Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0116 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY - JANUARY 16, 1996 7 :00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � I . CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Beaty called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ferguson led in the pledge of allegiance. IIZ . ROLL CALL Members Present: Paul Beaty, Chairperson Sonia Campbell James Ferguson Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: George Fernandez Staff Present: Phil Drell Phil Joy Marshall Rudolph Mark Greenwood Steve Smith Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: '�"" Consideration of the December 19 , 1995 meeting minutes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the December 19 , 1995 meeting minutes . Carried 3-0-1 (Chairperson Beaty abstained) . V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Drell summarized pertinent January 11, 1996 actions . He noted that Councilmember Benson was selected to serve on the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and that Planning Commission should also select a liaison. Commissioner Ferguson volunteered to serve on the committee. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, selecting Commissioner Ferguson to serve as the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee liaison by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A r.. None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 VII . CONSENT CALENDAR ' � A. Case No. PMW 95-26 - HOWARD & ARDITH MARGULEAS, DAVID & ELINOR FALK, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the property line between Parcels A and B, also known as APN 624-071-025 and 624-071-026 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . VIII . PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Beaty noted that there were several cases requesting a continuation: Items A, B, and F; Item C was withdrawn. He said that testimony would be allowed, but the items would most likely be continued. A. Continued Case No. TT 28287 - COLONY GATEWAY INC. , Applicant rI Request for approval of a subdivision of 25 lots into 41 within Bighorn Golf Club, south of the planned Metate Drive and the "Cahuilla Hills" area. Chairperson Beaty noted that the applicant was requesting a continuance to February 20 . He opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak on regarding this matter. There was no one. He requested a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, continuing TT 28287 to February 20, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . B. Continued 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 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 residential five units per acre) to ` allow construction of a 93 lot single family subdivision on 19 .4 acres at the northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Fred Waring Drive. Chairperson Beaty noted that the applicant was requesting a continuance to February 20 and o ened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to address the commission. MR. DAN SHILLITOL, a resident of Day Lily in Palm Desert, addressed the commission, noting that it was mentioned at the last meeting that the city attorney would be providing a legal analysis regarding whether it was appropriate to waive the commission' s regulations for lot sizes and asked if it had been dane and if it would be made available to the public. Mr. Rudolph stated that he was prepared to give an oral report on that, but his inclination in view of the continuance request was to wait for the next hearing. He said that he could put the report in written form to include with the commission staff reports . He noted that typically those were not matters of public record, but were protected by attorney-client privilege. The city could waive that '�"' option if they wished--it was their choice. Mr. Drell added that the issue was far more complex than waiving the lot size. He stated that he could show the commission the section that would allow the commission to waive the lot size. The more complex issue was the flexible, indeterminate lot size that was being proposed. Commissioner Ferguson said that he asked for an opinion as to whether the commission could require an average minimum lot size. Mr. Rudolph indicated there were several issues and that was one of them; another was the whole flexible lot line concept and another was the validity of affordable housing conditions . Those were the items he would be reporting on. Chairperson Beaty asked the commission for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing C/Z 95-6, TT 28295 and PP 95-10 to February 20, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . C. Case No. CUP 96-1 - MICHAEL BARRY, Applicant � Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow operation of a 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 traffic school at 73-350 E1 Paseo in the � C-1 S.P. zone. � Chairperson Beaty noted that the application was withdrawn and that no further action would be necessary. Action: No action required. D. Case No. CUP 95-13 - JOAN'S BAKERY FOR CHESAPEAKE BAGEL BAKERY, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2300 square foot, maximum 35 seats, restaurant in the C-1 zone located on the north side of Highway 111, 125 feet east of San Luis Rey, known as 73-850 Highway 111 . Mr. Smith explained that the request was for a 2300 square foot restaurant with a maximum seating capacity of 35 in the existing building. He noted that back in June of 1994 the commission approved two restaurants in this building: a Fiesta Mexicana which is open and doing business, and at the ± opposite end of the building to the west end next to 7-11 � commission approved a 2763 square foot Koo Koo Roo restaurant that did not proceed. Pursuant to the ordinance approval has lapsed. He said they were now being requested to approve a 2300 square foot restaurant which would be located in the middle of the building and would occupy one and a half bays with approximately 39 foot wide total frontage. The Chesapeake Bagel Bakery was a rapidly expanding franchise restaurant chain serving bagels, sandwiches, desserts and specialty coffees . They indicated approximately 30� of their business was take-out and 70$ dine-in. They were requesting business hours of 6 : 00 a.m. through 9 : 00 p.m. Mr. Smith noted that a parking study was conducted for both parts of the center from mid December until last week. There were 20 entries and it was a fairly reasonable assessment. What made it difficult in this instance was that there were six vacant suites in the center, plus the one and a half being requested here. He noted this business was not yet open, but was under construction. With the parking on the street in the range of 22� occupancy, in the longer standing building to the east with Sub King, there was about a 55� occupancy; in this building to the west it was 42� occupancy. By the vehicles he saw, he felt a good number of those were construction workers from the Chesapeake Bagel Bakery. Staff recommended � approval of the use, noting that this restaurant was smaller � than the previous approval . As well, he felt the parking was � 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 adequate and his experience with bagel businesses was that 'y they were typically a morning use and the other uses seemed to be later in the day. This provided a good blend of uses in the center. He noted this was a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. Staff noted that a copy of the floor plan was provided in the commission' s packet. He recommended approval of the resolution, subject to the conditions contained therein. Chairperson Beaty o ened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. The applicant spoke from the audience to say he was present. Chairperson Beaty asked if the commission had any questions for the applicant. There were none. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request. There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Commissioner Campbell noted that she frequented that center quite often at all times of the day and evening and she did not feel there was a parking problem. She was in favor of the restaurant request. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was usually sensitive to parking issues, but the staff analysis was convincing, ` persuasive and well thought out and he had no problem with the application. Commissioner Ferguson agreed with Commissioners Campbell and Jonathan. He was glad to see the requested project and given the analysis and previous use approved by the commission, he did not see a problem with the request. Chairperson Beaty concurred with the comments and asked for a motion. 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. 1716, approving CUP 95-13, subject to conditions . Carried 4-0 . E. Case No. TT 27710 Amendment #1 - LOWE RESERVE CORP. , Applicant � Request for approval of a tentative map amendment to reduce the number of 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 's homesites surrounding three golf holes � from 48 to 43 with a modified circulation plan on 48 acres east of Portola Avenue and south of Living Desert. Mr. Joy stated that this revision was fulfilling one of the city council conditions of approval on the previous map that was approved on May 13, 1993 . That map was approved with six or seven changes that the city council mandated. Included were reduction of lots, relocation of the maintenance yard, and repositioning of the lots . He said they were all reflected in the proposed map. When the revision came in last October, staff asked the applicant to also show it to the adjacent Ironwood Association because they had concerns on the previous design. The association did not approve it and that was why it was back before the commission. The Ironwood Association had concerns that included an errant ball study and shot deterrent to be done along the planned 4th fairway. He noted that he distributed those plans to commission just prior to the meeting which showed that 4th fairway. The errant ball study was conditioned in the EIR by the City of Indian Wells because they were the lead agency for the project. Another agreement was entered into between the association and developer that the deterrent could also � be a lake. The map distributed was revised and showed desert � berming along the fairway, which was to the satisfaction of staff in terms of deterring golf balls from going toward Ironwood residences . As far as the deterrent actually being a lake, this was something that staff could not recommend due to water conservation issues and environmental reasons . A letter was received from Mr. Lires concerning median breaks on Portola Avenue. Mr. Joy stated that he would like to add a condition of approval that this median break be accomplished prior to issuance of grading permit for the Palm Desert portion of the map. He said that the applicant might wish to speak on that. As far as the grading activity for the Indian Wells portion of the map, he felt the developer might wish to do this to ease the way for trucks going in and out of the site since they had to make a U-turn right now. Other concerns mentioned in the letter dealt with traffic on Portola and the bottleneck situation at Haystack. He felt these matters were previously addressed in the EIR and conditioned, and the commission' s hands were more or less tied for adding any further mitigations to the map. After reviewing the map, he said the developer had fulfilled all of the council ' s conditions that were placed on the previous map and staff found it acceptable and recommended approval . ; a Y Chairperson Beaty clarified that staff was recommending an � added condition to open up the median break; Mr. Joy 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 concurred. Chairperson Beaty o_ pened the public testimony and '� asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. TED LENNON, President of Lowe Reserve Corporation and developer of The Reserve, addressed the commission. He stated that he would like to review the history of this portion of the project. He noted that they had a master plan and showed on a map where the 55 acres of the Palm Desert site was located. The other 550 acres were part of the Indian Wells site. The property line came down to eventually the center line of Portola. The main entry to the property was from Portola. They have a tentative map and tried to make some improvements to the property to adjust to the conditions placed. They had made an agreement with the Ironwood Association that they would limit the lots to 43, even though the tentative map allowed a larger number. They were now doing the lot reduction and went from 48 to 43 . In the original plan there were six homes directly facing the homeowners association and they agreed to reduce that number to five. The current plan only had four homes facing them. They originally hoped to Iocate their maintenance facility next to Ironwood' s maintenance facility to share costs . That was of major concern to the homeowners association, so they worked out an � agreement to take it out of their site. They redesigned the project and eventually moved the maintenance building back up against the water tanks to get the major traffic to the maintenance facility to go through their main gate to avoid their neighborhood. Since that original tentative map they had redone that at the expense of the sales office, which had to be moved and they worked that out. In addition, in the original tentative map they were presented with a wall of homes and lots and 600 feet of roadway facing them. They reduced that from 1500 feet to 1200 feet with the new plan by opening up the area and extending an existing lake so that it became a visual attraction to those units . Instead of a long wall of homes, it had been greatly opened up. He noted that the units were condominiums elevated above his property by about 12 feet and they had a combination of attractive desert view, cyclone fencing in front of their homes, and cyclone fencing at the Living Desert. They viewed the water tanks, but they enjoyed their desert views and it was a concern to them that they would lose that. They did a computer study to show the association that they would get the benefits of green golf and they would re- landscape berming so they had a great desert view, some � golf shots and portions of lakes, as well as guaranteeing to hide the existing reservoirs at the edge 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 of the Palm Desert property and block off the nine foot � cyclone fence along the Living Desert. He felt that � overall with the changes and adjustments to their agreement with them, the last item of contention was that they agreed to do an errant ball study. They would take a good look at making this hole of golf that abutted their property line as safe as possible. Initially one of the concepts was to create a water hazard somewhere near the landing zone. They were happy with that. Tt was their intention to build a truly world-class golf course. They commissioned Mr. Tom Wisecoff and Mr. Jay Morish to do the best course they could. They were vehemently opposed to putting a water hazard in this location. This had a four percent downhill slope and it was a downhill hole. They employed golf consultants, and Mr. Glen McGuyen was present and he was here to answer any questions from the commission. Mr. Lennon felt Mr. McGuyen had tremendous golf experience. He helped develop Ironwood, Vintage Club, Mission Hills and was the head pro at L.A. Country Club. He went to work with Wisecoff and Morish to come up with a hole of golf they feel is a terrific improvement to the original plan and did not have a water hazard, but they came up wi�h a concept program to do everything possible to make it a very safe golf hole. � It basically consisted of the hole of golf being moved � further away from the residences . It was a football field plus another 30 yards between their property line and the homes . It was the widest single fairway on their property. Ironwood homes would sit up about 14 feet above their property with a five foot wall in front of them--right now it was a cyclone fence and in the agreement with them he agreed to take that down and build a masonry wall to their choice and re-landscape the inside of their property which would give them an additianal safety factor. Then they would have an additional security fence and it was his intention to build an unplayable desert bermscape along that side where people would not be allowed to play in that area and they would have a drop penalty. They didn't want people to tee-off, hit a bad ball, and then reload at the tee box and hit another one. They agreed that would be an unplayable hazard and they would sign a local rule that people could not play out of that hazard which would be a powerful deterrent. That concept would run all the way down the fairway from tee to green. In addition to the concept of the berms, they lowered the golf course an extra four or five feet so it was 16-17 feet below the homes, which was an additional safety � feature. It had a slight undiscernible tilt toward the � homes and people on that fairway would have a slight 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 tendency to push their ball off to the right rather than � pulling to the left. As a final concept in making this hole as good as they could they identified on the plans a final mounding design to be performed in the field in conjunction with the Ironwood Homeowners Association and the trees would be planted strategically to enhance landscaping and protect against errant shots . Basically they would mass trees just left of the tee boxes . He felt Ironwood appreciated the aesthetic changes they had made to reduce the density and open up the project to let them see more of the lake. Part of their agreement was that they would work with them on limiting the tree heights and limit use of lawn mowers on Sunday mornings . He felt they were down to the last areas of contention: the errant ball study and if the quarter acre lake was to be the deterrent or if it would be the proposal before commission now. He noted that staff recommended in the conditions of approval that the final approval of the errant ball study would be a condition of the grading permit issuance. He said the errant ball area would be bermed with various berm heights of up to 14-18 feet with trees and massive desert planting, then there was a security fence. They also agreed to lower the existing road that Ironwood service people used by four to six feet (it varied in places) and would build the ` block wall . That would almost eliminate the view of the large trash trucks and reduce the noise. The center line from their property line to the wall was 260 feet to the center line of the golf course. He said that regarding the drive-through on the median island, they would like to do that as soon as possible, so they did not have a problem with that added condition. Mr. Joy said that there had been some concerns from the residents regarding the Indian Wells portion of the grading also. Mr. Lennon stated that they would do the median break for any grading, Palm Desert or Indian Wells . The only grading they couldn't control was the water district had the right to go onto their property and clean dirt out, but anything they did they would make that island cut and they might want to do it sooner then at grading. Commissioner Ferguson said that he lived within Ironwood Country Club in Homeowner Association No. 12 , which was geographically the farthest removed condominium from this project. The city attorney confirmed that he was not in a position of conflict. He noted that he knew Ironwood, played ` the golf courses there, and was fairly familiar with the HOA 5 area and some of the concerns . He asked for clarification 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 that it was 260 feet from the fairway median line to the ' wall, which was now a chain link fence. Mr. Lennon stated � 260 feet from the property line to the center of the landing zone. It was another 40 feet to the residences . It varied with a minimum of 30 feet. Commissioner Ferguson asked for the total amount of elevation difference between the HOA 5 condos and the fairway. Mr. Lennon indicated that the average was 14-16 feet. Right at the landing zone the elevation of that home was 436 feet and the center line fairway was 418 . Commissioner Ferguson asked for clarification regarding the block wall and landscaping that the developer would be installing. Mr. Lennon stated that there was an existing five foot cyclone fence that was the property line. Currently on Ironwood's side of the cyclone fence it was almost extensively oleander bushes which required maintenance and were unsightly, so in the negotiations they agreed to not only build the block wall, but to also re-landscape under Ironwood' s direction with his landscape architect. Commissioner Ferguson asked who completed the errant ball study. Mr. Lennon replied Mr. Glen McGuyen. Mr. Lennon indicated that he was at the meeting to answer any questions . + � Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MR. GORDON KOCHER, 48-822 Mescal Lane, informed commission that his condominium was along the 4th fairway. He said that the commission should have a letter from Mr. Mulvihill . Chairperson Beaty concurred that the commission received the letter. Mr. Kocher stated that he has been on the committee from the beginning and even though Mr. Lennon had done everything he could to cooperate, they still felt that a water hazard would be a bigger deterrent than a lateral hazard because someone could try to play out of a lateral hazard. He said that 260 feet was only a nine iron. He thought that older people who couldn' t hit the ball too far or too good would be playing and they were worried about when those golf balls came over the fence. His particular property was 50 feet from the line plus the road, but he wanted to go on record that he didn' t � approve the request because they were promised the water � hazard. � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 Chairperson Beaty noted that Mr. Lennon said that people � would not be able to play out of that hazard and it would be a local rule. Mr. Kocher stated that he had never heard of anything like that; a lateral hazard could be played out of, the club couldn't be grounded. And if it was a local rule, he didn't know how it could be enforced. Chairperson Beaty said that the letter stated that several issues were addressed and incorporated, but not all of the conditions had been met. Staff had indicated that all the terms had been met and asked Mr. Kocher for clarification. Mr. Kocher said that as far as he was concerned, the errant golf balls were his only concern. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Kocher why he felt the water hazard would be more of a deterrent to errant balls . He asked if he was concerned about people going into a non-water hazard and taking another shot and being closer to his property. Mr. Kocher stated that with a water hazard the ball was lost. On a lateral hazard the player didn't necessarily � lose the ball . Commissioner Jonathan noted it would effect him only if someone went into that area and took another shot. Mr. Kocher concurred and said they could hit the same type of shot again. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Kocher that if the commission could establish that it would be prohibited for a player to take another shot out of that hazard, and if it could be established to Mr. Kocher' s satisfaction, then that particular concern could be entirely mitigated. Mr. Kocher answered that he would assume so. Commissioner Ferguson mentioned the letter from Mr. Mulvihill and asked Mr. Kocher if except for the lake versus the landscape issue, if he had any other concerns about this project. Mr. Kocher said not as far as he was concerned. There were different concerns raised by different neighbors . One of the things that concerned Mr. Mulvihill was the change of the maintenance facility, which was fine; their concern was the fact that he didn' t ever want to live on a golf course because he didn't want golf balls going into his � backyard, so his concern was for errant golf ball study. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 � � Commissioner Ferguson asked if it could be objectively � established that the landscaping versus the lake or whatever could be done, if it provided the same measure of protection, if it would matter which one was built. Mr. Kocher replied in that case, no. MR. JOHN ALLEN, Director and resident of Ironwood Association No. 5, stated that he was speaking in support of Mr. Kocher. A lot of the matters he was going to address were addressed by Mr. Kocher. He said it was not their intention to second guess Lowe Development in their design of the golf course, but they were interested in safety. Someone told him it would only take one errant golf ball to kill one of their grandchildren and so he was concerned. He said that when he heard staff say the issue was "environmental, water conservation and that type of thing" he was concerned because the issue was safety of children on their side of the development. He stated that he had not seen the errant ball study, and while the term wasn't in the dictionary, both he and Mr. Lennon knew what they were talking about. They were talking about the simple fact of a golf ball going over a fence and hitting someone. If that could be reasonably protected, ` and they were not asking for a 50 foot fence but a � design that would reasonably protect people in the area. Then they couldn't argue with it. He just wanted safety first. Commissioner Ferguson said that Mr. Allen touched on one of his chief concerns, which was to be "reasonable" . He noted that he has never heard of any grandchildren that have been killed in Ironwood or in the entire Coachella Valley. In his review of handling golf cases as a lawyer for country clubs, he has never heard of a child being killed anywhere by a golf ball . He was not saying it couldn't happen, but when talking in the realm of reason, in some areas he saw condos as close as ten feet off a fairway. He took Mr. Kocher' s comments seriously that he didn't want to live on a fairway, which was why he located in HOA 5, but the commission was trying to balance competing interests using a rule of reason to eliminate in all probably the chance that an individual could be struck in HOA 5 . He was not going to minimize Mr. Al1en' s concern, but he felt it was a balance of competing interests that was to be governed by a rule of reason and probability. Mr. Allen stated that the competing interest has already agreed to put in a lake. In accordance with their � agreement there was to be built a lake. Lowe � Development Corporation was suggesting to them that � there was an alternative. Was the alternative based 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 upon a study provided by someone who was an expert in � the field? He didn't know and had not seen the study. A reasonable hazard on that side was probably best a Zake and for the 45 years he has been playing golf, golfers tried to avoid water. It was not to say that the hazard which was desert planting and a prohibition of hitting golf balls would not be adequate, but he was not an expert in that field. They have a contract that says a lake would be there and that was their concern. On what basis was this being changed? Commissioner Ferguson noted that the architects who designed the golf course said that on a four degree slope a lake makes no sense and staff indicated their unwillingness to place a lake there, so the question was if they couldn't have a lake if the alternative was a suitable safeguard. He asked Mr. Allen if the commission could establish that it was an adequate, comparable safeguard, if it would allay his concerns . Mr. Allen replied that he was here to speak in support of the last speaker. Commissioner Ferguson said that answered his question. Mr. Joy said that it appeared there was some type of agreement that was entered into between the developer and Ironwood Association that a lake would be constructed--the �' city was no part of that agreement whatsoever. Staff ' s position was that they were put into a position of enforcing that agreement on the Ironwood Association' s part of requiring the lake. The city would not be in a position where they wouldn't allow any lakes as part of a golf course, but when it came to a simple shot deterrent position they would not require a lake as the only possible solution either. MR. LENNON readdressed the commission and stated that he intended to continue working with the association. When they got the errant ball letter to their chief liaison people, he didn't know Mr. Allen was the director now. They would get them the errant ball study. He said the plan was just received from the golf course architect a few days ago. They thought the modifications were a staff level approval, but came back to planning commission because they couldn't get the final agreement with Ironwood. He informed commission that it was his intent to continue working with them. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Lennon could explain if the hazard was a type that no one could go into and if it would be illegal to take that second shot. Mr. Lennon ` replied that that was the intent. He had a meeting earlier that evening with Mr. Kocher and he tried to explain that, 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 � and since then he had talked to Glen McGuyen, their consultant, and by a local rule it would be one stroke out of bounds a lateral drop because no matter if he put all broken glass in there, someone might try to hit out of it, so it needed to be a rule. It would be the intent to have a local rule of one drop at that location. Commissioner Jonathan asked if that rule could be enforced with signs . Mr. Lennon said that was the kind of sign that said that in the spirit of working with their neighbors, this was a drop hole . Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a way to create fencing that was aesthetically acceptable so that people would be discouraged from walking in there. Mr. Lennon replied that using Cholla cactus would be the best. Chairperson Beaty said that he has seen some local rules where there was no penalty associated with hitting out of a flower bed. Mr. Lennon indicated that at Bighorn if it was in the desert it was dropped. If it was not made a penalty, golfers would hit there and then play out. That wouldn't work. He said it needed to be a penalty. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there had been any kind of � comparative cost analysis between installing a lake versus the proposed plan. Mr. Lennon replied that there has not been an in-depth study, but planning this desert landscape from one end to the other was in the neighborhood of $2 to $3 per foot. The lake was probably not that much because the quarter acre lake would only be in the landing zone area, so three and a half acres would be extensive desert landscaping and berming. It wasn't a cost issue--they were trying to do this right both as the safest way and to have a great golf hole. Commissioner Ferguson asked if it would be cheaper to do a lake. Mr. Lennon replied yes, if he avoided everything else. He said that long range maintenance had to be taken into consideration also. Chairperson Beaty asked if the consultant who did the errant ball study could address the commission. Chairperson Beaty said that he could understand the lake issue with a four degree slope, but asked if a stream was a possible consideration. , MR. GLEN MCGUYEN, President of Club Consultants, stated that he was a life member of PGA of America and had been a member over 35 years, and was head golf professional at Los Angeles Country Club for many years . He came to 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 the desert originally and built the first golf course '� for Arnold Palmer at Ironwood. After that he worked for David Foster and was a world representative for him and built the second golf course at Mission Hills, then became part of the development team at the Vintage Club and was responsible to Mick Humphrey' s as his assistant for the development of the club. The things Mr. Lennon attempted to do relative to the mounding was quite an additional safety factor above the lake. A water feature was what was originally mentioned, not a lake. It was like a little creek. The mounding itself would create an additional safety factor. In order to put in the water feature it would require elimination of all the mounding on the left. Balls spinning in hook fashion spin down and left and about 95$-98$ of golfers were right-handed players . The ball that spins to the right, the sliced ball, spins right and high. People on the right hand of the fairway on Mr. Lennon' s side of the fairway were at a great deal more risk than any of the residences in the elevated area on the left side of the fairway. By moving the fairway, the slope of the fairway would go to the right with a natural slope of 4$ and the ball would tend to go right again. The comment was made that a person could use a nine iron from the center of the fairway into the homes--he did not know of '� anyone that would intentionally stand in the middle of a fairway and aim a nine iron at the homeowners at Ironwood. A lateral hazard could be incorporated any time and this should be made a drop and one stroke penalty. He said he would much rather drop the ball on the fairway being a player and play it out of the grass then try to play it out of the lateral hazard with the rocks and cactus and maybe not getting it back on the fairway. One comment made at a previous meeting was that people would rather lose a golf ball than a stroke- -he disagreed. Golfers didn't want those extra strokes . He also felt the fairway trees off the tee made a tremendous difference. There was no way with the center of the fairway 260 feet away that anyone would be going to that side of the fairway and if they did happen to knock it into the hazard, by not having it out of bounds they must go forward and drop the ball rather than re- hit the ball from the tee. They didn' t want them to hit the second ball off the tee for safety factors . That was why i f there was a lateral hazard and they were made to drop the ball on the golf course, once again they would be aiming away from the homes . Any time there was a situation with a hazard on the right or left, if you go to the side of the tee that was the closest to the � hazard, there was the least chance of hitting the ball into the hazard. If a hazard was on the left side, a 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 d good player would go as far to the left as possible. He � felt Mr. Lennon had done a good job and the architect '� was very sensitive to the situation. If the mounds were eliminated, the situation would not be as safe. A water feature would not be as safe. They lowered the fairway an additional four feet, if the fairway grade was pulled back up it would equalize the height between the fairway and the units . That safety factor would be removed with a water hazard. He felt the lower grade and mounding would be a great deal more safe than a small trickling stream. Commissioner Ferguson asked how many years Mr. McGuyen had been associated with golf. Mr. McGuyen replied 58 years . Commissioner Ferguson asked if Mr. McGuyen had done other errant ball studies or been associated with them in the past. Mr. McGuyen replied that he had never heard of such a thing. Talking to architects and all the people in the business that he knew, none of them had ever heard of an errant ball study. The standard safety factor in a fairway was 300 feet--they have 370 feet from the edge of the property line to the Reserve property. He said that it was equivalent to the 12th and 15th fairways at the Vintage. They have a situation where the homes on the left were only ten feet above rather than 18 feet above. Commissioner Ferguson asked if it was � Mr. McGuyen' s opinion that the proposal by the applicant was a safer design than the lake that was apparently promised to HOA 5. Mr. McGuyen thought so with the mounds, additional width of the fairway, and making it a lateral hazard. Chairperson Beaty asked if he anticipated the number of raunds to be played to be to the Vintage; Mr. McGuyen replied it would be similar but not as many. Chairperson Beaty said they were not talking about the use that Rancho Las Palmas gets or Monterey Country Club. Mr. McGuyen replied no. Chairperson Beaty closed the public testimony and asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Jonathan felt the applicant did his homework and was convinced that the alternative selected was the safest, all things considered. He was puzzled why some of the neighbors still seemed to want the water feature, but he felt it could be a lack of communication in recent days when some of these issues had been clarified. He was convinced that given the situation this was the best alternative and he would be prepared to move approval . � Commissioner Campbell concurred. She felt that Mr. Lennon � had done everything in his power to make the association at � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 Ironwood happy and after hearing Mr. McGuyen' s comments and � with his experience, she was in favor of the project. Commissioner Ferguson stated that having looked at the criteria as setforth in the report, and hearing from Mr. McGuyen, when he first read what the applicant had done matched to his own experience, particularly playing at Ironwood since Ironwood itself used many of the same safety features discussed i .e. the trees along the tee box on their hole #2 of the north course which were used to protect workers at the maintenance shed so that errant balls would not go in their direction, and the concept of sloping with vegetation was used on the 14th and 16th fairways to protect homes and condos that were far closer than the residences at Ironwood HOA 5 . He felt that Mr. Kocher was right when he said that he didn't buy a home on a golf course and he did not want to assume that risk and didn' t feel he should be forced to at this point. Commissioner Ferguson didn't feel that Mr. Kocher was being forced to. In reason, the odds of someone being hurt by a coyote jumping over a chain link fence was probably greater than being hit by an errant golf ball, but he was not an expert, which was why he wanted to question Mr. McGuyen. It seemed that the safety features he discussed were beyond prudent in his estimation. He had worked on cases, although he had never heard of an errant '` ball study but was familiar with experts that could go in and determine whether a bunker was reasonably placed given where homeowners were when someone was hit by a golf ball and injured. From what he heard from the applicant tonight, if he was to be believed and he had no reason no to, this was a more expensive option to go with and the reasons not to go with the lake were not aesthetic or financial in nature, but engineering flaws that architects had brought to his attention and the city candidly expressed its unwillingness to proceed with the lake concept. He had asked the first two speakers from the homeowners association if the safety concerns were equal or if the present proposal was slightly more safer if there would be a concern; both replied no. Weighing the evidence presented and the testimony in face of no contradictory evidence, he had to conclude it was as safe or safer than a lake. Based on that he was prepared to approve the application. Chairperson Beaty stated that he was in agreement with the other commissioners and pointed out to the residents of Ironwood that the city, according to the discussion, has to grant approval of the errant ball study and he recommended and strongly encouraged that the ball study be presented to Ironwood Association No. 5 prior to that meeting and if there ` were still concerns, they could be brought up at the city council meeting. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 ; � Commissioner Ferguson agreed. One thing that made it � difficult for him was not having the errant ball study. He was not an errant ball expert, but he could read and call on other experts and could do some independent research to see if the methodology was sound and the conclusions were within the standards within the profession. Not having the study made it difficult to evaluate its reasonableness, absent of the testimony of Mr. McGuyen. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would make the motion for approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1717, approving TT 27710 Amendment #1, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0 . F. Case No. ZOA 95-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant ; Request for approval of amendments to � the sign ordinance to regulate signs at mini bank branches and attempt to establish size criteria for signs having more than three colors . Mr. Drell explained that staff in re-examining some of the issues and the structure of how the ordinance should be written and placed in the text was requesting a two week continuance. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony to see if anyone wished to address the commission. There was no one and he requested a motion to continue ZOA 95-3 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, continuing ZOA 95-3 to February 6 , 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16 , 1996 X. MISCELLANEOUS � A. Continued Case Nos . PP 95-6/CUP 95-10 - Traffic Study by the Department of Public Works Mr. Greenwood stated that this traffic study started in reference to PP 95-6 which allowed a 3675 square foot restaurant building on the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Portola. He said that what was coming out of the report were four basic issues . One was to identify the existing conditions at the site, two was to identify what caused these conditions, three was to identify if this project effects those conditions, and four was to identify what was being done about this condition. The finding of the study was that the existing condition/area was periodically congested. There were many turning movements in this area due to several driveways in this area of Portola. This resulted in some frustration to drivers and a feeling or perception that the area could be unsafe or that there was a problem. As far as what was causing this condition, Mr. Greenwood said that the study indicates that the major cause of this condition was the signal timing at Highway 111 and Portola. The congestion predominately arises from traffic waiting northbound to proceed northbound on Portola through the signal . This in conjunction with the many turning movements caused some '� congestion and a considerable queuing of traffic . Does this project effect that condition? The best data available to them didn't indicate that there would be substantial traffic generated by this project and this project had contributed substantial street improvements to this area from the pre- project condition. As far as what was being done to resolve the existing condition, public works department had been coordinating with Caltrans since March on this location and all signalized locations on Highway 111 . There were seven letters sent to Caltrans since March and probably double that number of phone calls requesting service for these traffic signals . They have yet to receive a single response to any of their correspondence. They were hopeful because they have identified a new person at the deputy director level, which was the second level down from the top, as a person who rr�ight get something done. Staff did not believe there would be other interim measures . There was some concern that the problem might be displaced and a problem that rightfully belongs to Caltrans on the highway would move farther into our city on a street the city maintains, so the public works department will continue to work with Caltrans as they have since March to try and resolve this condition. Chairperson Beaty asked if Mr. Greenwood had contacted � Assemblyman Battin' s office. Mr. Greenwood replied no. Chairperson Beaty stated that he has had very good success 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16 , 1996 � previously with Mrs . Bornstein and Mr. Battin. He received � a letter in response immediately. � Commissioner Ferguson noted that during the last discussion it was discussed that sequencing of the light at Portola and E1 Paseo in conjunction with the sequencing of the light at Highway 111 and Portola could have attributed to the problem. He asked if that was found not to be the case. Mr. Greenwood informed commission that those signals were not coordinated. The hardware would not allow that. Although coordinating the signals would be the next step and would work to help alleviate the problem, they f irst had to get some cooperation from Caltrans because they would be half of that operation. Commissioner Ferguson noted that Mr. Greenwood mentioned the pre-project condition and asked if the applicant was responsible for all the work being done at that corner about a year ago. Mr. Greenwood replied yes and noted that the applicant was the city. Commissioner Campbell asked if since the last meeting staff had someone sit there on the property to watch the traffic all day. Mr. Greenwood replied no--staffing levels did not permit them to do that at this time. Commissioner Campbell � noted that someone was sitting at the corner of Fred Waring � and Portola for almost a whole week watching traffic. Mr. Greenwood indicated that was survey work being conducted, not traffic work. Commissioner Ferguson noted that his comments from the last meeting in terms of them waiting to see if there was a problem and dealing with it then still applied. He felt that staff was saying there were sporadic adverse conditions there that were caused by events not within the city' s control with no immediate remedy and that this project would only incrementally add to that problem. His concern was that if they recognized that there was some type of problem there and this project only added to that problem by a little bit, there was still a problem. He asked how the city went about generally perceiving a traffic problem and mitigating them if it wasn' t tied to land use conditions . Mr. Greenwood replied that there were a variety of ways : as far as safety issues, they searched accident records regularly, typically every quarter when the data arrived from the state and they prioritized the high accident locations in the city and attempted to address those locations . Currently all the top ten accident locations in the city were on the state highway. This was some of the work they were trying to do with � Caltrans on the highway. They recently brought an issue to � the city council at their last meeting on the llth high accident location and the issue was referred to the committee 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNZNG COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 for further study. That location had 28 accidents in a five � and a half year period. This location had one known accident and possibly several more that they don't know about. Commissioner Ferguson asked if it was geared by accidents . Mr. Greenwood replied yes, as far as safety issues were concerned. Problem areas came to their attention in numbers of accidents . As far as other concerns, they came from citizen requests, staff requests and they tried to address them however they came to them. Just in their normal observation of day to day driving around, all public works staff was advised and somewhat trained on how to identify situations that needed to be addressed. Commissioner Campbell asked if staff needed a petition from people that work in that area saying that there was a problem. Mr. Greenwood replied that the planning commission could give that direction and have that direction given to city council that the commission feels it is a priority. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff looked at traffic circulation issues or only safety issues . Mr. Greenwood stated that staff looked at every issue that was brought to their attention. Commissioner Jonathan clarified that without it being brought to his attention, that Mr. Greenwood mentioned a quarterly review as far as safety issues and � prioritizing areas that need attention. He asked if there was that type of systematic review with regards to circulation matters . Mr. Greenwood replied yes, that there was an on-going continuous traffic count program that identifies traffic counts on arterial streets and intersections . Those counts were used to adjust signal timing and identify locations for future projects . Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would like to let the restaurant go in and ask staff to look at it at that time. If at that point at peak hour in season there were only 11 cars exiting it in one hour, he would buy staff dinner there. Mr. Greenwood clarified that staff did not have any particular support for these numbers, but they were the best available for their use. Commissioner Ferguson said that he had a long discussion with Mr. Drell regarding that very point and he was caught between studies and reality and he got hung up on reality. Mr. Greenwood stated that he would really like to address that issue, but reality as far as safety issues was the numbers they received quarterly and they worked vigorously to pursue those locations . For circulation areas they had a program where they do traffic counts and vigorously pursue areas that need street widening and additional lanes, as well as striping. They vigorously ,� pursue any other location and were vigorously pursuing this location by working with Caltrans . They hadn' t given up and 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 1 � had been working on it since March. He didn't want to leave the commission with the impression that it was not being worked on, because it was, but they didn't have any results yet. Commissioner Ferguson indicated that he was not interpreting staff ' s comments that way, but felt this had been a rather tortured path to get to this point and reality was the best indicator. Once the restaurant was built they would look at the matter again and if there was a problem, he could tell the commission at that time and if it was not a problem, so much the better. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would approve having the traffic pattern to allow a right turn only from the alley onto Portola to Highway 111 and then after the restaurant was in, and if they saw no problem, then it could have the left turn, but right now allow only the right turn. She said that she was in that location all the time. Mr. Drell said that commission could make that recommendation to city council because ultimately traffic control measures went to council to get voted on. The commission could make that suggestion if they felt it was appropriate. Commissioner Ferguson recalled that being brought up at one point and it was mentioned as being an undesirable alternative with no real backup, although 7-11 would probably be opposed but noted � that they had two egress points . He wouldn't mind making � that recommendation to council but would like to see � something that told him why it was not a good idea first, rather than just opinion. Mr. Greenwood said that staff could post that sign and it was done frequently, but it was also violated frequently. One of the other hot spots that had just come to his attention with 13 accidents within 6 months was at a location that had a sign that said right turn only. At least 13 people didn't do it and turned left and got into accidents, but it was something staff could try. Commissioner Jonathan didn't feel that would be the kind of comprehensive solution the commission was seeking. He agreed that the no left hand turn signs were ignored. He worked near the CVWD treatment plant and partially because of his urging there was a sign like that posted south on Cook that said no left hand turn into the treatment facility. He said that not a day went by that he didn't see cars making that left and it stalled traffic and created problems, and the sign was simply ignored. He felt the same would occur coming out of the alley onto Portola. He had given it some thought since the last meeting and last discussion and felt they were stuck. There was a congested area between E1 Paseo and Highway 111 and many different alleys and driveways and people going in all sorts of different directions and he did not see a good comprehensive solution. Anything like putting cones up or limiting left hand turns were only band-aid approaches that he felt would not prove to be effective. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 They seemed to be in a position that they had to wait for � something to happen like Circle K to be vacated and the city could control what went into that location on the configuration. Mr. Greenwood agreed that in the short term there was not a lot staff could do that would have tremendous benefit, but in the long term they would have that signal timing fixed and make some substantial improvements there. Commissioner Ferguson stated that when he was heading westbound on Highway 111 and wanted to avoid that intersection, he would cut up E1 Paseo and would get stuck at a long light at E1 Paseo, so he would jag behind the post office and try to pop out onto Portola above it. If he visualized himself going into the 7-11 and if there was no left-hand turn lane he would turn around and try to use the other egress point from Circle K, which was used as an ingress point from all northbound traffic on Portola, which he used frequently because he had to turn left to get back up to Ironwood. He felt it might cause traffic to cross in the parking lot and create an even bigger problem, but he didn't know that and wanted someone to take a look at that before being voted upon. Commissioner Jonathan felt that at this point it should be left alone and let the restaurant go in. He hoped that staff would have some luck with Caltrans . '� Chairperson Beaty felt staff should contact Assemblyman Battin' s office and thought he would receive a response from Caltrans . Commissioner Ferguson thought that widening and striping the alley would help tremendously. Action: None. B. Discussion of Possible Dates for a Joint Economic Development Advisory Committee/Planning Commission/City Council Meeting Mr. Drell noted that in the memo they were planning to schedule when at least one of the meetings always occurred and the one meeting during the day was EDAC, which meets on the third Thursday. He said that council would ultimately set the date, but staff wondered if any of those dates were of a particular problem. Commissioner Jonathan stated that May or June were better for him personally, but he would be there whenever council scheduled it. Commissioner Campbell asked if the time could be changed to later and suggested 5 : 00 p.m. Chairperson Beaty felt that late afternoon was preferred. Commissioner Jonathan suggested 4 : 00 p.m. ;� Commission concurred with the 4 :00 p.m. time. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 � � � 9 Action: z Commission directed staff to forward their request that the � meeting begin at 4 :00 p.m. instead of 3 : 00 p.m. XI . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE No meeting was held since the last planning commission meeting. XII . COMMENTS None. XIII . ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adjourning the meeting to February 6 , 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 35 p.m. _�—� � � � PHILIP DRELL, cting Secretary � ATTEST: ,� / �w �. PAUL BEATY, Chairpers n Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � � 24