow them to make it more of a monument sign and give it some architectural integrity and interest. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would have the large pillars; Mr. Winklepleck said that the pillars were the architectural interest that the architectural commission recommended. Commissioner Campbell asked if they were higher than six feet. Mr. Winklepleck replied that the architectural elements were, but the sign itself, or the lettering stopped at six feet. The height of the remaining portion was approximately seven feet. Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification that the sign would be internally lit with bright blue, yellow and green. Mr. Winklepleck concurred. Commissioner Ferguson noted that the zoning code language specified that an exception could be granted because of the location of a business or to achieve a special design effect. In the oral report he heard that 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 e the exception was due to the fact that the tenants were set back from Highway 111 . He asked for any other reasons . Mr. Winklepleck said that it was because there was no major identification sign for the center other than the small Palms to Pines lettering on the Von' s sign, so this would help the tenants as well as make it more of a tenant identification sign. Commissioner Ferguson asked if when the center adopted the Von' s sign, if it was a decision the developer made knowing full well that it was its one sign under the zoning ordinance; Mr. Winklepleck did not know if that was brought up at that time, but assumed so. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there were any other circumstances that gave rise to the commission's ruling on this case. Mr. Drell noted that Desert Crossing had two monument signs on Highway 111; there was a wall sign at Fred Waring Plaza; a monument sign was granted to Pizza Hut partially because their sign was somewhat blocked by a big tree; and the Town Center got a special ordinance that allowed them to have the big sign with all the restaurants on it. That was why there was an exception process . The primary reason in this case was that the Von' s sign was not intended by Von' s to be a center identification sign; for a long time there was no access to the center from Highway 111 and they were the one' s who paid for it and got their name on the sign. The main justification was that this was really the only effective, or would more closely meet the definition of, a monument center sign. Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if Von' s came to the commission and asked for a freestanding sign if that would be a problem; Mr. Drell stated that the commission would not have to grant it. As far as staff was concerned this qualified as a freestanding sign and if they didn' t show enough compelling reason that it could be granted, the commission would not have to approve it. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would be in favor of granting them the sign since the center did need some help. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-1 (Commissioner Ferguson voted no) . Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1700, 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 approving 4513 SA, subject to conditions . Carried 3-1 ' (Commissioner Ferguson voted no) . C. Case No. PP 86-28 Amendment #1 - FESTIVAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to existing precise plan and parking adjustment at the One Eleven Town Center to permit the remodel and net addition of 6362 square feet of retail space. Mr. Smith stated that the request was for a remodel and addition at the 111 Town Center located at Town Center Way, Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive east of the channel . The center was originally approved in 1986 . Over the last period of time there had been a mass exodus of tenants in the center for a variety of reasons . At this time the owners were proposing to undertake some minor additions, remodeling some units, and the architectural modification to the center as a whole. Colored elevations were on display and the matter was before the architectural review commission and they granted conceptual approval . The ARC was asking for restudy to the elevation of Major 2 which was immediately adjacent to 'ow Highway 111 . The proposal was for the demolition of approximately 5,000 square feet off the end of the former Marshall ' s, which was Petco and Crown Books . The major would then have the architecture and entry organized. Some parking would be added to that area and landscaping. As well, at the north end of that major, 5300 square feet of shop would be cut out; left of the major would be 25,000 square feet that was formerly Marshall ' s . Part 2 called for demolition of 9877 square feet of building. Between Home Savings, the entry and Highway 111, construction would be for a 20,450 major #2 . The existing buildings for the northwesterly portion of the building set back approximately 30 feet from the property line, while the southeasterly building where the Nut Kettle was located, was inset an additional five feet to allow some undulation. The new proposal called for one straight face with a 30 ' setback. The ordinance requirements required buildings facing Highway 111 to be setback a minimum of 321 . Staff was suggesting that with appropriate architecture, especially along that elevation facing Highway III which the applicant was restudying at this time, they could live with an adjustment of two feet for the setback. A third element to the proposal was a small addition of 570 square feet on pad 8 on the south end of the building which would eliminate three parking spaces . For the overall proposal, parking was an important consideration because there would be a reduction in parking. He noted a correction 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 in the report where it said there would be 699 overall spaces, when actual fact there would be 685; it also appeared in condition 9 of the resolution. The plans called for 14 handicapped spaces and the applicant advised that the 14 were included in the 685 spaces . Parking at the south end where the majority of the work was being seen at this time, the additional new major #2 and renovation of major #1 would still provide in excess of 5 spaces per 1000 square feet. At the north end of the site which had never had a parking problem that he had ever seen, would be in excess of 4 . 5 spaces per 1000 square feet. Given the choice of leaving the center the way it is now, or granting a modification to the parking which worked out to about 7%, staff preferred to err on the side of trying to create a new and improved center. The colored elevations and the actual sample boards were on display. Colors would be different than the usual desert colors . Architectural commission gave that a good, hard look and felt that it was something that was needed to make a definite statement. Also on display was the sign proposal for open face channel letters with neon in the open face and the colored neon in red, blue and white and yellow and lavender for the bottom colors--the sign would be going to the city council for approval . The sign was going to council because they would be in excess of the 20 ' height limit. The recommendation is for approval subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution attached to the report, r including the change to condition #9 to provide a minimum of 685 parking spaces . Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN MANAVIAN, Vice President for Festival Management Corporation, was present representing the owner of the property. He stated that they "came on board" last year to try and help revive the project, which almost became a true development project in many ways . They were present to answer questions; their architect was also present, Mr. Ross Andrews, if the commission had specific questions regarding the architectural treatment or sign program. He stressed that their goal had always been to replace the sales volume and customer foot traffic that Marshall ' s provided before it relocated. That was a difficult task. They could not find it in one tenant. They were able to match the customer foot traffic with two major tenants and they were in the first tier of their category and were tenants that were not in the Palm Desert trade area. They were close to executing those leases and when the leases were executed, they could announce the names of the tenants . They asked them not 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 to make any announcements until the leases were tow finalized. Both tenants have gone through their real estate committees and were now at the stage where lawyers were going back and forth with final drafts . The goal was to bring back the synergism and same density and quality of retail traffic for the project. They also looked at ways to try and carve out the project and make the front portion (the southern portion) more specialty and lifestyle in character. It wasn't a matter of re-leasing existing space, but the landlord/owner made a commitment to redevelop this project since there were a lot of exciting things going on in Palm Desert. They wanted to stay on top with the trend, not be a second place project within the community. Extra attention was being given to landscaping and architectural treatment, rather than just giving it a new coat of paint. They renamed the project Oasis Town Center and some things they did with parking was to add a pedestrian area and significant landscape areas to make ties to the buildings . That also took care of the ADA issues which were a federal requirement and with this plan they satisfied all the ADA requirements in terms of connecting handicapped access to all the various buildings in the center. They were present to answer any questions . rr.. Commissioner Campbell asked if besides the two major tenants, if the applicant had anyone else ready to come into the center in addition to the existing tenants . Mr. Manavian replied that in terms of the large Major 1 and Major 2, they were in final lease negotiations. They were working with a major tenant for the back space, pad 9, adjacent to Fred Waring. With the relocation of some of the existing tenants, one thing they were trying to do was create the northern portion as more of a neighborhood service-oriented tenant because it was right by Fred Waring and the residential area. It was well suited to more retail service type tenants . The front with the two major tenants with the restaurant pads would reinforce that with trellis elements, misters, and landscaping for a nice specialty feeling on the southern portion. The southern portion to them was everything from Cost Plus back to Highway 111 . Commissioner Campbell asked if the present tenants there would be remaining. Mr. Manavian replied yes, and that they had been kind in working with them on the relocation issues . Two tenants along Highway 111 had to be relocated before they could go forward with Major 2 and they had been very 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 cooperative. He felt the shop tenants saw the need of having some major tenants brought to the project to anchor it. With .rl those two major tenant leases, that would bring the project close the 85% occupancy and then what was left would be easier to lease because right now, people could not understand what was going on. It was a ghost town. The announcement was out that this was occurring and he hoped that they would be able to announce at the council meeting who the major tenants would be. Commissioner Campbell asked when they were having the project completed when they had all of the approvals . Mr. Manavian replied that they hoped to start in November/December. There was a question of whether they would want to start in the holiday season. They couldn' t make the winter season for this year, but hoped that by next fall the project would be 100% complete from a landscaping standpoint and most of the major tenants in. He said about a year. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. PATRICK SHRUBIN, owner of Fast Frames, stated that he was asked by two other people who couldn' t attend to speak on their behalf . They all felt something needed to be done--the center had been a real eyesore to the tenants and the city. Eagleson' s wasn' t able to attend and they were expressing that also. Joseph's Cleaners were not present because of health reasons . They also had the spirit of cooperation in relocating, as well as he did since his pad would be demolished. He would be relocating back to his original location. He knew that bad press had been happening to this project from a year and a half ago to just this weekend in the editorial section of the newspaper. Festival Management has come forward and they had a new spirit. People would want to lease and reconstruct and he didn' t know why they couldn't go forward with this and really make it work. The citizens at large have come to the tenants that are left in the center and asked what was going on here. They had real concerns . The stores that remained, which were few, were very strong and had been a big part of the community. This project would go forward in a timely manner and everyone would be happy. Vice Chairperson Beaty closed the public testimony and asked for comments . Commissioner Fernandez stated that he was happy to see something being done to that center to give it life and he r/ was in favor of the proposal . 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Commissioner Campbell concurred and hoped that they would �► begin as soon as possible. As far as the parking was concerned, she did not feel they would ever have a problem. She was in favor. Commissioner Ferguson concurred with the comments and was pleased when he reviewed the plans and to see the financial stimulation in the center. He supported the project. He noted that on condition #8 it was implicit, but wanted to make it explicit, that the deference they were granting to the architectural review commission to adjust the lot line setback be limited to no less than 30 feet, which was what the proposed setback was. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked commission if they wanted to add anything regarding the height. Mr. Smith noted that the height issue had to go to city council, as well as the signs, towers and cupolas . Mr. Drell stated that if the commission wished to comment on it, it should be in the form of a recommendation to the city council . Vice Chairperson Beaty said they were defer that to the city council, but he didn't think they wanted to see neon or get into competition with the surrounding centers by using neon. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1701, approving PP 86-28 Amendment #1, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . D. Case No. PM 28251 - MR. TOM NOBLE, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to divide lot "K" of Tract 24530-1 (Montecito) into two single family residential lots and reconfigure the western ends of Covington Drive and Taylor Avenue. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the applicant was requesting a parcel map in order to finish this portion of the Montecito project. The remaining phases of the project had been sold to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency/City to complete the city golf course. The map would divide the existing . 57 acre lot into two parcels . Parcel 1 would have 12, 030 square feet 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 and parcel two would contain 11, 620 square feet. The lot sizes were consistent with other lots in the subdivision. The map would also reconfigure the western ends of Covington and Taylor into cul-de-sacs . Some concerns had been expressed by owners within Montecito with regards to the status of these lots and their inclusion into the homeowners association, or to the fact that they didn't belong to the association. As such, they would need to gain access to these lots and there was no other way to gain access other than belonging to the association or coming to some sort of agreement because access would not be granted through the city golf course. Staff recommended approval . Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TOM NOBLE, 12 Covington in Palm Desert, stated that staff presented his case well and he would be happy to answer any questions . He had one question as to the proposed conditions : the fire department requirements were set forth in a letter from the fire marshal which was amended by a letter which he took to the fire marshal to be signed which reinstated a prior agreement they had. He requested that the conditions reflect the requirements of the fire marshal as set forth in his letter of September 27 , 1995, a copy of which was included in the commission' s packet. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS . NANCY WILHELM, a Taylor Avenue resident, stated that she had concerns that they didn't have their normal architectural controls on these lots because they didn' t belong to their association. There were also lots to the north and south of these lots which were not in the association. She had concerns about what would be happening to the lots . She wanted that entered into the record that they were concerned because they had not had a chance to vote it in or to have their say if they should come into the association or not. They had to be voted in by a majority of the existing homeowners and would like to have that opportunity. MR. MIKE GRIMM, President of the Montecito Palm Desert Homeowners Association, stated that the board of directors and majority of people in the association supported splitting lot K into two lots . They also supported annexing lots J, K-1, K-2 , and lot L into the association. They also supported re-configuring Taylor and Covington into cul-de-sacs . In order to reconfigure 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Taylor and Covington into cul-de-sacs, the association would have to give up some of their common area to these lot owners and in exchange the lot owners would have to give back some of their land to the homeowners association. They couldn't do that without a vote of the membership and the board made a resolution to seek the vote of the membership on this project. In order for them to actually give this land to the land owners, he requested that they join the homeowners association. The homeowners association would have to vote and by a majority say whether or not they would accept these lots in. The board supported bringing the lots in--the majority of the homeowners supported bringing the lots in and it would bring in extra revenue for them. They supported having the cul-de-sacs and the change in plan. The problem Ms . Wilhelm discussed was that the vote hadn't happened yet, but should happen soon. Commissioner Campbell asked if they wanted that to occur before the planning commission took action. Mr. Grimm replied yes, that before the cul-de-sacs could even happen, the association would have to allow their boundaries to change. By the CC&R' s it could not happen until a vote by the majority of the homeowners . Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if the city should be involved in that type of procedure. Mr. Drell indicated no. The homeowners controlled whether or not the project was in the association or not. He asked if the developer had an objection to being in the association. Mr. Drell stated that the commission could condition the applicant to join the homeowners association. If the homeowners chose not to accept them, then he didn't feel they could force them and it was not proper to not proceed with the parcel map if the homeowners didn't accept them into the association. He indicated that they could place a condition that the owner would agree to join the homeowners association and it would be up to them to accept him. He didn't feel the map should be held up. Mr. Grimm concurred that the lot split had nothing to do with that issue. Mr. Noble readdressed the commission. He said that they had been working very closely with the homeowners board since January or February in getting this designed. They paid for the engineering, for all the improvements to build the cul-de-sacs, and there had been no %MW indication of displeasure from anyone until yesterday when an anonymous letter was sent to all the homeowners 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 a from a concerned homeowners committee saying that they should be charged $5000 per lot to join the association. He did not feel it was part of this proceeding, nor was the commission legally entitled to condition him to do something physically to the property. He asked that any condition placed would in some way protect them from an exaction of funds that was unreasonable. He would be happy to join the association and pay their ongoing fees as everyone else does, but it seemed that they had acted in more than good faith and were spending just under $30, 000 to do the cul-de-sacs and it had to stop somewhere. He did not feel there was a reason for a condition, but if there was one, he requested that it refer to any financial exaction. City Attorney Rudolph stated that legally it would be better to treat this as a separate matter. On the other hand, the commission could have legitimate land use concerns related to having the proposed project part of the same basic development/association. If there was some type of land use basis for that type of condition, the commission could place it. In general, he agreed that it was a separate matter. Mr. Drell noted that these were private streets maintained by the homeowners association, so there was a potential land use conflict for the person who travelled over the streets who was not in the association. He agreed that under normal circumstances, the next phase would have been developed and they would have been made part of the association and there would not have been special assessments placed on the new phase to enjoy that access . He agreed that if there was a condition, it should not require the applicant to submit to some unusual penalty for finishing out what was always planned to be part of the subdivision. Vice Chairperson Beaty closed the pubic testimony and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Ferguson agreed that homeowners associations were creatures of contract. The contractual relationship between the developer and homeowners association was internal and he was reluctant to put the city in a position of tilting the negotiating table one way or the other. He felt the parties could sit down and resolve their differences . He didn' t see that as a reason to hold up the current process and wanted to see it approved without any conditions being imposed. Commissioner Campbell concurred and was in favor of the project. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Commissioner Fernandez stated that he was also in favor of the project. Mr. Noble asked if the motion would include the modification to the fire marshal conditions . Vice Chairperson Beaty replied yes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1702, approving PM 28251, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . E. Case No. TT 28258 - KAUFMAN AND BROAD, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a tentative tract map to subdivide a 40 acre site into 160 single family lots with two open space lots on the north side of Frank Sinatra Drive, approximately 1325 feet west of Portola Avenue in the PR-5 zone. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the 40 acre site had frontage on Frank Sinatra and was currently vacant. The proposed project was a conventional 160 lot single family subdivision with detached single family homes . There were also 2 one acre retention basin lots shown on the map. The majority of the lot sizes were between 7200 and 7600 square feet. The proposed three and four bedroom homes ranged between 1000 and 1441 square feet. The building elevations received preliminary approval through the city's architectural commission and these were the same units proposed in the other Kaufman and Broad project adjacent to the freeway. Mr. Drell noted that Kaufman and Broad was not proceeding with that project at the freeway, although the map still existed. They would not be building both projects . Mr. Winklepleck stated that the project as proposed met all the requirements with the exception of the minimum lot size, which in the PR zone referred to an appropriate R-1 designation, and the minimum R-1 lot size was 8,000 square feet. As noted, the lot size average was 7636 square feet, which was in the "ballpark" . The minimum was 7210 square foot lot sizes and the planning commission could grant an exception to the 8,000 square foot minimum lot size with adequate justification. In 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 this case the justification to approve the smaller lot sizes was based on the desire of the applicant to meet a specific price target per percentage of the lots and they committed to enter into an agreement with the city limiting the sales price to 10% of the units as stated in the report, with at least 2% of the lots 1200 square feet or less limited to $115,990, at least 2% of the lots with homes ranging from 1201-1400 square feet limited to $122 ,990, and 2% of the lots with homes ranging from 1401-1600 square feet at a maximum base price of $131, 990 . The typical plot plans provided to the city met all the minimum setbacks and the required yards . The other "as approved" item was the parkway. The parkway shown on the map was at 22 ' from curb face to property line. Staff recommended a 32 ' parkway, which was consistent with the Rancho Portola project to the east. The 32 ' parkway would also provide adequate landscape buffer, a bikeway path, and any acceleration/deceleration lanes as required. He noted that in the North Sphere Specific Plan called for a 50 ' parkway. Since the Rancho Portola project was granted a 32 ' parkway, staff recommended consistency between the two projects . Increasing the parkway from 22 ' to 32 ' changed the lot widths . They showed a standard minimum for R-1 8, 000 square foot lots of 70 ' for the width. In some cases the number would fall below 70 ' in order to accommodate the 32 ' parkway. He noted two changes in the conditions of approval and distributed a page to the commission reflecting the changes : condition #9 should read 75 ' from centerline to the property line for total width, and on condition #10 the current condition read 20% of each where it should read 2% of each unit plan for a total of at least 10% of the units in the subdivision falling within the following schedule, and an addition that "the agreement shall be in effect until at least 10% of the units in the subdivision shall be sold per the above described requirements" . With that staff recommended approval . Vice Chairperson Beaty asked how the average square footage on the lots was calculated. Mr. Winklepleck replied that there were several 10,000 square lots which brought the average up. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked about the "at least 2% of the lots" and how that would fall within the price range, to total 10% . Mr. Winklepleck indicated that it would be a minimum of 2% of any one of those ranges, but more than 2% of some to reach the 10% . Commissioner Campbell asked if this would be a gated community. Mr. Winklepleck replied no. Vice Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JACK REIMER, Director of Development for Kaufman and Broad, Anaheim Hills, California, stated that they have 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 reviewed the conditions as proposed and amended and were in concurrence with the conditions . He noted that under the public works section of the conditions, condition #10 talked about one half of the landscaping with respect to the median at Frank Sinatra Drive and his question was whether that was allocated within the assessment district for the construction. Mr. Drell replied that he didn' t believe so. Mr. Reimer asked if the other half had been allocated. Mr. Drell stated that if and when it would be built, there was some question as to whether Palm Desert Greens had already contributed, and when they did where the money went over the last 30-40 years . Palm Desert Greens was still in the county, which complicated matters . He hoped they would find the money; if not, the city would have to pay the other half to install the median. Mr. Reimer asked what the timing of the installation of the landscape within the median would be. Mr. Drell replied that there was no particular timing that he was aware of now, but it would probably be triggered by a majority of the funds being contributed on the north side, where the city could collect funds, and once that money was collected, that was when it would probably be scheduled. Commissioner Campbell asked how close to this proposal the Temple Sinai would be; Mr. Reimer replied that they were approximately 1325 feet from the corner and he believed there were two parcels separating them, so about 600 feet from the most westerly property line of the Temple. Commissioner Campbell asked if staff had any idea when the Temple would begin construction; Mr. Drell stated that they had not submitted any plans to the city yet, so it would be a while. Mr. Winklepleck noted that for approval of the agreement for the prices of the homes, it would ultimately have to go to city council for approval . Mr. Rudolph confirmed that only the city council could bind the city to a contract. 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. Commissioner Campbell stated that she looked at the property and felt that anyone able to live in that area should be �r.. happy because it was a nice location and she would move to approve the project. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Vice Chairperson Beaty noted that on list of home sizes, there were four 10,000 square foot lots and one 21, 000 square foot lot, which threw the average off. He indicated that Chairperson Jonathan probably had concerns about the lot sizes and had expressed in the past that he would like to see the city adopt a 10, 000 square foot minimum lot size. Vice Chairperson Beaty noted that his home was on a 7800 square foot lot. He indicated that he didn' t like the way the lots were averaged with five lots being that large to influence the average, but was in favor of the project. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1703, approving TT 28258, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. X. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. PMW 95-15 - Palm Desert Water Services District, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for property located at 44-491 and 44- 447 Portola Avenue. Mr. Drell stated that a parcel map waiver was usually a consent calendar item. This one was unusual because consent items are adopted without any conditions by minute motion. This particular parcel map waiver had to have some conditions attached to it since it involved moving a lot line so that it would be directly adjacent to an existing structure and bisected an existing swimming pool . A condition of all parcel map waivers was that the resulting lots and properties be conforming to the zoning ordinance. In order for that to occur, the carport which would be adjacent to the new property line would have to be relocated and replaced. The zoning ordinance required that all residences ideally have two covered spaces . On existing nonconforming properties they at least have to replace what they lost--if they lost a 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 one car carport, they would have to replace it. The "r condition would be that prior to recordation of this map, that the carport would be relocated per the ordinance and the swimming pool removed. MR. BOB MAINIERO, Mainiero, Smith & Associates civil engineers, stated that he was present representing two owners : Roger Juran and Palm Desert Water Services . He was present to answer any questions and asked for approval . Vice Chairperson Beaty noted that there was a lot immediately north of this that had a fence that said, "keep out" . He asked if that was the Water Services property or another individual . Mr. Mainiero replied that it was not their property. He asked if it was at the corner of Catalina. Vice Chairperson Beaty said he thought it was north of the Palm Desert Water Services office. He drove by and took a quick look. Mr. Drell noted that the adjustment was to two lots . The property owned by the Palm Desert Water Services on which there was a house, then there was a lot directly north of it which was a large lot that was mostly vacant with a house on the north side of it. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if the wall would be cleaned up and taken care of; Mr. Mainiero replied that he believed so. He thought they might be speaking of the property north of the subject property. Commissioner Campbell asked if the owner of 44-490 Portola wanted to sell the property or if the property was being seized by the Water District. Mr. Mainiero replied that he wasn't involved in the negotiations, but he understood that the person wanted to sell the property and had offered it to the district for purchase. There wasn't any sort of seizing of property. Vice Chairperson Beaty asked if that person was notified of this meeting. Mr. Drell replied that this was not a hearing, but there were two signatures on the application. Mr. Mainiero concurred that one was Roger Juran, the owner of the existing larger parcel . Mr. Drell said that both parties were applicants of the parcel map waiver. Commissioner Campbell asked why the district didn't buy both properties. Mr. Mainiero thought that this might be a way for the owner of the larger parcel to get some revenue from it. He was an older gentleman who hadn't been well . Commissioner Campbell asked if he had any problem with the swimming pool being eliminated and the carport being moved. Mr. Mainiero replied no. Action: Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Moved b Commissioner Fernandez seconded b ommissioner Y y C Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1704, approving PMW 95-15, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . B. Report on Helicopter Landings Action: Discussion on this item was deferred to the meeting of October 17 , 1995 . XI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mr. Drell summarized September 21, 1995 EDAC actions . XII . COMMENTS None. XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 21 p.m. PHILIP DRELL, Acting Secretary ATTEST: PAUL BEATY, Vice--Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 20