Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0515 � ��'•'� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING �,,, � TUESDAY - MAY 15, 2001 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * � .� � * � * * �. .� * � �. � � .� � * � �- .� .� �. � �. �. .� .� .� .� � � * � .� .� �. * .� � � I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Finerty called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Cindy Finerty, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan � Dave Tschopp Members Absent: Jim Lopez, Chairperson Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Jeff Winklepleck, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Mark Greenwood, Engineering Manager Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the May 1 , 2001 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the May 1 , 2001 minutes. Motion carried 4-0. � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 ; � t � ..� V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent May 1 1 , 2001 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 01-12 - L. LEE BOSLEY, M.D., TRUSTEE FOR THE CST PROMOTIONS, INC. Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two lots, Lot Nos. 26 and 27 of Tract 25296-2, 916 Andreas Canyon Drive and 914 Andreas Canyon Drive. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner � Tschopp, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion � carried 4-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 01-01, C/Z 01-01, PP 01-01 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant (Continued from March 20 and April 17, 2001) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; a General PI an Amendment from Hillside Planned Residential to Park; a Change of Zone from Hillside Planned Residential, Drainage (HPR, D) to Open Space, Drainage (OS, D1; and a Precise Plan of Design to allow the construction of a 27-acre park with a parking lot, b � 2 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � restroom, picnic area and multi-use trails at 72-500 Thrush Road, APNs 628-050-002, 628-050-018, 628-150-001 , 628-260-058. Mr. Winklepleck noted that the plan had been revised per the direction given by the commission at the April 17 meeting. Issues discussed included splitting up the parking area, adding additional picnic areas, repositioning the multi use trail, identifying options with the palm logs and meeting with CVWD regarding the access and parking issues, and reexamining the need for the restrooms. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the multi use trail was moved about 100 feet east on the west property line. He noted that there was some confusion about the future access roads. He explained that they were shown on the plans to acknowledge that there is an easement there. Ultimately it would be the property owners responsibility to construct the road. The City would not construct the road with the construction of the park. Regarding the picnic areas, Mr. Winklepleck said there was one shown on the previous plan at the north end of the park. That was revised to include two additional picnic areas. ` Where there weren't trees, they could add a couple of trees and a picnic table or two and a trash can. That was the extent of the picnic areas. They were not looking at any shade structures or anything along those lines. The parking areas were split up into three areas with room for five cars each. He said he included a detail to show what it would look like with an access road and the parking areas. Mr. Winklepleck said he talked with CVWD and they have certain concerns that were outlined in the staff report and were primarily with the liability issues and the fact that there isn't any barrier between the City's property and the wash. They would ask for the City to construct some sort of barrier especially where there is vehicle access to the parking areas and would include a minimum of fencing and potentially some vehicle barriers, the standard kind found up and down Highway 74. They also discussed gating issues because of off road vehicles, motorcycles and such using the channel and the noise and dust problems because of that. CVWD seemed willing to work with the City and ultimately what would occur out there would depend on what we request. At this point we previously talked about leaving the access road open for vehicle traffic during the day and closing it off at night between the park area or Thrush Road and Green Way to allow access there. After further study staff recommended that no `� 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 vehicle access be allowed there at all except for official CVWD vehicles o� the Sheriff. Staff recommended that the gates be replaced at the north end of the park and at Thrush Road and allow pedestrian access only. That would allow the Thrush Road gate to be closed in the evening to prevent park usage at night. Staff would continue working with the District. Regarding the issues from the Vista Paseo homeowners on the off road vehicles, noise and dust, staff would work with CVWD to have those non functioning gates worked on. As far as the restroom, they talked about a restroom and commission directed staff to take the restroom at Cahuilla Hills Park back to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their recomrnendation. Mr. Winklepleck explained that they were looking at two separate types of uses at the parks. Cahuilla Hills would probably eventually need a restroom, but the d ifference in that facility versus this facility was that the primarily usage at Cahuilla Hills is tennis court usage from folks that live fairly close and have access to restroom facilities, whereas the Homme Adams Park would be more of a citywide usage where people may come from the east side of the city and may not have easy restroom facility access. Staff anticipated the need at this site, so staff was requesting approval of the restroom. It was not staff's intent to install it right now, but to leave it up to the Parks and Recreation Commission as to the appropriate time when there have been enough inquiries or requests for it. Prior to actually installing it staff would like to see a need for it, but wanted the ability to install them quickly when needed. Mr. Winklepleck said that he looked at alternatives to the palm logs and something that would provide a vehicle deterrent barrier and at the same time maintain the natural character of the site. Other than boulders, staff hadn't found a good alternative. Using boulders around the entire park would cost about 5625,000. A standard two foot by two foot boulder was around S 125.00 installed. Obviously with that kind of cost staff would not recommend that kind of alternative. Staff was open to other alternatives, but at this time staff felt the palm logs would be best. He recommended that Planning Commission recommend approval of the park to the City Council. Commissioner Campbell asked how often there would be police surveillance at the park or if the neighbors that live there were supposed I to call the police when there was a problem. Mr. Winklepleck said there wasn't a set patrol at this time. After speaking with the Sheriff's 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 i�r Department, there would be more patrols in the beginning to establish their visibility. It would probably be two or three times a day to start. It would essentially be a visual patrol. They wouldn't be sitting there and watching unless something was hap pening. There was no concrete answer at this time, but he has talked to the Sheriff representative about it but at this point there were no set numbers. He noted that in the past the City has been able to direct the Sheriffs when we need their focus at a specific location and that has worked in the past. Commissioner Campbell asked if the gates would be locked at dusk. Mr. Winklepleck said yes, it would be put on the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District's circuit. They lock up the Ironwood Park restroom, Soccer Park restroom and Palm Desert Country CI ub restroom. It would be one of their standard stops. He confirmed that the police could check after that time to make sure no one was there. Commissioner Tschopp asked what type of fence would be next to the channel. Mr. Winklepleck said there was an existing fence that ends approximately 100 feet south of the Thrush Road bridge. It was five to � six feet high and chain link. He anticipated something similar to that unless otherwise directed by Planning Commission or Council. He thought chain link would probably work the best, but they were wide open for any suggestions. Commissioner Tschopp said that on the type of restroom, he asked if it would be sirnilar to the one at Ironwood. Mr. Winklepleck concurred that it would be similar and said that there are some very nice systems so that they wouldn't have to run sewers. It was staff's intent to have a fully self-contained facility, split block, small, no more than 400 square feet with one men's room and one women's and a small storage area for supplies. Very similar to Ironwood or Palm Desert Country Club. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any combination of vegetation or split rail fence or something else that would look better than end to end dead palrn trees. Mr. Winklepleck said that they were trying to avoid actual fencing to maintain the natural o pen space character of it. Short of any man-made things, boulders and the palm logs seemed to be what was out there. Commissioner Jonathan noted there were three parking sections and he asked if there would be any logistical problem in moving a section to the south to be closer to that southerly picnic area. Mr. Winklepleck said � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 they tried to keep the parking north of the facil ity primarily because that was where it was previously. Also, if they did have vehicle access anywhere up and down the channel they would just have to improve that area as well. They kept it in the previous general vicinity. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the gate at Thrush Road would be locked at night, but he assumed that access would still be available south on the water road. Mr. Winklepleck concurred. He said that the existing residents that use that access would have full access. Commissioner Jonathan said that in theory if someone wanted access to the park they just head south . and they could access the multi use trail. Mr. Winklepleck said that essentially they would be parking on the right-of-way. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Mr. Winklepleck looked at railroad ties as an alternative to palm logs. Mr. Winklepleck said they were an option. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he didn't know if they were more sanitary, but there was some concern raised earlier about mice or rats. Mr. Winklepleck said it was termites. Mr. Drell explained that railroad ties were eight inches. Palm logs were 18 inches to two feet so a railroad tie would barely provide an obstacle. Commissioner Jonathan asked about a combination of split rail like at residential homes with the two logs that go across, so perhaps a combination of that type of fencing with maybe the palm logs. He asked if that was conceivable. Mr. Winklepleck said that it was conceivable. The reason they stuck with the palm logs was to maintain the natural aspect. It could work if designed properly. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that the public hearing was open and asked for testimony in FAVOR. MR. ROD JOHNSON, 150 Vista Paseo in Palm Desert, stated that he and the President of the Homeowners Association met with Mr. Winklepleck and they were very pleased with the changes. He liked the idea of the parking being spread out and the way it was planned rather than in one spot because it wouldn't affect any of the neighbors as much as it would if it were all in one location. He also thought fencing was a marvelous idea to stop the vehicular traffic from going back and forth between the two parks, because that's what some of the SUVs and pickup trucks did. Their biggest problem was with motorcycles. Sometimes they used the bottom of the wash. He thought the idea of putting the chain link 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 �.. fence up, while it wasn't the most attractive looking, along side the wash would help prevent some of the problems that occur now where kids throw boulders in the wash. It still wouldn't stop them from throwing pop and beer cans and bottles in there and causing a lot of debris, but it seemed to be a favorite spot to toss things. He had seen people take smaller rocks and throw them against the mountainside to chip it loose and get them down to throw them into the wash. Even after being cleaned up it took little time before it was a mess again. In the event of a flood it would really cause some problems because there was a great deal of debris that seemed to be thrown in there. He noticed that up from the Presbyterian Church and Episcopal Church they have a chain link fence on both sides of the wash. That seemed to keep a lot of problems away from the wash. A motorcyclist couldn't go into the wash because of the chain link fence and exit somewhere else and drive by on either side of the wash as they currently do. Mostly the motorcycles were on the west side of the wash right now. The only thing he was a little concerned with but not greatly was that the restroom was not totally eliminated but would �` probably be built later. He still strongly felt that restrooms are a gathering spot for trouble, drug use, sexual activity, and other problems that can result from having restrooms. He said that at least they would be locked at night if they are bu ilt, but maybe Mr. Winklepleck's idea of not building them immediately but having a watch and wait situation to see what kind of a need would be a very good idea. Definitely if they are constructed they needed to be locked at night. The palm log situation was a concern to some of the residents. Presently the logs looked pretty decent because they are new and haven't deteriorated, but as time goes by they do not look very good once they start to rot. That again was something that could be put in at a later date if there wasn't money to do it immediately. He liked the railroad tie idea and had used them extensively at his home in Los Angeles in a hillside situation, but he had to stack them up and put stakes behind them to make sure that they would hold back the soil. They look better and don't deteriorate as rapidly as palm logs. He didn't know if anyone had given consideration to the fact there is a great deal of rocks of various sizes, some boulder size and sorne not, that exist �... 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 in the area right now and he wondered if some of those could be moved and used without a big expense or a combination of the two, palm logs and the rocks that are existing. He said that there seemed to be a lot of rocks there and rocks of a decent size would sort of prevent the smaller motorized vehicles from going over them. That was a possibility to look into. The police surveillance was an important issue to them because they don't really see a lot of police cars in their neig hborhood to start with. He wasn't just talking about inside Vista Paseo because that's gated and they only come in when there is a call for them, but in the neighborhood in particular like Pitahaya, which requested additional police surveillance because people were going too fast down Edgehill and using their street to go over to the Target bridge. Even after that they had police surveillance for a while after the neighborhood complained a great deal, but it ended and he rarely ever saw a police car there now and certainly they didn't park and watch for speeders and there was a lot of speeding in that neighborhood. He stressed that he wanted them to look into using + existing rock in the area and maybe someone could do a survey to � find out how many might be there. He knew that hauling beautiful rock in like they did on the entrance to the airport at Palm Springs was rather expensive. If they could use some existing rock, and he thought there was enough there to use in certain areas at least, that would help out. MS. DORI CREE, 47-205 South Cliff Road in Palm Desert, complimented Mr. Winklepleck on the park. She felt they had come a long way since the April meeting. She stated that she was in favor of the parking. The palm logs would be a deterrent to having cars come in there so she thought it was a good idea. She would have preferred the rocks, but if that couldn't happen, the palm logs were great. She also liked the multi use trail layout. Her only comment at this point was that since they would be paving the road along the channel north, she would have liked to have seen the paving extended south of Thrush bridge. They have two preschools there, the Presbyterian and the Episcopalian preschools. Cars coming in there would not necessarily all go north. Some of them would go south along that road also. Other � 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 r.. than that they have come a long way and she complimented M r. Winklepleck on his work. Vice Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell complimented Mr. Winklepleck on what he had done since the first meeting. She was in favor of the parking and picnic areas and she was glad the restroom wouldn't be installed until it was needed. She wanted to make a comment like Commissioner Tschopp. As far as the logs we�e concerned, instead of having a perimeter of these ugly brown logs, have maybe a break an d have some rocks. She agreed with Mr. Johnson, she didn't think they needed to buy the rock since there were enough rocks in the area. She agreed with Ms. Cree about paving the road to the south of the bridge. She was in favor of recommending approval to City Council. Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He would suggest that in addition to what had been said that he would be in favor of paving the road south � of Thrush Road, which would enable adding a five-space parking or moving the one located in the center of the three existing ones so that it is closer. He thought that if they were going to put a picnic area there, and it was a nice location, they should allow a family to park their car there so they could take their picnic basket over. He stated that he thought the park needed a restroom, and if there is an appropriate activity there he didn't think the solution was to not have a restroom for the people who don't break the rules, the solution was to work with police and he knew that the Sheriff's Department was very effective in dealing with that, so he was comfortable with giving staff latitude as to timing when the restroom should go in, but it made sense for a park to have a restroom especially if they wanted families to go there and enjoy it and kids needed to go to the bathroom and he would rather they went inside a structure. He stated that with regard to the fencing situation, he would definitely like to see staff be a littl e more creative and artistic with it. He liked the palm logs, but he thoug ht they could be enhanced with a combination of adding some rocks. He didn't know if it was cost effective or environmentally appropriate to move rocks from their existing locations. If it was, fine, if not the City had a couple of dollars to buy a `.► 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 1 � few boutders that it could intersperse along with the logs and maybe with some railroad ties where appropriate where they could be effective along with those rustic looking wooden fences. A combination of any, some or all of the above might enhance the perimeter fencing and still be effective and accomplish the objectives. With those comments, he thought they arrived at a designed which accommodated the needs of the overall community as well as all the surrounding residents. He too complimented staff for doing that. Commissioner Tschopp concurred. He agreed they had come a long way on the park. With the palm logs, he thought there are some very talented landscapers in the city who could come up with a better combination of vegetation, rocks, split rails like the ones used out west that would enhance that natural look as opposed to making it look man made. He would really like to see them doing something like that and couldn't imagine any where else in the city where they would allow palm logs to be used to this extent. He concurred with paving the road to the south. It would benefit the park. If the restroom wasn't built now, it would be built soon. He would prefer to see it now because families would use the ' park and if they had ever gone to a park with children they knew that � restrooms were needed and older folks needed restrooms also. Having had some experience with restrooms and parks around the city, they do work. The City took care of them and locked them and crime hadn't been a problem. He thought it was a well thought out plan and had come a long way and he complimented staff and the community for working together. Vice Chairperson Finerty concurred. She said she too would like to see, if appropriate, the existing rocks moved and interspersed with the palm logs. She asked Mr. Drell if that would be appropriate. Mr. Drell said he could not recommend that. They would be looting the natural features of the park to build it which he thought would be inappropriate and just the damage of bringing in heavy equipment because these needed large movers to move. Mr. Drell said he would not recommend looting the natural features of the park to build a wall. He also noted that there weren't that many big ones. Most of them were eight or ten inches which wouldn't be an effective barrier. To create a barrier it needed to be a couple of feet high. He thought it would be appropriate to add as � � 3 10 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2001 a.. a condition that they explore additional methods to create and delineate the park in addition to the palm logs, but he would not recommend looting the natural boulders in the park to create it. Commissioner Campbell asked if they would use rocks to accent logs and some shrubs. Mr. Drell objected to shrubs because irrigation would have to be added. He said staff could loo k at that, but it made it more complicated. Split rail fencing, especially along the street frontage, would still be in the semi-developed environment, so staff could look at all those alternatives. He stated that right now the current directive from the City Council was to install the logs. They had been delaying it since an encroachment permit was pending from the Water District since it would go on their property, but staff would forward to the Council that they would like the Council to investigate alternatives and staff would look at split rail and other sorts of fencing materials that are less intrusive and more economical. Commissioner Jonathan thought that Council has and would feel free to disagree if they wished, but he would want the condition of approval to specify not so much that staff would explore, but that staff would work together with its landscape design specialist to create a perimeter fencing that combines the elements discussed, the palm logs, � the rail road ties, boulders, and the split log fencing as effectively as possible. He also suggested that they add as a condition of approval that the access road south of Thrush Road be paved as well, or modify the existing condition. When he said paved he meant the same type of pave and chip seal. He concurred that it should be taken down to South Cliff Drive. He also recommended a condition to add a five parking space section or moving the one he referenced earlier to the south so that it was somewhere in close vicinity to the southerly picnic area. With those conditions, he was prepared to move for approval. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if Commissioner Jonathan would want to add another condition about two or three patrols per day at first by the Sheriff's Department as suggested by Mr. Winklepleck. Commissioner Jonathan said he wasn't comfortable in his expertise as to how many patrols, but he agreed that some kind of condition that staff would monitor the activity together with the Sheriff's Department to ensure as peaceful a situation as possible. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for a second to the motion, Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. �••► 1 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 t .�r1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2070, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 01-01 , C/Z 01-01 and PP 01-01, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. CUP 01-09 - JOLEIN PRICE, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to operate a 96 square foot massage establishment within the existing Gold's Gym and the existing Abbas Aromas & Herbs store located at Desert Country Plaza at 77-900 and 77-920 Country Club Drive. ° Mr. lained hat he i i ted that th' a one � Smith exp t t applicant nd ca is would be person operation. At any one time she would be at one location or the other, either in the Gold's Gym facility or at the Herb store location which was in the same commercial center. Mr. Smith indicated that the property is zoned PC and massage establishments are permitted in the PC zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. This would be a limited sized operation with only 96 square feet in each location. It would be compatible with the surrounding area and would not impact on the parking in the area. The center has a large field of parking in the area south of the buildings. It would appear that a massage therapist would be compatible with the gym and the health food operations. Findings for approval were outlined in the staff report. Mr. Smith stated that this is a Class 3 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Vice Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. � ,! 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � MS. JOLEIN PRICE, said she would be located in the Park Center Executive Suites on Country Club Drive, and would like to rnove into the gym and Abbas Aromas because she would be more visible. She said she liked to offer massage at an affordable price to see how it would impact the health care system and being in that environment would make that more possible. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Carnpbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Carnpbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2071 , approving �"� CUP 01-09, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case Nos. GPA 01-02, C/Z 0'1-03, PP 01-07 - THE FOUNTAINS, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a general plan amendment and change of zone to add "Senior Overlay" to the existing PR- 10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41- 505 Carlotta Drive. Mr. Smith put the site plan on display and described the layout. He said that the applicant was requesting a conversion of the existing 22 assisted �.. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 living units to 22 skilled nursing beds and approval to construct 52 new assisted living units, 32 casita units and a 21 bed Alzheimer facility. The existing 111 apartment units and 59 bed skilled nursing units would remain with the skilled nursing being expanded to a total of 81 beds. The casita units at the northwest corner of the site would be single story. There would be four to eight units per building. The buildings were set 94 feet back from the north property line and the west setback ranged from 62 to 90 feet. The units were 935 square feet to 1 ,200 square feet with eight of the one bedroom units and 24 of the two bedroom units. Parking was located around the perimeter of the casita units. The assisted living facility would be a winged shaped building at the southwesterly portion of the site with setbacks ranging from 65 feet to 160 feet and 70 feet from the south property line. The Alzheimer's facility would be single story, 18 feet in height. It had one architectural projection on it, a turret that goes to 24 feet. That building would be setback 70 feet from the south property line. The addition would be served by the existing access points from Carlotta Drive. No new accesses are proposed. There was a total of 320 parking spaces onsite. Staff calculated a requirement of 296. That utilized a minimum age requirement of 55 years in that the parking provisions in the ordinance differ between ages 55 and 62. Less parking was required at age 62. The applicant had an age cut off at 60, so staff applied the age 55 standard. He said there was an equivalent of 247 units in that staff allocated two beds in the Alzheimer's and skilled nursing facilities per unit as done for other projects. The current zoning at PR-10 for 19.4 acres would permit 194 units. Staff was suggesting a need to go to the Senior Overlay designation in order to provide the additional density and the special development standards to encourage the development of the senior housing. There was a development agreement attached to the staff report which provided for the applicant to pay a senior housing mitigation fee of 5127,200 which would be used by the city to provide affordable housing. That was based on a rate of S 12,000 per unit on the excess units�. The S 12,000 per unit was also applied in a similar fashion to the Portofino project approved in 1999. He said that staff was recommending certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of the General Plan Amendment and Precise Plan to City Council. Mr. Smith noted that a letter was received from a neighbor who lives right across the street, Mr. Beaty, who expressed y 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 3��.. disappointment that the neighborhood hadn't been advised of the proposal and thought the developer should have met with the neighborhood first. Staff subsequently learned that the applicant had met with some of the neighbors around the south and west, but not with the people to the east. The applicant or a representative of the applicant met with Mr. Beaty on Friday. A letter was distributed to commission from Mr. Pratt which in his mind summarized th� meeting that occurred on Friday and indicated that Mr. Beaty's concerns were mainly related to the south entry gate which was squeaky and operates slowly so that inbound cars couldn't immediately turn into the Carlotta. There were also some existing lights on the Carlotta property that might need to be shielded to prevent glare across the street. Staff hadn't heard what happened Friday from Mr. Beaty's perspective. Mr. Smith did confirm that those were the concerns raised when he spoke to Mr. Beaty on Wednesday. Conditions 15 and 16 of the draft resolution addressed the issue of the noisy gate and the stacking of vehicles. In Mr. Pratt's letter dated May 12, he indicated a willingness to install a faster, quieter gate to resolve the problem. Commission could review the merits of that in that basically there was still a need to have the gate open during shift � changes so that employees could efficiently move in and out so they weren't stacked and backed up out into Carlotta Drive. If the new gate could be designed to accommodate that so that it could be programmed in, that would be great. He stated that ARC granted preliminary approval. Staff's recommendation was adoption of the resolution recommending approval to City Council. Commissioner Jonathan requested that Mr. Smith show the commission the renderings and identify which elements of the application they were looking at. Mr. Smith did so. He noted that ARC asked the applicant to do some alterations to the roof structures to create some more interest which wasn't reflected in the colored versions. He distributed the material sample board. Regarding the extra employees needed for these facilities, Commissioner Campbell asked if parking would be provided within the compound. Mr. Smith said yes. Condition 15 or 16 reflected that and required that all employees park onsite. Mr. Smith confirmed that they haven't had a problem and would be adding considerable parking with this expansion. � 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 : Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on the problem lights. Mr. Smith explained that the lights were building-mounted lights. He understood that they would be shielded. Commissioner Campbell asked if this gate was the primary entrance and exit and if they used the other facility. Mr. Smith explained that the southerly gate was the primary access point. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this application includes a General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Development Agreement. With regard to the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, he asked if this had been addressed with any other city committees. Mr. Smith said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an issue with amending the General Plan at this point. Mr. Drell indicated that this would be an infill development within an existing project. That issue had come up for when they talk about new development in large vacant areas where it was conceivable that they might want a different sort of use there, but in this particular case he didn't think they would ever conceive of a different use within Carlotta other than senior housing. If this project had 3 been built in the city origina((y, it would have gotten these designations. � It was built in the County and now that they were doing the expansion, they would be giving them the designation they would have had if they had built in the city in the first place. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't have a problem with the use and personally didn't have a problem with the General Plan Amendment or Change of Zone, but he was asking procedurally if they were getting any indications that General Plan Amendments have to be subject to maybe an additional procedure or approval through other city commissions. Mr. Drell said there is no moratorium. On the other hand, it would now be the recommended procedure for large projects in large vacant areas where there is a question as to future use, that they would be encouraging those property owners to wait or run the plans through the General Plan Advisory Committee. Vice Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARVIN ROOS with Mainiero, Smith & Associates representing The Fountains, addressed the commission. He stated ` 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 `... that Todd Pratt, the Project Manager, was on jury duty and wasn't able to attend. He said that they concur with the staff recommendation and conditions of approval including the requirements to redo the gates and make sure a!! the lights are properly shielded. When they came back through with their final plans they would do that. He said that the Carlotta has been there 15 years. For the most part this type of facility is very compatible with low density residential areas in terms of amounts of traffic, etc., that would be generated. There would be some driving with the casita residents. He didn't believe there would be a significant increase in traffic because most of the facility would be assisted and Alzheimer's uses which wouldn't generate traffic_ The amount of staff they would expect would be about 12 on a shift maximum; between five and 12. They met with what they thought would be the most sensitive areas, the west a nd the south, and unfortunately caught up with the east after Mr. Beaty sent in his letter. They did meet with him and they would certainly try to meet with the objections relative to the gate and � the lighting. He noted that Mr. Frank Urrutia was also present as part of the project team. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many more individuals would be staying at the Carlotta upon completion, total. Mr. Roos said there would be a total of 472 persons. Mr. Drell noted that condition 16 required that the gates stay open for a period of time during shift changes and asked if he was aware of that and it was okay. Mr. Roos said they could work with that. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that in his letter of May i 2, Mr. Pratt said that included as a mitigation measure they would install a faster, quieter gate to resolve this problem. So Mr. Roos wouldn't object to that being condition 17. Mr. Roos concurred. '� 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSlON MAY 15, 2001 Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if a faster, quieter gate was installed if the gates still needed to be open at change of shift. Mr. Roos said they would accede to leaving it open during changes of shift. The way the project was originally designed they didn't get the stacking distance they'd like to have and it would help keep traffic rnoving and flowing during those times. He thought the staffing was fairly moderate and there wasn't much of a change each time and that it would be an improvement. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Roos mentioned six to 12 staff at any one time. Mr. Roos said that would be new staff. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many staff inembers they could expect at any one time. ; Mr. Bob Walker spoke from the audience and indicated there � would be 150 total and guessed 85% on the day shift. Commissioner Jonathan asked if in addition to that they would be looking at outside contractors coming in for housekeeping, landscape maintenance, etc. Mr. Walker indicated that would rernain the same. Commissioner Jonathan confirmed that at any one time 85% of 100 to 150 is what they would expect to be onsite on the day shift. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff took that into consideration in calculating not so much the parking ord inance requirements, but the overall parking requirements. Mr. Smith said yes, it was included in the requirement that they provide spaces for ihe ones living there that happen to be driving and secondly for the staff. It was included in the requirement. Commissioner Jonathan said he heard that there would be as many as 472 residents plus up to 150 staff parking onsite, so potentially they had a potential of 600 people onsite and only 320 parking spaces. He agreed that 600 people didn't mean 600 cars, but in 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 �... light of that he asked staff if 320 parking spaces would adequate. Mr. Smith said yes and stated that they were adding considerable parking at � this point. They haven't had a parking problem there up to now and the units being adding at this time were the Alzeheimers and the skilled nursing. They were adding 32 casita units, but they were adding much more than 32 parking spaces. Mr. Drell explained that in general, staff's experience with the other facilities, Hacienda de Monterey which has 200+ assisted and independent living units, so parked at the 1 :1 started out with plenty of parking and as time goes on there are more and more vacant spaces. Fewer and fewer of the residents drive cars and staff stays about the same. Staff's experience was that amount was adequate. Commissioner Jonathan said he was trying to add up the number of residents, staff and visitors. Mr. Drell thought that less than half of the residents have cars to begin with and that number diminished over time. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no one. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone �.. wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. MS. ANNA ANDERSEN, 41-945 Freedom Court , stated that she wasn't worried about traffic going in and out except that during the night when ihey have ambulances, they were followed by big fire trucks and they couldn't sleep at night. There was heavy traffic on the south road. During the day it was for deliveries, the clean laundry coming in, etc., and there was a lot of heavy traffic. She could only assume that with a lot more residents, there would be a lot more visits by ambulances and that was a big worry. She was waking up at 2:00 a.m. to the beep, beep, beep. It was something she wanted them to consider, how to get in and out of that facility during the night. She said they called over there and were told there was nothing they could do about it. Commissioner Campbell asked how long Ms. Anderson had lived at that address. '•• 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � � ; � � Ms. Andersen said two years. She confirmed that she knew the Carlotta was there when she moved in, but if she had known what it was like she wouldn't have bought there. She needed her sleep. Mr. Drell asked for clarification as to what the beep, beep, beep was from. Ms. Andersen said it was from the trucks backing up. The flashing lights were also a problem. Upon questioning by Mr. Drell, she said they came out there once, twice, and three times a week at least. She said that sometimes it was a lot, sometimes not as much. She personally found it a lot. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the ambulances and fire trucks had their sirens on. Ms. Andersen said no, it was only the heavy motors running while they were sitting there and the lights flashing right there in front of her house. � ,.r� Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any easy mitigations that could be placed required; if there were any walls, landscaping, or some kind of easy solutions to that problem. Ms. Andersen said they have a wall now. Mr. Drell said that the wall could be increased in height. He wasn't sure if it was required by any law that they had to have their lights continually flashing once they're there. That was something they could take up with the paramedics. Ms. Anderson asked if they could slow down the traffic on the south. Mr. Drell said he was sure they didn't like to slow down. Ms. Andersen said that the south street they had was the main delivery route and that mid entrance was a nice gate. � 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 �.. Mr. Drell said that he thought the reason they were stopped there was because there was an entrance to the facility there where they were getting people in and out of. He asked for clarification that they were stopped right in front of her house. Ms. Andersen said yes, they seemed to stop right there. Mr. Drell asked if the representatives had any thoughts as to how to address this issue. MR. BOB WALKER, Executive Director of The Fountains at The Carlotta, stated that the ambulances and rescue vehicles came to their facility first if there was an urgent need because someone fell or whatever the reason might be. They also had to come when anyone ceased to breathe. They were required under State law to call for rescue when anyone passed away. That did occur in nursing homes and in assisted living and in emergencies. Those were two primary reasons emergency vehicles would come to the +�.. facility. He couldn't stop either occasion. He wasn't sure about the lights or about keeping the engines running, but they usually did. He didn't think that would stop or diminish, however, he didn't think it would increase significantly either. MS. KIMBERLY WEBB, 75-730 Dolmar Court in Palm Desert, informed commission that the prior owners of The Cartotta had been good neighbors in thei r community ever since the community was established. She personally has lived in the neighborhood over four years. The residents had been disappointed that the entire neighborhood was not informed even though they stated that they did make some sort of an effort to contact them and they only learned of it as a result of the legal notice from the City. It was her feeling that this project would adversely effect their neighborhood and homes immediately south and adjacent to the proposed construction which included Hemmingway, Marin Court, Freedom Court and Dempsy. These would be mostly impacted and the increase in noise and traffic congestion, and the decrease in views to the mountain scape would compromise thei r resale value. Those homes were going for between 5250,000 to �•• 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � �� � 5350,000. The homes on the fairway which were on the immediate west had great views along there. The conversion to the assisted living Mr. Smith indicated that it would be 30 units and there would be 52 assisted and 32 independent. She believed there were a number of discrepancies in the information provided by the management team coordinating this expansion. They were indicating a limited number in increase in employees. Unfortunately the 10 to 12 was not accurate. With the Alzeheimer's units alone for 20 beds it required three people per eight hour shift. That was a minimum. There were also the casitas which also increased just the general care from the kitchen to the housekeeping to the general needs people to the nursing staff. These would have to be increased. For skilled nursing facilities, there were normally five to 30 beds required additionally in a skilled nursing unit, so she believed the numbers were a little bit skewed in their favor when they presented that. The gates were slow, traffic stacked up and they didn't leave the gates open during shift times. They would see one gate open just enough for ' one car to pass through. That was the southern gate. In � reference to the fire trucks, she understood that it was a State law •� that a fire unit must be dispatched with an ambulance. She asked how any of the staff could revive a deceased patient when a paramedic could designate and transport a body. They didn't need a fire engine. They did continue with their lights on. And the woman who spoke before, she didn't think she was out visiting the neighborhood at 3:00 a.m. prior to her purchase, so in her defense, no she wouldn't have been aware of the frequency until the strobe lights came in. They were very careful not to come down the street with blaring lights on most occasions. The delivery trucks were usually waiting at the gates, sometimes as early as 5:00 a.m. with refrigerated units and they just sit there and sit there. Because they have walls fronting not only their properties but along the Carlotta, the noise just goes on and on which impacts those on Easy Street, as well as those on Carlotta, Dolmar Court and Duvall. Whe�e the ambulance stops and impacts those homes along the south border there, they were getting a tremendous amount of noise. They were thinking that the wall would deafen the noise, but unfortunately it sent it up into their 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2001 r.. two story homes and normally the bed�ooms were located in the upper level. The wall unless it was 15 feet high wouldn't do much to alleviate the noise they were currently under duress about. The other problem they had was with speeding vehicles north and south on Carlotta. She believed it had been approached previously to put a stop sign at Sandcastle and Carlotta to slow down the now teenagers that moved into the neighborhood 10 years ago. It was like a race track and she knew that the City had been putting up speed radar indicators and are aware there is a problem. Unfortunately, they would have people going down the street going 40-50 mph so the seniors were already having to deal with speeders on this avenue as well. The increase of the 32 casitas at 1 .5 bodies per casita for married couples in the two bedroom apartments would have an impact there. It was her understanding that the new configurations in the process for the new project going in by the Sunrise Colony in Indian Wells immediately south of Hovley was currently undeveloped, but they were working on that right now. Hovley Lane would be denying access and limited � access and entry to their community as it is. For off of Hovley Lane, if they were traveling east on Hovley Lane they could currently turn left onto Hemmingway to enter homes on Marin Court, Dempsey and Freedom Court. Once the new policy goes in and they revise the traffic there, they would no longer be able to turn left on Hemmingway which would force all of those residents to turn left from the Carlotta drive. They only have two accesses to that community from the south. So now all of that traffic and approximately 100-1 12 homes would be effected and all of ihat traffic would be coming down Hovley now. In order to exit off of Hovley, those residents off of Carlotta, north Carlotta with over 100 homes in that area, Duvall, Sandcastle, Dolrnar Court, Easy Street, Dempsey, Marin, Hemmingway and Freedom Court would now, if they wanted to make a left turn onto Hovley which they do now, that would no longer be available. All of those vehicles would be forced to go north on Carlotta, turn right on Sandcastle, turn right on EI Dorado and left on Hovley. Their lives were already going to be compromised by the amount of traffic because of this proposed revision in Hovley when they widen it to four lanes. Now they were throwing in additional .•• 2 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � � � .� delivery trucks, additional vehicles driven by the senio�s living there, more frequent visits by the ambulance and fire trucks. Unfortunately with a senior population there was an increase in that which was quite frequent already. There were many different areas impacted here. She hoped that the Planning Commission would look at this further and in greater depth. They were now dealing with a corporation as opposed to a community center which was what it used to be. The Carlotta previously was a nonprofit organization or facility. Now the new owners are for profit so of course they wanted to have it as highly dense as possible because more residents meant more revenue and more money. Unfortunately they didn't have access to their neighborhood as it was. The stacking of vehicles was amazing. They would have five or six vehicles attempting to get into this facility and the majority of them were seniors. They didn't just go to where the center of the median would be, they were all over. She didn't know if they wanted to propose new senior driver safety courses or a better designation of left turn lanes, whatever, ° but something was needed to alleviate this problem. She hoped � the commission would deny the project. She didn't think there was any way, because of the configuration of the neighborhood already, that they would be accommodating to the existing problems that would result from the Hovley project impacted by an increase they are asking for here. So she was asking them to deny it. At the least she was requesting a continuance so that more of their residents would have an opportunity to become aware of what was going on and to become more actively involved. She said she just found out about this from the information and Mr. Beaty had been very active and they tried to get more people to attend, but unfortunately schedules didn't accommodate. She said that if for some reason the commission deemed this to be a worthy project, there were many things in return they would ask for. One would be faster gates and easy accessibility. When they had to call in at the north gate, it took 10, 15 or 20 seconds before someone answered the line, then it was another duration while they were waiting for this gate to open. These cars were stacked up and it wasn't momentarily. They were sitting there. The other thing was an area immediately � � 24 � MINUTES PQLM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 200'I �..r northeast of the facility. There was sort of a cul-de-sac that had been abandoned. Whatever the idea of the City was when they designed the neighborhood, it was beyond any of them. It was an unfinished area. There was grass along the front of The Carlotta at The Fountains, then they see this wedge just left open and the property is owned by the City of Palm Desert. They had a prior agreement with the owners of The Carlotta previously that they would maintain that area if it were cleaned up and grass seed was put down. Now The Lakes also buts up to part of that property and they exit out through a gate. She proposed that The Lakes put in another entry or exit out through that gate that would allow some of the residents to exit at another end instead of impacting all of these cars coming there. Again, she was very rnuch in opposition to this. She said she realized that there were certain things that they couldn't change, but for financial considerations, it was a good thing for the city because of taxes, but they were also looking at the ones already there paying taxes and supporting the city in a very positive way. �.. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Greenwood would like to comment on any of the traffic issues. Mr. Greenwood said he would be happy to answer any questions. There were several issues brought up. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that Ms. Webb brought up the issue of possibly another entrance off the property the City owns and she also talked about when the new construction goes in off of Hovley that would change how the traffic currently circulates. Mr. Greenwood confirmed that the City does own a lot at Carlotta and Sandcastle. He believed there was a block wall at the west end of Sandcastle into one of the country club developments. They had no interest in gaining access at that point. The City did need to do something with that lot and they have tried to dispose of it several times, but found no takers. It occasionally did get into a state of less than adequate maintenance so for now all they could do was take care of it the best they could until they could find a reasonable use for it. As far as the project on Hovley Lane East, left turn accesses at Hemmingway will be prohibited, they will be right-in right-out. There would be full access at Carlotta and left turns would be allowed, so that could change traffic patterns somewhat at Carlotta. � 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � � � Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. MR. FABIANO stated that he lived at Dempsey and Carlotta Drive and the traffic with the firemen was all the time, day and night, with noise. The impact from the trucks and ambulance was all the time. His house was right on the corner and there was a lot of noise. Mr. Roos readdressed the commission. He stated that they didn't see the intensification of the property as dramatic and there would certainly be more people on the property, but the nature of senior housing traffic wise tended to be considerably less than the normal single family type or apartment type of residence. They could work with the fire department on the lights if that was a possibility, but they knew that unless they changed the law they couldn't change who came to the property on that basis. He said they would be glad to work with management on issues such as truck deliveries and stacking up in the mornings and those kinds � of issues. Although some people come from a long distance, it was hard to time exactly when they got there, but they could certainly work toward deliveries not waiting at 5:00 a.m. He said that they did give hand written messages to folks on the south side and four people came to a meeting. Some of what they heard was from residents on the east side, which they didn't canvass and he apologized for that. He said they would try and answer any mitigations and were open to that. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that Mr. Roos said that he didn't think the increase would be dramatic and believed that Mr. Walker said it was not significant, but the best she could tell was that currently there are 192 people when full. The proposal would be to add 105 new to the population. That was a little over 33%. In addition to that 33% there would be 33% more emergency services, 33% more delivery trucks and they didn't see that as dramatic or significant. Mr. Roos said it wasn't in an overall context. The property was master planned originally for additional facilities similar to what is x 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 i.. there. They built the first phase. In terms of the activity levels, they were adding 32 casitas, which were the more active of the group. The rest were Alzeheimer's and assisted which in terms of traffic, there wasn't an increase in traffic with those. They have 1 11 existing apartments which tend to be more of the active. The character of the facility would reverse the active assisted kind of percentages. Yes, while there would be some increase, the fact that they have a food delivery didn't mean they would have 33% more deliveries of food, they would just have more in the truck. That was not to say there wouldn't be some increase in those facilities, but just because they were adding facilities, the gardeners were already taking ca�e of this area and it was already turfed and they had been a good neighbor for all these years. The number of people didn't necessarily increase the number of trips and ancillary uses. Vice Chairperson Finerty said that the number they were given for new employees was six to 12. � Mr. Roos said 12 was the maximum on a shift. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for clarification that there would be 12 employees for 105 people. Mr. Roos said on a shift, yes. Mr. Walker said that the people living in the casitas would be independent living and they really didn't have employees per se other than basic general area cleaning and maintenance to take care of those facilities. They are independent. The people in assisted living required minimal care in terms of staffing. They weren't like the skilled nursing facility. There was not a requirement to provide a certain number of man hours per patient day for independent living or for assisted living. Those things did require minimal staffing. They estimated somewhere between six and 12 during a day shift, the maximum shift, for those additional facilities. They didn't anticipate 33% additional trucks, like Mr. Roos said they would just bring with thern larger supplies. �... 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2001 ; Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant was aware of the condition of approval that required that commercial deliveries occur Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. so there wouldn't be any deliveries at 5:00 a.m. She didn't know why they have them right now at that time. Mr. Walker said he wasn't aware of that condition, but the others confirmed they were. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was just one access to the project. Mr. Walker said there were two entrances into The Carlotta. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they were requiring delivery trucks and workers to use just one entrance. Mr. Walker said yes, primarily one entrance. It was because it led to their parking area and to the delivery sites. ' Commissioner Tschopp asked if there would be any problem with allowing delivery trucks and workers to use either entrance. Mr. Walker said that the other entrance was not conducive to having delivery trucks enter in and out because of the short turn span. Some employees did go into the other entrance now. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a chance now to make some changes so that they could come through the other gates. Mr. Walker said it was their commitment to improve the gates in terms of their quietness and speed. The one gate was extremely large and that was why it was slow because of the weight of that gate and the power train that pulls it. But they would try and improve upon that and make it faster. Commissioner Tschopp said that whether the facility was a country club, j nursing facility, etc., when they restricted entrance to workers and trucks to just one area, then they impacted more that side of the development 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � than the other side. He asked if there was any way to take advantage of this now to maybe mitigate some of the problems. Mr. Walker thought that if they were going to leave the gates open during the change in shift, that would eliminate a lot of the prob(ems. He pointed out that it is a gated community and part of the whole marketing is the fact that they are gated and that is a security factor for the people that live there. Therefore, leaving gates open was not in the best interest of The Carlotta, but during a change of shift they were willing to concede to doing that. Commissioner Tschopp said they could stipulate rules that the delivery trucks could only deliver between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and asked if there was any way they could control showing up earlier and just sitting outside the gates. Mr. Walker said he didn't know that. � Commissioner Tschopp said it wasn't just them, it was also country clubs, where they back up onto streets of residences and create problems for other people around it. He asked if there was a way they could have a staging area or somewhere in The Carlotta that these delivery trucks could go into at The Carlotta if they were going to be waiting. Mr. Walker said they could look into that. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it wasn't a guarded gate, it was just a mechanical gate. He asked if there was a possibility to create a guard station similar to other country clubs where one lane was open for vehicles to go in because they had stickers and they just go straight through and another entrance lane for visitors to check in. Mr. Walker said they do have cameras and a telephone system between the gate and the reception area in the facility. That was how people gain access to The Carlotta. He wasn't really in favor of adding 24-hour around the clock staff to watch the gate. There was traffic, but it wasn't like a country club or a gated community per se. � 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 , i , , � Commissioner Campbell asked if that was at the south gate or both gates. Mr. Walker said it was just on the main entrance. The guests use the main gate as well as the residents to the apartments. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the emergency vehicles stack on the southern road. Mr. Walker said it was the access to the skilled nursing facility and to the assisted living facility. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a turn out area similar to hospital emergency areas. Mr. Walker said no, there was just a driveway that goes past the two entrances to specific facilities. , Vice Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked the � commission for comments or action. Commissioner Carnpbell stated that she would be in favor of a continuance to allow more of the neighbors an opportunity to come before the commission as suggested by Ms. Webb. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would also be in favor of a continuance. He liked the concept and the use. He thought it was a needed facility and if designed properly they could end up with something that would benefit the community without adversely impacting the neighbors. When he looked at open dirt, he tended to put into perspective the realization that something would be developed there. He contrasted the application with not what existed there now, but to what could be there, so there were some benefits to this. On the other hand he thought the concerns they heard tonight were valid and as commissioners they had thrown some things at the applicant asking if certain things would work and he wasn't very happy with the response. So from his perspective, they applicant had heard the problems and should fix them. If they coufd fix ihern he would be in favor. If they 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 �.. couldn't, he wouldn't. It was that simple. He was particularly concerned about the potential for a lack of parking. By the time they added up the residents, the visitors, the variety of maintenance type vehicles for food, cleaning and everything that he couldn't think of that goes into that plus the staff, there was a huge demand on the parking. He would like to see that addressed adequately. There were concerns about that southerly road. There were mitigations and the applicant had a team of experienced people that have heard this for years. These weren't new problems and there were solutions to them so they should be fixed. The gate, whether it would take a guard so that the gate could remain open and half the traffic could go straight through and the other half had to check in, if that was what it was going to take, that is what it would take. If there is a better solution so they didn't have stacking, or creaky gates, or s(ow gates, that is what it would take. He thought the good news was, was that they identified the issues and the problems and he thought they were valid and he thought there were solutions to all of them so he urged the applicant to put together their creative forces and come up with some solutions. � Commissioner Tschopp thought the overall concept was compatible to what is out there and if done properly it could be a good use of the land. The problems they saw in other parts of the city, it wasn't just endemic here but also in other areas, Portola in the morning had trucks backed up onto the street trying to get into the Vintage Club which created a traffic hazard for everyone else. The loud truck noises then impacted people across the way. He was not in favor of forcing maintenance trucks and heavy traffic to use just one entrance and cause that then to put undue hardship on people who live in that area. He thought that when building a project they should look at how they get the traffic quickly into their facility so that the problem was theirs, not the neighborhoods. He said it was a good time now to look at ways of doing that whether it was a staging area inside The Carlotta that these trucks could pull up into so that if they showed up early, it was their problem and they would go inside and sit on their property. They were right about the Riverside County Fire Department, there was nothing they could do about the lights or the big heavy diesel engines, but it would be nice to look at ways to direct that traffic or direct them closer to the source of the problem in the property as opposed to one side. He wanted to see tf�em ..�. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 5 � � looking at mitigating some of the traffic concerns to insure a smooth flow of traffic through the neighborhoods to get them off the streets into The Carlotta where they were trying to service the people there. Gate guards could be expensive, but they could sometimes keep traffic moving a little quicker. He would be in favor of a continuance to allow the applicant an opportunity to review some of those issues. Vice Chairperson Finerty agreed with her fellow commissioners although right now she wasn't seeing a compelling reason to change the character the neighborhood by increasing this by 33%. They heard that there is horrendous traffic now and it would just get worse. With just one entrance, basically, unless they could creatively design it so that they could move a lot of the traffic away from the people on the south side so that they weren't awakened in the middle of the night and they were able to get sleep and didn't have the loud diesel engines running and the lights flashing. They were entitled to have a good night's sleep. She said she would entertain a motion to continue. Commissioner Jonathan asked the applicant how long of a continuance they would need. ; � Mr. Roos thought a month would allow them to get these � problems addressed. They thought there were solutions and they would work with the commission and the comrnunity to do that. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that date was June 19. Commissioner Jonathan said he would make a motion to continue and Commissioner Tschopp said he would second it. Vice Chairperson Finerty reopened the public hearing. Action: It was moved by Comrnissioner Jonathan, seconded by Cornmissioner Tschopp, continuing Case Nos. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03 and PP 01-07 to June 19, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-O. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 �.. D. Case Nos. GPA 01-03, C/Z 01-04, TT 29468, PP 01-11 and TPM 30193 - PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Applicants Request for approval of a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, a general plan amendment from service industrial to affordable high density, a change of zone from single-family residential/mobile home (R-1-M) to planned residential (PR, six units per acre) a master plan of development, a precise plan to construct 162 affordable housing units on 12.52 acres, 117 single-family lots on 23.18 acres and a tentative parcel map to subdivide two parcels into four. The 40-acre site is bounded by Merle Drive to the south, 42nd Avenue to the north, Portola Country Club to the west and industrial properties on the east. Mr. Alvarez explained that he would give a brief outline of some of the � key components of the project and some of the changes in the land use designation and zoning, and some brief characteristics of the project, He stated that the applicant has prepared a presentation describing in more detail some of the key components and design features of the project. The property was approximately 40 acres bounded by 42nd Avenue to the north, Merle Drive to the south, service industrial properties to the east and Portola Country Club to the west. There were changes to the General Plan and the change consisted of redesignating the existing site from Service I�dustrial to Affordable High Density. This piece currently had 34.15 acres and it would go from Service Industrial to Affordable High Density. An existing 3.3 acres in the northeast corner would remain Service Industrial. The project was proposing modifications to the zone. He indicated that there was a 12.52 acre site which would go from an R1 M which is a single family residential mobile home to a PR-14 affordable high density which is Planned Residential 14 units per acre and the second component would go from R1 M to PR-6 (Planned Residential six units per acre). This is where the single family component of the j project would be located. The other piece that would be changed would be the northeast corner of the site from R1 M to Service Industriaf. In �•. 3 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 ..� terms of the master plan, Mr. Alvarez stated that the project would consist of four components. These components included multifarnily residential which would house 162 affordable housing units, the second component was 117 single family residences detached units located along Merle Drive and along the west side of the site. The multifarnily units were located toward the center and the northern portion of the site. The third component would be a future expansion to the soccer park parking lot. There had been some modifications to some of the acreages f�om the report. The affordable housing units would now sit on 12.51 acres, the single family units would be on 19.62 acres, the city's future soccer park parking lot expansion would be 2.35 acres and the fourth component, the future expansion of the City's corporation yard, totaled 3.3 acres. In terms of the precise plan, there were two different components that they are looking at. One was the multifarnily component which consisted of 162 affordable multifamily units. There were three types of units proposed within this component. There were two-story town homes proposed along 42nd and along "A" Street which would access the site from 42nd. There were four buildings containing two-story town homes each with attached garages. The second component would consist of six buildings with 72 units each having three ""r bedroom units and the other six buildings would have 72 units and would consist of two bedroom units that were dispersed throughout the site. The precise plan also includes a community building. The site would include two tot lots, a common pool and some laundry buildings. The community building would be 3,600 square feet and would house a variety of common uses to the site. A laundry facility, a pool, a kitchen and the apartment manager's office. The second story of the community building would be the onsite manager's residence or unit. In terms of building height, the two-story town homes were 22 feet. The two-story apartment units would have a height of 25 feet 7 inches. This site is being rezoned to PR which is a Planned Residential zone which limits the height to 24 feet, two stories. An exception to this requirement is requested. Mr. Alvarez indicated there were a couple of reasons this could be justified. Two-story or a possible 30 foot high buildings to the north and to the east were possible. The project was oriented toward the center and north of the 40-acre site. Impacts to adjacent properties would be minimal. Along the south setbacks would range from 40 to 70 feet along the adjacent proposed single family. The other justification � t � 34 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 �r.. was that they are using a pitched roof design which would allow for ease of maintenance in that runoff would not accurnulate like on a typical flat roof. The applicant would address the design concept. In terms of parking for the site, the project would exceed the required parking standards. It would provide 300 off street parking spaces, 172 of which would be covered with the majority in carports and a few within the town home garages. The project would be required to provide 326 spaces. The single family component would be located along the south of the site along the west adjacent to Portola Country Club. A couple of key concepts which had been integrated into the development of the site included integration of two-story single family homes to provide a transition from the two-story multifamily into the single family within the project and within the adjacent properties to the west and south. The single family homes were developed conceptually but had not been reviewed by ARC. There were elevations provided with the staff report. Whe� the applicant brought back a tentative tract map, ARC would look at the units in more detail. Some conceptual elevations and floor plans were provided and staff could address any questions the commission � might have. Mr. Alvarez stated that ARC has reviewed the multifamily component and the preliminary landscaping plan, both of which were approved. The project would have two access points. The primary access would carry 65% of the traffic via 42nd Avenue. The secondary access which would primarily serve the single family along Merle and along the southern portion of the single family site would access from Merle Drive at Audrey Drive. In terms of circulation, the site was configured and designed to discourage non local cut through traffic. The access on 42nd would not line up with Corporate to prevent people from Corporate going directly into the project and created a circuitous street pattern. That was further provided when entering the site along "A" Street and down south toward Merle Drive. It was kind of a long stretch for people to travel and would minimize cut through traffic. The other concept which was used was to provide people on the south side access to those amenities and those uses which exist on the north side of the site. With this configuration people not only within the site but also south of it would be able to access Carter Elementary School, the post office, the soccer park and also Hovley Lane. This would done without having to enter a major arterial. This would provide a safe vehicular and pedestrian environment to access those uses to the north. Mr. Alvarez +`•• 3 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 ; � � indicated that a traffic study was prepared and was included in commission packets. In there Endo described potential traffic impacts and came up with conclusions and recommendations. Mr. Alvarez read from page eight as follows: "The project would have adequate access to serve the proposed land uses. No improvements beyond those proposed with the project were required to accommodate traffic at the acceptable level of service." Improvements which were required for this project would include full half street improvements along 42nd and along Merle Drive. This would complete both roadways to their complete widths and improvements, providing adequate access to the site. The site would have access to three signalized intersections, at Corporate, 42nd and Cook and at Merle and Cook. Mr. Alvarez felt that the requested general plan amendment and change of zone were compatible with the adjacent properties. He said that there were a couple of issues brought up by area residents. One issue was the compatibility of this site with the adjacent properties to the north and east. The adjacent properties to the east and north were zoned Service Industrial. The issue came up whether these uses were compatible with the proposed multifamily and single family ' uses. He said that there were a couple of different focations in the city where there were single family uses abutting service industrial uses. To staff's knowledge there had been no quantified impacts caused by those adjacent uses. Staff felt this was a great transition between the service industrial and the adjacent properties to the south. There was low density single family to the south and west. The other issue that came up was whether or not there was toxic waste being handled by Waste Management which was located to the north of the site. M�. Alvarez stated that he called Waste Management and they indicated they handle no toxic or hazardous materials. They primarily function to recycle materials and reuse those materials they sort and collect at the site. The other issue that came up was traffic. Staff felt that the traffic study adequately addressed the traffic issue and no significant impacts would occur from this project or any other cumulative projects that may occur in this area and the existing roadways would have an adequate capacity to handle the traffic from the site. Findings for approval of the precise plan/master plan, the tentative parcel map which would create four parcels to implement the master plan were outlined in the staff report. Staff prepared an Initial Study and based on that Initial Study staff determined that the proposed project would not have a significant 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 i..r negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared. Staff's recommendation was for the Commission to recommend to City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Precise Plan, and the Tentative Parcel Map. Mr. Alvarez stated that he wanted to make one correction to the staff report on page one. There was no tentative tract submitted so Tentative Tract 29468 was not included. Another issue brought up by one of the commissioners was the adequacy of the proposed pool within the site. He stated that he would let the applicant address that question. Commissioner Jonathan noted that parcel one was 162 multifamily units but he thought there might have been some conflicting numbers in the report. One part said 162 but then it looked like there was a total of 12 buildings each with 12 units for a total of 144. Mr Alvarez confirmed that the total was 162. Mr. Drell explained that the town house units were in addition to the multifamily units. Commissioner Jonathan said that where the staff report on page four talked about multifamily residential and indicated 144 multifamily, in addition to that there were � 18 which were town houses. Mr. Alvarez concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted that parcel two was single family residential use. He asked if staff knew that there would be 1 17 units for sure since there wasn't a site plan yet. Mr. Alvarez said that was what was proposed in the master plan. Mr. Drell pointed to the site plan and indicated that's what a future tract map would attempt to replicate. There would be a pub(ic hearing and if there was a change, it would require amendment of the master plan. Staff didn't anticipate a significant change from what was seen. There might be a few more or a few less, but it was a good ballpark number. Commissioner Jonathan noted that parcel three was additional parking for the soccer park on the northwest corner. He asked how many spaces that would create. Mr. Alvarez wasn't sure. Mr. Drell thought it would just about double the existing spaces there, so probably about 100. When they were going through the master planning process, someone asked if we were sure we didn't need more parking and he thought it was designed for another double loaded aisle, so they reserved room for more parking if it was needed. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was any discussion with either Parks and Recreation or the soccer people to determine if a part or all of that two and a half acres could be used for additional soccer fields rather than parking. Mr. Drell �.. 3 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2001 said it wasn't big enough for an additional soccer field. It was kind of long and skinny. It wasn't wide enough. Half of the blank area on the map was actually the existing parking lot. Two and a half acres was only 80 feet wide, so it wasn't wide enough. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the distance would be from the project to Cook Street. Mr. Alvarez said it was about a quarter of a mile. Commissioner Campbell indicated the entrances to the single family residences and the area from Merle would be on Audrey and asked what was happening on Rebecca. There is a gate all the way at the end that was open. Mr. Alvarez said to his knowledge it would remain closed. Commissioner Campbell said she wasn't talking about the gate to the west, but there was a swinging gate to the north and she asked if all those single family homes would abut that existing wall. Mr. Drell said that there was an anomalous situation which surrounds Portola Country Club in that there was a 30-foot public easement dedicated by the original developer as a half street with the potential extension of Rebecca all the way up 42nd and then the extension of 42nd all the way to � Portola. He said that staff was not proposing that to happen. That was � a parcel that was offered to the County when the project was originally designed and approved by the County and was never accepted by the County and it still showed up as owned by a limited partnership in Newport Beach in association with an apartment project that was finally getting built off of Hovley. The City was trying to contact that limited partnership. So far the address listed at the State as the address of the limited partnership doesn't exist, so staff was trying to resolve that problem and remove that 30-foot no man's land either by including it in the project or seeing if Portola Country Club was interested. Something would be done so that it wasn't just a no man's land between two properties. He confirmed that right now the project didn't include that property. With the current zoning, Commissioner Tschopp asked what would be the number of total units allowed. Mr. Drell said that right now the zoning allowed for 5,000 square foot lots, which is about five or six units per acre on all of the 40 acres, so they were looking at about 220 to 240 j single family homes. There was a slight increase in the total. Commissioner Tschopp asked who would be most appropriate to ask 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � about rental versus ownership. Mr. Alvarez said that the applicant would be the appropriate person to address the mechanisms for the affordable housing units. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there were exterior stairwells to the two-story units. Mr. Drell said that was better directed to the architect since he would describe the units. Vice Chairperson Finerty o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. TERRE LA ROCCA, Director of Housing for the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency, addressed the commission. She inforrned commission that this is a joint venture project between the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency and the developer. The purpose behind the project is to provide the city with additional units as prescribed and required of the city as a result of its redevelopment project areas. The production of these units would assist in � meeting the mandated production goals. She said that they have met with the residents and met with Portola Country Club exclusively and then recently had a meeting with the residents to the south as well as those members of Portola. In total there were probably 75 people in attendance. They received two letters with requests for information predominantly with respect to environmental issues and traffic. She said she did have the development team present tonight and would introduce the developer Dan Horn. Mr. Horn was a long time resident of the valley, has produced many affordable housing projects and he would give the commission his background on his experience and knowledge of the area. He would then introduce the balance of the team who would get into the technical issues involved. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked Ms. La Rocca if Mr. Horn would be the developer for both the multifamily and single family projects. Ms. La Rocca said no, the only development they were currently proposing was the multifamily. The single family project would come at a future date. They didn't have a developer at this time. �..� 3 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 MR. DAN HORN, President of Palm Desert Development, addressed the commission. He said they had the honor of being chosen to be the developer on the multifamily development. They had assembled a development team that included himself, Reuel Young of Interactive Design was the architect, Marvin Roos of Mainiero and Smith was here to deal with the planning issues, the traffic study was done by Endo Engineering and Mr. Endo was present, and Ray Lopez was the landscape architect and he was present to answer any of those questions. As far as his background, he sent the commission brochures on his company and a little flyer on the management firm. He said he would be more than happy to answer any questions about his firm and his background after the presentation. He felt they had a great team assembled and thought they had done an exceptional job and staff had worked with them very diligently. He introduced Reuel Young who would go over the design features and he would be followed by Marvin Roos to go over the planning and traffic issues. The other members would also be available for questions. ' MR. REUEL YOUNG, the President of Interactive Design Corporation, stated that his architectural firm is located in Palm Springs. About 40% of their work is special needs housing. They were very pleased to be involved in this project. He said their role in this was to take the basic components of the development, single family, multifamily, the site and the surrounding conditions and with Marvin Roos and another architectural firm shaped the site into what they hoped would be a very wonderful community. He explained how they approached the site. They were given two primary goals. One was to create a overall development that mirrored the surrounding uses as best as possible. Along Merle Drive they have single family homes that are approximately the same width as the lots of the homes that exist now. Across the western boundary were single family homes. In this case the width was greater than behind in Portola Country Club, although it wasn't by a great deal. But the orientation of the site was dictated by mandate to be energy conscientious and conserve ! energy from every level possible. The lots were oriented with a long access in the east-west with the idea that the single family 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT P4ANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 i�.r would be designed so that the outdoor space opened to the south. On small lots it was difficult to have a front yard and back yard that is liveable. They had some floor plans that were suggestive, not required, of the development so that the layout of the streets was driven by a concern for energy and the circulation within the site. It was their belief that what knits a neighborhood together are the streets themselves. Therefore there was a fundamental decision that along the street would not be a wall or a gated community but would be homes with front porches facing the street. There would be a sense of balance as they enter the development so that as someone drives in, it wasn't immediately clear that this is where the poor folks rent and the other area was where the rich people own. The pattern of development would be the same on that entry. That meant two-story in this case single family detached homes and two-story town hornes. He said there were three important components in shaping the street. One was street trees on a regular basis on both sides of the street to help create this zone where an individual feels safe separated from the � cars in the drive lanes. There was a parkway for the street trees and then the sidewalk. The second component was a common section or scale of buildings on both sides so it felt they belong to the same neighborhood. The third component was the width of the street being consistent with the traffic it would carry. Wider streets give visual cues that speed is acceptable and narrower streets have visual cues that reduce speed called traffic calming. This section which showed for sale detached homes and rental town houses on the other side was suggestive that the people share the space which was made not only tolerable but desirable by the landscape treatment of street trees and sidewalks that were setback from the curb line. That was the first decision that came out of the design teams discussion with the City. That this would be a shared street. They carried that into the apartment complex and made the decision that the major circulation would not be through the back ends of parking areas, but rather along streets where there would be parallel parking. The streets were 24 feet wide with 12 foot travel lanes and in most cases was one side of eight-foot wide parallel parking. In some sections there would be two parking spaces and then a tree, two parking spaces and then � 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 , a tree, so the street space was still shaped by these street trees. On the other side where there wasn't parking would be a parkway and then the sidewalk. There was a question about exterior stairways into the apartrnents. That was true for these types of buildings. What they did to address the issue which he thought was one of the weaknesses of exterior stairs, was to make them into a stoop so that the design of the stair takes up three steps, has an enclosed wall, and then springs off to the second floor and they brought that stoop out to within six feet of the sidewalk so that the public realm includes this landing of about 18 inches high and includes a wall enclosing that which is a place where kids sit and could lean against so that throughout the neighborhood the sidewalk was a part of the public shared realm shaded by trees, protected from traffic and relating to the building which is a liveable experience. It was sort of an ambiguous space in that it was not exactly public and not exactly private. It was that in between realm and that is what they tried to bring the greatest attention to in their design. In the case of the town homes, front � porches, not stairways, address the street and were also close � enough to have a conversation as you walk by but still maintain privacy. What shaped this layout was an unusual notch taken out, a desire to not align with Corporate, and third was energy and orienting the buildings for a north and south exposure primarily as opposed to east and west. Energy conservation dictated a generally east-west direction of the buildings. A fronting on the street so that the street was a place where life takes place. The front door opens onto a shared realm and parking was a pocket off of the main road as opposed to the endless stream of the rear ends of cars that is common in an apartment development. The structure of the social life was so that there was open space with a tot lot. There was a larger tot lot, pool and open space. From previous experience with projects they have designed, the front door facing the street was a place where children sit and people walk with their strollers and this became part of the community life. In terms of the architectural character, what they tried to do with the repeated gable ends was to suggest that each were units and there was a certain identity to the unit, that it wasn't an undifferentiated mass, it was articulated by these roofs and the � 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 ... balcony. The vertical elements were actuaily suggestive of chimneys. They weren't, they were an extension of storage and water heater closets. He said that the stairs actually came out and actually turned the corner. The drawing wasn't accurate. He showed the town house units and said they again tried to identify each of them as a separate element with a front door protected from the weather and yet facing the street. In a town house unit the stairway was on the inside. There were rear garages with normal roN up doors. He showed the community building. He said that because of its presence and location, suggestive of the terminus of the street, not exactly on axis, but suggestive, it became a sort of a part of the community as a whole. So they wanted it to have a stately scale and character so it had this front with a shaded pergola in front, awnings for both accent color and shade and a two-story with a manager's unit above. The rear and sides followed with the same hip and gable roofs. He noted there isn't a developer for the single family development. However when they began this project the City mandated that the developer look at this as an integrated community. Therefore to p(ace the '� streets in a location and create individual lots that were buildable and were supporting of the same criteria of energy conservation in the sense of continuity of the neighborhood, the City asked that they prepare some schematic designs. He showed a design of the typical lot for the two-story unit. The garage was pulled back so that it was off the street. The paved area was what they called the toddler zone. The window from the kitchen looking out and a sliding glass door from the family room was a place where two year olds on tricycles could play in a protected area and be viewed from the kitchen. He said that before he had children he used to think that the primary play area was grass. Now he found that there was as much activity in their driveway as there is in their backyard and relating the kitchen and family room access gave this another area for play outdoors. There was also a rear yard with a covered porch. He said he wanted to reemphasize that this is not part of the development, but it was their hope that this represented a base level for the developer who followed them and that they would recognize the principles that they used to generate this and would exceed them. He showed a site plan where there +■— 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 rr was a side entry to the driveway so that the garage didn't front on the street in terms of the door, and the rear had access from the family eating nook and master bedroom. Another rendering showed the driveway fairly close to the street. It was still back 26 feet but the outdoor space was off of the family room and kitchen. What the design team viewed as the responsibility was once they achieve the desired number of units to compose a site and compose the architecture so that the end result was a place they would be very pleased to {ive in thernselves. The guiding principles of those was that the outdoor space, there was a wide range of use for the outdoor space from open undifferentiated open space to the open space defined by sidewalk and stoop, to the open space dedicated for the tot lot. That range of open space was what they believed stitched together a neighborhood so that the residents feel when they come out their front door they are part of the larger community. The landscaping reinforced that. Using the landscape plan he pointed out that there were three primary things they tried to achieve. One was the street trees. They defined the street with trees. The second was that in the relatively unusable space these infill spaces as much as possible �+' they left thern native dirt or decomposed granite and plant drought tolerant shrubs so that the concentration of the green was in actual useable turfed areas. The third was that the basic palette of the landscape scheme was one that supports shade where the tree is used for shade and drought tolerant for all other elements. He pointed out where there would be protective walls and indicated they would share the street frontage. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan asked where the air-conditioning units would be located and if they were visible. Mr. Young said they would be on the ground and would be surrounded by shrubs. They would be split system units, the forced air units would be inside and the condenser units would be outside on the ground and shielded. 44 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 r.. MR. MARVIN ROOS addressed the commission. He felt that Mr. Young had addressed the site design principles. When they signed onto the project there was an approved site plan or at least the staff had developed a site plan that was okay. There were cul-de- sacs off of Merle, a kind of a Z street lined up with Corporate Way, and they said this wouldn't go over well with neighborhood residents and they needed to deal with that. They had the multifamily area walled off so they went through a variety of things to create what they feel is a strong compatibility with a housing site. The general plan and zoning were inconsistent right now. The general plan was for service industrial use. At one time there appeared to be a strong need for that. With the opening up of Cook at the freeway, access to the freeway was probably much better there for the service industrial so the City looked at this site and thought this needed to be a housing site. He thought they had designed this to create basically along Merle the vision of single family residences that are pretty much compatible across the street and at the same time not encouraging all the traffic to come out. The way the site is designed, he thought they were �""' pushing about 65% of the traffic to the north to 42nd Street. At the same time they didn't want to preclude the possibility of anyone from the south moving north and anyone from the north moving south. He thought that Mr. Young touched on it but he thought it was important that the main north-south street would also have street trees with the sidewalk separated so that it is a walking community. It is designed to be an area that will encourage people to get out and walk. They won't be walking next to blank walls but front doors all up and down the street, so they thought they were creating a community that people would be happy to live in and all aspects of it and would match up well with the existing community. The only technical study they felt was going to be critical was the traffic study. Mr. Endo has worked in the Coachella Valley and has probably done 80-100 traffic studies. They worked with him throughout the communities and at this point the analysis was that this community would integrate into ihe existing without significant negative traffic impacts. Again, they were going to generate approximately 2,300 trips in total off of everything. That was �... 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 ; u,,,i► about 65% of it heading north toward 42nd and that could move north along Corporate to Merle and/or move east to Cook Street. At the same time some of the traffic would move south to Merle and actually about 70 trips were seen as sneaking down Clifford and Christian and Rebecca and coming out at Sheryl, primarily a right-turn movement there. So they thought they would add about 750 trips at Merle and Cook, 950 at 42nd and Cook, and about 590 at Corporate and Hovley with the significant traffic moving south on Cook once it got there. If this were left as service industrial, traffic would be over 4,000 trips per day and have a truck component to it that this would not have at this point. One of the issues was if this was a site they wanted to move people onto because of the proximity to the service industrial. They felt this was not an incompatible issue. Obviously there was landscaping and walls that were suggested to create those buffers. At the same time the area that was left out, the City's Corporation Yard, so they had a pretty good tenant there with the City, and the alternative was to move the service industrial toward � the existing residents and they felt this was a far better situation j to finish off this part of the community. This was basically the � major vacant site in the area although here was some interest down at Sheryl and Cook recently. This was a good site that matched this all up. He said that Mr. Endo was present if the commission had any questions. Again, he thought that Mr. Young explained why this was a community that was developing as opposed to pieces of housing that would be put down. One of the reasons there were changes was that Mr. Crites came to one of thei� meetings and said that this had to be an award winning project and had to have the best energy possible and they had to create a great community here, so they really rethought the issues and hoped they had done that. Commissioner Jonathan said that the site plan appeared to have primary access from 42nd Avenue. It had been indicated that there wasn't a developer for the single family residentiat at this point, so for a period of time the project would be limited to one access point, if he wasn't mistaken, and that would just be to 42nd Street. � 46 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 r.. Mr. Roos said that was correct for the multifamily. The intent was to improve the entry street down to the turn around so that would be the issue there. There would be some utility and infrastructure development with phase one which would be the sewer and water connections which would be down to Merle and they would have to work with CVWD on whether they had to finish Merle off at this point, but there wouldn't be any through connection of the entire street system with phase one. That would only come with the development of the single family portion. Commissioner Jonathan asked with the initial development of the multifamily there would only be one ingress/egress point on 42nd. Mr. Roos said that was correct. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was ever any thought given in terms of the circulation design to extending an access point both in the short term and in the long term to Merle Drive from the multifamily residential, so that if they looked at the southern end of the multifamif y r"" residential a street that would join that other street and cut through to Merle. Mr. Roos said it was discussed. They went through the issue of how they felt the traffic mix wanted to be and what they kind of expected in terms of concerns by the surrounding neighborhood and it was felt that to concentrate the multifamily traffic to the north was the goal of the design of the land and then keep the traffic along Merle more of a single family type of character. Again, allowing the movement through but not facilitating it through. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was looking at the possibility of congested traffic trying to get in and out of 42nd and Mr. Roos was saying that in fact that in essence was the desire and goal of the project to steer the traffic northerly toward 42nd. Mr. Roos said to steer the multifamily through. He didn't think it would be congested and certainly not congested at buildout. He � 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 ; s � � didn't think there was any reason for it to be congested at this point with phase one. They had about 1 62 multifamily units and 110-117 single family so the 35% would still maintain that as they had projected in the traffic study. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked who would be able to use the pool and what size the pool would be. Mr. Horn said that the pool would be fo� the apartments only and they hadn't gotten down to the exact size of the pool. It would be sized according to the number of units and the number of people they were planning on for the project. To get in front of the commission tonight, they spent a lot of time on the bigger issues of the project, but the pool size would be adequate for the entire apartment project. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked how he was proposing to keep kids that were in the 1 17 single family homes from using the pool because their � natural intent would be to want to swim with their friends who might live in the multifamily site. � Mr. Horn said that it would be located next to the management office so that they would be observed. Pools like this had to be fenced and they would take the appropriate precautions to see to it that it is used by the tenants for the most part. Mr. Drell asked if the guests of the tenants would be allowed to swim in the pool. Mr. Horn said yes. Ms. La Rocca added that it appeared that the entire project was entirely open to the surrounding community but it wasn't. There would be walls separating the multifamily from the single family. The town houses along the main thoroughfare would actually be a house gate so that they couldn't go through into the back of the property into the compound. So while it wouldn't be entirely fenced off with walls all the way around it, there would be no � 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 r. passage into the interior of the multifamily from the single family. But to the extent that they are at a point to develop the multifamily, a consideration could be designating a section within the single family for perhaps a community pool in the future. Vice Chairperson Finerty said she didn't know how tall they were planning to build the walls, but kids could be pretty creative. They still had kids from Tucson homes climbing over the walls into their complex on a regular basis. She didn't know if that was a total answer for this. She thought that it might be a short-sighted solution and something maybe in the ideal world but kids would be kids and she felt the overall benefit of the project, if this was going to be award winning, was to supply pools for everyone or one large pool that the entire community could use. From her estimations with 162 multifamily units and 117 single family units, if they had four people in each of them, that would be over 1 ,100 people in total and given the fact that they would have two, three and four bedrooms, they could even have six people. It was logical to assume that 50% could be kids and they all knew that kids needed something to do and knew how hot it can be and she genuinely i`"" had a concern. Ms. La Rocca said that was why this particular site was geared toward a family project simply because there were other amenities in close proximity, i.e., the soccer park, and when they started to develop the single family, that was something that they would take into consideration. She thought that Mr. Horn could speak more about his current projects which are of a similar size and nature with respect to the use of the facilities. She pointed out that there would be tot lots and playground areas for the children within the compound so that those that don't swim would have some recreational activities. Vice Chairperson Finerty said that Mr. Young went through great detail to say that the overall concept was that it wouldn't be separated. But in a sense by segregating the pool and tot lots that was exactly what they were doing and those two thoughts weren't consistent. ; � 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � ..i Mr. Horn explained that the multifamily program they developed under requi�ed a certain number of amenities. His firm typically went in significantly heavier. Their tot lots and recreation areas, and when he said tot lot they used the same materials that go into Burger King's and McDonald's and places like that with the slides and swings. They end up spending just in a smaller project 560,000 to 5100,000 on their recreation facilities and that was on a project half this size. They would accommodate all the tenants and their guests. Due to the way the world is they couldn't open up and legally say that everyone could use their pool and recreational facilities. There was another drawback to doing that and that was liability. They would do their best to make the project look and feel as open as possible. With his understanding of the way the site plan worked, there would be wrought iron fencing. There were no plans for a gated community right now and this would be his first open community like this for families. He had open senior projects but all of his previous farnily developments had been gated. There would be fencing so that there wouldn't be a free flow of traffic through the units. + ..� Vice Chairperson Finerty said that if the overall theme was to be inclusive, then it seemed that the way it was being set up as far as common area amenities was that they were drawing a line and she didn't have a level of comfort with that. Mr. Drell indicated that they started with completely gated, two walled communities with a demilitarized zone between them. There is some requirement for control by the responsible owner of the apartments for his site. They tried to the greatest extent to visually integrate it by not having visible walls and having the shared street, but it was no different to a certain degree than having a private backyard in a single family home in that they didn't invite everyone into their backyard or swimming pool. They controlled it and reserved the right to the access of people who weren't friends or guests into the backyard. That was the way they saw the interior of the apartment project. In essence it was the backyard of houses. Visually it was open from the street or similar to a typical residential where there was a public space in front and a private space in the back. Here the private space was a lot more extensive so it was a hybrid. The point of having common facilities and common recreation that would serve the rest of � ; e , 50 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � the development just like the guests and friends of theirs visit their backyard, there would be guests and friends from throughout the city visiting in the apartment project, but they would be there at the control and request of the residents. In the sarne way if there were facilities in a single family area operated by the homeowners association, they would have the same privilege of inviting their guests to use the facility, but again under the supervision and responsibility of the residents so in essence these were two developments with their backyards and they would hopefully interchange and share their amenities, but there would be separate responsibility and restricted just like in someone's private backyard. Vice Chairperson Finerty said that in her homeowners association they have a very difficult time controlling kids and asked Mr. Horn what the hours would be that the manager would be on duty. Mr. Horn said that the management office would be open six days a week from about 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and sometimes 10:00 a.m. and it was earlier than that during initial run ups. They have �"' live-in onsite management 24 hours per day. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if it was day seven and it was their day off, she asked who would then assure what kids are allowed into the pool or tot lots. Mr. Horn said there were onsite assistant managers as well so there was a trade on and trade off with someone not necessarily being in the office and doing work in the office, but there was someone responsible for the project there 24 hours a day seven days a week. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that they were seeing 1 17 single family homes with some thought as to how they should be developed and asked how the commission knew that they would in fact be developed that way and what assurance they had that what they were seeing tonight was actually going to happen. r.,,,, 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Ms. La Rocca said that the balance of the project they hoped to at least be looking at some type of proposals from developers within the next couple of years. She could assure the commission that given the standards that the City of Palm Desert has placed not only on this project, but places on projects throughout the city, that they would meet a certain standard in the development of the single family housing. Could she give them an assurance tonight? No, she couldn't. She could only go by the standards that the City Council has set for them as far as development is concerned. Vice Chairperson Finerty indicated that there was a suggestion about putting in some infrastructure going to the single family homes to give some assurance. Ms. La Rocca said that they talked about going in with a tentative tract map and asked if Mr. Drell could address that issue. Mr. Drell said that there were all sorts of levels of assurances. One ' would be steady progress toward a development. Second would be approval of a tentative tract map and the engineering. The more investment that goes into a plan the more likelihood that plan would not be abandoned. He said there have been projects where we have required people to put in curbs and gutters and sewers and utilities. The difference here is that we are dealing with the commitment of the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council and the goal of the neighborhood would be to have that commitment to be as strong as it could be. That was the ultimate decision of the Council. Ms. La Rocca said that this is one of their focus areas for the Redevelopment Agency, specifically those areas where they have done considerable work in the neighborhood to the south through their home improvement program as well as their special Make A Difference Day events. Their goal is to work with the neighborhood to the south to help not only improve that neighborhood but also to blend this neighborhood with theirs so that they could become a much larger much more whole community. That was truly a goal and was certainly her goal. 52 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSlON MAY 15, 2001 �.. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification that the 1 17 single family homes would be low to mode�ate income homes also. Ms. La Rocca said yes. They were anticipating and hoping to create a nice blend of housing. One of the considerations had been a blend of self help as well as senior housing. Perhaps the senior housing would abut Portola Country Club so that the buyers of that corridor were quieter and don't have kids playing in the backyard. Perhaps some for profit developer construction, but they would be for sale with a subsidy from the Agency to provide affordability. That wasn't to say that the construction would be in any way inferior to any other construction in the city, it was just that the affordability covenants and affordability assistance would be provided. Commissioner Tschopp asked if she would anticipate the apartment complexes to be held to the same standards as Desert Rose. �.► Ms. La Rocca said yes, absolutely. Commissioner Jonathan asked what the RDA's role would be in terms of ownership of this property. Ms. La Rocca stated that the Agency would not own the property. They would contribute the property or sell the property to the developer for the project. They would provide the financial assistance in the form of a loan to the developer. Once the project is constructed the developer would be the owner and operator of the project. The Agency would receive 55-year affordability covenants in exchange for our participation in the project which meant that those units would stay affordable for 55 years. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the owner would have responsibility for managing the p�oject. Ms. La Rocca said yes. +ti.� 5 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Commissioner Jonathan asked if guidelines had been developed for management standards. Ms. La Rocca said there were extremely strict guidelines and were more strict then the Agency's 745 rental units that they own and operate because he would be functioning under the guidelines that are applied to tax credit projects through the State of California. Mr. Horn said that he has four or five layers of oversight for the management. This program involved the sale of tax credits. The investors that have put in money in his previous projects had been Northwest Mutual, Bank of America, Aetna and Chase. They fund a company called Related Capital who manages their assets for them. So they do asset management, the State of California does a project management, the City would have an overview of it, the first trust deed lender if there is one would have one, and then his management company and he oversees them. So if he let something slip, the State could step in, his partners could step in, ' or his investors could step in and actually remove him. The actual investors in the project actually come by and view them about annually. Commissioner Jonathan asked what degree RDA had as oversight if the City of Palm Desert or the Redevelopment Agency was dissatisfied with the management, or anything with the project in one year, five years, ten years, or 40 years. Mr. Horn said that the development agreement that they sign has some requirements of him. The partnership agreement that he signs with his investors has a lot of requirements. They fill a banker's box with that stuff. Commissioner Jonathan said he wanted to know what control the City of Palm Desert and RDA had on this project once it was built. Mr. Horn said he would have to sit down and look at the DDA. i 54 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 `. Ms. La Rocca said that part of the DDA would require that the developer submit to them on a regular basis certain reports. They would review those reports and intended to monitor the project. Commissioner Jonathan stated that in other areas of Palm Desert they have had complaints. Some of these units are three bedroom units. They have had complaints about houses that have 12, 15 and 20 people inhabiting them. Six, seven, eight and ten cars in the driveway, on the street and in the yard. Let's say that happened here. Ms. La Rocca said that would be the property manager's and property owner's responsibility to monitor. Commissioner Jonathan said that was exactly the point. ff the City of Palm Desert sees that situation and is unhappy, he asked what control the City would have over that situation. Ms. La Rocca said they didn't have any control because it was in essence a private project. W.► Mr. Drell asked if there were limitations on occupancy in the units. Ms. La Rocca said yes. Mr. Drell said that they could impose through the DDIA annual inspections. Ms. La Rocca said that was included. Commissioner Jonathan asked what happened when there were violations. Ms. La Rocca said there were control mechanisms, but could they go in an pull the rug out from under him because we aren't happy because the grass isn't green the answer was no. But they did have monitoring and some controls within the DDA. ,.� 5 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � Mr. Horn said that the program itself would not allow them to overcrowd. One of the penalties of doing that, if they violated any of the conditions that this program puts in, is that the tax credits go away. If he was endangering the tax credits in the project by the way that the management company was handling it and he was failing to somehow take action on their negligence or their neglect, he would be removed and someone would be put in there to do it because what happens to the investor who buys these tax credits and turns them into the IRS is that if they go away they have recapture. So there was a tremendous amount of oversight on this in order to keep anyone from letting these things turn into a problem. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matter. Mr. Drell said he had a quick response to Commissioner Jonathan's question. The City has a property maintenance ordinance which applies to all property within the city, public or private, and therefore this property would be subject to that property maintenance ordinance and the City could cite and require improvement to any property that was not maintained to the community standards. MR. HENRY R. McCARTY, 74-409 Angels Camp Road in Palm Desert, addressed the commission. He said he wanted to commend the members of the Planning Commission for all the time they had been paying close attention to all of the proceedings and the questions that they asked were very significant. Having spent eight years as a City Councilman and five years on a Regional Planning Commission, he understood the responsibility they have. He said he has lived in Palm Desert for approximately four and a half years. They lived here for approximately four years in the late 1980's. He first was aware of this project in about October. They were given a site plan that was radically different ihan the one they learned about last Monday, eight days ago. Up to this time the developer or the City had not provided them with copies of the new site plan or to the Board of Directors of Portola Country Club. He called the office today and asked if they had 56 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 �.. them and they didn't. He thought that it would be appropriate that copies of the new site plan be provided to them. He had a number of questions because he did write an extensive document to Mr. Ortega in November, Mr. Ortega answered his letter on December 27 some six weeks after it. First, he had reviewed the traffic study for the project. He wanted to make the following observations. The study was incomplete because the study area for the project did not include the intersection of Hovley Lane and Portola which would be impacted by this project. In the specific request in the RFP for the traffic study, that was not included. The study included the intersections to the east. The main shopping and business of this project was to the west, the north and to the south on Portoia and Hovley dead ends at Portola so it had to go either to the north or the south and if they had looked at the traffic on Portola, they knew that they go by a school, go through the wash, go to the intersection of Fred Waring and then it narrowed down to two lanes at Catalina before it reached Highway 111 . Portola would be impacted by 2,800 additional cars and Merle would not be open for at least two or three years �`" so none of that would be syphoned off from 42nd and Corporate Way onto Hovley. He said it was interesting that the traffic counts reported in the study on page 3-2 were made on Tuesday, April 10, 2001 . This was beyond the seasonal peak traffic season in the desert, If it was made in January or February it would be more accurate. He didn't believe that an April reading of traffic was as accurate and representative of the full traffic pattern that would be on 42nd, on Corporate Way or on Hovley. He thought that was a shortcoming of the traffic study that must be addressed because the commission knew and he knew that on Highway 1 1 1 and Portola in January the traffic was much more severe and more difficult to navigate than it is on April 10 or an May 15. He found no reference in the traffic study to pedestrian traffic in the area. The 162 plus 1 17 units would generate 550 plus children. Many living in affordable housing would walk to school, either to the Carter School or maybe walk as far as Portola to the middle school located off of Portola or they might have to walk to Cook and walk down to the Palm Desert High School. He thought that any study of this site must consider the pedestrian •..• 5 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � � ..� walkways or the sidewalks. He had gone through Corporate Way and there weren't sidewalks in all the areas. He thought that was a necessary part of this traffic study that was overlooked and in the RFP for it no consideration was given to the fact that children live in the area and they would be walking. There were no stores they could go to. If they decided they wanted to ride the bus, they would have to go all the way to Cook because according to the traffic study Cook was the only place they could access Sunline. Sunline wasn't on Portola or Hovley. So they had pedestrian traffic which should be addressed just as much as automobile traffic. He considered the traffic study as being incomplete and inadequate. They said there would be 2,800 cars generated from this project all of them coming out onto 42nd, turning right to Cook, or going right and then left on Corporate Way to Hovley, right to Cook, left to Portola. He complimented the Commission that for three hours and 15 minutes the Commission and the audience had stayed with them. He thought that Mr. Drell might have gone to sleep a couple of times because � he had a habit of watching people at public hearings to see who � . was sleeping and snoring and who wasn't. The children living in � the developments must walk through an industrial area to get to any services, to schools, etc. There were no stores in the immediate area until they got all the way to Cook and he didn't think there were many stores that children living in the project would be going to. They could go to ihe post office, but they couldn't get into the post office on Hovley. They walk in there at 8:30 a.m. when it opens and there are 35 people and every parking space in the parking lot was full. They would have to walk by Waste Management's yard, the Glass and Stone Works, or the American Storage Yard, which when he went to look at it and watched it every now and then, it was full of drums, it was full of litter, full of old burned out cars and some of them were still there a week ago. They would have to walk by the Palm Desert Public Works Yard where hazardous waste is collected and disposed of on a regular basis and he could look at the December 20 Bright Side and it said that hazardous waste would be available to be picked up at the Waste Management facility and then on October 27 hazardous waste could be dropped off and that included ` 58 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 +.. pesticides, thinners, batteries, paint, acid, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, any acid. He started his life as a chemist so he was familiar with the acids and bases. They didn't take hypodermic needles, however. And then again in the report on May 9 and 10 at 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Public Works Maintenance Yard. Waste Management said they would be accepting waste at 71-757 Eclectic Way. That was only about three blocks away from where this project intersects into 42nd Street. He thought that if they went and looked at Waste Management's yard they would find a lot of hazardous waste there. Anyone that said that household waste wasn't hazardous they really hadn't examined a lot of household waste because people did put into household waste a lot of things they should not and in the Palm Desert publications they admonished people not to do that, but it did occur. He thought there were a number of automobile repair shops in the area. If they checked with the automobile repair shop, they had to collect and recycle at least seven or eight different types of hazardous waste. There is a automobile repair shop, the bus line immediately across the street i"� on 42nd Street from the entrance to this project. He considered the location of the project next to an industrial area as quite inappropriate. He said that he favored affordable housing. He supports affordable housing and he had through a record of 45 years of public service supported it and he would support any project and would commend the architects that the changes they made to this project from the first time it was shown to them were quite remarkable and he thought it could be a very fine community. But to put affordable housing in the middle of an industrial area he thought was wrong and the Commission asked important questions about the management of this. Would it be a slum in five years. Would it be a slum in eight years. Would it be a slum in ten years. He asked these questions and unless the City had control over the project to see that those kinds of problems did not develop then the project must be reexamined. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that Mr. McCarty had gone over the five minute limit and requested that he finish his comments. �.. 5 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Mr. McCarty asked for clarification that they established five minutes to a hearing because in the documents they admonished anyone that if they speak at the hearing that if they don't include any items that they might take legal action on then they cannot take legal action on that item because if he was denied the opportunity to make his statement and he decided to take legal action, they were denying him the opportunity to take that action and he didn't believe that the attorney would agree to that being appropriate. Mr. Hargreaves stated that he would agree that the Commission has the ability to limit public comments to five minutes. Mr. McCarty said that this was a hearing. Mr. Hargreaves said that he also had the opportunity to submit comments in writing if he didn't believe five minutes is enough. The Commission obviously could not be forced to sit and listen to people '; endlessly. In order to make that kind of a record it didn't take an endless � amount of time to make the comments that needed to be made. +■� Mr. McCarty stated that he would make one additional comment. He obtained a copy of the environmental checklist form that was used for the project and found that there were 17 categories, 86 items. When it was determined that there were no environmental hazards, only nine items were determined. Nothing was said about the schools even though there was a letter from the School District nothing was checked. So it appeared that the environmental impact report did not reference all of the items that were potential problems with this project. The project was in the wrong location. The project approval should be continued and the questions that he asked and posed and with their permission he would submit in writing. He did submit in writing to Mr. Ortega and in his response on December 27 he stated that an environmental impact report would be prepared at the appropriate time in the approval process. Public input would be requested. Mr. McCarty asked when public input opportunity was provided for the environmental impact report. He didn't recall any and in 60 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 rr.. checking with people he had not heard of any request for input on it. When he read it he found it to be quite inadequate and he thought it didn't cover all the items. In fact, when he looked at it there was more concern about the lizards in the area than the children in the area. He thanked the Commission. MR. JERRY PFANNKUCHE, 74-547 Merle Drive, stated that he has lived in this location about 18 years and had been in the neighborhood for 20 years. He stated that he was in favor of single family homes as a Desert Rose type of situation. With the apartments going in he was concerned that the other houses would not be built. He was concerned with the apartments having to many residents and too many people living in the houses. He wanted to voice his opinion and he thought the commission seemed to be covering all the bases. MR. FRANK REESE, 74-523 Azurite Circle East in the Portola Mobile Home Park, said this is where his parents have lived since the 1980's. He said he was speaking on behalf of his parents, He � had a question about the legal notice. The request stated that the general plan amendment would be to have affordable high density for 35 of the subject 40 acres and he knew that the plan just showed 12 acres. It was confusing since it stated that 35 of the acres would be high density. Mr. Drell said that they modified the request and the high density only applied to the 12 acres and six units per acre obviously didn't qualify as high density. He said that it would all be affordable housing, so in essence the project they saw in front of them now in terms of the designation was less than high density. Mr. Reese suggested that some language be incorporated so that it was very clear that some day in the future someone didn't try and develop the remaining acreage into high density. Mr. Drell said that was why the change of zone didn't change the single family portion into high density. It was changed to PR-6 which only allowed six units per acre and was a similar density as the mobile home +.. 61 MINUTES PALM DESERT PIANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � ..� subdivision. The actual change of zone did not permit high density. Even the one before the commission was relatively moderate in terms of apartments. The action that the Planning Commission was taking wasn't approving the legal notice, it was approving a resolution to City Council and that specified six units per acre in the single family portion. Mr. Reese asked if that would be a matter of record once this was voted upon. Mr. Drell said yes. There would be a legal document, a resolution, approved and an exhibit which identifies that portion as PR-6, not high density. In zoning an ordinance is approved and that ordinance would specify the zoning as PR-6. Mr. Reese said the high density was the only area of concern he wanted to bring up. The area right now was all zoned for single family. 4 Mr. Drel( said that the area in the middle where the apartments would be � located was zoned for 14 units per acre, which qualified in the zoning as � high density. The apartments would be high density. If the project is approved, that is what is proposed. Mr. Reese stated that his biggest concern was the high density. He followed the proposal that this team brought forward and he could see that they had done a very good job of putting together with what they had to work with in the location they had and while the location might not be the best for that purpose, he felt they were presenting something that is good. His concern was that it was a much higher density then what was in the general neighborhood now. Not only the mobile home park, but the adjoining single family neighborhood on the southerly portion. His second comment was that it would be great to have a senior citizen affordable housing area along the westerly portion but he asked if there could be some restriction now that that street would be single level and not two story. , +, 62 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 `.. Mr. Drell said that all the single family units would be single story except the ones on the entry drive off of 42nd. All of the other units would be single story. Mr. Reese asked if that would be on record. Mr. Drell said yes. Mr. Reese said those were his biggest concerns. If there was any way they could reduce the density and still keep the project, he thought that would make a lot more people happy. Mr. Horn readdressed the commission. He commented that there had been ongoing communications with Portola Country Club. They had their first meeting with them in October and that had taken some time to set up, a couple of months at least, and they had at least monthly correspondence going back and forth from October through April and they decided to set up their own meeting just recently because they weren't able to set up another �"" meeting with their board and their general residents to show them at their own location the new plan. A couple of weeks ago they sent out a notice and had a meeting at Carter Elementary School not only for the residents at Portola Country Club, but also for the residents that live south of Merle. They did have documentation on all of their contacts which were numerous over the months with Portola Country Club to keep them and their management informed and the only person they could contact basically was iheir management and that was what they did. Vice Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked for comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that there were certain aspects to the project that he liked. He didn't know if they needed to get into some of the design elements that he had problems with and some circulation issues, but overall his biggest problem with this was that looking at the apartment aspect as a stand alone project which is what they had to do because essentialfy that was what was being presented to them. He �.. 63 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 thought it didn't work. It was too much. The density was too high for that particular area. One of the things that could be done to help it work was access to Merle. To have that many people living in that smatl of a place, 162 units times four or more was 640 people and all the car trips and one ingress/egress was inappropriate. He thought they were being forced to look at this as a stand alone apartment complex because there was no assurance when or if the single family residential would ever be developed. And that really skewed what they were looking at. The general plan amendment going from S.I. to affordable high density, he guessed he could be persuaded that that was appropriate if the project was softened up but not in its present form. He was really concerned that tight controls didn't appear to exist where the City could step in and intervene if there were violations such as overcrowding, lack of maintenance, or painting, roofing, landscaping going down hill - those kinds of issues. He asked the question and didn't hear any positive response that indicated that yes, they have an agreement that RDA can step in and these were the measures it would be allowed to take. He thought they were setting themselves up for a problem. He agreed with � Mr. McCarty and thought he made a couple of excellent points. One was � that the traffic study did not address the impact on Hovley and Cook and the impact on Hovley and Portola and there were some major issues there. The soccer park has events, the school brought in a lot of traffic, so 550 kids plus and he could see even more than that. The point that Mr. McCarty made about pedestrian walkways was excellent. To force 500 to 600 kids onto busy industrial streets was setting ourselves up for tragedy and he didn't want to be part of that. If this were to work in his mind, the density would have to come down. To avoid this issue of poor section or wealthy section, the simple solution in his mind would be to integrate it. Why have apartments in one section and single family in another. He suggested enclaves of an eight unit apartment buildings surrounded by single family residences with a pool and something along those lines. But this was too intense, too concentrated into a small area with inadequate traffic circulation in his mind. Commissioner Campbell concurred on some things. She agreed with Mr. McCarty and all of the children that would be there and if they were walking to school, some of the arterial streets did have sidewalks but some didn't. Also, there could be a family of four or six living in the 64 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 ` apartments, but they didn't really know how many people could move in there without the manager knowing how many were actually living in the apartments even if they didn't have cars. They didn't have to have cars, but the bodies could be in the buildings. She travels Corporate and 42nd to go to Joni Drive and right now it wasn't very busy but if they don't have any intention of widening Corporate Way or 42nd, there would be a lot of traffic coming in and out for just that one particular area. She agreed with Commissioner Jonathan that the street should be open with some access onto Merle. Regarding the pool, she didn't know if Desert Rose had any problem with all of those tenants and only one pool. (Ms. La Rocca shook her head no.) She said that perhaps this section wouldn't have any problems either, but without seeing the overall picture of what would be happening in the near future with all the single family residences, she would be in favor if the density wasn't as high density in the area. If there was high density, she thought they should have more street access than what was proposed right now. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that there was volumes of information given to them Friday and good testimony tonight. He said he �`""" had no problems with the apartments themselves and as far as the concept he was in favor. It was not only something the City needed to do but something the city needed and he was in favor of that. His big concern was the location. There weren't a lot of services and there seemed to limited access in and out of there. If they looked at other areas in the city where there are apartments they are closer to services like grocery stores, etc., and that wasn't a problem except a lot of people using this would probably be the type that would need to use those services and it seemed out of place given the access and so forth. Other than that the density wasn't a problem if it was done right and maintained right. Other apartment complexes in the city he assumed had similar density and they always hoped that someone would maintain a project but he thought it could work and be maintained. He said this was a project that he would have liked more time to study and to look at other issues that were raised. Vice Chairperson Finerty stated that Mr. Young went to great trouble to make it one community and she really felt that was the way to go. But once they got the multifamily apartments they started segregating and �.. 65 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 she thought that was totally wrong. She would be in favor of having the whole project come back with the multifamily as well as the single family use incorporated into one theme where they were having everyone belonging to the same community as opposed to saying that they couldn't use the pool and they can't use the tot lot. That was incompatible with the goal they were trying to reach. She would not be in favor of the project at this time for that reason along with the needed access to Merle and they didn't know when or if the single family homes presented tonight would be built and she felt it was important to look at the project in its entirety instead of piece meal. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and stated that the only thing that could really make this work in his mind and kind of address some of his concerns was a project that was presented and developed in its entirety without any risk that they would end up only with apartments and no single family residential, so he didn't know how to proceed at this point. If the applicant was wanting to continue the matter and thought they could address that issue and perhaps put together a comprehensive � project in one phase that would be fine. If not, then they could take a vote on the matter. For him he would have to see a corr�prehensive project before he could be persuaded that this had a chance to work. Commissioner Campbell noted that this developer would not be the one for the whole project anyway. Vice Chairperson Finerty said they could just ask RDA what they would like since they were overseeing the entire project. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked how long it would take them or if they would like the commission to continue this as opposed to denying it, so that they could see a project in its entirety. Ms. La Rocca stated that she was asking the Commission to deny it. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for confirmation that she wanted it denied. j Ms. La Rocca said that was correct. 66 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that they didn't have a resolution of denial before them and asked if that was correct. Mr. Hargreaves said no, they didn't and before they did he wanted an opportunity, he wasn't prepared to do so tonight, to review the obligations of the City under State law with respect to low income housing. There was some rather dramatic potential ramifications. The City has certain responsibilities and the circumstances under which it could deny a low income housing project was rather circumscribed so he would like an opportunity to prepare that kind of a report for the commission before final action was taken on this project. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked how long of a continuance he was recommending. Ms. La Rocca asked Mr. Drell to intervene. Mr. Drell said that obviously the City Attorney could come back in two weeks to give them that and they could have a resolution of denial prepared for them at that time and then they could respond specifically to the issues that they brought up. That was all they could do if there wasn't a willingness to approve it at this time. Part of the issue was that �"" there were certain time constraints on the financing of this project which was required for them to meet certain Redevelopment Agency legal obligations that we have so there was a certain desire that if the Commission had specific problems or recommendations which would be to the City Council that they make those recommendations and let the City Council hear those recommendations and make their decision which would allow the project to either be denied or approved, but if it was approved it would allow them to meet those financial legal obligations and there were some financial ramifications also to the Redevelopment Agency. Vice Chairperson Finerty said that she assumed Ms. La Rocca wanted this denied so that they could just appeal this to the City Council. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Drell said yes, so that it could be heard by the City Council. Vice Chairperson Finerty said that they were being advised by the City Attorney that before they did that he would like an opportunity to study it. Mr. Drell said that to a certain degree they weren't necessarily denying it, they were making a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Mr. Hargreaves said that with that a.� 6 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 qualification the Planning Commission would not actually be denying the project, it would be the City Council and they could have that discussion with the City Council. Mr. Drell said that they could give staff the findings. Commissioner Jonathan concurred that it was only a recommendation and asked if Mr. Drell needed to prepare a resolution of denial. Mr. Drell said it would be a resolution recommending to City Council denial and for the reasons stated. Basically they could act on that although normally they didn't have the time pressures that they have in this case. It wouldn't be going to Council until June 14 and in the meantime the commission could review the findings of their recommendation of denial at their next meeting so they could be assured when it goes to Council on the 14th they would have the full record of the reasons for their denial. Ms. La Rocca said that as a sense of comfort for those commissioners who have a concern about the project, the project was not one just developed by staff and the developer. It had been reviewed by the Housing Commission, with seven committee ' members on that committee. Commissioner Jonathan said that if she wanted to make a persuasive argument he thought that would be inappropriate at this time unless the public hearing was going to be reopened. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Drell for a distinction. If they voted to deny they weren't actually denying it, they were just making a recommendation. Mr. Drell concurred that they would just making a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff still felt the need to prepare a resolution of denial or if they could just end the matter here. Mr. Drell said that was an interesting point. They usually did that, but it was probably not absolutely necessary. Mr. Hargreaves didn't believe it was absolutely necessary. Mr. Drell said that they usually do it as a rnatter of documenting the findings to Council. If they voted for denial tonight, which they could do, that would initiate the appeal process immediately which allowed the appeal to the Council. Commissioner Jonathan said he was trying to accommodate that request. Mr. Drell said that they could then review with Commission the findings of denial at their next meeting, which 68 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 �.. would still be in time before the Council meeting so that on the 14th the Council would have a clear documented picture of the Commission's findings and reasons for denying the project. On that basis, Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would make a motion to recommend denial to the City Council. Commissioner Campbefl asked if they could also make some recommendations as to what they would like to have done to the project to City Council. Vice Chairperson Finerty said that she thought they did that in their comments. Mr. Drell said he had listed that the project density was too high. Commissioner Jonathan said that the biggest issue in his mind was that they were only being presented with the apartments. Mr. Drell said that on the other hand, that could simply be placed as a condition. They could say that the apartments could only proceed in conjunction with the development of the whole master plan, which was before them, Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't want to go backward because when they had this discussion with the applicant and gave them a choice they said to just deny it so he was okay with that at this point. Commissioner Campbell said that access was another reason for denial. Mr. Drell said �"� they wanted the commitment to construct the entire project including the complete circulation system and the single family units. Commissioner Jonathan said that with or without it, there was an access issue among the commission, particularly access onto Merle and traffic issues. Mr. Drell said that with the construction of a whole project there would be access to Merie. Commissioner Jonathan said they weren't debating the issue, Mr. Drell just asked what the reasons were for the record. Access onto Merle. Traffic impacts on Hovley at the Cook end and at the Portola end. Commissioner Campbel! said it was also sidewalks. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that there were pedestrian walkways and issues. Vice Chairperson Finerty said her concerns were with it not being an integrated project. Commissioner Jonathan said another reason was no direct and effective control by the City or RDA over potential mismanagement. Vice Chairperson Finerty said there was a motion of denial with findings and asked for a second. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Action: �.. 69 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 � It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, recommending to City Council denial of GPA 01-03, C/Z 01- 04, TT 29468, PP 01-1 1 , and TPM 30193. Motion carried 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS � None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No meeting) B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (May 2, 2001 ) Vice Chairperson Finerty said that GPAC talked about water, � sewers, power, made an endorsement of CVAG's feasibility study to form a local utility and touched on land use. E. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting) F. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) G. PALM DESERT/RANCHO MIRAGE MONTEREY AVENUE CORRIDOR PLANNING WORK GROUP - (No meeting) H. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS 1 . Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if there would be a quorum on July 3. She stated that she would be present. Commissioner Tschopp said he would be absent. Commissioner Campbell said she would be present. Commissioner Jonathan said he would check his calendar. Commissioner Campbell informed commission that she would be absent from the next 70 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15. 2001 � meeting. Vice Chairperson Finerty said she would also be absent. Staff would check with Chairperson Lopez. 2. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Commissioner Tschopp mentioned the Portola stacking and he wondered if staff could look into if there was any control the city has because Portola is in Portola. Mr. Drell said half of Portola is in Palm Desert. Mr. Greenwood said that they have been working closely with the Vintage about the problem out there. They were less than cooperative and we were in a position that we can only request their cooperation. We have no real authority other than to cite vehicles that were violating the vehicle code and sitting in the street. Sitting in the middle of the street is violating the vehicle code, so they haven't made as much progress there as they'd like. Staff was aware of the problem and would continue to work on it. 3. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the other request he had was that he recently became aware that the City has a bus shelter program and he wasn't real familiar with how it works but it came up in his mind as they were considering low income housing and so forth. He asked if it would `� be possible to get a representative from Sunline or the City to give the Commission under the Miscellaneous just a five minute presentation about how that program works. Mr. Drell said that we build bus shelters where we need them. Commissioner Jonathan said it wasn't that simple. The City didn't build them, the developer built them. Mr. Dell said that where we can't require a developer to build them the City builds them. Commissioner Jonathan said that there is a formal program that was adopted and the bus shelters were going up in the city. Mr. Drell said there was a bus shelter plan that designates where the stops are and where we need shelters. Commissioner Jonathan said he was told there wasn't. Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure who Commissioner Jonathan talked to. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was a Sunline project or City project. Mr. Drell said that Sunline didn't do it any more. There used to be one. But they couf d explain it at the next meeting. Mr. Greenwood said that currently Sunline only had two bus routes in Palm Desert. The Palm Desert Line ran along Country Club, Cook Street, Highway 1 1 1 and then makes its way over to Bob Hope and makes its way up to Eisenhower Medical Center and it only ran in a clockwise direction. Mr. Greenwood said that Sunline has a short range plan that � 71 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 ; , � r.ri functioned similar to the City's General Plan. Their short range plan only went three or seven years out. He had seen that short range plan and it did not expand any bus lines in the city of Palm Desert. So they envision onty maintaining this one bus line in addition to the Highway 1 1 1 bus line that runs through Palm Desert. The exception being that they would run this clockwise bus route both directions. So in the case of the RDA project, to build a bus shelter any where near the project would be less than productive because no bus would ever come to that bus shelter in the next three to seven years in Sunline's plan. Commissioner Jonathan noted that they have an existing bus stop on Cook and Merle and they were actually recommending that it be moved to place it further away from the low income project. So what he was trying to get at was having someone who could talk to them about how they make a determination of where shelters go. Mr. Drell said that they could have Ms. Riddle come to the meeting and explain it. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that Councilmember Kelly was also very knowledgeable about bus shelters. Mr. Drell thought that they were talking about a specific decision that was made in his case and that project. Commissioner � Jonathan said that brought it to his attention. He didn't know we had a program. He said that if they built this low income housing and other 'r such projects, it was a planning issue that was going to effect them and there would be more and more demand on the bus lines. Mr. Drell said that almost every project that is on the line gets examined as to whether a stop is appropriate on that line at that location. Commissioner Jonathan said that was his concern. As Planning Commissioners he thought they had to take that into consideration. He didn't understand how what the comrnission did interacted with what Sunline does. As an example he wasn't sure that they were aware that the City is recommending low income housing. That was a good example. Moving that bus stop further away from low income housing made absolutely no sense. He was trying to figure out how what the commission does integrated with what Sunline does. Mr. Drell agreed and said that point could be made in that particula� case. They even go to the extent of where they anticipate a stop some day and have made people build turnouts. They didn't want to build shelters where there weren't stops, but he thought in Commissioner Jonathan's particular case there rnight not have been full thought about the appropriate location for that stop and maybe it was more a matter of getting a developer to pay for it at " � .� 72 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 �.. another location. So Ms. Riddle could be present and she could discuss the criteria for deciding where stops should be. Commissioner Jonathan agreed and included that she could explain what they have done to integrate them with the City's plans and needs. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was one at Cook and Joni and Cook and Merle. 4. Commissioner Campbell noted that on Merle they had some people who enclosed their garage. Mr. Drell said he recalled the one that came before commission where they built a carport and the commission denied a variance on. Commissioner Campbell said that this one was just a garage and the door was broken and they enclosed it in so the children wouldn't run in and out of the garage. She stated that it was still like that and they have a window right there with their car parked outside. So it is still the way it was and is all finished and built. Mr. Drell said that they would report it to Code Enforcement to take a look at it. XII. ADJOURNMENT "r It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1 1 :00 p.m. •, . �`'� 1, PHILIP DREL , Secretary ATTEST: JIM EZ, Chai er Pal esert Planni C mmission /tm �.. 73