Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1219 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 19, 1995 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r.. I . CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7 : 15 p.m. following a 6 : 30 study session. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairperson Ferguson led in the pledge of allegiance. III . ROLL CALL Members Present: James Ferguson, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Paul Beaty Staff Present: Phil Drell Mark Greenwood Marshall Rudolph Tonya Monroe Jeff Winklepleck IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: `r Consideration of the November 21, 1995 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Fernandez, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the November 21, 1995 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 3-0-1 (Vice Chairperson Ferguson abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent December 14 , 1995 city council actions . VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos . PMW 95-16 Through PMW 95-22 - MARRAKESH MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of parcel map Naw waivers to keep the recently installed sewer system within the homeowners association area. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 B. Case No. PMW 95-25 - ROBERT L. MAYER TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment between lots 18 and 32, moving the line three feet to the north. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case Nos . C/Z 95-6 , TT 28295, and PP 95-10 - FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, tentative tract map, precise plan and change of zone from O. S. , N. (open space, natural factors) to PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre) to allow construction of a 93 lot single family subdivision on 19 . 4 acres at the �I northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Fred Waring Drive. Mr. Winklepleck indicated that the project was proposing a 93 lot single family subdivision with two retention basins totaling about 15,744 square feet. Access to the project would consist of a main ingress/egress point off of Deep Canyon with a secondary access off Moss Rose Road. The majority of the lots were 5880 square feet in size with larger lots occurring at corners and in cul-de-sacs . The applicant was proposing a flexible lot line concept and included an information booklet describing the philosophy and implementation of the concept. The concept would allow the developer to meet market demands without providing unnecessary or unwanted options in the base home. If someone didn't want a fireplace or a third garage, that was something they wouldn't have to have. The developer would provide the base unit on the lot which would allow the buyer to add options . As the buyer added options, the width and size of the lot would increase. The applicant projected that the tract at buildout would contain approximately 80 lots . The developer felt that the project would be phased with approximately 10-12 units per phase, hoping to get presales or reservations on 50% of the units in each phase and building the remainder out as spec homes . Based on the lot 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 unit sizes for each of the reserved lots, the remainder in rr the phase would be redrawn consistent with an anticipated market demand. Each final map for each phase would generally contain fewer lots than shown on the tentative. A minimum lot size would remain at 5880 square feet although it was likely that most lots would be larger. The building elevations received preliminary approval from the architectural commission. Mr. Winklepleck noted that all the homes would be single story. The map met all requirements of the zoning ordinance with two exceptions : the sideyard minimum setbacks where the developer was proposing 5 and 5 for a total of 10 feet. The R-1 8, 000 zone requirement was a combination of 14 with a minimum of 5 feet. The other exception being requested was the minimum lot size--as specified in the R-1 8,000 zone the minimum was 8, 000 square feet but the developer felt that with this concept and the unique design of the house and layout of the lots, he could provide an equivalent backyard, front yard, and house size on a smaller lot. With that in mind, staff tried to make some distinction between the minimum lot size of 8, 000 square feet and the proposed minimum of 5880 . Staff felt that if the commission were to approve this project, it should with be with some stipulation of adding to the affordable housing of the city. Staff proposed three different concepts, one being part of finalizing each phase of the tract that the applicant would provide a percentage of units in that phase equal to the difference between the average lot size and the 8,000 square feet. If the average lot sizes in the phase were 7200 square feet, the applicant would be required to provide 10% of the lots in the phase at an affordable cost or a moderate cost as based on the 30% of medium household income in Riverside County for a family of four per HUD requirements . The second option was that the applicant would pay a fee to the city' s housing fund based on the difference between the lowest cost selling price in each phase and the equivalent affordable housing cost described above. Third, would be a developer option that if for any phase the differentiation in cost between the least expensive unit and the affordable equivalent as defined above would exceed $35, 000, the applicant could provide or enter into an agreement with Habitat for Humanities or another approved housing provider, to produce a low income unit within the city of Palm Desert-- low income as defined to not exceed 60% of median income for Riverside County as published by HUD standards . Based on these items, staff recommended approval of the project. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the developer would expand more fully on the flexible lot line concept. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he understood why an `w applicant would want smaller lot sizes and an exception to the side yard setbacks, but asked for a summary of why staff 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 felt that those two exceptions would appropriate for Palm Desert, that location, and this project. Mr. Winklepleck ■ o explained that on several occasions the city had granted the exception to the sideyard setbacks; staff have not heard from anyone living in those developments that they had been detrimental in any way. Based on that staff did not have a problem recommending the five foot setbacks . For the smaller lots, staff had to look at the worst case scenario being 93 5880 square foot lots . With the design of the home being proposed, with the setbacks of 20 feet in the front and 20 feet in the rear and in most cases the 20 feet in the rear would be exceeded to 31 square feet, the question staff had was what was the city trying to be accomplished in these subdivisions, whether the lots were 8,000 square foot minimums or 10,000 square foot minimums . The proposal was a unique concept and to a certain extent, even with the minimum square footages staff felt that they were providing minimum setbacks and meeting requirements of the zone as far as open space and air space. Mr. Drell said that the city created a planned residential zone to allow for requests with unique designs which accomplish the city' s goals . One of the goals of lot size was to provide adequate sized rear yards . Rear yards of this project were equal to many and most subdivisions within the city in excess of 8,000 square feet. Another goal and a policy of the city is to provide incentives and regulatory relief to lower the cost of housing per the state housing law. Therefore, the city has seen that if they can show that the result of providing these exceptions does provide housing costs which heretofore had not been apparent in the valley in new construction and contributed to the affordability of housing, that was justification for that exception. That was why the city has granted this exception, principally with some guarantee that savings and cost of land translated to housing affordability. At the same time staff was concerned about quality. In looking at the floor plans staff felt these were of reasonable quality with adequate rear yards . He noted that in the last 15 years he has worked for the city, for 10 or 11 of those 15 years he never saw a single family subdivision that provided housing for moderate income homeowners . They went a long time with no projects, therefore the city was seeing a response to market demands that this sort of housing doesn' t exist and therefore they were trying to meet that price point. They were looking for a way to put the two together. In terms of the flexible lot concept, they have seen most of the last single family subdivisions attempted in the valley now being owned by a bank of some sort or the RTC. The inability of a developer to respond to the market had been the doom of many higher priced subdivisions processed in 1 the last four to five years . 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Commissioner Jonathan asked when the last time was that the city approved a residential project at 8,000 square feet or more without exceptions . Mr. Drell replied the project on Deep Canyon. Mr. Winklepleck also indicated that the remainder of the Winterhaven project on Hovley, which came through as a second half. Mr. Drell noted there haven't been many new subdivisions because most of the action had been people taking over abandoned or bankrupt existing locations. Commissioner Jonathan asked when the commission last approved a project without exception to the minimum lot size requirement. Mr. Winklepleck replied about 1-11 years ago. Mr. Drell stated that they had approved three. Merano with an average lot size of 7400. That property was zoned 7 units per acre. An anomaly in the PR zone was that there were many properties that were zoned for residential density that were significantly higher than single family and the ultimate approved density even at 7000 square foot lots was significantly lower than the approved density--it could have been condos . That was about 2 years ago, so every project before Merano have been at 8,000 square feet. Vice Chairperson Ferguson noted there were three alternatives setforth on page 4 of the report; he asked if the findings starting on page 5 were contingent on any one of the three alternatives . Mr. Winklepleck replied that the recommendation was contingent upon it, but the findings were not contingent upon them. Mr. Drell said that a finding consistent with the general plan would be somewhat contingent in that the general plan contained goals . Vice Chairperson Ferguson asked if the developer presented this project to them with all 5880 square foot lots, and staff evaluated it just on the merits of fitting within the municipal code, if staff would still come up with the same recommendation or if the recommendations and findings were contingent upon the acquiescence to one of the three conditions . Mr. Drell said that part of the requirement for meeting an affordable housing goal had to do with history. When commission began to confront these applications, typically the commission looked for a justification to lower the standard. If there was no justification, then they were amending the code. The justification the commission used in the past for the strongest case had always been to achieve the affordable housing goal . If they were reducing the size of lots to reduce the cost of land to reduce the cost of housing, that cost should be reflected in the marketplace. It was one of the justifications that historically the commission has used to grant that exception. In essence, staff was following the commission' s direction. If the commission felt that in this particular case some other exception in terms of the unique `,, design of the layout of the lots or unique design of the house, if they felt there was some other extraordinary or 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 unusual/special feature of this plan which justified an exception, then that could be used in lieu of meeting the affordable housing goals . Vice Chairperson Ferguson noted that he read the developer's tentative map proposal information booklet and he was not sure the developer was correct or not when discussing the flexible lot line approach being the approach of the 90 ' s and questioning the fundamental assumption that 8,000 square feet was a magic number cast in stone. He wasn't sure that was true. He stated that he was trying to ascertain whether or not the commission was tying the conditions to the findings of his project or saying that this was a 26J% deviation from code, they could not find a good reason for not doing that so if the developer paid some money, it would be approved. Mr. Drell said the justification to granting the savings in land cost and development cost was to achieve a specific goal of the city' s housing element which was to produce lower cost housing available to the citizens of Palm Desert. That was historically a reasonable trade-off to provide slightly smaller lot sizes . If this project has other extraordinary features which achieve the goal of the 8,000 square foot lot and the commission identifies that, then the commission could make that finding. Mr. Drell suggested that there should be a fairly strong justification for granting the exception. Vice Chairperson Ferguson asked how many times the commission tied contributions to low and moderate housing to exceptions to minimum lot sizes; Mr. Drell replied technically three times . One was the approval of Desert Rose, which was an all affordable housing project that has 5, 000 square foot lots and the two Kaufman and Broad projects . There was a lot of discussion on the Merano project about the issue and it started out with smaller lot sizes and they have an average of close enough to 8,000 that it satisfied commission' s concerns that the lots were of adequate size. Vice Chairperson Ferguson said that he understood that the two K & B projects were entered into with a joint stipulation between K & B and the city. Mr. Drell replied yes , there was an agreement. Desert Rose was a Redevelopment Agency sponsored project. Vice Chairperson Ferguson noted that the current applicant was not stipulating to these conditions, but was waiting for the commission' s determination and asked the city attorney if the commission could legally require the developer to accept one of the three conditions as a pre- condition of moving forward with the project. Mr. Rudolph felt the conditions demonstrated a nexus and were defensible, but if the applicant was not inclined to go along with them or if they wanted to bring some future litigation over it, it might be something they might want to take into consideration. He said he wouldn't mind more time to look at the legality of this; if the applicant was opposed to these 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 types of conditions, and the commission otherwise was �•• inclined to go forward, he would like a continuance to evaluate this . Commissioner Campbell asked if Palm Desert has met all the requirements for affordable housing. Mr. Drell replied no. Commissioner Jonathan noted that staff ' s justification in making a recommendation for approval including the exceptions to the lot sizes and side yard limits was that this would promote affordable housing. He indicated that Desert Rose was about a mile away and asked what the inventory was out there in reference to demand versus supply. He asked how many vacant units there were and how sales were going. Mr. Drell said that there were 45 units in escrow; they had a management/marketing problem earlier. There was plenty of demand, but even subsidized down to $100, 000 most of the people who wanted to buy could only afford $90, 000 . He felt the 45 escrows were good ones, but there were 220 people who wanted to participate in the program but couldn't afford the subsidized unit price. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that the demand seemed to be for the $90,000 unit price. Mr. Drell felt that Desert Rose was a bad example to use because they had some management/marketing failures that contributed to a certain degree. They didn' t receive their white report until a month ago so they couldn't even offer the units for too sale. In this particular case the applicant had the ability to, and if there was no market for the small houses he wanted to build and a market for larger houses was there, then the plan had the ability to accommodate that. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was trying to determine supply and demand. There was a demand for lower prices, maybe in the $90,000 range, 45 people were in escrow, and asked how many of those had closed and how many people lived there already. Mr. Drell replied that none had closed yet. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many units that project was approved for; Mr. Drell stated there were 161 units and the project was built in one phase. Commissioner Jonathan asked how long those houses had been there; Mr. Drell replied about four-six months . They had a sales office before that, but had no ability to take deposits and essentially no marketing effort. Commissioner Jonathan asked when they began their marketing efforts, effective or otherwise; Mr. Drell said in May. Commissioner Jonathan noted that in some way, shape or form there had been some effort since May and at this point no escrows had closed out of 161 units . Vice Chairperson Ferguson opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JIM FOXX, the applicant, stated that he was present to answer any questions . 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Vice Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Foxx had an opportunity to evaluate the staff report. Mr. Foxx replied yes . Vice Chairperson Ferguson noted that a statement was made on page 3 within the last full paragraph that said that the applicant has stated that because of the unique lot configuration and how it was designed, the project would provide a comparable house size with an equivalent front yard and equivalent larger rear yard as the typical 8, 000 square foot lot unit. He asked Mr. Foxx to elaborate on if there was a comparable sized house and a comparable sized front yard and back yard and an 8,000 square foot lot, how it could fit on a 5880 square foot lot. Mr. Foxx stated that they didn't have the same size of front yard. They prepared a small, simple exhibit showing a typical 8,000 square foot lot at 80 feet wide and 100 feet deep. The lot to the left would be one of their lots, also 80 feet wide and 84 feet deep. Setbacks from the front of the lot were the same, but the standard home design would typically have the garage in front and the house in an L shape behind the garage. The house shown was a 2200 square foot house. The lot itself was 80 ' x 841 , so it was larger than the 5880, but the relationship to the back yard was the same in all of the plans regardless of the size of house and size of lot. They more efficiently used the space on the lot by bringing the house forward and wrapping it around the garage--this was a style they created many years ago on the small lots between Fred Waring and Highway 111 east of Monterey ( i .e. San Nicholas and Santa Rosa) . On those lots they had done similar house-forward designs very effectively. He said that if there was an 8,000 square foot lot with a larger house on that layout, the house had to get larger to the rear of the lot. In Palm Desert there were houses built on 8, 000 square feet or larger; in Belmonte some of the lots were 9,200 square feet and had a 19 foot wide rear yard side to side. Not enough to put in a swimming pool, or much of anything. The real basis of their plan was that every house had a minimum of 30 feet from the rear property line to the main part of the house and the width of that 30 foot space was wide enough to accommodate a pool and have an effective rear yard. The floor plans demonstrated that the house extended back around into the pool a little, but in every case there was effective rear yard space. If they took the same site and put in cul-de- sacs from Deep Canyon the way the project to the north of them on Deep Canyon did, they achieved a yield of 3 . 7 houses per acres . They would be able with a similar configuration to get a yield of 74-75 lots . They believed they would only end up with about 80 lots . The commission received a breakdown of that and the conclusions based on each of the three floor plans and percentages of what they felt would sell for each floor plan and the range in size that those houses would have for the lots that would go with them. They 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 felt they would be on average very near the 7400 square foot �r size that Merano was experiencing. If their yield was only about 80 lots they wouldn't increase the yield on the site significantly. He believed that land planning had a lot to do with some very intangible things that affect the quality of life. His land plan was primarily made up of cul-de-sacs . It was a more expensive approach and they actually had more square footage for the streets to be able to do that, but virtually all the homes were on cul-de-sacs with the lower traffic. They felt it would be beneficial to do a private community because of the proximity of the high school . The potential there for vandalism and other kinds of problems in the community with the high school immediately adjacent was of great concern. He felt they could address that with a private community. There were a lot of things with their land plan that they thought would create a superior product. They were not hoping to get substantial increases in their density. The proposal was about trying to create a superior plan and right now the market was going toward larger homes . Merano was finding that the demand at their project was for larger houses and their largest only went to about 1900 square feet. They were losing sales because of that. The Century Homes project (Belmonte) had much larger homes and had been very successful in the marketplace. They had come up with a unique idea that did not tie them to a lot size taw directly. When they approached staff, staff said they would have to ask for approval of the smallest lot size there would possibly be and as each phase went through, if they asked for fewer lots than were approved staff could handle that administratively and not have to go back through a tentative map process . They were showing the commission the absolute worst case if everyone that walked through the door wanted the smallest house. They believed they would sell larger homes . Their smallest house on the 70 foot wide lot needed a 92 foot wide lot when a den was added, another bedroom, a third car garage, and that lot was almost an 8, 000 square foot lot for their smallest base plan. He discovered that builders tended to offer three floor plans and the buyer could take it or leave it, but would offer a variety of options inside. This is a different approach. They wanted people to be able to see the core of the house, the basic three bedroom, two bathroom house. If they liked the size and feel of that but needed four bedrooms but also wanted a den, it could be done. He said they were doing this now in Rancho Mirage. There they only hoped to pre-sell 50% of their houses . They had pre-sold all of their homes after the model and first two production houses were built. Every one was pre-sold because the buyer could see the core of the house. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 i Commissioner Jonathan asked what project he was talking about. Mr. Foxx said it was Sterling Cove in Rancho Mirage. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was an affordable housing project. Mr. Foxx replied no. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the average selling price was; Mr. Foxx replied that the starting price was $279,000. Every house had been customized. None of the buyers took the pre-designed room options/additions literally. In every case they had further customized those spaces to be exactly what they wanted. He felt that would happen here. Buyers were more sophisticated. Instead of having to take one of three floor plans and fit into the house, they could help design the house they would like. As they design room additions to go onto whichever base plan they wanted to start with, they would make the lot larger commiserate with the house to always maintain the yard space. In a typical 8,000 square foot project, the smallest house had the largest yard space because it had the least square footage of house. The largest had commiserately less yard square footage because the house takes up more of the space. They were doing just the opposite. As the house gets bigger, the yard gets bigger. The useable yard and backyard got bigger. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Foxx compared this project to Merano with the largest house at 1900 square feet and average lot sizes of 7400 square feet. He asked for clarification. Mr. Foxx said that the 5880 square foot lot was the smallest lot that they could build on in the project, which meant a 1650 square foot house. If anything was added to the house, the lot got bigger. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the applicant created some projections of the kinds of products they thought would sell and that the largest houses would sell, and that was where the demand would be; therefore, the city would end up with the larger lot sizes . Mr. Foxx said that was correct on average. Commissioner Jonathan asked what average lot sizes would result from the applicant' s projections . Mr. Foxx replied about 7400 square feet. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the average selling price would be; Mr. Foxx stated that they had not set selling prices . Commissioner Jonathan said that it was relevant because as part of the justification for the exception staff used affordable housing. If the applicant was asking for 5880 square foot lots and would sell $200,000 homes, that was one thing. If they were going to sell $75,000 homes, that was another. Because it was part of the application it had to be part of the commission' s consideration. Commissioner Jonathan asked for an estimate; Mr. Foxx stated that they planned to sell plan 1 in the neighborhood of $150,000. Commissioner Jonathan said that would be on the no frills, 1650 square foot 5880 square foot lot; Mr. Foxx concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked what 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 , 1995 range the prices could go up to for the 2200 square feet with %W everything; Mr. Foxx replied that the 2200 square foot house, plan 3, was a base house and it could get larger, possibly up to 2500 square feet, and they would expect a house in that range to be $200, 000 . Commissioner Campbell said that the applicant would not be able to guarantee to the commission that they would be able to sell the larger lots, otherwise, all the lots would be 5880 square feet. The applicant could be building the units in phases . Mr. Foxx said that in theory that could happen if that was what the market needed for their housing. Vice Chairperson Ferguson asked what assurances the commission had beyond Mr. Foxx' s word that every lot wouldn't sell at 5880 square feet. He wanted to evaluate the project at 7400 square feet, but was being forced to evaluate it on the 5880 square feet. He stated that he liked the concept, but was uncomfortable giving the applicant a map with 93 lots at 5880 square feet, leaving aside the low/moderate income housing condition which was a separate issue for him. He was not sure he would do that, but it was what he was being asked to do with Mr. Foxx' s assurance that 7400 feet was the rough average depending upon the market. He asked if there was anything else the developer had to add that could give assurance. Mr. Foxx said that they would make more money on a larger house, so their interest was in selling a larger house. The smallest house was their least profitable one. Vice Chairperson Ferguson asked if Mr. Foxx would be willing to accept a modification to the proposal to set a minimum and maximum average lot size when the project was completed. Mr. Foxx said he was not sure what was being proposed. Vice Chairperson Ferguson said that if the applicant was aiming for an average of 7400 square foot average lot sizes; if the commission said they would approve the plan as envisioned, but as the final stage of the project finished out average lot size had to be within 7200 to 7600 square feet, or whatever numbers to give the applicant a comfortable flexibility but condition approval of this on an objective criteria that meant the city would get what the applicant wanted to put there, and not 93 lots at 5880 square feet. Mr. Foxx said he understood what was being said, and he was not sure that was necessarily the solution. He didn' t have an objection in principle to that, his concern was that they were trying to be market driven. If there was a recession after the first of the year, they might end up in the project with a smaller average lot size than they think. He felt it was better to have a successful project that was finished out that met the needs of the people who buy there then to have ftw a partially finished project that was a burden on a lot of people. He stated that he understood the commission' s 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 dilemma. If market conditions sufficiently changed, they could end up with a different project or they could end up delivering larger sized lots if the trend they see now happened to continue. This project wasn' t about small lots, it started that way because in order to have a 70 foot lot, they had to plan all of them at 70 feet. Setting some kind of a minimum average lot size would be okay because they didn't think they would stay with very many 5880 square foot lots . It was inconceivable. He said it was suggested earlier that there be some sort of sliding scale for an affordable housing component. He didn't know how to do that effectively. This was a unique concept. If it worked they would see real benefits for a lot of people. He felt that from the display of the two different types of lots that there were valid design issues in the way single family homes were designed and they had placed a greater value on the rear yard space for families, rather than front yard space. They had been doing that for years and felt it was better for families and the community overall . They designed their land plan with cul-de-sac streets and private streets because that was a better quality of life, especially for that site with the potential negatives surrounding it. They didn't want to build 1650 foot houses, that was only their small plan. Vice Chairperson Ferguson said that normally the commission did not evaluate a person' s character, integrity, or trustworthiness--that was too subjective. They simply write into the law what it is the city would like to see done with respect to the use of property. Through this proposal the applicant was asking the city to assume the risk that the applicant was assuming with respect to the market and he was not prepared to do that on behalf of the city without some guarantee of a downside that would be significantly above 5880 in total average lot size. He didn't disagree with Mr. Foxx' s comments; they were new and novel and questioned the fundamental assumption of the PR-5 zoning restriction at 8,000 square feet. The problem was that he had not had enough time to focus in on challenging that assumption, trying to structure the proposal to protect the city as it deserves with respect to granting exceptions, particularly the largest single exception in the history of the city in terms of lot size. He said that commission would listen to public testimony, but he would probably make a motion to continue this item because it deserved the commission' s full attention. He wanted to see a way to make the proposal work and protect the city' s interest. He said that he was going to refer to the city attorney whether or not the city could require the developer to have a minimum lot size. He also felt they needed to evaluate whether or not seeking a map with the maximum number of lots possible was the wisest way to go. He said that in concept he was not opposed to the 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 ideas being presented, but was opposed to granting 93 lots at 5880 square feet. Vice Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal . There was no one. Vice Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to address the commission in OPPOSITION. MR. MARK WISEMAN, 74-550 Day Lily Circle, stated that this was the first time they had heard of these detailed plans . He said that he was sickened by the possibilities the proposal presented. The average home in their neighborhood was over 3, 000 square feet. There were some leading residents of the Coachella Valley living in their neighborhood, like the publisher of the Desert Sun, and others, who were all led into that neighborhood because it was stipulated to them that the homes would be built out similar to theirs . They moved from other locations to this area. He felt they were doomed as to the value of their homes if this type of project with a base lot of 5880 square feet was approved. He understood that there was a minimum of 8,000 square foot lots in Palm Desert. They would have bought in south Palm Desert if they had known there was a possibility of this happening because their value as �.r a homeowner in Palm Desert of ever trying to sell and recoup the value of their homes in their area would be gone. He assumed there would be a lot of residents in their area and probably across Fred Waring and The Grove and some other developments who had paid the going rates based on Palm Desert standards that would be very much against this type of project. It didn' t make sense to them. They had to suffer through the fact that Curt Dunham and the development left the project; there were ten homes built on his block, seven were owned and three were lease options . They had to suffer through the fact that they didn' t get the 37 homes that were stipulated to be built. They were not protected in any way and just went through another hearing for another development that they were building some homes on the blocks in back of them and in front of them, but those homes were at least on conventional lots and were 8, 000 square feet or more. He felt this was a real shocking situation and he and his neighbors would have some problems . He also felt there would be a major problem on Deep Canyon. It was impacted right now with all the traffic going through there to both the Catholic school in the morning, to Palm Desert Middle School, as well as Lincoln Elementary School . They have a traffic problem now which some of the neighbors pointed out to the city previously. He felt with this type of development if 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 there was no allowance for Deep Canyon to be widened or adjusted, it would cause a nightmare. moo MR. DAN SHILOTILL, a resident at 74-530 Day Lily Circle, stated that as a member of Father Timlon's parish, the traffic on Deep Canyon was phenomenal . The proposed project would enter and exit off of Deep Canyon as the main focal point, which was across the street from a school . He felt that was absurd. He asked the commission to look at that if they were looking at protection for the citizens . He felt that the city made various commitments to them as to the development they would have and what would surround them. He said he was also an attorney and hoped the city attorney could do some research as to the legalities of the proposal . He stated he would like to see a copy of that report, as well as a copy of the staff report. Vice Chairperson Ferguson informed him that copies of the staff report were available. Mr. Shilotill said that he had heard the discussion about the Rancho Mirage project and felt the proposed project was comparing apples to oranges . Rancho Mirage versus low cost housing was no comparison. To use that as an example of a moving forward with a moving target lot and building lot he would like to see how the staff report justified that. He said it was $270,000 homes versus a moving target home and a promise that the developer was a reliable person. He noted that in Mr. Dunham' s project, the developer decided to stop because things weren't going good or because of a fluctuation in the market. Another development in the area, one of the premises that individual made was that he was going to build out the entire area at one time and he was doing that. They were smaller homes, but they met and worked with him. He now had three homes in escrow and they were all the 2600 square foot homes . He couldn't move any of the smaller homes . That was consistent with what would have happened if that area had developed. He stressed concerns of how the proposal was physically structured. It was incompatible opening into a school . Deep Canyon with two lanes was inadequate and when Deep Canyon opened into the high school it would be worse. They would be putting children at risk. FATHER ANTONY TIMLON, Pastor at Sacred Heart, 43-775 Deep Canyon, stated that his major concern was traffic safety on Deep Canyon. He felt more study on this project was needed, otherwise they officially did not take a stand pro or con on the development, but they 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 were worried about safety and the entrances and access Ar to this development. Vice Chairperson Ferguson asked if the applicant would like to re-address the commission. Mr. Foxx stated that regarding traffic on Deep Canyon, the city was requiring them to widen Deep Canyon to the ultimate right-of-way which corresponded with the ultimate right-of-way at Day Lily Circle and other streets to the north of them. Deep Canyon would be improved with their project. He said that he was of the opinion that the city would not allow access from any place other than Deep Canyon. Mr. Drell replied that was correct. Deep Canyon was a collector street and its function and design is to take traffic off of local streets and get it to Fred Waring. Mr. Foxx said that an alternative to this project was to do a series of cul-de-sacs similar to the ones at Day Lily Circle. That would put five cul-de-sacs, each with their own intersection, on Deep Canyon. What a private community like this would do would be to create an entrance with a gate. The city wanted their entrances near to the center of the property and they tried to locate that in the best possible location given the traffic conflicts of the many driveways in and out of the church and school next door. They all had children and were concerned with their safety. He felt that a project like this with one entrance, especially with a gate that stopped people coming in and slowed them down, was a safer situation than five separate cul-de-sacs . He suggested that the traffic engineer give his thoughts on that issue. Mr. Foxx also stated that they were not proposing a low cost housing project. They were proposing to build houses with all of the amenities that any other house in Palm Desert would typically have and deserve. They were proposing that their house start at 1650 square feet and get larger. If the demand was for 2600 square foot homes that the project to the north seemed to be showing, their houses could get as large as they need to be given the demand. That spoke well for the direction they had projected as far as their mix of houses . He said he didn' t know Deep Canyon would ever enter into the high school . Mr. Drell indicated that was discussed at one time with the development to the east and it was abandoned except for an emergency access . He said that they would not direct that kind of traffic through a residential neighborhood. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Mr. Foxx stated that one of the reasons they created the land plan that they did was to have private streets with gates and to have very controlled access within the community and cul-de-sac streets . The one street going to their north was more because the fire department wanted a second point of ingress/egress and all of their homes would have fronted onto cul-de-sacs . He felt this project deserved approval . He noted that they were well below the general plan density that allowed 5-7 dwelling units per acre. Somehow a formula that set some sort of minimum lot size to make this less scary could make sense for everyone. He felt this project had a lot of good things going for it. He didn't think feel the quality of their project in a community like this at this location would in any way devalue existing homes . A successful community would increase the value of everything around it and not detract from it. They had no intention of trying to build 80 $90,000 homes or an Indio affordable home here, but something that was somewhat unique to Palm Desert which would also respect the right of the buyer in the marketplace to decide what kind of house they want, the configuration, what they can afford, what sort of room designations they want and be able to get a house that conformed to their lifestyle and needs rather than the other way around. Vice Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments . Commissioner Jonathan said that he has listened to all the comments and concluded that 1) staff ' s justification for the exceptions to the lot sizes and side yard setbacks was to achieve the goal of providing low cost housing and yet the applicant said that they weren' t building low cost housing. The project would sell houses beginning at $150, 000 and probably going above $200,000 . That was not low cost housing. Staff indicated that the demand for low cost housing was under $100,000 and probably around $90,000 . The applicant was projecting mostly the larger units which would further skew the project away from affordable housing. He asked why they would be granting an exception if the goal was to enhance and provide more low cost housing when what the commission was hearing was that this would not be low cost housing. Even if it was, there were plenty of affordable housing units available now a half mile down the street; 161 units were sitting down the street, none of which had sold at this time. He asked why the city was granting an exception to build more, even if the commission accepted that they would be low income housing to justify the exceptions . He felt the city needed to not direct its efforts so much at new development, but at existing neighborhoods like Palma Village 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 between Fred Waring and Highway 111 bounded by Monterey and `w Portola. That was an area where the goal of low income housing could be wetted to an overall improvement of the city and everyone would come out a winner. There were enough projects in existence and planned, including the two Kaufman and Broad projects, to take care of planned unit development low income housing. There was no need for any more of that. He said he drove Deep Canyon daily to drop his children off at the high school and middle school and there was a mess there. He liked that the project would address that, but regardless the traffic engineer needed to give that area some attention. He suggested having two left hand turn lanes there. There were significant objections from neighboring property owners and as a commission they had always been sensitive to people already there. The bottom line was that the exceptions to the ordinance were not warranted. The project was nice if it came in at 8, 000 square feet plus . They didn' t need any complicated formulas or a waiting formula. Every lot should be in compliance with the zoning ordinance as it exists; it was there for a reason and it was 8,000 square feet. It was deliberated a long time and with great thought when they extended the side yard setback from ten feet to 14 feet combined. That was a long, lengthy process and it was there for a good reason. He also did not feel that exception was warranted. He stated that he would ftw have no problem with the project if the applicant came back with 8,000 square foot lots and 14 foot combined side yard setbacks . Commissioner Fernandez agreed with Commissioner Jonathan. The commission had to be sensitive to the existing neighbors and if the applicant could come back with a project under those conditions and meet the standards of the city, he would be in favor. Commissioner Campbell said she would be more comfortable having the city attorney look at the conditions and have the developer come back with certain changes . Vice Chairperson Ferguson stated that he had mixed emotions on this project. There was a very strong free market side of him that felt the market should dictate what the property should be sold at and the developer should be given the flexibility they need to creatively approach projects so that they don't continue to reinvent the wheel . At the same time there was a public interest involved here which he felt was articulated by the opponents to the proposal and that was the traffic aspects of the proposal within the vicinity of the three schools . That was a decided concern. Also, there was the issue of whether or not there was a detrimental impact to adjoining neighborhoods which he felt was addressed tonight, 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 but could be addressed in further detail . At this point he didn't want to stop a project that showed promise simply end because there weren't answers to questions, which he felt with some thoughtful time, effort, energy by the developer, city staff and members of the commission, might be addressed. He said he was inclined to seek a continuance because if he was asked to vote right now and was forced to represent the city in that capacity to protect the city he would vote no. Accordingly he would move for a continuance of this matter to the next scheduled planning commission meeting, whether it be January 2 or 16 . Also he would like the city attorney to look at the legalities of the conditions as proposed by staff and evaluate the legalities of the proposal he suggested, requiring an average minimum lot size or a range of average minimum lot sizes . He felt that the proposal took a head-on assault at the legitimacy and logic of an 8,000 square foot minimum lots and he didn't have a quick answer for that. He noted that another item on the agenda was a comprehensive review of the zoning ordinances and felt that might be an appropriate forum to look at the wisdom of the previous requirements . He was uncomfortable to blatantly disregard 8,000 square feet because it suited the applicant' s development needs to the disregard of people who have always relied on the fact that with rare exceptions, at no time would there be less than 8,000 square feet on a lot. He reopened the public hearing and made a motion to continue this item to January 16 with instructions to staff as outlined. Action: Moved by Vice Chairperson Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing C/Z 95-6 , TT 28295, and PP 95-10 to January 16, 1996 by minute motion. Commissioner Jonathan spoke to the motion by saying that he usually was one of the first to jump in to give an applicant an extension to allow an opportunity to address concerns but he would be voting against an extension. He felt the applicant knew full well what he was doing and he came to the commission seeking exceptions and he felt the commission needed to say no at this time. That didn't mean the applicant would go away. He was always free to come back with the same project, publicly noticed, that would meet the concerns . By personally saying no to the continuance, he was not saying he was completely opposed to this project, but felt it needed to come back to the commission brand new, fresh with 8,000 square foot lots and 14 foot combined setbacks on the sides . Vice Chairperson Ferguson also noted that Chairperson Beaty was absent tonight and wanted to give Chairperson Beaty an opportunity to vote on this proposal as well . He was not willing to throw out the timing or work put into this project without an 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 , 1995 opportunity to evaluate it further. He called for the vote. The motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Jonathan voted no) . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. X. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case Nos . PP 95-6/CUP 95-10 - Traffic Study by the Department of Public Works Mr. Greenwood noted that during the approval process for PP 95-6/CUP 95-10 the commission requested that a traffic study be performed to address traffic issues relevant to the project. He said that the study was before the commission and he was present to answer any questions . Commissioner Jonathan stated that when he advocated the traffic study, he was looking for solutions and the study basically said there was no problem. He felt there was a problem there now and was concerned about when the restaurant went in that the problem would be worse. For example, just f'' the day before they tried to make a left turn into the alley but it was difficult because every time they went into the turn lane, someone almost hit them because they were wanting to make a left turn either onto Highway 111 or onto the parking lot south of Highway 111 . It was a shared left turn lane. He perceived problems there and was hoping to get more solutions to the problem rather than an evaluation that the problem doesn't exist. He asked what could be done. Mr. Greenwood stated that we often perceive problems where congestion is seen. Real problems were measurable and they have taken steps to measure that which is measurable. They measured that and there was no indication of a real problem. They could take actions that were not supported by numbers, but that was not recommended. Mr. Drell said that there were a limited number of solutions and if turning left was unsafe there, left turns could be prohibited, _ although Circle K would probably not be thrilled with that solution. Mr. Greenwood said that they took specific action to study the accident history there because he thought safety would be the issue. There had been no accident reports involving vehicles turning left out of the alley or from Circle K. There was one accident within the five year study period and that involved someone turning right into the alley. Mr. Drell %or noted that there was a tough piece of geometry there. if those stores were still going to have access, each driver 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 would have to determine what was the simplest way to get to that block and they could take that choice away from them and prohibit certain sources of movement or keep it the way it is . They had a suggestion that they at least in terms of people leaving the site, that they at least direct the people that want to go south that there was access onto E1 Paseo. It could be a start. Southbound traffic could be directed to use El Paseo. The restaurant redesigned the site and it provided access to the restaurant directly from Highway 111 and that was a considerable achievement getting it through Caltrans . Hopefully most knowledgeable patrons would utilize that entrance. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would be widening the alley. Mr. Greenwood said that the alley would be widened to 24 feet along the frontage of the restaurant. Commissioner Campbell said that when people leave the restaurant parking lot, they could make a right turn on Portola to go to Highway 111 and if they wanted to make a left turn, they should go east on the alley and exit on E1 Paseo. Mr. Greenwood said that the study indicated that they thought about 25% of the patrons would do that. Commissioner Campbell asked if public works could make a sign that would direct traffic in that manner and no left turn on Portola. Mr. Greenwood indicated that staff was not proposing that the left turn be prohibited, but they could install a sign that would indicate that access was provided to the east if they were to take the alley to E1 Paseo. He said it could be a directional or guide sign to indicate that it was a viable route. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the orange cones that have been used on Country Club and asked if it would prove effective in this situation. Mr. Drell felt that the problem was that the center lane was shared by so many different movements that putting obstacles to prevent left turns out would probably interfere with some other movement that people do. Mr. Greenwood said that would mean diverting traffic to some other location and possibly displacing the problem somewhere else that might be less desirable. Vice Chairperson Ferguson said that he was of the same opinion. He noted that three of the four commissioners have expressed their perception that there was a problem. Commissioner Campbell worked by there, Commissioner Ferguson lived by there and Commissioner Jonathan visited there and they all saw a problem. Given that, staff did what the commission asked and that was to provide their best effort to document what the situation was there. He personally did not believe staff . He stated that he saw the problem daily and would give staff the benefit of the doubt, but would like when the restaurant was opened an additional study done at 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 that time to see if staff was right or wrong and address `.. remediation at that point. Mr. Greenwood requested clarification as to which facts Vice Chairperson Ferguson had concerns with. Vice Chairperson Ferguson stated that he did not like using averages on a national basis for restaurants as opposed to actual past practice. He said he spoke to Mr. Drell who indicated that there was nothing there. He felt it would have been interesting to have monitored the in-flow and out-flow during the existence of the Christmas tree lot as compared to the vacant lot. They would be having an operating entity there and the study suggested that only 11 people would come to a restaurant between 6 : 00 p.m. and 7 : 00 p.m. , but he didn't have to believe that. Mr. Greenwood felt that the use of a Christmas tree lot could not compare to a restaurant. The Christmas tree lot would have double or triple the number of vehicles going there every hour. The restaurant use was described as a high-end small facility. The manual for that restaurant use had something like 30 studies that were mostly conducted in San Francisco and San Diego where they did measure high-end sit down low turnover restaurants which he felt was a comparable use and they found these averages, although he specified that the average ranged quite a lot. The average restaurant size was three times that of the project size. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he believed staff ' s numbers, but the conclusion was that there was not a problem. His conclusion was that there was problem. Mr. Greenwood clarified that his conclusion was not that there was not a problem, but that traffic was using the access adequately. There was no safety problem, the delay was adequate and within standard of 13 seconds average delay, maximum delay of 80 seconds . The average wait at the traffic signal at Portola and Highway 111 was over 100 seconds . The delay at the alley as measured was not a problem. Even if they wanted to ignore the average the worst case was 82 seconds, which happened one time in over two hours of study. The facts were that there was not a true traffic safety or delay problem which could result in a safety problem. He felt that congestion was being perceived as a safety problem. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Greenwood to indulge the commission and even if there was not a problem in his mind, to tell the commission how that good situation could get even better. Commissioner Campbell recommended that someone sit there all day long and not just from 11 : 00 to 12 : 00 . That was when she tried to get out to go to her Soroptomist meeting. She had to be there at 12 : 00 and she left the President' s Parking Lot East and she was stuck because of the �.r red light on E1 Paseo. When E1 Paseo got the green light the other traffic would start and it was difficult to get across . 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Mr. Greenwood said that the ultimate solution for seeing no congestion was to adjust the timing of the traffic signal at rli Portola and Highway 111, which the city had no control over, or some kind of barrier in the median on Portola, which would restrict left turn movements . Vice Chairperson Ferguson asked if the city controlled the signal at E1 Paseo and Portola. Mr. Greenwood replied yes . Vice Chairperson Ferguson felt the signals were not synchronized; they were first barred by traffic going southbound on Portola and crossing Highway 111 and just about the time that finished they were bombarded by traffic going northbound on Portola from the E1 Paseo light. A car could sit there as long as four and five minutes, and if you were to try to back up, there are cars behind you. He hoped that Mr. Greenwood would not take the remarks personally, but the information did not comport with his experience and the methodology he didn' t want to attack at this point because they didn't have a restaurant built yet, but requested when it was built that another study with this or another more thorough methodology be used to revisit the situation to see if it was something they should be concerned with. He didn't want to wait until someone died there before it was deemed a traffic problem. Mr. Drell felt that most of the comments seemed to involve entering the site, not exiting. Vice Chairperson Ferguson i said that his were entering because that was where he too frequently had a problem. Mr. Drell believed that Mr. Greenwood' s analysis dealt mostly with exiting. Mr. Greenwood believed that the problem was westbound left turn exiting the alley. Mr. Drell noted that there was only one way to enter the site, there was no way to manipulate how they get there. They have to make that left turn if going southbound on Portola. There might be a problem trying to make that left turn when there was a lot of traffic, but in terms of a physical fix other than prohibiting the movement, he didn't think they should manipulate all the traffic circulation in the E1 Paseo/Highway 111 area to facilitate people making a left turn into Circle K. It was a very short leg and was inherently difficult with eight different desired traffic movements and the city didn't even control the signal on Highway 111 at all . The other movement could be looked at, but there were not many options to fix the situation other than the good judgement of the drivers making the decision. Commissioner Jonathan felt that, unfortunately, might be where they ended up. He didn't have a problem with the restaurant use; it didn' t create the problem and had a right to go there. He noted that Mr. Greenwood didn't create the situation and it could be one of those anomalies where that was the way it would stay until someone tears down the Circle 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 K or until some major kind of change was made they might be `m stuck with it. If that was staff ' s conclusion, now or later, he would buy that. It was just a weird situation there. He stated that he would have felt better if Mr. Greenwood had said that they looked at putting cones there but couldn't because no one would be happy because there wouldn't be any left turns out of the alley. Or that they looked at closing the driveway to Circle K to channel them through the alley but that didn't work for the following reasons and the conclusion was that there was no good solution. He would be fine with that if that was the process staff went through. If staff didn't do that, he suggested that maybe staff could do that either now or at some later time. If there was no way fix this particular problem, staff could just say so and that would be fine. It has been there a long time and they would survive it. Vice Chairperson Ferguson stated for the record that his concern was ingress, which was addressed by Mr. Winklepleck via striping. The biggest problem was someone coming out right in the middle of the alley because there was no stripe, therefore, they couldn't turn in until that person turned left. He felt that Commissioner Campbell raised very valid concerns about egress and to get a report that basically said that the commission didn't know what they were talking about rather than that they had looked at all these solutions and there was really nothing they could do. It struck him as odd and he didn' t mean the comments personally, but the report didn't comport with his experience. When there was a restaurant there and actual cars could be counted, he would like to see those cars counted and not some national study relied on. If he was wrong he would be the first to apologize. Mr. Drell said that they could also look at all the possible traffic control measures that could be employed there to see if they have any potential for improving the situation. They could evaluate every possible thing that could be done there so that commission would be comfortable to know that they looked at every conceivable physical improvement and would find out reasons why it could not be done physically or that it wouldn't solve any problems . Mr. Greenwood noted that the concerns basically involve turning movements . Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Greenwood said that given space restrictions of adjacent development and signals, they would have no room to spread the movements out. Therefore, the only possible solution would be to prevent the movements . Now the problem, if it was a problem, was displaced and more people would be unhappy. They had just gone through all the possible improvements and he asked if this was something the commission would like pursued. Vice Chairperson Ferguson felt it was the planning commission' s 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 responsibility to look at traffic problems in association with land use. They saw a restaurant going in through the redevelopment agency, whether it was sold or leased. Traffic was not even addressed in the study. He raised the fact that it wasn' t brought up and said that he believed there was a problem there. He felt there was a comment that why should a traffic study be done that would just confirm that there was a problem there. He felt it was the need of the commission to address the problem and traffic should be addressed as associated with land use. Then he got a report back that said there was no problem and offered no attempt to remediate the existing situation. He found himself wondering if this was the way the city approached traffic problems with private developers versus the redevelopment agency. He spoke to several council members about the proposed land use. He didn' t want to abdicate the commission' s responsibilities simply because staff handled it, staff didn' t think there was a problem, staff didn't think commissioners needed to know about that, or it was not a problem and so they wouldn't look at solutions because it was not a problem. He didn't think there was healthy communication from his point of view with a very legitimate area involving traffic. He stressed that the comments were not personal, but felt that staff was defensive and resistant to what he hoped were contributing comments and that was not a healthy environment. He didn't want to operate on that kind of basis . Mr. Greenwood stated that he didn't intend to be resistive to the suggestions, but as the transportation engineer for the city his job was to base his recommendations on the facts, as he can identify them. With the restaurant not existing there, all they had to rely on were other similar uses/restaurants . That was the basis for that assumption. He said that he would happily take any suggestions the commission had to solve the problem the commission saw. He asked if there were solutions that should be explored. Vice Chairperson Ferguson stated that he was not a traffic engineer and that was why he was willing to defer to staff until there was a restaurant there. His methodology would have used existing similar businesses in Palm Desert as opposed to a national study which took into account no unique geographical demographics, much less seasonal visitors . They would get a restaurant there and all he was saying tonight was that the staff report did not comport with his experience and he would like to see the study revisited at the time that the restaurant was there to make sure they weren' t creating a .problem. Commissioner Jonathan suggested a continuance to allow staff to review commission comments and come back with a response. Mr. Greenwood concurred. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Action: •.r Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing this item to January 16, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . B. Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Mr. Drell explained that this had a number of motivations as mentioned in the report. As well, with the exception of the last agenda there had been a lull in development activity and a lot of things that get put off could now be addressed. He felt that this needed to be done to make sure there is internal consistency. Now there was also new commissioners and this would give a good opportunity for them to familiarize themselves with the code. They also deal with the California Environmental Quality Act which is constantly being amended and what they had done with that was annotate it. It has the code section, the interpretation, and some verbiage added as to what the lawmakers were trying to achieve. In ten years when all of us are gone and there is arguing why there was an 8,000 square foot lot or 5 and 9 foot sideyards, there would be a statement saying what the intent and purpose was and what we are trying to achieve. That was why he was proposing that they start at the beginning and read through it to get familiar with it and ask if it makes sense and if it what the commission wants to achieve and if what we want to achieve is a valid function of government in terms of anti-regulation or questioning the purpose of regulation and really justifying everything we do and maybe making things more stringent so that next time we are asked why the regulation exists, we can say it ' s because of a specific goal we want to achieve. He said that initially it would be an educational process . They would form a committee representing all the various interests in the city and the building community and commercial community. A lot of economic development might be for the city to get out of the way. He said that at this point he was asking the commission to conceptually endorse the idea and take it to council . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, by minute motion recommended to city council initiation of a comprehensive zoning ordinance review. Carried 4-0 . �r 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19 , 1995 3 C. Discussion on Cancelling the January 2, 1996 meeting Vice Chairperson Ferguson asked for any discussion on the item. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, cancelling the January 2 , 1996 meeting by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE (There was no meeting. ) XII . COMMENTS None. XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting to January 16 , 1996 by minu motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : p m. � P ILIP DRELL, Acting Secretary A4E ' JA ES C. GUS , Vice Chairperson Pa m Des r P1 ing Commission /t 26