Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0819 CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �•► Tuesday, August 19, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathon led in the pledge of allegiance. 111. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Cindy Finerty Sabby Jonathan Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development ww Steve Smith, Planning Manager Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Gail Santee, Recording Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-03 — WEA PALM DESERT LP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (WESTFIELD AMERICA, INC., A MISSOURI CORPORATION), Applicant PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 Action: ` Commissioner Finerty moved, seconded by Commission Lopez, to approve the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vlll. 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 No. TT 31071 —WORLD DEVELOPMENT, INC., Applicant (Continued from July 15, 2003) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 36.63 acres on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 1,413 feet east of Monterey Avenue into 123 residential lots located at 73-400 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Drell stated staff had requested another continuance for one month, September 16, 2003, explaining that cases that are relevant to the General Plan were being referred to the same date the General Plan would be discussed by the Commission. Thereby, having cases that are either impacted by the change or are in themselves requesting a change to the General Plan. This case would be in parallel with the General Plan discussion. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing which was continued from the July 15th meeting. She asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request. There being none, Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the September 16th meeting would be so lengthy and pre-occupied with the General Plan that perhaps that meeting should be kept at just that topic. Mr. Drell replied that these cases were germane to the General Plan. They are specific examples and to a certain degree, they are what the most significant changes to the General Plan are about. They are relevant to the General Plan discussion. There are a minimum of two meetings scheduled for the General Plan. Commissioner Finerty asked Commissioner Jonathan if he was thinking what the General Plan was about before the Commission consider this case and instead continue it for two months. w\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 2 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan responded "yes". He felt that if the case were put on the September 16th agenda, there was a good chance it would be continued again. Mr. Drell stated the General Plan was, for the most part, already posted on City's website at www.cityofpalmdesert.org and click on the link to the General Plan. He suggested it would be helpful to illustrate the issues by looking at the projects. In addition, he felt the applicants of most of these projects would be present for the discussion of the General Plan. Commissioner Lopez noted this case had been submitted to the Commission with a recommendation of denial based upon the staff report. He asked what the applicant has to do in order to change the staff recommendation. He did not want it to appear exactly as it is at the next scheduled meeting without the applicant making an effort to make their application vital. Mr. Drell responded the applicant is working on a new plan to respond to the issues that had been brought up in their report. If changes have not been made by the next meeting, the Commission is free to deny it. Chairperson Campbell stated it would be something similar since the Commission hasn't worked on or approved the General Plan. ` w Mr. Drell stated the applicant has also chosen not to submit anything to the Architectural Review Committee. There are things they have chosen not to do that staff would have concerns about. In addition, there were other anomalies about the plan that have nothing to do with the General Plan that could have been grounds for denial. Commissioner Finerty suggested continuing the case for two months would give the applicant time and motivation to get the job done. Otherwise, this case will be before the Commission in a month with everyone else and there's a chance they won't be heard. Action: Commissioner Finerty moved, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, to continue Case No. TT 31071 to October 21, 2003. The motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. TT 31346 & VAR 03-01, Centennial Homes, Daniel Morgan, Applicant Approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 2.53 acres into 9 single family residential lots (10,000 .. square foot minimum lot size), approval of a variance to allow a reduction in the R-1-10,000 zone's 100 foot minimum depth to 96.8 feet and to allow a reduction in \Mgai1santee\pcminutes081903 3 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 .f the 90-foot minimum lot width to 73.3 feet with an average lot width of 81.6 feet. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Bel Air Road and Alamo Drive. Mr. Drell apologized to the Commissioner for not providing a staff report. However, staff is prepared to make a recommendation; however, the Commission might be inclined to continue this. Since there are a fair number of people present in the audience who are interested in talking about this, staff is proposing to give a staff report so that the Commissioners will understand what the public comments are going to be. Based on their understanding of the staff report and the comments, they can either decide to act on it or continue it. Chairperson Campbell asked if he was recommending continuing the case to a date uncertain. Mr. Drell responded that could be determined at the end of the hearing tonight. However, it was probably worthwhile the Commission get as much background as possible on the project, hearing the public testimony, and then decide what to do. Mr. Urbina reported this was a proposal to divide 3 existing parcels, comprising 2.53 acres, located at the southeast corner of Alamo Drive and Bel Air Road. The project site contains an existing single family home with a swimming pool and three attached units. Some of the history on the project: This property was at one time owned by the Living Desert and provided housing for some of its employees and served as a cactus nursery garden. The project site slopes from the west down to the east and from the south down to the north. The project site is surrounded by single-story single-family homes on all four sides. There are substantial, significant grade differences between the project site's easterly boundary and three existing homes to the east. One of the homes is approximately 2-4 feet lower than the existing grade at the project site. The second existing home is approximately 4-5.5 feet lower. The third home has a pad elevation of 500.2; the existing grade at the midway point of proposed Lot 9 is 504 and at the south part of the project site, the existing grade is 508, a difference of 8 feet. There is an existing combination retaining wall and garden wall at the rear of the Kavanaugh's lot (the third home). The Kavanaugh's from their back yard are essentially today looking at an 11-foot high block wall. But you can see some of the mountains to the west from their back yard. j The applicant's proposal is to seek approval to subdivide the 2.53 acres into nine lots. Four lots would have frontage on Bel Air Road, two lots would have frontage on Alamo Drive, the remaining three lots would have 1Mgai1santee\pcminutes081903 4 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 access from a proposed 24-foot wide private drive. There is an existing 30-foot wide record of survey easement running along the southerly boundary of the project. At one time, Homestead Road was going to connect to Loma Vista, but that did not happen. Besides being impacted by that 30-foot wide record of survey easement, the property is also impacted by existing Southern California Gas Company easements which were highlighted on the diagram. Staff contacted Southern California Gas Company staff to inquire about whether there were any active gas lines within the easements. There is an existing gas easement which stubs out from Alamo Drive and goes approximately 139 feet into the site, then stops. The Gas Company staff indicated there is an existing gas line to the west of the center line of Alamo Drive. Therefore, they would not be opposed to the applicant proposing to the Gas Company vacating the existing 20-wide north/south easement. The existence of these easements presents conditions that are unique to this property that have substantial influence on the proposed lot configuration, and have played a major role in the applicant's request for a two-part variance for Lots 6 and 7. The R-1-10,000 zone that applies to this site requires a minimum 100-foot lot depth. The southerly side property line of Lot 6 has a proposed lot depth of 96.8 feet, three feet short of the minimum lot depth. However, the northerly side property line of Lot r.. 6 has a 107.1 lot depth. The City's subdivision ordinance is silent on whether lot averaging is allowed. In that absence, we assume it would require a variance. The other part of the variance deals with Lot 7. The R-1-10,000 zone requires a minimum 90-foot lot width. That is achieved along the front property line, shared with the Monterra subdivision to the south which is approximately 3-4 feet higher. The developer of the Monterra subdivision raised the natural grade approximately 3-4 feet and constructed a 3-4 foot high retaining block wall along the project site's southerly property line. At the rear property line of Lot 7, the lot width narrows to 73.3 feet. However, these three lots are substantially larger than the 10,000 square foot minimum. Lot 7 has 15,282 square feet; Lot 9 has 16,850 square feet. As mentioned before, there are some significant grade differences between the project site and the properties to the east. Staff received a substantial number of letters both in support and opposition to the proposed map. Some of the letters expressed concerns about the mitigation of grade differences, view impact, and privacy because the project site is and would continue to be higher than the finished pad `. elevations on the homes to the east. A couple of the letters suggested that the number of lots be reduced from nine to five in order to more closely achieve lot size compatibility with lots to the north of Bel Air Road, VNgadsantee\pcminutes081903 5 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 which are approximately 12-13,000 square feet, and lots in the Monterra subdivision are approximately 1/3 of an acre. Another letter suggested the applicant reduce the number of lots from nine to eight and that the variance application be withdrawn as it would no longer be needed. Other letters received in support of the subdivision. Because of the existence of the Southern California Gas easements and record of survey easements, this does present a unique constraint which helps justify the applicant's request for a variance. To address the issue of privacy impacts on the Volbergs and Kavanaughs residences to the east, the applicant and staff are proposing the following: Lot 9 will be excavated from the southerly half. There will be 2-3 feet of dirt removed, therefore, the existing grade will be lowered for the southerly half of Lot 9 resulting in a finished pad elevation of 504. This will be approximately 4 feet higher than the Kavanaugh's existing pad elevation of 500.2. The existing block wall located along the easterly property line of the project site will remain. The applicant is not proposing any modifications to the wall unless the neighbors want additional privacy. The applicant is willing to install additional courses of block, wrought iron, or green vegetation. However, the Kavanaugh's have expressed their desire not to have that because they are already looking at an 11-foot high wall and they don't want their view of the mountains further obstructed. To mitigate privacy, the applicant is proposing to excavate dirt so there would be a minimum height of 5 feet from the finished grade of Lot 9 to the top of the existing wall. That would be in compliance with the existing ordinance, which states that when there are grade differences the wall height should be a minimum of 5-feet high from the highest grade. The Kavanaugh's are concerned that further homeowners or their children would be looking over that wall into their back yard and swimming pool. Again, the applicant is willing to add additional courses of block or plant evergreen shrubs, but that would impact the Kavanaugh's mountain view. Staff is proposing some conditions of approval for the tentative map that would require on Lots 1 and 9 that the maximum height of the house be capped at a maximum height of 15 feet except for. minor architectural features such as chimneys/fire places, instead of being 18 feet as is allowed by the R-1-10,000 zone. In addition, further homes on Lots 1 and 9 would be required to have a sloping roof on the east side so that there wouldn't be an automatic 15-foot high flat roof; there would be a gradual slope and that would mitigate some of the view impact concerns. The Karlbergs have submitted a letter. Their rear lot looks north, directly looking at Lot 9. There is an existing 4-foot high retaining wall. There is no other fencing or shrubbery on top of that existing wall which currently affords the Kadbergs a view to the north. They are concerned about preservation of their views and what they will see as far the elevations or architecture of the future home on Lot 9. To address their concerns, staff 1Mgai1santee\pcminutes081903 6 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 is proposing tentative map conditions requiring a side-entry garage for Lot 9 with a decorative window at the front so the Karlbergs would not be looking directly at a 2-3 car front entry garage. The maximum height of the house on Lot 9 to roof ridge would be 15 feet, instead of 18 feet. Lot 9 will be approximately 7 feet higher than Lot 1. To address view impacts that might be created if the applicant were to plant trees and shrubs along the 5-foot-wide landscape strip adjacent to the private drive, staff is proposing a condition that any trees or other vegetation planted in this area be low-growing so that it would be no taller than six feet. This would be just two feet higher than the existing 4-foot high retaining wall to minimize view impact on the Karlberghs. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing. There are people in the audience that would like to speak. The Kavanaughs have submitted a few letters; their latest letter recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to October 7th as September 16 will be devoted to the General Plan and Mr. Urbina will be on vacation during the first three weeks in September. As well, some of the people who wrote with concerns are out of town on vacation and are unable to be present tonight. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the case were continued to the first meeting in September, would that be enough time for staff to prepare a written staff report for Commission's review prior to the meeting. Mr. Urbina reported the staff report had been completed very late that afternoon, but had not been distributed to the Planning Commission. An updated or modified staff report would be available prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the Fire Marshal had approved of the cul- de-sac at the end of the entry way coming off of Homestead. Mr. Urbina replied the tum-around had been approved by the Fire Marshal. They consider it to be a hammerhead type of turn-around and there would be a driveway leading into a future home at this location. Given that it is serving only three lots, it was acceptable to the Fire Marshal's office. Commissioner Tschopp asked what type of landscape would be placed on the south side of the private entry drive. �r.r. Mr. Urbina responded there is an existing 5-foot-wide landscape planter which is existing. There are existing trees and shrubs for W\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 7 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 most of the length of the drive, except in back of the Karlbergh's ' where there is no existing vegetation. The applicant does not object to the condition of planting low-growing shrubs that would not exceed six feet in height. The gas easement starts on the north side of that private drive. The applicant has indicated he was going to discuss with the gas company the feasibility of relocating the gas easement so that the gas line can be relocated under a private drive. In its present location, the gas easement does have a minor impact on the front of the pads for Lots 7, 8, and 9. The gas company will not allow any construction structures over the easement or any planting of deep-rooted trees. The private entry drive will be 24-feet wide. The applicant has indicated that he will have colored concrete. There will be a private gate and the applicant has stated he would obtain the quietest equipment possible in order to be a good neighbor to the Monterra homeowner to the south. None of the existing houses or apartments on the project site would remain. t Commissioner Jonathan asked why utility the utili easements would mandate odd lot line configurations. Mr. Urbina responded that subject would be addressed in the staff report. Mr. Urbina added that there was a sewer easement at the location. When asked why a cul-de-sac couldn't come off of Bel Air Road to service the subdivision, staff found the utilities don't want anything built over their easements. This substantially impacts which parts of the lots could be built and how the subdivision lot arrangement would be plotted. A cul-de-sac configuration off of Alamo Drive has not been considered. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing. Mr. Dan Morgan, 611 Fairway Drive, Novato, California, owns the property and is the applicant. Mr. Morgan stated when he began this project, he sent out a letter, dated July 21, 2003, as well as a proposed plat map to all the neighbors on the 300-foot list. He has met with every one of the impacted neighbors as well as those who contacted him. He has addressed every one of the concerns as reasonably as possible. He continues to desire to be a good neighbor and he knows how important it is that this property be developed in a tasteful, proper manner, to fit in and make sure all the neighbors' concerns are addressed. There is a petition \Mgai1santee\pcminutes081903 8 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 attached to the staff report signed by 25+ neighbors who support the development. Most of the supporters want to get rid of the less- `"" than-desirable property. It will be a great asset when developed. What he envisions for the property will increase neighborhood property values. He stated the Commission would hear several concerns tonight which he intended to address prior to their airing by relating what he had done to mitigate them. He has done everything possible that can be done and he is willing to do more if there's a good recommendation that is reasonable and works, engineering-wise. One of the balancing acts is Lot 9. The Karlberg property is 512 feet, Lot 9 is 504, and the Kavanaugh's are 500. That pad height has to be somewhere in between so that there isn't a significant grade change between all the properties, not just the Karlbergs, Kavanaughs, Volbergs, Lot 9, Lot 8, and Lot 7. The original subdivision map had ten lots on it. It also required a little more in-depth variance. All the lots met the 10,000 square foot minimum, but after hearing the neighbors' concerns, he reduced it to nine lots. Now the extent of the variance is Lot 6 along the southerly property line which doesn't quite make the 100 feet. In Lot 7 is 187 feet deep, it is over 1.5 times the required minimum. It is 90 feet in front and is 73 feet in back. Out of all the concerns the Commission would hear, the bottom line is that privacy and views have to be taken into consideration at the time of construction. He has agreed to conditions that will take care of those concerns. He has agreed to provide for CC&Rs over the nine lots which will provide design standards and require that prior to construction story poles be put up showing where the heights and houses will be located. Mr. Morgan displayed to-scale diagrams from the Kavanaugh property he stated accurately set forth the relationships of the properties. He pointed out that the Kavanaughs have an 11-foot high wall and that they have enjoyed a 55-foot setback from their property line. Mr. Morgan has already agreed to an increased setback on his easterly property line of 12 feet to afford them even more privacy. The minimum distance that the house will be a part is 67 feet. If a 6-foot person stood at the Kavanaugh's residence and looked over the block wall, with a 3 & 12 pitch roof, they may see one to two feet of this house. Someone standing in the Lot 9 house, looking down, will look at block wall and will not visually �• encroach into the Kavanaugh's back yard. VNgai1santeelpcminutes081903 9 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 The Karlberg residence has a pad height of 512. Mr. Morgan's proposed pad height is 504. He is proposing a 45-foot setback to the south property line and the Karlberg house is 15 feet away. So the minimum distance the structures will be a part is 60 feet. With a roof pitch of 3 & 12, the Karlberg's will not be negatively impacted. The CC&Rs call for quality design standards, including the roof tile. This is not an entry level home. The neighborhood will be tastefully done and of quality materials. From the Karlberg's kitchen there is a beautiful unobstructed view. Unfortunately, the wall that separates the property is only a 1.5 feet above their existing grade. Mr. Morgan has agreed to raise their wall or plant vegetation. Mr. Morgan knows of no unaddressed concerns that haven't been mitigated. Commissioner Jonathan stated the Commission normally receives staff reports the week prior to each meeting. The purpose is so they can study the reports, ask questions, visit the site, and be prepared and educated when they do meet. That has not happened in this case. This is the first time they are hearing anything about this project. He did not feel he was in a position to take action at this point because hasn't seen the staff report. Commissioner Lopez echoed Commissioner Jonathan's comments. Given the idiosyncrasies of this project and all the elements involved, it would be difficult to take any action without seeing the staff report and being fully informed. Commissioner Tschopp asked if visiting the applicable utility agencies make any difference on the configuration of the project. Mr. Morgan stated that after visiting with the adjoining neighbors to the south and east, the best location for the private drive is on the southern part of the project as shown. This allows 60 to 67-foot setbacks between structures. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. RICHARD and BETTY KARLBERG, 73062 Monterra Circle N., Palm Desert. Mrs. Karlberg stated they owned property facing the new project. She displayed a picture of the current view from their backyard. Lot 9 will have the most impact on their view. Mr. Morgan has assured them he will do everything possible so that they will not be seeing the new home roofs. Her immediate concern was that as construction begins and the current shrubbery is taken out they will be inundated with the small wildlife, i.e., quail, Mgailsanteelpcminutes081903 10 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 road runners, chipmunks. They have their own little desert and that will all go away. She wondered what would happen to all the little animals. Mr. Morgan had assured them that if they want he will raise the wall. She prefers not to raise the wall; she doesn't want to lose the view they have. She would like to wait and see when the home is being built and what kind of an impact it would have. She mentioned the frontage on Log 9 would be 90 feet instead of the original 64 (when there were ten lots). This was much more desirable. HARRY KAVANAUGH, 48-999 Barberry Lane, Palm Desert, lives on the east border of the project. He introduced his daughter, Karel, to express his concerns. KAREL KAVANAUGH LAMBELL, 75-475 Santa Fe Trail, Palm Desert, spoke to the Commission on behalf of her parents. Lot 9 is immediately adjacent to the Kavanaugh's backyard. They have addressed two letters to the Planning Commission, have talked with Mr. Drell and Mr. Urbina, and have visited with Mr. Morgan. To date, the following five issues remain unresolved: 1. They have received a revised map showing nine lots instead �.. of ten. While eight lots would be more preferable, nine is better than ten. They continue to have a concern over Lot 7 appearing not to meet the minimum 90-foot width requirement for its entire width of the lot. Lot 6 appears not be meet the minimum 100-foot depth requirement for the entire depth of the lot. Eight lots would be preferable. 2. The roof height of Lot 9 be limited to a maximum of 15-feet without the proviso of allowing 18-feet with approval. 3. Privacy is their main concern with Lot 9 already being four feet above their lot. Lot 9 would maintain a 50-foot setback from the south Monterra wall. A portion of their view to Haystack Mountain would be preserved by the 50-foot setback. However, they will be losing their views from Haystack Mountain to Shadow Mountain. 4. The 504-foot pad height: It must be agreed upon at some level. Being able to study what Mr. Morgan has presented, would answer many of their questions. What remains unresolved is a 5-foot high wall between Lot 9 and their property. A person can look over a 5- foot high wall and look down into their yard and swimming pool area no matter how much room is maintained between the house w\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 I I PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 on Lot 9 and their home on Barberry. This is a really important } point for them. 5. The lot coverage must be limited to 35% without the option of a higher percent being granted. Mr. Morgan has presented a grid that speaks to all of the issues. She wanted to clarify for the record three very important items: 1. Their pad is at 500.2; 2. the house to the north (Volbergs) is at 497.2 (a 3-foot difference); 3. the house to the north of that is at 494.2, another 3-foot difference. There is a 3-foot difference between each of those lots as opposed to the 7 feet Mr. Morgan is considering between Lots 1 and 9. The grid indicates they are at 512. That is incorrect; they are at 500.2. Mr. Morgan has agreed to three of their concerns in his letter to them, dated August 14, 2003. 1. That they are consulted prior to granting any permit for building, adding to or altering the block/retaining wall on the east side of the subdivision. They have a huge concern that if the wall is raised, it will be like living with a freeway wall. It is already at 11.5 feet. Any further than that and they would feel as though they were in jail. 2. That the side yard of Lot 9 be at a 12-foot MINIMUM setback for privacy. 3. That they would be able to review of a copy of the CC&Rs prior to their approval. Their concern is who will be maintaining the driveway on the south side of the property and of what material will it be made. In closing, Ms. Lambell wanted to assure they were not opposed to progress and the subdivision of this property. It is their fervent hope that the development is done in a most careful and thoughtful way. South Palm Desert has become a highly desirable place in which to live. Any new homes which are built should be of the highest caliber as are the homes that already grace this wonderful neighbor. Please don't let this subdivision become a typical tract development. W\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 12 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 Ms. Lambell requested a continuance until Mr. Urbina returns from vacation in late September as he is the one who knows the most about this project. LORRAINE KAVANAUGH, 48-999 Barberry Lane, Palm Desert, noted that there were some people who were not present. Of the twelve families within the grid, eight of them are not present due to being out of town. Many of those have sent letters suggesting different options. She requested a continuance so that the missing homeowners can be present. DAVID WARE, 72987 Skyward, Palm Desert, flew into town in order to be present at this meeting and express his concern not about the development of the property, but other issues. First is the traffic situation. Alamo Drive will be the primary beneficiary of the traffic that will be developed by nine homes. Alamo Drive is currently a moderately traveled avenue. Second is the CC&Rs. A concentration of nine homes in an area that was originally three lots — you have a change in lots, change in the traffic flow, and you could be constructing homes for several months or years. This is not necessarily an immediate build-out. r.. He agreed with Mrs. Kavanaugh in that at least three of his neighbors are out of town. This is the worse possible time to try to marshal the interest of the neighbor, to allow them to respond intelligently and they haven't seen a staff report yet. He doesn't object to the development of the property, but it should be scaled down dramatically. He asked for a continuance. KARL HOWARD, 73-095 Bel Air Road, Palm Desert, stated he was the one lot no one has said anything about and he hadn't heard from anybody regarding this project. The back of his property drops six feet from the existing property. If that six feet were looked after, then the rest of the property would fall in with the grading and you wouldn't have to worry about your sites or anything else. He was disappointed it has taken three days for him to get the staff report that was to mailed out last Friday. He couldn't study it, doesn't know what's going on. They have to address the privacy situation. You look directly into his garden, directly into the pool. No one has talked to him about it; no one is going to do anything about it. The bushes are drying out, becoming a fire hazard — they need to be looked after in a hurry. He was pleased the project had been downgraded from ten to nine lots. He thinks the property should be developed. 6W Mr. Morgan was invited to speak. He stated they had looked at the grade heights. A lot of the issues will need to be addressed when the houses W\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 13 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 are sited on the lots. The mere creation of the lots does not fail to address or doesn't address the concerns. The proper time for this discussion will be when the houses are being planned. Chairperson Campbell stated the public hearing would remain open because she felt the same way as two of the Commissioners. A staff report is needed so the project can be studied. She asked if there was a motion for continuance. Commissioner Finerty noted the staff recommendation was for a date certain. Given the concern about the number of people out of town, October 21st, after the General Plan hearing(s) would be desirable. Commissioner Tschopp asked staff if the elevation differences in the surrounding neighborhoods could be included in the staff report. Action: Commissioner Finerty moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, for continuance to October 21, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case No. CUP 03-07, Gary Cassel for SPRINT PCS, Applicant ; Approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 70-foot high wireless telecommunication tower designed as a palm tree located at 74-655 Y2 Highway 111. Mr. Bagato reported the subject was located at the Southern California Edison substation which is directly south of the Del Taco Restaurant, east of Deep Canyon, located off of Hwy. 111. The property is zoned "P" for "Public". The ordinance requirements are noted in the staff report. Sprint is requesting approval authorization for construction, use, and maintenance of the 70-foot tall monopalm wireless tower with an associated equipment cabinet and five live palm trees to be installed on the Del Taco property. The live palms will vary in height from 40 to 50 feet to create a date palm effect. The base of the monopalm will be 24 inches around, which is standard. The equipment cabinet is located adjacent to the proposed tower. There is an existing chain link fence and some shrubbery which will screen the lower portion of the palm as well as the equipment cabinet. SCE does not allow any landscaping within their substation above 10 feet, therefore no additional palms could be installed on their property because of concerns of palm fronds falling into the circuits. The proposed tower meets all the stealth installation requirements. There are many palms in the area. The additional palms should held the W\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 14 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 monopalm blend in. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional .r. use permit subject to conditions. Commissioner Lopez, looking at one of the photos, remarked he would like to see a tree or two added to soften the view from the southeast. Commissioner Jonathan stated his concern for the future maintenance of the trees. He assumed that the condition of maintenance will apply to the monopalm, the five live trees, and any structural portions of the application. Staff will make the correction to the conditions. Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff or the ARC had an opinion about placing the live trees closer to the monopalm for a better screening effect. Mr. Bagato replied ARC had not had a discussion about where the trees should be or how close. Mr. Drell noted the difference between the bottom of the fronds to the top of the natural tree will be 10-15 feet to start. There will be a gap, however, the trees will grow. Once the fronds get too close to the antenna, they start interfering with the signal. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. GARY CASSEL, Sprint PCS, 5100 Queens Street Avenue, Riverside, California, stated Sprint was willing to lay out the trees any way they are needed on the Del Taco property as long as they are the latter part of the parking lot. There is a major concern about putting live palm trees near monopalms because real trees grow. They are trying to give some living time without the trees interfering with the antennas. When they get to that point, the trees may have to be replaced. Commissioner Lopez asked, technology-wise, how long did the applicant think the palm trees would be around. Mr. Cassel noted, from a business standpoint, none of the carriers could see far enough into the future. But they since they are willing to absorb the costs it takes to build these, they are seeing a future. They are hoping come of the carriers can co-locate (share) towers. The problem is its hard to get two carriers with separate sets of palms on a single palm tree. The monopalms are built to hold a �••► second carrier, but looks are important. VNgai1santee\pcminutes081903 15 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked for testimony either in FAVOR or ' OPPOSITION to this application. There were none, therefore Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the Commission members ,r► for their comments. Commissioner Tschopp shared some of Commissioner Lopez's early comments. Looking at the southeast view, he is not convinced this is what we want to see. It looks like a big green thumb sticking up there. It is our responsibility to obtain unobstructed, natural views. Chairperson Campbell stated she felt differently as many of the monopalms in existence are barely recognizable. She did not believe they were an eye sore. Commissioner Finerty agreed with Commissioner Lopez's observation on the southeast view. The northeast view is not terrific either. She hoped there would be another location where this monopalm could be better disguised. Commissioner Jonathan stated the location has some possibility of meeting our standards. He is not yet persuaded that what is being presented is acceptable. Commissioner Lopez felt the site could work, but felt there had to be a way to soften the look as the monopalm does stick up there inordinately high out of anything else in the area. Knowing what the other ones in town look like, this one does have quite an impact. Commissioner Jonathan stated the City along with the cellular companies have done an outstanding job to create a stealth situation. There are not too many antennas that stick out. He would like to maintain that standard. He is not opposed to this location — it is commercial on one side and a major thoroughfare. He needs to be persuaded that what ends up there does not look like the picture. Mr. Cassel mentioned Sprint and staff had considered installing live trees that were a little higher than the monopalm. Sprint needs the height because there are hotels that are 3-stories tall next door. They had considered putting the antennas in the pole at 65 feet. But now instead of a 73-foot tree, you have 78 — 80-foot tree. He would be glad to stipulate the installation of 4-5 live trees a little higher than the monopalm. That also takes away the issue of having to replace trees as they reach the same height as the monopalm's antennas. Commissioner Jonathan suggested the applicant return to the Commission with revised drawings that show the improved cluster effect. 1Mgai1santee\pcminutes081903 16 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 He also asked that a 70-foot pole be put on the intended location so that the Commissioners can see what it looks like. Action: Commissioner Jonathan moved, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to continue the matter to the September 2 meeting allowing the applicant to come back with revised artistic depictions of the revised cluster and to put a pole on the property to give the Commissioners an opportunity to look at it. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 03-11, Janice Byal for SPRINT PCS, Applicant Approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 72-foot high monopalm wireless telecommuncations structure at the rear of St. Margaret's Episcopal Church rectory with adjacent equipment enclosure located at 47-535 Highway 74. Mr. Urbina reported the applicant was proposing a 72-foot high monopalm at the rear of St. Margaret's Episcopal Church, approximately 190 feet west of Hwy. 74. There are some existing palm trees adjacent to the `. proposed project's site as well as five additional trees out front. There is an existing Verizon Wireless monopalm already at St. Margaret's approximately 200 feet north of the proposed site. The existing monopalm is hardly noticeable. Sprint is proposing a similar monopalm with the antennas concealed inside the palm trunk. The ARC granted preliminary approval of this conditional use permit with a condition that five additional new palm trees at heights ranging from 30 — 50 feet be planted in the immediate vicinity to provide camouflaging of the monopalm. There are already 8 existing palm trees in the vicinity. Staff has not received any letters of opposition. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution subject to the conditions in the staff report. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary Cassel re-iterated Sprint's desire to stay off of the highway. They intended to replicate the same tree as the current monopalm. The height of the tree is predicated on the 65-foot height of the church's steeple. The height of the real trees will be lower than the monopalm. The antennas are not in the palm fronds, they are in the trunk, just below the "pod", therefore, they are lower on the tree than the antennas in the previous application. �••r Commissioner Finerty asked if it would be possible to put this type of tree in the previous application's location as it looks much nicer. Mgailsantee\peminutes081903 17 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 Mr. Cassel replied "absolutely", putting the antennas within the frame work of the pole/trunk. The heights would be slightly different on the two sites: The tree on the SCE site is 73 feet with a 65-foot rad center. The tree at the church is a 65-foot rad center with a 78- foot tree because the antennas are lower than the fronds level. On the SCE site, he would have to go to 78 feet, but there would be no antennas. Commissioner Jonathan asked for an explanation of the tree heights. Mr. Urbina explained the antennas are at approximately 57-58 feet, but the top of the fronds is 72 feet for the church's tree. The SCE tree with a 65-foot rad center would be an 80-foot palm tree with no antennas showing. Chairperson Campbell asked for testimony either in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this application. There were none, therefore Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the Commission members for their comments. Commissioner Tschopp asked why the difference between the other monopalm and this proposed monopalm. Mr. Cassel responded they tried to find space in front of the church. There were some interference issues and there wasn't enough room. Commissioner Lopez stated the Verizon product looked good. He prefers the look of the this type of tree. Even though the proposed monopalm does have some height on it, the look of the tree is more appealing (than the one proposed on the SCE site) and once the live trees grow a little more, it'll fit right in. Action: Commissioner Tschopp moved, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approve CUP 2220, subject to the attached conditions. Action: Commissioner Tschopp moved, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to adopt Resolution 2220 approving CUP 03-11, subject to the attached conditions. Motion carried 5-0. W\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 18 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 D. Case Nos. GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03- '"� 02 — SARES REGIS GROUP, Applicant Request for approval of a negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (3-5 dwelling units per acre) to High Density Residential (7-18 units per acre), a Change of Zone from PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre) to PR-13 (planned residential 13 units per acre), a Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes to construction of 320 residential condominium units on a 25-acre site on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 636 feet east of Monterey Avenue, 73-240 Gerald Ford Drive, APN 653-260-029. Project includes a height exception for roof elements 28 feet in height and a Development Agreement which will include, among other matters, provisions for affordable housing units. Mr. Drell explained this is one of the cases that will have relevance to the General Plan discussion. While there a few technical details that are still outstanding on this project, staff felt it would be a good idea to get the main introduction out of the way before the General Plan discussion. If the Commission had questions or comments in the intervening weeks, they can be addressed when the issue comes back. This is an introduction to the project with 95% of the kinks worked out. By the time, the issue returns it can be talked about in the General Plan context. Mr. Smith pointed out where the project was to be sited as explained above, noting future Gateway Drive along the eastern border of the property. The property elevation drops from Gerald Ford Drive at the north some 25 feet. The project is for 320 residence condominium units. The application has been submitted in anticipation of land use changes contemplated in the General Plan update. It is consistent with the plan as recommended by the General Plan Advisory Committee. The General Plan amendment proposal is from low-density residential (3-5 units/acre) to high-density residential (7-18 units/acre), thereby increasing the maximum density from 125 units to some 450 units. The applicant is proposing 320 units. Similar with the zone change, going from PR-5 to PR-13, increasing the maximum number of units to 325, the applicant is proposing 320. The project is within the moratorium area which was enacted to preserve the opportunity to implement the land use policies ., which will come out of the General Plan update. The land use plan recommended by GPAC for this site is residential 10-22 units per acre. Provisions in the moratorium allow for the processing of this type of W1gai1santee\pcminutes081903 19 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 applications where they are consistent with the provisions of the General Plan update. This project is consistent with the 10-22 range and also provides for the extension of Gateway Drive north to 35th Avenue, which is part of the Wal-Mart/Sam's Club proposal. The project entails a series of ten residential buildings containing twenty or forty units each plus a recreation center building. The project takes its main access from the future Gateway Drive at approximately midpoint in the lot. A secondary access from Gerald Ford Drive will be located at the center of the property, restricted to right-in, right-out only. Also on Gerald Ford, there will be an emergency access only at the west limit of the property. The project at the north end wraps around an existing GDE site. The applicant has placed a retention basin at the northeast corner of the site. The units in the project range from 1 bedroom/1 bath at 827 square feet; 2 bedroom/1 bath, 2 bedroom/2 bath units in the range of 1100 to 1218 square feet; and 3 bedroom/2 bath units at over 1300 square feet. The proposed plan provides for an adequate number of parking to meet code. In the condominium code, the parking is based on the number of 7 bedrooms. The total required is 752, the plan provides for 774. The required total of covered spaces is 544, the plan provides for 566. The units are designed for 9-foot high ceilings which when coupled with the 3-and-12 roof pitch result in building heights which range from 23 —27 feet. The 27-foot height requires an exemption to the code limit which is 24 feet. In the past, Commission and Council have granted exceptions to the height limit in instances where there is no impact on adjacent properties and if the design of the buildings is enhanced by the additional height. The buildings are two-story, contemporary Mediterranean architecture, pitched roofs, flat concrete terracotta roof tile. The ARC unanimously approved the design of the buildings at its July 8th meeting. It did not have an issue with the height of the structures. Staff feels there will be no impact on the adjacent properties as the commercial sites on the west and north will allow heights up to 30 feet. Marriott's Shadow Ridge is on the south side which is 3 stories, 36 feet. The property to the east is World Development's tract where the distance between buildings is going to be at least 140 feet. Projects that have complied with the height limit are typically flat roofed structures. The success of flat roofs relative to drainage and rain problems are well-known. Staff encourages people to use pitched roofs. When viewed from Gerald Ford, the units will appear approximately 4 feet lower in that the site elevation drops going north from Gerald Ford. Unfortunately, off of Gateway Drive, the site will rise. In several recent Mgailsanteocminutes081903 20 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 projects which have been approved, height exceptions have been granted, i.e., Portofino, Hovley Gardens, and the RDA project on Santa Rosa. Based on this architecture, staff feels the height exception is warranted. The plan is consistent with the land use alternatives considered by GPAC. The property is located adjacent to two future commercial sites on the west and north boundaries. It is on an arterial street and a future thoroughfare (Gateway Drive) which will be the 'alternate route to Monterey. The project is architecturally attractive. It provides a townhouse feel. Every unit will have a garage; more than 50% of them will have direct access from the garage into the unit. The project includes balconies and enhanced paving in the auto courts. Each of the clusters from one of the main driveways, the residents will enter through the buildings, the units have their own garages underneath, there is also open parking (4-6 spaces) within the auto court. There will be a Homeowners Association with CC&R's. Mr. Drell explained the applicant would be building the units to condominium standards. The initial intent of the developer will be to market the units as apartments, but over time, it could convert to ownership. The CC&R's would not be implemented until there was ownership. Mr. Smith stated the design as proposed complies with all the code provisions except for height. Staff feels it will provide some needed moderately priced housing stock in the community. There will be a development agreement in which the applicant will be required to provide 20% of the units to moderate income households either as rental or for- sale units. As part of the General Plan update, there is a traffic modeling study being done assessing traffic impacts on various levels of intensity. That modeling has not been completed, hence the need to continue to the matter. Staff requests continuance to the September 16th meeting. Chairperson Campbell asked if all the units would be on top of the garages. Mr. Smith responded that some of them will be. Mr. Drell explained the units that face the exterior of the module will have a first floor on the street level. Commissioner Lopez noted the site is served by a series of two-way �•• minimum 24-foot wide driveways and asked what the typical width of a residential street was. Mgai1santee\pcminutes081903 21 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 Mr. Smith responded in an R-1 district, 36 feet curb to curb. Mr. Drell added that 24 feet is the standard for two ways of traffic without parking. In this case, there are areas that are 24 feet wide with no parking. There are other areas with parking that are wider. Commissioner Lopez asked if there were going to be curbs, gutters, and/or sidewalks. Mr. Drell responded the goal would be to try to make these look like streets and less like buildings surrounded by parking lots, similar to what was done at Hovley Gardens. There is a circulation system, similar to driving into One Quail Place or San Tropez, that surround the property that is essentially a parking lot with the access aisles are 24 feet. This design is to try to make them not look like a parking lot, make them look like a street with fronts of buildings on them, with what looks like front doors on the street. In certain areas, there is parallel parking in which the streets are wider. Areas that don't have parallel parking are narrower and meet the standard of a two-way access. Chairperson Campbell asked if the community would be gated. Mr. Smith responded it was not shown at this point. Mr. Drell added it was not the applicant's intention. The fact that there is a .. very long entrance drive makes it relatively easy to gate in the future. But the intent is not to gate or to have fences around it. The goal and the design was to make it look like buildings with front yards to the street like you would normally have in a residential neighborhood. The architecture is designed to face as much outward as it is inward. There will be 8-foot sidewalks on Gerald Ford, 6-foot sidewalks on Gateway Drive with curbside landscaping. Gateway is going to be designed with a center median, two lanes of traffic, and combination bike/golf cart lane. There will not be parking on Gateway. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the right-in, right-out on Gerald Ford would work as the Marriott Shadow Ridge is right across the street. He was concerned about the need for a future traffic light if the right-in, right- out doesn't work on Gerald Ford. Mr. Drell explained there was a median that would ensure that the only option would be a right-in, right-out. The goal would be to have eastbound traffic use the Gateway Drive which will have a traffic signal. This would be similar to San Tropez Villas with 512 units which received signalized access because of its relationship W\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 22 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 across the street from Sun Crest. This is a smaller project. People who want to go to Monterey can make a right turn to Monterey. If two who want to make a left turn to Portola, they go out the Gateway exit which will have a signal. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Mike Weiner, Vice President, Sares Regis Group, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, CA, introduced himself and others to answer questions. He emphasized that their focus was first-class, high- quality, luxury residential housing targeted to meet the demands of the markets they build in. They design and build their projects to fit the particular market and community, instead of trying to adapt something that worked in other communities. Commissioner Finerty asked at what point did the applicant anticipate the units would be sold as condominiums. Mr. Weiner responded the initial plan is to rent the units as apartments. Part of it depends on the market and demand. Because of the liability issues involved with condominium �.. developments, they would usually hold them for ten years. However, if the market would demand a for-sale project, they would evaluate doing a conversion sooner. The Sares Regis Group has built over 18,000 homes and currently own and manage about 12,000 apartments. They have a project in San Diego/Mission Valley, called River Colony, which is 300 units. They anticipated the absorption and the sell-out to take two years. It was sold out in one year. They are in the process of converting another development in Huntington Beach where they are anticipating a quicker absorption. Their preference is that the renters end up buying the units. They give the renters the option of buying the unit they are living in or buying one of the other units in the development. Commissioner Lopez asked if the renters were aware that some day this may tum into a condominium association. Mr. Weiner stated he believed the disclosure documents that could be a possibility. There is a legal time limit in which you are to notify residents of a potential conversion. The residents would be notified as soon as a conversion plan was being put together. Chairperson Campbell asked if the other two projects did well because they were in a beach area compared to a desert area. W\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 23 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 } Mr. Weiner responded that the San Diego project is inland. Based on his understanding of the Coachella Valley's housing market, he felt a condominium project would be very successful. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the unit clusters design had the stairwells on the outside. Mr. Weiner explained there were stairwells on the outside and the inside. A little more than half of the units have direct access from the garages into the units. Some of the first-floor units have direct access from the garage, if the units are on the second floor, there is an interior stairwell from the garage to the unit. They have not had an issue of the exterior stairwells being visible'from outside. The projects that have been converted to condominiums do have exterior stairwells. Commissioner Jonathan noted the use of the interior auto court was unusual and asked if this design had been utilized elsewhere. Mr. Weiner stated they had used the concept in several other projects. Part of the reason for this design was in attempt to build a more home-town home feel by eliminating most of the exterior garage doors and eliminating most of the cars from the street. It has been a successful design. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the public facilities. Mr. Weiner explained there were two swimming pools, a tot lot, putting green, the community building, a separate fitness center, and the retention basin will be used for a couple volleyball courts. In the clubhouse, there is a multi-purpose room, a common barbecue area which will serve both pool areas.. Ed Eyerman, Director of Business Development, Sares Regis Group, 18825 Bardeen Avenue, Irvine, CA, stated they could not establish the number of people living within the complex. The maximum number would be based on the number of bedrooms, therefore ranging from 320 to as high to about a 1,000 depending on the unit mix. They anticipating averaging about 2-3 people per apartment. In the 3-bedroom units, the standard would be 2 people per bedroom plus one, therefore a maximum of 7 people in a 3 bedroom. j Assuming 1,000 residents, Mr. Eyerman stated two pools would be enough. By dividing it into two pools, adults will tend to use one pool while families and children will use the other. They are not W\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 24 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 designated to do that, but by having two pool areas, they are accommodated. The pool sizes haven't been determined yet, but could be addressed at the next meeting. Mr. Drell stated this development is part of a neighborhood which extends to Portola which will have a 10-acre neighborhood park in the middle of it. Part of the recreational amenities will be served by the park. It is not assumed that all of the recreational needs of the population will be served by this property. Chairperson Campbell asked for comments in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of this application. There were none and the public hearing remained open. Commissioner Jonathan noted a great deal of work has been put into this and remains to be done. Hoping the applicant was seeking some feedback from the Commission, he proceeded to share his concerns. These concerns are not meant to be negative, the architecture is very attractive and it has a nice feel to it. 1. Density: There are great number of people into a small area. This isn't always bad, and may be necessary from a land and City planning standpoint. It makes its presence felt in traffic circulation, whether the streets are wide enough. He feels the complex having elderly people, families with young kids and teenagers, the full gamut. They will be driving cars, riding bikes, using skateboards, running, walking, etc. The 24-foot streets and the circulation within the project may be an issue. Ingress and egress out of this complex is a huge issue due to the number of daytrips required for residents, landscapers, utilities, etc. Two points may not be enough, but the traffic study may tell us more. 2. The recreational facilities look to be grossly inadequate. This is the desert, there is no beach nearby. People expect to be able to jump into a pool in August and 110 degrees. 3. Being familiar with the San Diego/Mission Valley area, he noted most of the developments are very open with large trees. This doesn't look open, it looks claustrophobic with a lot of buildings with very little open space. While understanding the need for economy and lower-cost residential alternatives, he would prefer having more openness. 4. He imagines seeing cars being worked on in the interior auto courts, turning them into a mini-garage. He would prefer seeing a pool, tennis court(s), or greenbelt inside each of the courts. r... Commissioner Finerty stated she liked the architecture, but shares Commissioner Jonathan's concerns with regard to the recreational facilities. She also preferred greenbelts and an open feeling. She W\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 25 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 calculated that there could be up to 1,184 people. This would be way too congested. She also felt it was premature because there are varying options on the General Plan and what these areas need to look like. There have not been public hearings before the Commission for the General Plan. Community input is important about which direction the City takes. Having come from Orange County, the last thing she wants to see is Palm Desert turning into another Orange County where everyone is packed in together. That's what this project reminds her of. She encouraged the applicant to lessen the number of units by increasing the open space. Commissioner Tschopp agreed the architecture was beautiful. He likes the idea of having the garages concealed, thereby allowing people to look out at something more appealing than someone else's garage door. He has seen the concept used successfully before. The neighbors will police their courtyards. The recreation facilities may be inadequate. The density seems a little high, but that isn't necessarily bad. With some of the plans taking place in the north sphere, it may be necessary. Having not yet seen the General Plan, he wasn't sure it was appropriate at this site. It is a very nice project and it would fit down here. Commissioner Lopez likes the project, but density could be a problem. Having spent time at Shadow Ridge with 90% occupancy, common areas are very important for those individuals. They have had to build huge pools. He is concerned about the ability to accommodate the residents. Architecturally, it is beautiful and an attractive project. The motor courts are interesting. He does have concerns about the amount of traffic that will circulate within the area along with the number of people who will be moving around during certain parts of the day. Chairperson Campbell stated the project and the architecture was nicely done and had eye appeal. Her concern was the parking for the 3- bedroom units, citing an example of a family having three teenagers each with their own car and only a 2-car garage. That left three cars out on the street. There may not be enough parking for the 3-bedroom units. She also expressed concern about not enough open space or pools. There is only one tot lot. This development may need more. The closeness within each cluster could cause problems between neighbors, i.e., young children mixed with childless adults or elderly persons who are not interested in sharing that experience. Commissioner Finerty was a little perplexed as to why this item was going to be scheduled on the same agenda as the General Plan. It would seem 1 better to place it in October. 1Mgailsantee\pcminutes081903 26 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 Mr. Drell responded that during the discussion of the General Plan, they would be considering the land use of this particular parcel and discussing whether it is appropriate to be high density. Commissioner Finerty stated there were a whole bunch of parcels that have to be considered and to single this one out before addressing the other areas is premature. Mr. Drell stated this parcel was not being singling out. One of the issues brought to staff when the moratorium was put in place, there was a complaint that the City would hold up the processing of these projects in this area because of the General Plan. Would there be some way not to burden these properties so much just because they are involved in this General Plan discussion. A solution is for those properties where there is an immediate interest in development, that could become a priority relative to at least looking at it in the context of the General Plan. The Commission might determine it is not ready to make that decision. Commissioner Finerty continued she didn't know how long Sares Regis had owned this property, but she felt that delaying it for one month from September 16 to the second meeting in October would not make that much difference. Chairperson Campbell stated two other items had been continued to September 21St, World Development and Centennial Homes. A third item might be too many. Commissioner Finerty stated the General Plan had to be well thought out. The Commission needs to have adequate discussion. Commissioner Jonathan agreed, for the same reasons the World Development project had been continued. He needs to hear discussion about the General Plan before he can comment on the concept of changing the zoning from PR-5 to PR-13. If the General Plan discussion leads in a different direction, a change of zone would be inappropriate. If the discussion indicates this is an appropriate area for high density, lower- cost alternatives, then he would look at the change of zone in a different light. While it is helpful to have had this presentation prior to discussing the General Plan, this matter needs to be continued to the second meeting in October. Action: Commissioner Finerty moved, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, to �.., continue the item to October 21 , 2003. Motion carried 5-0. W\gailsantee\pcminutes081903 27 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 IX. MISCELLANEOUS None X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES None XI. COMMENTS A. Commissioner Tschopp remarked that he would not like to see the Commission delay people out so far due to the General Plan discussions that it is not in their best interest or in the City's. He suggested the Commission and staff prepare for some late nights in September and October to try to accommodate people in a reasonable time frame. Commissioner Jonathan agreed, not wanting to limit the Commission to hearing only two or three cases at a meeting, especially since they may get continued anyway. Mr. Drell noted the draft General Plan was on the website where it could be read in its entirety or panted out element by element. It is still an evolving document, therefore, rather than making copies the changing document, it is available to every citizen on the website. There is an executive summary on the web which could be provided at the next meeting. Mr. Drell stated most of the General Plan was just information. The bulk of the document is updating the description of the City from what it was in 1980 to what it is now. The programs are re- articulations of our current policies. The controversy involves the projects that are being presented now. We are now receiving applications covering 80% of the infamous University Park. How better to evaluate whether these land uses are appropriate than seeing what projects will happen if we approve these land uses. They are not just hypothetical projects you are trying to predict will happen, you will see real projects. World Development, Centennial Homes, the Lomas de Arena Apartments, and another that will be previewed at the next meeting cover most of the vacant land. Mr. Drell suggested that the Commission read a substantial portion of the text prior to the discussions. In doing so, take note of questions it has. He feels that each element will be briefly summarized. Then, at the next meeting, it will have a better idea of how to structure the hearings. There may not be a lot of comment or question. Mr. Criste will be available at the meeting(s). The design standards are yet to be done. Mr. Drell suggested the W\gai1santee\pcminutes081903 29 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2003 Commission go through a generalized synopsis of the Plan and then focus on those areas where we believe there is a significant ` change being proposed. The September 161h meeting is a study session for the Commission and any member of the public, there will be no action taken. The public will be available to speak at every meeting concerning the General Plan. There is a special issue of the BrightSide being sent to every citizen which will introduce them to what we are doing and what the objectives are. On September 16th, there is nothing else on the Commission's agenda. It was suggested that Commission members read through it, take notes on comments, thoughts, concerns, and questions, and get them to staff prior to the meeting. That way everyone has an idea where the hot spots are and staff has an opportunity to prepare responses and answers. The staff report is the document. Staff will provide an executive summary with the four land use alternatives to the members. B. Commissioner Jonathan commented he hoped the lack of a staff report on any item on the agenda would not occur again. ` XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. -0 -0 - PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson City of Palm Desert, California /gs W\gailsantee\pcminutes081903 29