Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0520 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEET(NG TUESDAY - MAY 20, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * �. * � � � * � * * * * * * * * � * * * * -� * � * * * � * � � I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Fernandez led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Ferguson, Chairperson Paul Beaty Sonia Campbell George Fernandez Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steve Smith Mark Greenwood Sandy Jacobson Tonya Mo�roe Phil Joy � IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the May 6, 1997 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the May 6, 1997 meeting minutes. Carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Smith reviewed the salient points of the May 8, 1997 city council meeting. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. JOHN CRAIG, 29-706 Avenida de Real in Sun City, stated that about two months ago the Planning Commission allowed him to have a strawberry stand on Washington Street. He said they would be closing this weekend and wanted to let the commission know that he thought this was a very popular business. He said that he has been trying to get feedback from the neighborhood, but he hadn't heard of any problems. He asked if the commission had heard of any he needed to address. He also stated that he was looking for new sites for next year and the thought had occurred to him that churches would be an ideal location because they could probably use the rent and they didn't use their parking lot most of the time and were in areas �"" where he could have the exposure he needed, but wouldn't cause a problem MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 for traffic because they have parking lots and curb cuts or other sites that he could look at for next year. Commissioner Beaty asked if the use was �; successful and if he sold a lot of strawberries. Mr. Craig replied that he thought so, considering that they had the Mexican strawberry scare three days after he opened. Commissioner Beaty noted that the stand never looked like the pictures the commission was shown. Mr. Craig concurred and apologized. Commissioner Beaty asked if it would next year. Mr. Craig said yes and explained that the guy who built it didn't do anything he was supposed to and Mr. Craig got started two weeks late and he wasn't sure he was allowed to do any work on it while sales were ongoing. He agreed it would be better next year. Commissioner Campbell asked if he would be taking the stand down now. Mr. Craig said it would be moved on Memorial Day or the day after. It was a portable stand on wheels. He said that he wanted some guidelines so that he could start looking at property in the proper zoning. Commissioner Beaty said that the commission would have to review any proposal on a site by site basis. Mr. Craig asked if the use of a church parking lot was feasible. Chairperson Ferguson replied that it was a business decision that Mr. Craig would have to make and when he returned with his temporary use permit next year, the commission would take a look at it. He noted that there is an open air market at College of the Desert. Regarding locating at a church, Chairperson Ferguson suggested that Mr. Craig work with staff because there were certain limitations that would require a review by staff and they could give him a good indication as to whether it would be permissible under the code. Commissioner Jonathan noted that many churches are in residential neighborhoods and they were allowed there under a conditional use permit and he cautioned that Mr. Craig might run into problems because of the close � proximity of residences. From his standpoint, he would be more interested in the traffic flow and the issues addressed with Mr. Craig's original application and whatever ancillary businesses happened to be around it would almost be secondary. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 97-7 - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine parcels 77 and 78 for development purposes. B. Case No. PMW 97-10 - MINISTRELLI DEVELOPMENT, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for Lot Nos. 3-25 of Tract 28287 in Bighorn Golf Club. C. Case No. PMW 97-11 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, L.P., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment of Lots 2 and "B" of Tract 28287 in Bighorn Golf Club. � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 Action: �„�„ Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. PP/CUP 97-5 - JOHN TURNOCK - Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit for construction and operation of a full service car wash and detail center on the north side of Dinah Shore Drive, 320 feet west of Monterey Avenue. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Turnock was acquiring a two-acre site on the north side of Dinah Shore. On April 1 commission approved a fuel station on the northwest corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore associated with Price Costco. He explained that this parcel was the one immediately to the west. It was a proposal for a full service car wash and detail center. Plans were on display and he showed where the access driveways were located. He stated that the project met all the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the architecture received preliminary approval from the Architectural Review Commission. He explained that due to the grade change, all that would be seen from Dinah Shore were the roofs. Staff recommended approval. ;�, Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification that the circulation would allow ingress/egress from the westerly driveway into the project. Mr. Smith said there was a traffic flow pattern, but if someone got turned around, they could easily get straightened out. Mr. Smith didn't think there would be a problem because there were more than two acres. Chairperson Ferguson asked if this full service car wash included pulling up to the vacuum cleaners, getting out of the car and then the employees take over from there. If someone went in the wrong way, the employees would tell them to back up and turn around. Mr. Smith concurred and if traffic got turned around, they could use on of the aisles to get going the right direction. Chairperson Ferguson asked if someone would be available to direct traffic if there was a problem. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JOHN TURNOCK, 36-720 Palm Court in Rancho Mirage, stated that he would be the owner and general contractor of the facility. He also indicated that he was currently a general contractor in Palm Desert for the custom homes in Montecido. He said he was excited to get this project approved so that they could begin construction almost immediately. He said he has looked for a site for a couple of years and they wanted to be near the freeway and with the help of Price Costco they were able to work out using this parcel for the car wash. He said they were putting the tunnel buffered in against landscaping and thanks � to Mr. Thornbury, the architect, all the natural landscaping was kept in 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 place and they were adding a few trees. He thought it was a Palm Desert project and indicated that Mr. Thornbury was a Palm Desert architect. He said that the construction financing would be coming from a Palm Desert bank and they hoped to bring money from Rancho Mirage and Cathedral Cifiy into Palm Desert and they were anxious to get approval for the project. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for commission comments or action. Action: Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he had no problem with the project and felt it was a really good addition a�d there was definitely not a parking problem, but he wanted to comment about car washes. He said he wasn't sure how the standards for car washes were calculated, but he wanted to alert staff that car washes were very labor intensive businesses and employees brought in a lot of cars. He thought Harv's was a good example of not having adequate employee parking. He felt that it has the potential to create a problem, but fortunately this application was not a problem but he wanted to bring it up to staff as an issue for other car washes that might not be as nicely situated at this one. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that service stations and car washes were covered in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review and it was a concern that has being taken into consideration. Chairperson Ferguson called for the vote. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1806, approving PP/CUP 97-5, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0. B. Case No. C/Z 90-12 Amendment No. 1 Development Agreement - CREST PARTNERS (MILLER RICHARDS PARTNERSHIP), Applicants Request for approvai of pre-annexation zoning of 640 acres north of the "Cahuilla Hi11s" area and 55 acres across the Palm Valley Channel from the "Sommerset" condominiums to Planned Community/Hillside Planned Residential with a development agreement for a project known as "The Crest" consisting of 151 homesites on 695 acres (410 acres to be dedicated as open space►. Mr. Joy stated that this was the same project that the commission approved unanimously a couple of years ago and consists of zoning for up to 151 custom homesites. The homesites were mostly located in a bowl-shaped area presently outside the City limits north of the Cahuilla Hills area that would be � brought into the city when the project is approved. Access to the project would be from Highway 74 across a new bridge over the Palm Valley Channel and it would intersect Highway 74 and Homestead. The road would then 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 proceed over 55 acres that are already in the city and would allow up to 21 r.. units to be developed on those 55 acres. After Planning Commission last approved the project it was continued indefinitely at the Council level and since that time the applicant has been in negotiations with the City in order to make the project more palatable. The main change to the project was the inclusion of a development agreement, which through some negotiating transferred eight of the units from the 55 acres to the bowl-shaped County area, and part of those negotiations were some allowances as far as the grading restrictions to allow those eight units to be fitted into the rear of the bowl-shaped area. He said it was also written into the text of the development agreement that those additional eight units could be clustered. While they were talking about 151 custom homesites, there was also a little flexibility so that they could do some casitas type of project like in Bighorn. Also through some negotiations the 410 acre open space dedication could be made incrementally with the 100 acres up front and this would become effective 30 days after execution of the agreement. The remainder of the open space would be dedicated as adjacent tracts are processed. He said this was also when a better definition of where the lines should be located could be made. The main feature of this project was that this was not the last public hearing that would be held on it. This application was merely stating the maximum number of units that the site could accommodate and it would be required of future subdivision maps to prove that actual subdivisions could be made in conformance with the City's hillside zoning criteria. They have analyzed it and when they first looked at the project it was determined that up to 185 units could be developed on the site and still conform to the City's r„�„ hillside zoning. Through letters going back and forth with the County the 151 unit number was arrived at. He said it was acknowledged that some of the documents in the accompanying PCD text which were distributed to commission were a little out dated and noted that this has been around since 1989. He said that at this point what they were trying to achieve was that staff and the applicant were hoping to find out what the commission and council wanted to see added into the text at this point. Once all the input was gathered, any changes could be made between the two readings of the zone change before the City Council. He noted that a few letters of concern had been received and the first letter which was included with the commission's staff report alluded to the emergency access required by the Fire Marshal. Although staff favored a route shown on the plans currentfy going into the Cahuilla Hills area, staff was allowing the applicant to wait until they actually submitted a subdivision map to show where it would be since it required negotiations with adjacent property owners wherever it is located. Three letters were also received from residents of Bighorn Golf Club asking for a continuance due to late noticing and referring to The Crest as a condominium project. For the record he indicated that Bighorn Golf Club is located over a mile away from this project so it was out of the 300-foot notification area. He stated that the project was planned for custom home sites rather than condominiums. Staff recommended approval of the project. Commissioner Jonathan advised the commission that he owns property within close proximity of this project and would be abstaining from any discussion or voting on this matter. �.. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 t Chairperson Ferguson asked Mr. Joy how many people were determined to be � within 300 feet of this project. Mr. Joy replied approximately 75. Chairperson Ferguson said that he has been contacted by a number of people who pointed out to him that most of the Cahuilla Hills residents live on five acre parcels which by definition put them more than 300 feet away and notwithstanding that fact they would be very visually affected by the project and many of these people were not just from Bighorn. He knew this subject came up when the commission was evaluating microwave antennas and it was noted that people closer to the antennas were less affected than people who were farther away and he thought this might be one such instance. He pointed that out because several of the people that have called him live directly across the wash and the properties were appurtenant to this project and they received no written notice. He said he knew that Councilman Crites has a parcel immediately appurtenant to the parcel and he received no written notice. He thought staff was dismissing this as sort of a concern of Bighorn a mile away, but he thought it was a little more serious than that. Secondly, Chairperson Ferguson asked if the commission was being asked to approve the development agreement tonight. Mr. Joy replied that the commission was being asked to recommend approval of the basic form of it to City Council. Chairperson Ferguson asked what basic form meant. Mr. Joy said that as discussed earlier, he was referring to the PCD text and all the implications that go with the development agreement. He noted that the commission has had many development agreements before them. He indicated that one item they talked about that was lacking were the standard conditions of approval that have been placed on a project that the City normally places on any types subdivision � maps. As he said during his staff report, anything the commission would like ,�j to see included in the development agreement they would like to add by reference and hopefully the project could move on in that fashion. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the commission was approving this proposal tonight or not. Mr. Joy clarified that the commission couldn't approve the development agreement, they could only recommend approval to the City Council. Chairperson Ferguson noted that paragraph 5, page 8 of the development ag�eement said that each of the terms, provisions and modifications set forth in the PCD text including all of its appendices and exhibits are approved and hereby incorporated into this agreement. He asked if they were generally recommending to the Council that they approve it. Mr. Joy concurred. Chairperson Ferguson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. He noted that they would be following the normal format: they would ask all those in favor of the project to speak, then all those in opposition and then if necessary the applicant would be given a brief rebuttal period. MR. TY MILLER, the applicant, stated that he was the owner of this property and it had been owned by his family since 1922. He said they have been working diligently with the City since 1989. They came down and met with the city and different planning people and council members. They did a lot of due diligence before with community groups, homeowners' associations and they really tried to take into account all of the aspects that might be of concern to the community. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 The biggest concern was hillside development and he thought they had �„ come up with one of the most innovative and very environmentally sensitive projects, and probably the most environmentally sensitive project the commission and council have reviewed. He said they didn't come up with this concept. They had seen it done very successfully in Scottsdale and other parts of Arizona. He indicated it was a different project: they wouldn't grade everything, put in streets and gutters and street lights or a project like that. As most of the commissioners had seen this project twice, and approved this twice, he thought they understood that this was a very unique project being sensitive relative to the land. He thought that was what the value was, that perhaps with this project people would think of the desert as opposed to Hawaii and instead of reproducing Hawaii everywhere. He said it was a different concept and they would be leaving the desert in its natural state. He thought it might be worthwhile to tell the commission about their organization for those who didn't know anything about them. Their company had been a privately held company and they were headquartered in San Diego. They had done a lot of developments and he noted that he has been Chairman of the Creomesa Planning Group in San Diego so he knew a lot of the commission's concerns relative to the amount of paperwork they review and the high salaries they were paid to do it. He said he appreciated their position. He indicated that they developed 2,000 acres in Oceanside where they had a development agreement and a similar sort of scenario that has worked very favorably and he thought that the Rancho del Oro project was one `„�, of the best projects in Oceanside. He said they own several million square feet of projects in California as well as several hundred units, so they have a lot of experience in doing this type of development. They have also done some hotel development and he thought they had one of the nicest hotels in Rancho Santa Fe and it was a high quality development. He thought they were recently rated number one on the Zagot Survey and in the Forbes Magazine as one of the finest resorts. They wanted to do a high quality development and he thought it showed and that they could because they have a very favorable basis. He said they were proposing, provided that they were allowed to build this project, that they would be giving the most visually impacted property to the City. That was the basic concept. He noted that more than 91 % of the project would be left in its natural state. He said it was nothing like Bighorn or some of the other developments that basically took the desert, graded it, and then rebuilt it. In Scottsdale it was a completely different concept, they actually fence their construction area. If there was a two-acre lot and they build a pad of 10,000 square feet, it was actually fenced during the construction period and built so that cement and all the pollutants didn't run into the desert. When they were finished, they would have a pueblo style house and very strict site development standards in terms of the type of homes that can be built and the type of materials. Their standards were much more stringent than Palm Desert's codes and went down to something like CC&Rs in terms of what the buildings would look like, the color pallets and would be a lot more detailed than what was in the ,�, basic code. They thought that was necessary because they wanted to 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 build a high quality project. He told commission there would be about � 410 acres that would be open space, dedicated open space given to the � City and depending on what the City wanted to do with the open space, that became the property of the City. It was basically so that all of the most sensitive view shed would be given to the City. They also had a dedication called desert park that essentially was like dedicated open space because they wouldn't develop anything in it; on the other hand they might have a park bench or something like that. Dedicated open space would be the most restricted where they wouldn't have any control over it at all and there were some discussions about not even being able to walk in it. Some of the property they would like the people to be able to hike on or picnic. Once they give the land to the City, they would make their own rules for the open space and he fe4t it was reasonable that people should be able to hike on property adjacent to them, particularly if it was undeveloped. To clear up any ambiguities there might be between desert park and dedicated open space, they basically looked the same except in a desert park they could walk through it and the ownership would be retained and dedicated back to the homeowner's association, but it wouldn't be developed on. He said it was a title issue more than anything else. It would look like the Lord made it. He hoped that cleared up some of the ambiguities. He stated that he wanted to make this informal and asked the commission to ask questions at any time. He didn't want to bore the commission with too much, but indicated that the last time they were before the commission was two years ago. He said that more than 91 % of the project was dedicated open space. He didn't think there was another project like � this in Palm Desert on the scale of this project. He showed the commission their conceptual land use plan on an overhead monitor which showed the land being dedicated to the City. He said that nothing would be developed in there except for some storage tanks in one canyon for irrigation purposes. He also showed the desert park area and said originally there were eight units included there that were actually beautiful lots on the ridge lines and he thought they were some of the most valuable property in the entire development, but there were people on the council that were concerned about these issues so they decided that in order to make peace with everyone that it would be best to turn that into a park. All they had done was take that acreage for those large eight lots that was roughly 15 to 20 acres and all of that had been turned into desert park. He indicated that the adjacent property owners there were five acre lots on the ridge line that would one day be developed unless it was acquired by the City. He said they were surrounded by five acre lots that were adjacent to them that would ultimately be developed unless they were acquired or otherwise put into open space. He thought this was a very major concession on their part because those lots were worth a lot of money and they just went away. They agreed to relocate those eight lots into the other upper County area. That entire 640 acres was in the County and so they said they would down zone the fower piece of property, and if they were allowed to fit it into the upper portion, that would be fair. He said � that all of the upper portion of the property was virtually invisible from the valley floor. He indicated that they have a certified EIR that shows � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 they studied the visual impacts based on CEQA standards and did r,�, computer simulations and all that information was public record and showed that hardly any of the property is visible. Even with the additional compromise of leaving that additional property as open space he thought they got a fair compromise in being able to achieve the density they need to make this work because it was very expensive property to develop because the infrastructure costs were enormous and so they thought that was perhaps a fair trade off. He displayed another exhibit that showed the conceptual lot layout and showed where the lots would be and indicated that the lots had stakes on them � and various council members had been up there to look at the specific locations of those lots to make sure they wouldn't visually impact the community in a negative way, so they actually placed stakes on those exact lots in the lower portion. The upper portion in the County was 700 acres. While it might look to be fairly high density, it wasn't and he noted that in San Diego they have built thousands of units on 200 acres. This was 140 units and 151 units spread out over that area. He thought the concept was very interesting and the area that he lives in is Rancho Santa Fe and it was a fairly well known area and had very restrictive CC&Rs, which was why they put in restrictive CC&Rs for this project because they would create value over time--although they might be a pain to deal with when explaining to the first time buyer why they couldn't build this or that because it was restricted, but over the long term there was very fine value developed. He said this concept of not fencing was a very different concept. He said these lots would give ,� out 200 feet on center so they were very far apart and they averaged three quarters of an acre to three to five acre lots, depending on the lay of the land. He said that almost none of their lots were squares. They were designed around the contours of the land which is not the case in typical subdivisions. He said it was not easy to relocate eight lots because they couldn't just say that they would make some lots smaller. They were siting these lots in unique places to minimize the grading; in other words wlierever there was a place for a house, that was where they had to put it. They wouldn't go in there and create places for all the houses. It was a completely different concept than how most developers look at property, even though when they are finished it may look natural but typicalfy it was all graded under, repacked, mounded up and rebuilt. This was a different type of project. One of the unique features they proposed was that the homeowner might own a two-acre lot and he built an estate type house and had 15,000 feet to work with, he couldn't fence his entire property. In Scottsdale he thought it was beautiful. When looking at property in Scottsdale, a house could be seen here or there and because there was no fencing and no landscape barriers between everyone breaking up visually the expanse of the desert, it was a completely different feeling from a neighborhood that plants oleanders up and down between everyone and everyone has their private square. He said because of the distance between properties you wouldn't be able to tell where one property began and another ended. The eye would tell them that there is twice as much property there and there would be no artificial or man made barriers. He thought it was � very innovative. He said that if someone wanted to build a house, they 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 would build it on a pad and then they would have to dedicate back through the homeowners association all of the area outside of their � homesite and it became open space and they couldn't fence it or develop it--it stayed as natural desert. He showed one design with a pool and indicated that houses were intended to be anywhere from 3500 square feet and up. He said that essentia((y conc(uded his part of the presentation. He stated that since they had been through the commission twice, he hoped the third time would be a charm. He said they were unanimously approved twice, once for 185 units and two years ago for 151 units. He said for the big picture the project was the same, but better because they relocated eight lots and put about 15 to 20 acres of that into open space area so substantially they were looking at the same project twice. He noted there might be some inconsistencies with some of their documents, but they were not substantive in his view. Chairperson Ferguson stated that according to his staff report the project failed for approval on a 2-2-1 vote and was passed to council with no recommendation on a 4-0 vote. To say that the commission has approved this project unanimously twice was a bit misleading, at least according to the staff report. Also, his colleagues were on the commission when this came through the last time, but he wasn't. He hoped that Mr. Miller wasn't suggesting that he should approve it simply because two years ago his colleagues did. He said he just wanted to caution the applicant along those lines. He indicated this was a new project before them for a fresh look. ; Mr. Miller said he understood, but wanted to be sensitive to those who ""r maybe saw it before. He indicated that part of the reason they didn't change all of their exhibits was for that reason. They had some new people that they had to make sure that they had everything clear for and other people that they didn't want to change the appearance of all the exhibits so that everyone would say that this was a totally different project. He noted it was a huge project and in San Diego he was dealing with General Dynamics on a 230-acre site and they were given a thick document to review and all he wanted to know was what the changes were. He said he has worked diligently with staff on trying to keep the documents reasonably as similar as they were before by using exhibits so they wouldn't confuse staff, commission and council who are trying to make decisions on information they've looked at before. He apologized if he made a mistake when he said they were approved unanimously; he thought they were and that it was his error. He knew they were approved twice and it was relatively smooth sailing in his view and there weren't major controversies at the commission level. He requested that if there are inconsistencies in documents or if there were questions that the commission has on specific exhibits relative to unit count, he could clarify a number of issues like how the sewer lines would cross the storm channel or details like that--he would be happy to clarify those in person or right now and make any revisions they needed to cover any inconsistencies because they were not fundamentally changing the project. If there are exhibit errors or numbers that needed to be re-clarified for consistency, they would be � 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 happy to make those prior to the City Council meeting, but in his view �,,,,, they weren't substantive deviations from what they had proposed previously. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he has spoken to Mr. Miller at some length on several occasions and also to Mr. Miller's attorney, Mr. Selzer, in addition to Councilperson Crites and Councilperson Benson, who he believed had walked this site previously and were the ones that Mr. Miller alluded to. Chairperson Ferguson said that he noted about ten inconsistencies in the proposal, as well as in the development agreement, and he faxed those to Mr. Miller this afternoon and said he would be happy to make his notes a part of the record so that everything was done properly (see Exhibit A). He said he also spoke to Mr. Joy who indicated that there were probably ten other maps that bore no relevance to the current project that were contained in the current proposal. He said it was not his inclination to go through every one of those tonight for reasons he would discuss under commission comments, but he felt � the applicant knew what his concerns were. Mr. Miller concurred and didn't think he was usurping anything. On the commission he sits on, they tried to work through inconsistencies and ambiguities as best they could so that they could clarify anything that was a confusion because it was not their intent to confuse, mislead or otherwise confuse anyone. He said he appreciated the hard work everyone put in to review a very complex project. He said they would make whatever clarification needed to be made for any inconsistencies ,�, or ambiguities. He indicated that any technical questions could be directed to Paul Selzer, his attorney that helped them draft the development agreement. He said he would be happy to answer any questions on any level and would do the best he could and if he didn't know the answer, he would get the answer. Mr. Joy said he wanted to set the record straight that the first time the project came before the planning commission was in 1992 and the commission voted 2-2-1 for approval of a 209-unit project. Then they voted 4-0 to send the project up to council with no recommendation at all. When it came back again as a 151-unit project, it was approved unanimously. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR of this project. MR. PAUL SELZER, the attorney for the project developers, stated that � he didn't have anything to add, but he was ready to answer any questions with respect to the development agreement. Chairperson Ferguson said he would like to give Mr. Selzer an opportunity to respond to a couple of things since most of his concerns about the proposal were because of problems with the development agreement. He suggested they start with page 7 paragraph 4.5.3. It said that site development plans, tentative maps and additional applications for the development of the County portion of the site shall be deemed to be in substantial conformance with the � provisions of chapter 4 site development and estate residential standards of 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 � � the PCD/HPR if they were within 20% of the standards set forth therein. � Cross referencing that with page 41 of the proposal there was no such j reference. Chairperson Ferguson said he had already brought that to Mr. Miller's attention. Mr. Selzer replied that the language on the last three lines of section 4.5.3 with respect to the 20% deviation which should read, as a result of conversations with staff, the same as page 41 B and the second bullet point. He said that because they moved units from the lower portion of the project to the upper, and because the project was designed to have a specific number of units on the upper and the lower, they recognized that it was likely that there would have to be deviations in some of the standards in order to move some of those lots. ln discussions with Councilman Crites, it was agreed that they could do that. The question was how they could measure that and what criteria they would use so that as plans came through staff could judge whether or not that deviation was appropriate or not. He said that to be very frank, the type of that deviation was not specifically negotiated. They proposed a 20% deviation. After staff had an opportunity to review it and after the two city council people had an opportunity to review it, it was decided that was probably too generous. So what they suggested was that from approximately the bottom half of the second bullet point at the bottom of page 41 , which would be modified to read, "The City will allow deviation from City standards sufficient to ' accommodate the additional lots on property A in such a fashion to be � generally consistent with the overall character of the development. � Alternatively, at the sole discretion of the developer units may be developed on a single site as a cluster development with a density of no greater than four units to the acre upon a location satisfactory to both the developer and the city." He said that language had been approved as a substitute for the last three lines of section 4.5.3. It had been reviewed by staff and the city attorney. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it just didn't make it into the copies of the agreement that the commission received. Mr. Selzer said the re-draft of the agreement was done last week and he had been out of town until today and it was his fault it was not included. Chairperson Ferguson noted that section 4.5.4 on page 7 said that the City shall not impose any conditions to any site development plan, tentative or final map or additional approvals except in so far as such conditions were expressly set forth in the PCD/HPR or this agreement or such standard conditions to tentative maps as are set forth in Exhibit C. He said there are not standard conditions set forth in Exhibit C and he asked if he was saying, in effect, that once this development agreement was approved the City was incapable of placing any conditions on this development as plans are brought before the commission. i � � � 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 Mr. Selzer stated that the City has a set of standard conditions which f.. is Exhibit C although he didn't know what was included in the commission's packet. He said that staff developed a set of standards which would be appended as Exhibit C and those standards would apply to the project. Chairperson Ferguson asked if those standard conditions were available. Mr. Joy replied that they had been prepared and had hoped they were included in the development agreement. He knew the applicant had a copy of them and understood with the applicant being out of town how it didn't get included. He said those conditions were in staff's files. Chairperson Ferguson requested a copy from staff and apologized to Mr. Selzer. Chairperson Ferguson said that he wanted to go through enough of the document to be able to show that he has some serious problems with the development agreement. He thought that from Mr. Selzer's aspect it was a well-written document, but from the City's aspect he wasn't so sure that the City was getting much of a benefit from the bargain and he wanted to give Mr. Selzer the opportunity to address some of these issues. Chairperson Ferguson asked about the incremental dedication of open space and if under the applicant's proposal that 30 days after approval of this agreement the City would be vested with 100 acres, which he thought was indicated at least on one of the maps, but thereafter the acreage included in any subsequent dedication would bear the same relationship to the acreage contained in the entire remaining dedicated open space to be dedicated as the number of i., residential units for which it is receiving such entitlements, permits, authorizations, required by it to begin the construction for the 151 units. He asked if the applicant was saying that they would dedicate the land as the City approves their lots. Mr. Selzer concurred. Chairperson Ferguson said that if they didn't develop any lots, the City wouldn't receive any open space. Mr. Selzer thought that was fair and accurate. If this property was undeveloped, he asked what the difference was. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that if the City didn't approve their plans to their liking, they could also withhold the dedication of open space. Mr. Selzer said that was correct if the City didn't approve the plans consistent with the terms of this agreement. Chairperson Ferguson noted that basically they were holding the balance of the acreage over the City's head. Mr. Selzer disagreed. He said that after 30 years of doing documents like this, notwithstanding that these were words drafted by one person, reviewed by the City Attorney, the Planning Commission and the City r.,. Council, none of whom might be here when this property is developed. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 � While he wanted to believe that the document answers all the questions � with respect to the development, his experience told him that seldom „� was the case and there were always questions. In discussing this with Councilman Crites specifically, they offered to dedicate in phases for that very reason. It was to keep the playing field level. He said Chairperson Ferguson suggested that they were somehow holding this over the City, but he was suggesting that the only benefit of this property to them was if, as, and when they could develop the property. If they could not develop it, they would not make the dedication. If they don't develop it, it all remains as open space. In talking with Buford Crites and Jean Benson, which was the term they agreed upon, that would keep the playing field level and it would allow both parties to go forward in good faith to make sure that the development occurred in the way agreed upon in the document. He didn't see it as holding anything over the City's head. The City controlled whether or not this property eventually developed. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the parties could move forward in good faith by the complete dedication of open space and the pledge and covenants by the City to operate in the manner Mr. Selzer was suggesting and that if there was a breach by either party, that this become the operative document for a lawsuit. Mr. Selzer thought that Chairperson Ferguson, as an attorney, knew the value of lawsuits and how expensive they are. He thought that was a � very second rate alternative--they were expensive, cumbersome and seldom served anyone any purpose. The reason for the phased dedication was that the City would always be 100 acres ahead. The first dedication was a "gimme" and was there in advance. The balance of the dedication was done pro rata based upon the 151 units as the projects were approved consistent with the agreement. The other reason that they have proposed this was that there were other governmental entities to whom they must go to before this project would ever happen, including the Department of Fish and Game, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to deal with Bighorn sheep issues in particular. After a great deal of experience with those entities, even though this document says they get credit for dedications, in fact a dedication once made has a great deal less weight with those entities than a dedication promised but not yet made. He said he could assure commission that they would stand ready with Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife to offer that same dedication. They, however, do not have those approvals yet and were reluctant to give up title to that property prior to securing it. Chairperson Ferguson said he wanted to clear up something that Mr. Selzer said earlier about not knowing who would subsequently be on City Council--he asked if Mr. Selzer's document provided that no entity of the City for the next 20 years could amend, change or substantively alter this document. Mr. Selzer concurred, unless they agreed to the change. k � 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 Chairperson Ferguson noted that it wouldn't matter what the composition of `,,,,, the council was, this document would govern. Mr. Selzer stated that he would like to believe that everyone would read the same meaning into these words as he intended them to have and that when they were finished here tonight and after the City Council meeting, but over time subsequent developers as well as City Council and Planning Commissioners may read into this document different nuances to what is in the document. That was their concern. MR. CALVIN CREE, 47-400 South Cliff Road in Palm Desert, stated that he has lived here since 1973 and he wanted to make a few comments about this project in support. He said for the past 24 years he has hiked that hill probably no less than very few people in this valley, except for some ancient Cahuilla Indians, so he knew this area intimately and after studying the land use plan, he thought it was very environmentally sensitive to the surrounding area. He said he heard a comment made that there might be a conspiracy or something to not notify people within a 350' perimeter of this site and said that the reason he knew about this project was because having lived there so long, he made it his business to know what is going on in that area. He indicated he lives in Section 30 and that it was surveyed by the federal government in 1947 for federal land grants and it was put out for homesteading in 1958. The west boundary and south boundary of Section 30 contained several five acre parcels and on the west portion ,,,,�, there were three and a half acre parcels that were not homesteaded because they were either inaccessible or in a wash area. He heard a comment that Councilman Crites mentioned that he is adjacent to the project. Mr. Cree said he didn't believe he is and Councilman Crites has property on two one-acre parcels off of Chapel Hill Lane and there were a couple of five acre parcels between this site and his property like there were some BLM parcels between Mr. Cree's property and they have 30 acres in Section 30 and this section. He felt it would be very compatible with the desert park area that they have dedicated in that it is adjacent to these parcels that are still owned by the Bureau of Land Management and were not developed and would probably not be developed in the foreseeable future. He also commented that in the 24 years that he has been here he has witnessed a lot of growth in the flat lands. They have hillside property and he thought it was interesting that he has seen the entire city evolve and mature with the exception of Section 30 and in 1990 or 1991 everyone in the city was mailed a notice that there was a 520 million redevelopment bond for improving streets and public right of ways and he thought it was interesting that every portion of the incorporated city of Palm Desert was affected by this redevelopment bond except Section 30 where they live. He remembered going to someone in Redevelopment and meeting with them and commenting about this and that person told him off the record that the City would rather assume that the hillside doesn't exist. He was in support of this project because he believed that there was finally a chance for the City to start paying attention to this area that in his �, opinion has been very neglected. He thought that this area, especially 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 in Section 30, was for the most part inaccessible to a lot of traffic so � his section got a lot of illegal trash dumping and drug use and he hikes � and runs in that area almost daily and he sees needles and felt it was a haven for felons and illegal activity. He also said he was excited that the City might start paying attention to this area to help it redevelop and catch up with the rest of the incorporated areas. Chairperson Ferguson said he hoped that Mr. Cree didn't hear the word conspiracy from the commission and explained that the City has a standard 300 foot radius notice procedure and the observation was that it doesn't always work in every situation and suggested that this might be one of them. Also, he indicated that he walked the property and all the developable areas both in the city and county and he began from Councilman Crites' property, so he thought it was close enough to merit notice in his opinion and that was where that comment came from. DR. JERRY MEINTZ stated that he has been a resident of Palm Desert for 32 years and has been living in the Cahuilla Hills since returning from Vietnam in 1972. He said he was one of the few residents living in Section 36 of the Cahuilla Hills that can actually see this project. Most of the people that have addressed the issues, whether pro or con, couldn't even see the development at all, unless they come into their area and there were about ten homeowners in that area that would be able to view the project. He said he has been opposed to this project for about 32 years. When he came to know the Miller family and ; realized that private property is private property and development � continues to happen in the desert, he decided to give up a role of being obstructionistic and decided that if he was going to have any impact on this project, he should get involved, learn about it and understand it so that he could address issues that are of real concern. What he found over the years in working with individuals, with planning, staff and City Council because he has written letters and been outspoken, was that this project had some problems initially and has some merits. First, there was no hilltop construction and as a naturalist, or a recovering naturalist because he no longer believes that it is his right to dictate to people that own private property what they can do with it, he believed it was the responsibility of the governing agencies to dictate what is okay or not okay. The militance was gone but the need to set standards, boundaries and to address issues was still very much alive and well in his mind. Also, they have been hearing about the ecologically protective nature of the development and being the sceptic that he is, he said he went to Scottsdale and visited Desert Mountain and Troon and the description that they heard earlier this evening was happening there; 10,000 feet are fenced off and people couldn't touch anything outside of it. He said they have to respect nature and develop within the context of what nature has dictated without violating it. He felt that many of the residents that live in Cahuilla Hills do just that. He stated that his house is very strangely shaped because he and Craig Davenport rolled boulders around creosote bushes to save those bushes- -they thought they were significant and important. What he was really i suggesting was that development needed to fit the natural contours of � 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 the land and this was the only project he has seen in the desert that has �., even proposed that and after coming back from Scottsdale and looking very carefully at these proposals and plans and talking for hours in depth with these developers, he believed they intended to do that. His problem has not necessarily been with the developers, but with the City. Their history has been stopping Rancho Bella Vista which most of the Cahuilla Hills residents did effectively when the city was in its infancy and they proposed nearly 1 ,000 units and a major hotel and were going to do just what the City allowed Bighorn Golf Club to do and when he heard the debate here this evening about granting on these properties incrementally, he was in favor of it because he hasn't been able to trust the City. The City and Bighorn promised that there would be no leveling of hills or mass development up on the hillsides of that property. The Bighorn developers courted all of them in the community of Cahuilla Hills and promised that they wouldn't do those kinds of things, yet behind closed doors decisions were later made that undid those agreements, so he was really concerned that the City hold the developer's feet to the fire and do exactly what is agreed upon and also that they hold the City's feet to the fire to make sure they don't make any deals later on down the road. With the changing nature of the City Council and Planning Commission, for him those were very real concerns because he has seen those agreements fall apart and people go back on their word and he didn't want to see it happen again.. Another issue he wanted to address was low level density. He thought that clearly with 750 acres, giving 90% back for open space was his ;�„�, idea of how development should happen in the Cahuilla Hills. Most of the residents have open space between their properties and enjoy hiking and running with their dogs and doing things that people go to the hillsides to do. The next important issue to him was that there was no golf course and he didn't want to sound prejudiced against golfers and he wasn't, but he didn't like golf courses or greenbelts and he didn't like "Orange County" and that "nonsense" being imported into the desert and as far as he was concerned the beautiful property up there in Section 30, 32 and 36 was pristine and was God's country and should be left just as natural as Eden. In addition, he agreed with Mr. Cree. Not only has his section been sorely overlooked in terms of amenities, so has theirs. The difference was they didn't want heip--they were a County community and they liked it that way and didn't want paved roads or curbs and didn't want to be told that they couldn't have their motor homes parked on the street. They are up there because they didn't want to be part of the low lands. They wanted their open space and to live on their ranches with the freedom to live in nature. He thought that what this project did for them was help enhance the value of their properties. He also indicated that there has been a shared relationship in planning a secondary emergency access route. He noted that Cahuilla Hills didn't have one and though they haven't had a fire that blocked their entry way, they have had floods that blocked the entry way and he said people die when there is no secondary emergency access and that was why developments today required it. The folks at the Crest could, if there was an emergency and they ,r�, couldn't exit their main road, they could go through a crash gate and 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 s use the Cahuilla Hills, but more importantly the people of Cahuilla Hills : could do just the same and they have seen neighbor's lives lost because � response time wasn't quick enough and they also knew that emergencies happened. Another issue was that this development was compatible and would respect the rustic natural character of the hills and they didn't want it changed or ultra developed. They wanted it pretty much the same as it has always been. He suggested that while Scottsdale, Desert Mountain and Troon, were all cutting edge developments that tend to protect the majority of the open space for everyone to use, appreciate and admire, there was no such development in this desert. It was all "Orange County", even Bighorn had become a disappointment and he was frankly excited to see that someone was courageous enough to try and protect the open spaces and dedicate most of what was there back to the people. His sense about it was that this project has value, it has benefit to Cahuilla Hills, and as long as this low density was held to and as long as there were no eleventh hour deals being made, this would be a good project. Some of the people in the Cahuilla Hills had asked them, because he is co-chairman of the road committee, to ask this developer to pave their emergency access road all the way to where their pavement stops. Other residents of Cahuilla Hills didn't want pavement and they were content with soil, cement or nothing at all. His request was that whatever this commission approves, that they take a look at the area of Section 36 and at the folks by Calvin Cree and make sure they are not harmed by this project--that things that happen are beneficial and supportive to : their way of life. Finally, he said it was amazing to him to see how the � City has supported the residents of Cahuilla Hills. The Council authorized the purchase of an acre of land for their children's bus stop and the City, together with Edison and Sun Bus, provided a safe bus stop. Bighorn, in trying to redress some of their wrongs, had landscaped that area in the community and ultimately, even though they wanted to remain free and open and County, they felt that the City had a responsibility to look out for them and make sure things happen the way they should. He says he has never seen a developer that has offered this much to the people, the community, or to this city and for those reasons, he was in support of this project. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed project. MR. PAUL BOWIE, 71-774 Chuckawalla, stated that he forwarded the letter which was in the commission's packet regarding the emergency access road. He informed commission that he was not exactly against the project, however, the matter of the emergency road he thought was just a little undefined and was open to interpretation at some other point in time. He indicated the importance of safety could never be overlooked. He thought that primarily as stated in his letter the developer should be asked to, with his staff, provide the secondary , access as he indicated more directly toward Highway 74 which could : be accomplished very simply. On the other hand, the matter that was � just discussed regarding a crash gate of which there was no discussion � 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 in any staff document, didn't exist. He could foresee the possibility that i,,,, the emergency access through Section 36 could become a secondary road convenient for various parties and he didn't want to accuse anyone of anything, but a lot of various kinds of traffic could start coming back and forth through there because they didn't want to be bothering someone else down at the main gate who lives up there and so forth. He thought it was prudent at this point in time while the door of opportunity was open for Planning Commission to take the matter of the emergency access and direct it back to staff for clarification and if there is a wish to have a crash gate, they could talk about a crash gate here and now. He wouldn't want to defer the health, safety or welfare of anyone to some other time after some door of opportunity was closed to find out that things don't work out as well as they could have at the very beginning. He said that was the summation of his comments. MS. CINDY DAVENPORT, 48-010 Painted Canyon, stated that like Mr. Bowie she was not against the project, but her main concern was the emergency exit which would be right by her home. She asked if it would be an emergency access or a service entrance. That was her main concern. Mr. Miller readdressed the commission. He clarified that the emergency exit would only be used for emergencies. He explained that one way to create value in a high end type of development was through security ,�, and there would be a gate guard at the bottom of their project. Ms. Davenport asked Mr. Miller if service vehicles would be able to use the emergency access. Mr. Miller replied absolutely not. He said it would be very inconvenient to use Painted Canyon and was way out of the way and wondered why anyone would use a dirt road for construction trucks when they could use a paved access road that was 30 feet wide and built right. Secondly, the crash gates themselves would be on their property which they would control because they wanted to control any ingress or egress. They didn't want people driving through their development. Chairperson Ferguson asked if the crash gate would have cut-locks on there for emergency purposes so that the Fire Department could gain access and no one else other than emergency vehicles. Mr. Miller concurred. He indicated that it was not a public street and it would be used for emergencies. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was anything else Mr. Miller would like to put into the record. Mr. Miller replied no, other than he felt the emergency access would benefit everyone. �r. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Miller felt the issue of the crash gate or emergency access was addressed in the document. Others apparently were � not comfortable with what they have read. Mr. Miller felt it was accurately addressed in the document because they talk about emergency access and it was not their desire to have a public street with people coming into their development. Commissioner Beaty asked if Mr. Miller would have a problem if the language was made clearer and binding. Mr. Miller said that they could certainly work out some agreement that made sense. Mr. Joy suggested that language be included in the development agreement. Chairperson Ferguson closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Chairperson Ferguson said he would offer a couple of observations, but wanted to address a few comments by the applicant. Chairperson Ferguson stated that conceptually he was very much in favor of the project and lived in Scottsdale for five years in the very areas Mr. Miller was talking about and he also visited there two months ago and felt it was a beautiful way to develop the desert and was environmentally sound and made sense. As indicated, he > also walked through the entire bowl area that was proposed for development, � as well as the lower city section, and felt it made sense and was a good development as far as he could tell. His concerns with the project were not substantive, except to a minor degree, and those were things that they had discussed regarding the water tanks, sewage lines, etc., and the issue of the emergency access road. The people in that section were sensitive to the fact that every morning they see all the workers line up at Bighorn on their property on Cahuilla Way and they block the road making a parking lot out of it. He noted that the emergency access for this project went through Dr. Meintz's property and the Davenport property and if it was paved and there was no issue of a lock on it he felt they were justifiably concerned that this would become a service entrance. Having said that he noted that he spent about 20 hours going through the PCD document and noticed that it was sort of scaled back from the original proposal of about 200 lots and he noted a number of internal inconsistencies which he had also shared with Mr. Miller and staff and made part of the record tonight by way of his notes. The problem he had with this was not the inconsistencies and not where he and the applicant thought they were heading on this, because he didn't feel they had an issue there. The problem was that the development agreement made the PCD document the bible for the next 20 years and as Mr. Selzer pointed out, future councils might not see things as clearly as Mr. Selzer does at this point. Chairperson Ferguson said that he does not see things as clearly as Mr. Selzer with one reading of the document and he thought that much could be done to make it clearer. He had taken note of the request for a continuance and what he � believed to be insufficient notice, and given the peculiar circumstances of this project, he would like to afford everyone the opportunity to speak to this � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 project. They have been here some time tonight and he had not heard anyone �,,,,� speak in opposition to it, but they have had some concerns that he believed needed to be addressed. He suggested that commission consider continuing this for two weeks to allow the applicant the opportunity of cleaning up the PCD document. As he noted earlier staff indicated there were at least ten maps that bore no resemblance to the current proposal. There were ten or so internal inconsistencies and ambiguities that he himself pointed out and during that same period he would like to see if the City Attorney and Pianning Director could take another look at this development agreement, which he personally viewed as one sided and not fair to the City. He said he did take somewhat personally the comments about residents who don't trust their city. He viewed the commission's role and his in particular as a servant of the public trust and it was the public trust he was looking out for by requesting an additional two weeks to review the development agreement, to review the proposal and in contrast to that the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance for Hillside Planned Residential at Section 25.15.120 allowed the Planning Commission to require accurate topographic maps showing the proposed contour of the land after completion of the proposed grading, a slope analysis of at least five foot increments, elevations of existing topographic features and the elevations of any proposed building pads, locations and dimensions of all proposed cut and fill operations, etc. None of those were contained in the PCD document and yet the Planning Commission was being asked to adopt that document as the bible and any deviation would render in jeopardy the dedication of any open space and Mr. Selzer might take issue with that, but that basically put a hammer over the Planning Department. If they disagreed with anything from ,,,,� this somewhat ambiguous document, then the whole proposal in terms of the dedication of open space would be off. He felt the PCD document could be made clearer, the development agreement could be made fairer and he thought the project could perhaps sail through whereas in the past it has met with some resistance at levels beyond the Planning Commission. That was the reason for his request for a continuance and he said he wanted to punctuate that with his support of what the applicant is trying to do and his desire not to see them run into the same snags in the future. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was in favor of the project and liked it and voted for it two years ago, but with all the unresolved questions about the development agreement, she would move to continue this matter two weeks. Commissioner Beaty said he would second the motion. Mr. Joy clarified that the requirement about the topographical information and those items were shown on actual subdivision maps. Chairperson Ferguson said that was his point. Mr. Joy indicated that if they were working for a couple of weeks on the development agreement, they might be able to clean up the language a little bit but they would not be able to supply any of that information to the commission. Chairperson Ferguson stated that there was no request in the motion for that to be done, he was simply pointing out that if they were a part of the city, which they aren't now, and they were in that existing zoning, they couldn't come to the commission without that information. It would be required in an application and the commission didn't have nearly the specificity and he discussed with Mr. Miller today the impracticability of providing that information which all the more made him ,�, reluctant to approve a document that binds the City and ties their hands and 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 ; future councils for 20 years and lacks the specificity that he would have liked ; to have seen. He merely suggested the continuance to allow the documents � to be cleaned up. Chairperson Ferguson reopened the public hearing and asked for a vote on the motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Beaty, continuing C/Z 90-12 Amendment #1 Development Agreement to June 3, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. C/Z 97-5 - PALM SPRINGS BEVERLY ROAD ASSOCIATES, Applicant Consideration of a resolution of denial to a request for approval of a change of zone to apply the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone to one of the remaining vacant pads at the Lucky Center at the southwest corner of Washington Street and 42nd Avenue (Hovley Lane East) in order to permit a Jack in the Box restaurant with drive-thru facility. Mr. Smith explained that this matter was before the Planning Commission at the last meeting. At that time staff did not have a resolution either in favor or ; opposition to the request prepared. If commission adopted this resolution � tonight, it would be a denial without prejudice which would allow the applicant to subsequently amend his application and the City could at some point in the future perhaps review a drive-through restaurant on this site pursuant to a request for a development agreement and enter the process in that manner. Staff suggested that commission adopt the resolution. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1807, denying C/Z 97-5. Carried 5-0. B. DISCUSSION OF APPROVAL HISTORY OF LUCKY CENTER AT WASHINGTON STREET AND HOVLEY LANE EAST. Mr. Smith indicated that pursuant to the direction of the Commission at their last meeting, staff undertook a more comprehensive review of what transpired as best as staff could figure it out. Mr. Drell had an extensive discussion with Paul Clark, the Principal Planner for the County, and basically staff's report of May 15 outlined that while the applicant filed an application in March of 1994, ; he had a previous conceptual approval for a drive-through. Then in March of � 1994 he filed for the specific drive-through and had a hearing set for May 19, � 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 1994. In actuality the annexation stepped in on April 3 so there was never �.,, any action taken by County Planning or County Planning Commission. There were letters between Shirley Lu and Ray Diaz on March 21 and March 22 where in Mr. Diaz's letter he states that this right continues for as long as the County plot plan approval was granted. Staff worked on the premise that it would be approved on May 8, 1994. In actual fact it did not occur. He indicated that another interesting fact was that even if it did occur, it was only good for two years and would have expired on May 19 or 20, 1996. Staff suggested that commission receive and file staff's report. Commission concurred. Action: None. C. DISCUSSION REGARDING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ON CERTAIN ARTERIAL STREETS (I.E., FRED WARING BETWEEN SAN PASCUAL AND PORTOLA AND DEEP CANYON ROAD ACROSS FROM THE LUCKY SITE). Mr. Smith stated that he passed out some maps with some areas highlighted on it and explained that staff received a proposal on the Fred Waring site to amend the zone there to Office Professional to allow the conversion of a residential dwelling to office use. At the present time the General Plan in that ,,,,,, area was high density residential. On the Deep Canyon property across from Lucky's the Core Area Specific Plan brought the office professional designated property to the first lot, so there was the Godecke office building plus the residential lot to the north designated for Office Professional, and then everything to the north of that was low density residential. With the Lucky's opening and an application to change the zone on the first lot which would be before commission on June 3, staff felt it might be in order to amend the General Plan Land Use Element in each area to Office Professional. Mr. Smith felt it was the most likely long term land use solution for those two areas and unless commission had concern with that, staff would initiate that process. Commissioner Campbell asked about two lots by Ramona Avenue and Deep Canyon. Mr. Smith explained that there were single family homes on lots 3 and 4. Commissioner Campbell asked about the northerly lot. Mr. Smith explained that they operate a grading business out of the westerly end of the lot on Ramona (lot 3) and lot 4 only had a single family residence on it. Mr. Smith noted that the lot shown as #16 immediately south of the one just discussed was a vacant lot used for storage purposes, but the northerly limit of the commercial property on the Lucky's site lines up between the properties known as 44-755 and 44-705. When adjacent or across from a commercial situation, the argument could be made that they are making a land use transition, but north of that limit line was Hidden Palms and it made it more difficult to argue that it was necessary to go to the higher land use category. Commissioner Jonathan asked if this area was covered by the Palma Village �, Plan. Mr. Smith replied that it is. Commission Jonathan requested clarification 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 that a general plan amendment was still required. Mr. Smith explained that ; right now the areas were designated Office Professional or High Density � Residential and everything north was designated as Low Density Residential under the Palma Village Plan. Commissioner Jonathan noted that was not part of the transition area as identified in the plan. Mr. Smith said that was right in that the area was residential until the rezoning on the Lucky's site occurred in 1994. Chairperson Ferguson asked how staff would handle this procedurally and if a general plan amendment would be noticed and a public hearing held. Mr. Smith concurred. Chairperson Ferguson asked if Hidden Palms would be invited to comment on it. Mr. Smith stated that the ones within the 300 foot boundary would be notified. Chairperson Ferguson asked if staff wanted any kind of a motion. Mr. Smith replied no and indicated staff would proceed as long as commission didn't disagree. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification about some of the lots Mr. Smith had colored in blue on their map. Mr. Smith explained that was the land where a gentleman wanted to propose a change of zone to Office Professional, but since he wasn't consistent with the General Plan, staff was not in a position to accept the application, so now staff could because they would begin the process to change the General Plan. Action: a None. ""� X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (May 13, 1997) Commissioner Beaty noted that it was a lengthy meeting and they discussed ideas for entry signs. He also indicated they discussed the pre-qualification of bidders for the next golf course. He noted that all of the contractors for the existing course had not been paid by the general and in his opinion he thought it was making the City look bad. He heard today that they still had not been paid and there was a comment made that those checks would be available last Friday. He said that at this point in time, the current contractor would not be considered for the south course until he corrects these issues. C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (May 15 , 1997) Commissioner Jonathan felt the most relevant matter to commission that was discussed was the proposal by Lowe Enterprises at the ; southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and EI Paseo. He noted that this � proposal would avoid any traffic in terms of ingress and egress from the � 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 street near Sandpiper. He noted that they were proposing a shopping .i.,, center with three anchor tenants. One tenant that was interested was Bristol Farms similar to Trader Joe's and perhaps a large bookstore like Barnes and Noble, who was looking to move into a larger facility, whose store was only 10,000 square feet and their signature stores were 25,000 square feet and two stories. He heard that Barnes and Noble woufd like to stay in Palm Desert, but they needed additional space. He said there would be traffic flow issues that commission would be considering and he felt that Sandpiper residents would be at the commission meeting to offer testimony. He also noted that there was a traffic and foot bridge across the channel to connect into the Desert Crossing Shopping Center. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (May 19, 1997) Commissioner Campbell said that the committee moved to vote against the drive-through Jack in the Box restaurant for the Lucky's center on Washington Street. Only one man was in favor of the proposal and he felt that people using their golf carts could easily access the drive- through. Commissioner Campbell also noted that there was an ARCO going in on the east side of Washington Street at 42nd and it was in the County. The committee also prioritized areas for improvements such as the Fred Waring parking improvement, a neighborhood park, and the parkway landscape land on Oasis Club Drive between Hovley Lane East and Country Club Drive and the side walks and the perimeter walls ,`,, between Idaho and Kansas Streets. She indicated that she was late for the meeting and asked Mr. Smith to explain what discussion took place regarding the allowance of horses. Mr. Smith explained that the issue of the horses was re-noticed and would be back before City Council on June 12. The Project Area 4 Committee discussed it at length and indicated that the Osbornes circulated a draft ordinance of their own along with a letter. The feeling of the committee was that the information in the letter was not completely accurate so there would be a letter written to the Osbornes and copied to the City Council outlining the committee's understanding of the facts. E. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORR(DOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) F. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (May 15, 1997) Commissioner Campbell felt the most important item discussed was that on Friday, May 30, 1997 they would be going to the freeway to view some logos that would be hanging from cranes so that they would be able to evaluate the distance and size. Mr. Smith noted that date would also be a study session for the Planning Commission, which would be 9:00 a.m. on Friday, May 30. If the commission wanted to meet at City Hall there would be transportation available, or they could meet at Gerald Ford and Cook on the northeast corner around 8:45 a.m. He indicated that Fairway Outdoor Advertising would have a crane on � the site and they would hold up various sized logos in an area that 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 would be approximately where any signage would be placed on the site. � He noted that the City Council and Architectural Review Commission �i would also be there. He explained that when the Freeway Commercial Overlay Ordinance went to council, there was a provision in it for signage that was a maximum of 175 square feet and would allow up to six logos within that 175 square feet. It became evident that given the setback distance from the travel lanes on the freeway that 175 square feet might not be adequate. He felt the May 30 visit would tell them what it would take to create something that would be visible and readable. If it took 600 square feet, then it would have to be decided if that was something the City would consider. Mr. Smith noted that staff inet with Caltrans on May 9 and discussed the possibility of proceeding with their logo identification program on the freeway. While it was provided for in recent legislation, they had not done it in Southern California. He indicated that it was in evidence in Northern California on I-5 and also in Nevada and Arizona, where they have a sign immediately adjacent to the slow travel lane that says food and below it a bunch of logos of concessionaires at the next exit. Those signs were done within three quarters of a mile to a mile and a half of the exit and then there was a second sign on the exit ramp. In talking to the Director of Caltrans for this area, they were quite anxious for Palm Desert to become what they were calling the "pilot project". Given that they would likely see that program happen, then he wasn't sure where the City would head toward onsite signs and how big and high they would be allowed. With the demonstration program on the ; 30th, they would have a better idea of what it would really take to � accomplish it and if they were going to approach it that way. Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification on the details on the time and place of that meeting. Mr. Smith stated that there would be a couple of vans available, but suggested they take individual cars in order to better view the signs. He noted that they would drive the freeway down to Washington Street and then back to Monterey. He thought it might take an hour in that they would have the signs at various heights, sizes and colors on the logos. XI. COMMENTS 1 . Mr. Smith noted that at the last meeting someone had a question about the operation of a church at the Vacation Inn/Pasta House. He said he gave Marilyn Molde at Vacation Inn a call and she said that weekend they had a group of women that took 44 rooms in the hotel and they ran services that weekend in the Pasta House. That was the extent of it, though it might become an annual event. Commissioner Beaty asked if there was a parking problem. Mr. Smith said he hadn't heard of one. 2. Chairperson Ferguson noted that at the last meeting the public hearing . on the Corn lot was closed and he would reopen it when it was before the commission at their next meeting. ? � 26 _ _ __ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 3. Chairperson Ferguson stated that he had been asked about Mr. Muro •.► and the health club use at the northeast corner of Portola and Highway 1 1 1 and asked when that use would be discontinued. Mr. Smith said it was his understanding that it was supposed to have been discontinued now. Chairperson Ferguson asked if there was prospectively a deadline or if Mr. Muro was supposed to be out. Mr. Smith thought he was supposed to be out 30 days ago. Commissioner Beaty noted that Mr. Drell had said that he was going to send a letter to Mr. Muro. Commissioner Campbell thought Mr. Drell was going to give Mr. Muro 30 days to move and that was in April. She noted that the business was still in operation. 4. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he appreciated the Chairman's diligence in reviewing the development agreement that was before the commission tonight, but he thought it demonstrated that it took the focus away from the actual development and the issues that the commission needed to be more focused on. He noted that it got the commission into legal areas that he was not comfortable with. He asked how other cities deal with this and if there were other cities where their Planning Commission wasn't asked to pass along a development agreement to the City Council since they were the ultimate arbiters on those issues. He noted there was legal counsel and City Council and he wished it wasn't necessary for the Planning Commission to deal with them. He asked if there were alternatives available to the commission, or if it was something they wanted to think about or if a r,.► class was available that he could attend. He thought they were always a problem and took the commission's focus away from the important business at hand. Mr. Smith thought that the procedure was a necessary evil in that they when they do get to the City Council, they are adopted by ordinance and the City's Zoning Ordinance stipulates that the Planning Commission must take an action making a recommendation. Commissioner Jonathan said he understood the procedure, but was curious if other cities had adopted other procedures that eliminated the need for the Planning Commission to deal with development agreements and on all the legalese that he personally didn't feel qualified. He noted that Chairperson Ferguson spent 20 hours on the documents and this was his area of training. Chairperson Ferguson noted that the Katrina Heinrich proposal had a development agreement which he believed was approved five times by Best, Best & Krieger on the lega! issues, but was sent back five times because the planning issues were not adequately addressed. He thought it was erroneous to say there were primarily legal issues involved in development agreements. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that they impact the planning issues, but were framed in legalese and he was not comfortable with that or the process and knew that in the past there were other commissioners that used to decry them continuously. Mr. Selzer addressed the commission and explained that the bottom line was that state law required that the Planning Commission act on development agreements. He noted that the commission could just r..,. blow them off and send them to council. Commissioner Jonathan 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 :� acknowledged that they were a necessary evil and he would just have � to get used to them. He aiso noted that on occasion the commission � had sent them to council without comment. Chairperson Ferguson indicated that for the Intrawest development agreement the focus shifted in that they were entering into a contract on behalf of the City or recommending that the City enter into a contract which would take them into economic issues and whether they were getting a good bargain, not from a planning standpoint of if it was a good project. He thought the commission's hang up on that one was that they didn't have enough information to determine whether it was a good benefit to the City or not, so the commission passed it to City Council without recommendation. He thought that tonight was a good example in that there didn't seem to be any significant planning issues other than some vagaries, but he wasn't sure the development agreement was the best bargain. Commissioner Jonathan felt that the cogent arguments that he has heard against development agreements was if it was even necessary for the City to enter into a contract with a developer which then becomes an ordinance. Chairperson Ferguson agreed that it was an odd thing. Commissioner Jonathan thought that it seemed like it shouldn't be necessary and yet it was. He said that he would live with it. 5. Chairperson Ferguson noted that regarding the Crest development the commission didn't take up the concept of expanding the notice and asked if that could be done at the staff level or if it required a vote. He � indicated that for the continued hearing, he would like the notice to go � to the rest of the Cahuilla f-�ills residents, not just the ones across the wash. Mr. Smith noted that the problem was that the hearing was continued to June 3. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that meant staff couldn't get the notice out in time. Mr. Smith said no and Mr. Selzer concurred that it wouldn't work. Commissioner Beaty asked if the City could send a courtesy notification. Chairperson Ferguson also asked if a letter could at least be sent to the Bighorn Homeowners Association and if the Cahuilla Hills Homeowners Association was still in existence. Mr. Selzer replied that he didn't know, but the process was that they go to a title company and request the name of every property owner within 300 feet. They were then provided with the notice labels. For a hearing two weeks from now there was no way they could have a title company do that work. Chairperson Ferguson suggested that it be done at the staff level informally. Mr. Selzer felt that they wouldn't be able to get it out in time. Mr. Smith stated that he was reluctant to say that the City should do that because there were noticing time frames that they wouldn't be able to meet. Even if they didn't call it a legal notice, someone might construe it as a legal notice and they would suddenly be in violation because a courtesy notice was sent. Chairperson Ferguson asked if it would be okay to respond to the three people in Bighorn who submitted letters and say that the Planning Commission took note of their letters and continued the matter to June 3 and for them to kindly inform their neighbors if they felt it was � appropriate. There would be no published notice of this because of timing factors. Mr. Smith concurred. ,� 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1997 �„�, XII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Campbeli, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. r''1—t�+� � a PHILIP f3R�L Secre�t,arv�_ ATTEST. JAMES ATO U ON, hairperson Palm D sert Plannin ,Cor�n ission /tm �r.. �.. 29 EXHIQIT A CRE5T DEVELOPMENT I Inconsistencies A. Roads cf. Tab A & B B. Lots cf. p. 15 lower lots (Tab A) Tab B C. Open Space Desert Park Section of County Parcel Miller & Selzer say Open Space p. 13 See also p. 14 & p. 15 D. Development Standards p. 41 PCD/HPR cf. p. 7 DA II Ambiguities A. 2 Access Roads cf. p. 12 & Tab B B. Emergency Access cf. Ex 15 "bat wings" "Is it really a servants access" III Visual Impacts A. Bury Water Tanks cf. Ex 10, p. 29 & 52 B. Clustering of Lots cf. p. 16 & 6 C. Above Ground Sewage cf. p. 21 & Ex 25 p. 60 D. Clustering of Lots cf. Cluster A & Cluster B * Expand notice to area of visible impact IV Required Information P.D.M.C. � 25 . 15 . 120 A.