The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1021 6:00 p.m. �1•�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION w. - TUESDAY - OCTOBER 21, 2003 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chairperson Sabby Jonathan, Vice Chairperson Cindy Finerty �► Jim Lopez Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Dave Erwin, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent October 9, 2003 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS `` None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 VI1. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 03-15 - KELLER & SALERNO, Applicant Request for approval of a lot line adjustment to correct a fence encroachment between two dwellings at 74-251 and 74-231 De Anza Way. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. 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. GPA 01-04, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant ./ (Continued from the 8:30 a.m. October 21, 2003 meeting) Request for consideration of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. Chairperson Campbell explained that the Commission continued the General Plan hearing from the morning session. The public hearing was open and the Commission would allow 30 minutes. She explained that she had blue Request to Speak cards from several people and would call their names to come forward first and then allow anyone wishing to speak to come forward. The first name she called was Claudia Gutierrez. There was no response. The next name was Paul Brady. MR. PAUL BRADY, 78-694 Cimmaron Canyon in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He said he wanted to speak about the Sares Regis apartment project which was before them later this evening, but he planned to make his comments as part of the GPA. He stated that he was speaking in support of the Sares Regis 320- apartment project for inclusion in the University Village land use plan. .ter 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 As one looks around Palm Desert, he thought it was easy to see that there is a need for multifamily housing. One only had to look at the population growth within the Coachella Valley to recognize the need for housing products other than single family homes in country club settings. He said he had nothing against country club settings or resort-type homes. The Sares Regis Group project would help in meeting the housing needs for all ages, especially the young professionals including the public safety employees, police and fire, teachers, hotel and restaurant employees, and the staff at the University, as well as the College of the Desert. Apartments, especially ones proposed by the Sares Regis Group, are an integral part of community living. Quality and well constructed multi-family housing was not only needed to house people, but is also important to the economic vitality of the region. This project, as compared to single family housing, would assist to minimize area-wide traffic congestion and would be an attractive and compatible neighbor to those that live, work and play in Palm Desert. He encouraged the Commission as they consider the remainder of the General Plan amendment to give strong consideration as they go later this evening in addressing the apartment project going before them. He thanked them for their attention and was available for any questions. Chairperson Campbell called Malcolm Riley. There was no response. She next called Jim Henson. There was no response. The next name was Richard Domanski. There was no response. The next name she called was Patrick Perry. MR. PATRICK PERRY, an attorney with Allen Matkins with offices at 515 South Figueroa Street in Los Angeles, addressed the Commission. He explained that he was appearing on behalf of the owners of the Cornische at Bighorn property, the small-wedged piece of property at the very southern property boundary. He noted that he appeared and spoke to the Commission on October 7. He said he didn't want to go back and repeat everything he said at that time, but he did want to address an issue that appears in the staff report for this evening's hearing. %No 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 .ri He explained that there is a slope density study that is attached to the staff report that was apparently prepared in 1989, and there is an addendum to that study which appears to address the Cornische at Bighorn property. It is a 12-acre property which is currently surrounded on the north, east and west by the Canyons at Bighorn development. The property is currently undeveloped. The tract map application was submitted for that property on August 4 which proposed four residential lots and the development of up to 57 dwelling units on those four residential lots. This is the maximum allowable permitted density under the existing General Plan and zoning designations for that property. As he indicated previously, as currently proposed under the Preferred Alternative presented on October 7, and which is dated August 18, the General Plan designation for that property would be changed to Hillside Reserve which would permit no more than one residential dwelling unit per five acres. So from 57 units under the existing General Plan and zoning designations it would be reduced as part of the General Plan Update to no more than two units permitted on the property, a drastic reduction. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on how many units would be allowed. Mr. Perry reiterated that it would be from 57 to two, because under Hillside Reserve it is one unit per five acres, and it is a 12-acre site. He presumed this addendum was presented to the Commission as part of the low density study to demonstrate there are slope issues with respect to the property. He wasn't here to deny that this is hillside property, that there are slopes, and there are characteristics of the property which may justify a reduction in the density. He would argue, however, that this addendum does not stand for the proposition that such a drastic reduction is justified. According to this addendum, there would be at least 15 units permitted on the property which would work out to a residential density of approximately 1.25 units per acre. Again, approximately eight times of what would be permitted if the property were redesignated to Hillside Reserve. It was his feeling that the proper way to address the issue of the residential density on this property is 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 through the tract map process. If there is a need to reduce the density, it should be done on a property specific basis through the tract map application process rather than as a -wide General Plan amendment, especially where there does not appear to be any substantial evidence to support such a drastic reduction from 57 units to two units. If one looks at the boundary of the General Plan designation on the current map, it is co-terminus with the existing property line. Therefore, it would be just this property and not the adjacent property to the north or the west on the other side of the property line that would so be redesignated. There is no evidence to show that this property is any different in terms of its characteristics than the property on the other side of the property line. This would amount effectively to illegal spot zoning. He also argued that this is an arbitrary designation and not supported by substantial evidence. What he urged the Commission to do was leave the General Plan designation as it is on the Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIR that shows the western portion of the property designated as Hillside Reserve. The remainder of the property is Low Density Residential which has an allowable residential density of zero to four residential units per acre. That would give the Commission leeway to revise the density based on the project, or the property characteristics such as environmental impacts, availability of infrastructure, access, and so forth on a property-specific basis rather than restricting the density so drastically as part of the General Plan Update process. He thanked the Commission and was available for any questions. Chairperson Campbell called Dan Allred to the podium. MR. DAN ALLRED with American Realty Trust, 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 300 in Dallas, Texas, addressed the Commission. He explained that the company he represents has owned property in north Palm Desert since 1997. At one point they owned about 1,400 acres. The first transaction they did was the Marriott timeshare development which is now open and operating. About the same time they acquired that and worked out the plan with Marriott, the City seemed to be acceptable with that, and then the company acquired other properties around it. So they had a total of about 1,400 acres. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 They had since sold off a good portion of that, some of it to the City or Redevelopment Agency. At the time they acquired it, every bit of it was either Planned Residential 5 Service Industrial, or there was about 300 acres in the Wonder Palms Development Agreement which was generally commercial type uses. Since that time, a little over 300 acres has been developed by Marriott, so that will not be single family. They sold 171 acres to the Redevelopment Agency for a golf course, so that would not be residential. And about the time they were acquiring this, the City worked out arrangements with Cal State for the land there that was about 160 acres. Then there was a high school and K through 8 elementary site that has been negotiated, so in total, there's about 700 acres in that area north of Frank Sinatra that has been sort of taken out of use in the last five, six, seven years. His purpose for stating that is that he detected this morning concern about the high density. He thought if one looks at the amount of acreage that has been taken out of use and just applied three units per acre, and it allows five units per acre, but if a more reasonable three units per acre on that area, that was over 2,000 units that was anticipated in the old General Plan that would not be there. Another thing is there seems to be a real focus on everything on the north side of 1-10 and that there will be this huge amount of density up there and it seems like that might need to be a separate study because as he understands it, very little and possibly none of that property is in the City. The County has much more restrictive uses there in their new plan that they just adopted this month, and there are 1,000 acres that the lizard preserve is acquiring, and then there is a big flood plain. He didn't think there would be that much density. This 1,400 acres they have tried to choreograph with several local investor/developers / home builders. They worked very closely with staff to try to come up with a plan that meets the goal of the GPAC and meets the and desire of factions within the City to create some more affordable housing up in that portion of the City. The plan which they submitted, there were actually two, one between Monterey and Portola north of Gerald Ford, and then the other one which was the old Desert Wells property between Frank Sinatra, Portola, Gerald Ford and Cook across from the Cal State campus. Those aren't just 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 drawings on a flat piece of paper. They worked very closely with staff for the last several months to take into consideration the topography. There's a fairly steep slope there, grading, traffic, utilities, and land use. One of the things they were having to deal with is this is such a well located piece of property in this Valley, and it's the center of the Valley. It's on the interstate. There's an interchange at Monterey, an interchange at Cook and an interchange planned to be at Portola. This is where activity needs to be. That's why Wal-Mart wants to be there. That's why it's a good location for the University. That's also why people want to live there, because it's so easy to get to jobs all over the area of Palm Desert and the adjoining cities. It is also an area where people can build office buildings and attract employees and customers from around the Valley. He thought if one looks at the area along Highway 111 that has been developed over the last 30 years or so, a band of commercial, and on either side of it today there are a lot of multi-family, a lot of condos and a lot of denser residential development than one sees in the golf course communities. The golf �... course communities have made the City what everyone enjoys about the City, but there has to be these other areas that make sense in a City that grows and is attracting more jobs and more development. He said they voluntarily in July of last year let the map expire on the old Desert Wells property, which was the typical golf course residential related development on the north side of Frank Sinatra between Cook and Portola. He said they did that at the request of the City. They could have pulled a grading permit and built out the golf course and the lots. There could be a golf course there today, but they chose to step back and let those entitlements expire in an effort to try to work with the City to come up with a plan that the Commission is looking at this evening. A lot of time, effort, people, and staff people have worked on this. He encouraged the Commission to look at the time and effort that had been put into this and understand that yes, it is a little more dense than some people in the City are comfortable. However, if one looks at the issues on the north side of 1-10 and the close to 700 acres in this immediate area that has been taken out of residential development in the last five, six or seven years, it's not going to be as big an impact as some people think. He said he would appreciate the Commission's sincere %NW 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 .ter consideration. He and his engineer were available to answer any questions. There were no questions and Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the Commission regarding the General Plan. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and said they would be continuing it to their next meeting. Commissioner Lopez said he would move for continuance to November 4. Commissioner Finerty asked to what time it would be continued. After further discussion, the Commission decided to set the time at the end of this meeting. Commissioner Lopez said his motion would be to continue the matter to November 4 and to set the actual time at the end of the evening. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing this item to November 4, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. A. Case No. CUP 03-14 - LENNART & KAREN RENBERG, Applicant .00 (Continued from September 2, 2003) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 3,050 square foot detached accessory garage with a height of 17' 11'/z" and a rear yard setback of 15"-0" for property located at 77-577 Mountain View. Mr. Urbina explained that the reason a conditional use permit application was filed to allow this detached accessory garage is because the zoning here is Residential Estate 40,000 square foot minimum lot size. In this zone the minimum standard rear yard setback is 50 feet. Any encroachment into the 50 feet by an accessory structure requires a conditional use permit application. The height allowed for a detached accessory structure in the rear yard is one foot of setback from a property line for each foot of building height. Mr. Urbina noted this case was continued from the September 2, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, and at that time the applicant was considering filing a variance application to allow a height to exceed the 18 feet up to 19 feet 2.5 inches which is what the previous plans showed. An 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 application was filed, then subsequently withdrawn after notification that staff would be unable to support the findings for a variance. Mr. Urbina said the footprint remained the same for the detached accessory garage in terms of the setbacks, 15 feet from the side property line and a 15- foot setback from the rear property line. The height of the buildings has been lowered to a maximum of 18 feet; therefore, no variance is needed. The applicant collects classic cars and has a large recreational vehicle. That was the purpose for the detached accessory garage. He said there would also be a custom home built at the front of the property. The architecture of both structures would be Mediterranean. Based on the revised elevations showing that the roof heights have been lowered to 18 feet with the exception that the decorative tower element on the house would be 21 feet 7 inches, but it was less than 10% of the floor area; therefore, the General Provisions section of the Zoning Ordinance would allow a height greater than 18 feet for decorative architectural features such as a tower. Based on the revised elevations and plans, staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions. •.. Commissioner Finerty complimented Mr. Urbina on his very complete reports and noted that they always contain the pertinent codes, which makes it very easy to follow, and she appreciated that. Commissioner Jonathan concurred and asked for clarification regarding the setbacks. He noted that Mr. Urbina had mentioned one foot of setback for one foot of building height and that would tell him it had to be an 18-foot setback on each side, but the report indicates that the setback is related to the eave portion of the structure and, therefore, set at 15 feet. Mr. Urbina said that was correct and noted the height of the eave of the detached accessory structure was approximately 14 feet 6 inches; therefore, with a 15-foot building setback, the proposed height complies. At the 18-foot height of the ridge, the building is set back approximately 21 feet. Mr. Drell said it encouraged people to step buildings back in height and they got credit for that. Mr. Urbina said they measured that one foot of height from the height of the closest part of the structure and gradually increases to 18 feet. Inv 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 Commissioner Jonathan noted at that point it was further than the 18-foot setback, and Mr. Urbina concurred. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2230, approving Case No. CUP 03-14, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. TT 31346 & VAR 03-01 - CENTENNIAL HOMES, Applicant - Continued from August 19, 2003 Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 2.53 acres into 9 single family residential lots (10,000 square foot minimum lot size), and 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 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. Urbina explained that this is an existing 2.5-acre site containing three dwelling units. He said the historic use of the site was to provide housing for staff at the Living Desert, as well as a cactus garden/nursery. The applicant proposes to subdivide the site to nine lots. Originally 10 lots were proposed, but the map was revised for nine lots. He noted that there were some Southern California Gas Company easements, and those imposed major constraints that justified the applicant's request for a variance. One area shows a 30-foot wide Southern California Gas Company easement, then it veers to the north at a 20-foot width. Additionally, there's a recorded access easement along the southerly 30 feet of the project site that essentially dictates how the lots would be arranged in the proposed subdivision. Because of those constraints, staff believed the findings needed for approval rl 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 of the variance have been met because these are unique circumstances that apply to this property that generally do not apply to other properties and that poses a hardship and constraint in developing the property. Mr. Urbina noted the variance portion is only for two lots. One is to reduce the 100-foot minimum lot width to 96.8 feet along the southerly property line of Lot 6. However, the northerly side property line is 107.1 feet, so the average depth is 100 feet, although the Subdivision Ordinance is silent on the issue of averaging. The second part of the variance involves a reduction in the minimum lot width at the rear property line of Lot 7. The width is 73.3 feet, and the minimum lot width required in the R-1 10,000 zone is 90 feet, which is met at the front. Although the lot is narrower in the rear, this lot is substantially larger than the 10,000 square foot minimum and has a square footage of 15,282 square feet. Mr. Urbina pointed out that access to the three lots will be provided by a paved 24-foot wide private drive along the existing access easement. He said there are grade differences. The property generally slopes from the `..� south to the north, the north being approximately 10 to12 feet lower at the southerly property line and then sloping from the west to the east. Mr. Urbina noted that staff received several letters both in support and opposition to the proposed subdivision. He said he would review some of the main concerns of the adjacent residents. Mr. Carl Howard on Bel Air Road expressed concerns about privacy because there is an existing retaining wall with not more than a two-foot high wall on top of that, and the subject property is higher than Mr. Howard's property. The applicant, Mr. Dan Morgan of Centennial Homes, met with Mr. Howard. Mr. Morgan agreed to construct a five-to six-foot high block wall along the easterly property line of Lot 1 so as to provide privacy for the side and rear yards. That has satisfied Mr. Howard, and that is a recommended condition of approval of the tentative map. Mr. Urbina stated that other property owners who have written letters expressing concern about the map are the Kavanaughs, and their property is up to eight feet lower than the existing grade on proposed Lot 9. Proposed Lot 9 will be excavated for the southerly half, and the grade will be brought lower. The applicant offered to raise the existing 5'6" high block wall, but the Kavanaughs did not agree to that because they value their low 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 views to the west of the mountains. In order to mitigate the Kavanaughs' concerns about the loss of views, staff proposes a condition of approval that future homes on both Lots 1 and 9 be limited to a maximum height of 15 feet, although the R-1 zone does allow a maximum height of 18 feet with Architectural Review Commission approval; so the maximum height would be three feet lower than the zone allows. Mr. Urbina added that future homes to be built on Lots 1 and 9 will be required to have sloped roofs along the easterly property line so that the roof gradually slopes up to 15 feet. Although the R-1-10,000 zone requires a minimum side yard of eight feet on one side and 12 feet on the other side, staff proposes another condition of approval requiring a 12-foot minimum side yard setback along the easterly side yard of Lots 1 and 9. Mr. Urbina commented that the applicant has submitted cross section drawings indicating that the future home on Lot 9 will be set back approximately 45 feet away from the southerly property line. These property owners, the Karlbergs, live in the Monterra subdivision. There is currently a four-foot high retaining wall with no fence on top, so the Karlbergs currently enjoy a view to the north. He stated that staff recommends a condition of "Wl approval requiring shrubs to be planted in the landscape area between the private drive and the southerly property line and be limited to low growing shrubs not more than six feet in height, and the applicant has expressed concurrence with that condition. An additional recommended condition of approval requires future homes on Lots 8 and 9 to have a side entry garage to avoid creating a view where the front elevation is dominated by a front entry garage door. Mr. Urbina stated that staff is recommending the Commission approve the tentative map and related variance by adopting the respective resolutions with respective findings and conditions of approval. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Lot 5 is the only home that would be accessed directly off of Alamo. Mr. Urbina responded that Lot 6 would also be accessed directly off Alamo rather than off the private drive and added that the private drive will be gated. Commissioner Jonathan asked if Lots 1 through 4 would be accessed directly off of Bel Air. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 Mr. Urbina responded that it will be accessed directly off Bel Air. Mr. Urbina indicated he would like to amend the staff recommendation to delete Public works Condition Nos. 15 and 16, as they were erroneously included. Commissioner Jonathan asked how long the existing low density residential zoning has been in effect on the subject property. Mr. Drell responded that it has been so zoned since the City's incorporation. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the existing zoning precedes the surrounding development. Mr. Drell replied that it was done simultaneously, and over the years, the Bel Air and Alamo neighborhood was there prior to incorporation, and the empty lots have been filled in, while Monterra is a relatively new subdivision, as well as the area to the north. However, the entire area has been zoned R-1- 10,000. Mr. Drell recalled there was a subdivision to the east on Bel Air. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the applicant has agreed to all the conditions proposed in the staff report. Mr. Urbina responded affirmatively, noting the deletion of Public Works Condition Nos. 15 and 16. Chairperson Campbell announced that the public hearing was open asked requested the applicant to address the Commission. MR. DAN MORGAN, 7533 Redwood Boulevard, introduced himself as the project applicant and addressed the Commission. Mr. Morgan expressed concurrence with all the conditions of approval in the report. Mr. Morgan indicated that the only change he would request is that Condition No. 8 regarding the requirement for side entry garages have the setbacks reduced to 12 feet, and that plus the 30- foot easement would be a 42-foot setback for those lots. Mr. Morgan reported that before he subdivided the property, he contacted all the neighbors within a 300-foot radius of his property and has tried to address all the concerns. He understood there is quite a bit of opposition in terms of maintaining the status quo, but he believed the 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 status quo is dated, dangerous and functionally obsolete. All the septic tanks are not working and the pool is coming apart. While it is a beautiful piece of property, he believed its time has come. Mr. Morgan commented that he has reduced the project from 10 to nine lots, and he believed in the future there will be nine beautiful, high quality homes which will enhance the neighborhood values and definitely look nicer than that which currently exists. Mr. Morgan stated he has visuals of the cross sections from the Kavanaugh and Karlberg residences available for the Commission's inspection. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the houses to be built will sell at approximately the same price as the houses in the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Morgan replied that he believes they will be the same price, if not higher, and added that there are some newer homes to the north which are of a higher quality, and he believes the homes to be built on these lots would in the same price range. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the prices of the homes to be developed would be similar to the prices of the houses to the east in the Bel Air and Loma Vista area. Mr. Morgan replied that he doesn't know the price range of those particular homes, as he has focused only on the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the quality of construction. Mr. Morgan responded that only the best quality construction will be used, as this is a beautiful piece of property in a beautiful area, and it would be a disservice to the neighborhood and community to build anything but the highest quality. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the proposed development will be compatible to the surrounding developments insofar as price and quality are concerned. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 Mr. Morgan responded that the proposed development will be compatible to the surrounding developments with regard to price and quality. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification as to whether the applicant is seeking a reduction to the side yard setback from 20 feet to 18 feet for Lots 8 and 9. Mr. Morgan responded affirmatively and noted that there is a 30-foot easement, and the condition of approval requires another 20 feet in addition to the 30-foot easement, so he is agreeable to the 30-foot setback. He added that where he has a side entry garage, he wants to reduce the setback from an additional 20 feet to an additional 12 feet for a total of 42 feet from the property line. Mr. Drell noted that the standard is far in excess of the ordinance requirements, so wasn't not sure it was a reduction in required setbacks, although it was a difference in how staff described it, but the setback for both front and rear yards is 20 feet so the setbacks for this property will be far in ..., excess of that, so technically it's not an exception to anything. Mr. Morgan stated that he would like his front yard setback to the east to be 42 feet in total. Commissioner Jonathan thought the discussion was regarding the side yard setback. Mr. Morgan clarified that he meant he would like a reduction from 20 feet to 18 feet for the front yard setback for the side entry garages. Chairperson Campbell noted that the requested change to Condition No. 8 is for an eight-foot reduction in the setback recommended by staff. Mr. Morgan responded affirmatively. Mr. Drell pointed out that even with the reduction, it amounts to approximately twice the setback prescribed by the ordinance requirement. MR. HARRY LESSEOS, 73-166 Loma Vista Road, Palm Desert, addressed the Commission and stated that he and his wife, Carolyn, %MW 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 reside approximately six homes east of the proposed building site, and they adamantly oppose the approval of a variance to allow a reduction of the R-1-10,000 zone. He further stated that they strongly oppose the construction of nine homes in the approximately 2.53 acres of land. To do so would not meld with the overall appearance of the homes in the surrounding area. To do so would add excessive parking and traffic in the immediate area. It should be noted that the speed limit on Alamo is 35 m.p.h. with the prima facie speed always faster. He wanted to know where the developer proposes visiting vendors and guests park. Also, the Homestead extension access road into the south entrance is slated for 24 feet rather than the customary 36-foot wide streets, and this would undoubtedly pose a safety hazard for all, especially if resident and guest vehicles are allowed to park there. He wanted to know where the developer proposes Waste Management attempt to drive in, pick up the trash and turn back up onto Alamo, or if the developer intends on having the residents haul their containers onto Alamo. Mr. Lesseos strongly requested that the Commission take the following action: 1) deny the variance minimizing any of the lots sizes; 2) allow no more than six homes to be built on this location; 3) require the south access road be the same size as Bel Air Road; and 4) require sidewalks abutting Bel Air and Alamo as is currently the theme in Palm Desert when new tracts are being built. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff about the waste pickup access for Lots 7, 8 and 9 via the private drive. Mr. Urbina replied that the Fire Department approved a hammerhead type of turnaround, and there is also a possibility that the Waste Management truck could back into the driveway, and then onto the stub street. Mr. Drell noted that fire trucks are longer than trash trucks, and if the fire trucks can negotiate the hammerhead, then the trash trucks will also be able to do so. DR. RANIER BERGMANN, 73-100 Loma Vista, Palm Desert, stated that this is a wonderful neighborhood and a close knit community, and the proposed change to put nine lots into an area that really should only hold six lots could disrupt the community. Dr. Bergmann 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 reported that he surveyed the neighborhood with a diagram depicting the relationship of the subject property to the rest of the community, and after reviewing the diagram, at least two of the proponent neighbors indicated they would be changing their support for the applicant's proposal. Dr. Bergmann noted that six lots would fit perfectly into the neighborhood because it would mirror the sizes of the homes across the street. The 10 lots proposed in August is a stark departure from the surrounding homes, and the nine-lot subdivision currently being proposed is also unprecedented. The sidewalk surrounds the Loma Vista development. Six lots would be in harmony with the surrounding properties, while nine homes would mirror what is seen on Portola, which is undesirable. Although nine lots would meet the letter of the law insofar as the minimum requirement is 10,000 square foots, but there is not a single lot that is only 10,0000 square feet in the neighborhood, as they range in size to almost 14,000 square feet. He believed six lots would be more in line with the spirit of the law, and would match the neighborhood and respect the wishes of the surrounding community. This project involves 2.53 acres, but a third to half of an acre cannot be built upon ,,.. because of the six-foot setback from the wall to Monterra, and a proposed 24-foot access road which he felt should really be wider than that. Additionally, sidewalks must be installed to continue on with the existing sidewalk at the beginning of the block. Dr. Bergmann indicated that the biggest question in his mind is that the average number of cars per household is two-and-a-half cars, not counting visitors' vehicles, which amounts to a great deal of traffic in the area, and he wanted to get as many cars as possible off the street, so he suggested consideration of three-car garages. The more lots there are on a block, the more driveways and less on-street parking space. Mr. Lesseos mentioned that Alamo is a 35 m.p.h. speed zone, but there is not a single driveway that accesses Alamo, and there is also a school bus route along there, so if overflow parking is needed for these lots, it would be best that the cars not be parked on the other side of Alamo so that people have to cross a 35 m.p.h. street to get to the property. He strongly urged the Commission to consider requiring the sidewalks to be continued that have already been started on the block to provide a safe access to parked cars. tow 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21. 2003 .W Dr. Bergmann expressed concern about the access road and suggested that it be widened to provide parking and thereby create sufficient width for emergency vehicle access even when cars are parked along the road. He believed the trash problem has already been addressed. This is one of the last pieces of vacant prime real estate remaining in the area, and it's the largest private property not within a golf course development, so he questioned the value of chopping it up in to minimum sized lots and ruining the neighborhood in the process. He suggested creating something of increased value with which everyone would be happy. Dr. Bergmann stated that the miniature park is what attracted his family to the area 11 years ago, and he didn't want the area to be ruined. He suggested preserving the uniformity of the neighborhood by not allowing more than six lots, because he did not want a Portola type project in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood wishes should be respected. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the homes on the Portola project amounted to nine homes on a piece of property twice the size of the subject property. i Mr. Drell responded that the Portola property was not twice as large as the ••i1 subject property, and he wasn't sure that was applicable to this situation. MR. JIM KANE, 73-015 Skyward Way, Palm Desert, stated that he and his wife have resided at this address approximately 10 years. Many of the comments he intended to make have already been stated, and he added that as a developer, it is not in his nature to be a NIMBY. He emphasized that this is a very special neighborhood and urged the Commission to be very careful about what is approved. When he received the letter from the developer, the letter stated, "I hope people will build nice houses," and he believed there would be much less resistance to the project if it were a local developer and if it were a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Kane stated there might be a way to get a number that makes everyone happy and still addresses the concern that have been so ably raised by his neighbors. He believed it would be a nightmare for residents of five houses to attempt to take access off of Alamo. He noted that he lives on Alamo, which is like a racetrack, and he suspected it would be an issue with which the City will ultimately have to rectify, as there have been several instances when he and his wife uo 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 �.. were compelled to call and complain about the high vehicular speeds on the street. Mr. Kane urged the Commission to treat the neighborhood as a treasure. MS. BETTY KARLBERG, 73-062 Monterra Circle North, stated that her home is directly in back of the proposed project. She understood that an environmental study was conducted, and there are actually animals which inhabit the project site, i.e., quail, birds, lizards, road runners, rabbits, etc., and she was concerned what will happen to the animals when they are displaced by the proposed development. She believed there are too many lots proposed for the property, which will devalue the existing homes and negatively impact the peace and tranquility in the neighborhood. Ms. Kadberg was concerned about the impacts on existing residents from traffic on the access road. MS. SUE SHEGENICA, 72900 Somera Road, Palm Desert, stated her family has lived in the community for over 20 years, and their current residence is across the street from another home they resided in for approximately eight years. Her family purchased a home in this community primarily because of its low density and the open desert feeling; however, the proposed development is definitely a departure from the flavor and continuity as well as the density of the community. She stressed the importance of maintaining the continuity and the density as well as the lot sizes in the neighborhood, and requested that the Commission very carefully consider any changes in the dynamics, density and lot sizes. MR. DAVID WARE stated he resides at the corner of Skyward and Alamo. Mr. Ware noted that many of the homes and the lots developed in this neighborhood go back to the time of the previous General Plan which was adopted some 20 years ago. Although he realized that much of the emphasis of the General Plan study has been placed in the northern section of Palm Desert, primarily the Cal State San Bernardino campus and surrounding area, in taking the general philosophy and direction of the General Plan and applying it to south Palm Desert, taking into consideration other than gated communities and golf course developments, in his mind, this is the last sizeable piece of land available in the area. Many of the other lots were developed some 20 years ago. He spent some time in the Cypress Estates project at Portola just south of El Paseo, and they iov 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 claim there are four acres, and all the homes have been constructed, and the residents have the advantage of direct access with a driveway and cul du sac for turnaround, none of which applies to the property at Bel Air and Alamo. Mr. Ware commented that based upon living on the corner of Alamo and Skyward, he has had a chance to assess what happens on that street. Approximately half the street is set up so there is no parking on either side, and that was done for a reason. If one analyzes the traffic on Alamo, in addition to being very low density traffic, many of the users are there are bicycle groups, dog walkers, golf carts, and these users choose Alamo because it is one of the main thoroughfares intersecting this neighborhood. The 24-foot access road was originally was intended to have Homestead pass through, but that is no longer possible because it is land locked. If either of the residents of the first two proposed lots have a party, then the access road will become clogged to the point where emergency vehicles will be unable to reach all the properties. Mr. Ware remarked that his family chose to reside in south Palm J Desert because of the flavor of the neighborhood, the compatibility and maturity of the neighborhood, and the fact that it was an established area. A factor that should also be taken into consideration is that this land was previously part of The Living Desert. MS. CAROL LANBELL,45-745 Santa Fe Trail, stated that her parents own the home on Barberry which is adjacent. She wanted to bring 47 points to bring to the Commission's attention, but because she believed others would speak to some of those points first, she would follow up on whichever comments were not covered. MS. LAURA WRAIGHT, an eighth grade student at Palm Desert Middle School, stated that she has lived across the subject property at 73-042 Bel Air all her life. Following the September 111h attack, her brother, a graduate of Palm Desert High as a National Merit Scholar, gave up his scholarship to join the Air Force. She read from an article written by her brother which was published in the Desert Sun regarding this property. The article indicated that her brother grew up in the desert atmosphere, where he observed the great changes that 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 have occurred, i.e., development versus the protection of the national state which has been a constant issue and has found its place across the street from his home. The adjoining block to the east is nothing more than sand dunes and desert brush. Over time construction has taken every last plot of land with the exception of the property across the street. He appreciated the rich colors and wholesome affection that untouched fields provided. Dr. Eugene Kay owned that property and obviously cared about preservation on the desert environment. Dr. Kay passed away seven years ago and left a majority of that land to The Living Desert for the purpose of making a permanent mark of what seemed to be one final memory of Palm Desert. The Living Desert has made an agreement with the family, which has also received a portion of the estate, to combine all the land and sell it for more than $1 million, which seems like a hefty price to lose all the value of the land. He believed one of The Living Desert's goal was uncompromised protection of the environment, but it seems as if the organization is now more interested in the money to pay for the construction of giant facilities rather than actual preservation of many animals' habitats. He challenged the ethics of the Living Desert's actions. Dr. Kay's dying wish was to leave his land to an organization he should have been able to trust so his friends and neighbors in Palm Desert could drive by and remember the beauty of this place. Ms. Wraight hoped that when her brother returns from his military service that the beauty of the desert will still be intact for him to see. MS. ROBIN BRINKLEY, 73-042 Bel Air, thanked the Commission for allowing a continuance on this issue, as her family did not receive notice of the hearing until after it had happened, because they were out of town during the summer. She wished it was possible to turn back time to the year 2000 when her son's article was written. She encouraged the Commission to pass around and keep the pictures that show the lot as it existed in the year 2000. The flora and fauna can never be replicated. In addition to the animals already mentioned, she enjoys an occasional iguana in her front yard. Obviously time cannot be turned back, and most people agree that the property has significantly deteriorated in the last year and that quality construction would enhance the neighborhood. The question now is the definition of quality. r.. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 Ms. Brinkley stated that she has lived in her home 20 years and remembers when the block to the east was built, the planning Commission tried to ensure that the lot sizes and homes would be comparable to those already in existence. The density of the proposed project will lower the quality of life for all, except those who are profiting financially from the sale of the houses. The new development on Portola is nine houses on four acres with no elbow room, and none have sold. Due to the access road and six-foot setback, this development will have nine lots on approximately two acres. A rectangular plot of land almost equal in size is located directly to the north of the proposed development where she lives, and only six homes occupy that area, and each of the lots are at least one-third acre in size. Six homes on the proposed development with one-third acre lots would be consistent with what has already been built. Granting a variance will detract from the ambience of the neighborhood. Ms. Brinkley further commented that Mr. Morgan has referred to the Southern California Gas Company easements as creating unnecessary physical hardship as it relates to the subdivision of land, • but just as the neighbors knew that the natural state of the property would not last forever, Mr. Morgan knew the easements and access road at the time he purchased the land. Mr. Morgan needs to ensure that the size and shape of the lots and buildings are comparable to those surrounding it. She doesn't want to yearn for the past five years from now, and she wanted to be able to celebrate what is done with one of the few pieces of prime real estate remaining in Palm Desert. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the difficulty of researching the files to determine if the development on Portola is actually nine homes on four acres. Mr. Drell responded that staff did research this issue after it was raised tonight, and the development is nine homes on 2.65 acres. Mr. Drell added that the Portola development does not enjoy existing streets and all the access has to come out of that; so it is comparable in size to the subject property. s MR. MATTHEW JOHNSON, 73-134 Bel Air Road, stated that he lives approximately six doors down from the proposed development, and ad 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 r.. is in the development business as a licensed engineer. He didn't think nine lots or even six lots was appropriate and preferred it be reduced to four lots, but encouraged the Commission to approve the subdivision with six lots to maintain the continuity of the neighborhood. MR. MARC GLASSMAN, 73-100 Bel Air Road, stated he has resided at this address for approximately six years, which is approximately two houses to the east of the subject property. He commented he loves the subject property and acknowledged the developer's right to build homes there, but felt that the proposed density of nine units on the property is inappropriate. Although his home is on one of the smaller lots in the neighborhood, it still measures a quarter acre, so to put nine homes on the subject property would greatly diminish the consistency in the neighborhood. He felt that most of his points were already brought up by Dr. Bergmann, but added that the Alamo issue is extremely important because he travels that way and people speed on that street, so the issue of driveway access must be considered. .., MS. CAROL LANBELL, 45-745 Santa Fe Trail, commented that this is not a minimum neighborhood, and minimum people don't live there, and minimum lots are not found in this neighborhood. If nine lots are allowed, it would meet the bare minimum requirement in a neighborhood that exceeds the minimum requirements. The vegetation has died, and The Living Desert removed some of the beautiful cactus, which was certainly their right, but the lots currently looks deplorable. Certainly anything would be better than dead vegetation, but she was offended by someone that would come in from Northern California, turn off the water during the hot summer and let the property literally go to pot in more ways than one. Mr. Morgan is not building these homes, but is merely subdividing the property. Those who live in and around could be influenced by nine homes being built at nine different times over a three to five year build out period, and not enjoy the luxury of the Portola build out which happened quickly, which is upsetting. She was concerned that people would be watching her children as they walk to school and watching her parents as they leave to go to market, and concerned about having strangers in the neighborhood for up to five years watching every move the residents make. She was distressed by nine people having access to those lots at the corner of Portola and 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 i Alamo. She believed pad height is an issue, and requested that Lot 9 or Lot 6 (the lot closest to the three houses) have a pad height of 502 rather than 504. Mr. Morgan remarked that the homes and their location on each pad is an issue for a later time because the only issue before the Commission is the land subdivision. The average lot size for the proposed development is 13,000 square feet, which is one and a third times larger than what is required. Mr. Morgan noted that the Assessor's Parcel Map shows the sizes of the lots in the area. For example, the Howard, Vogel and Kavanaugh homes are all .26, .26 and .3 acres, respectively. The homes on Be[ Air in this area are .32, .24, and the non cul du sac lots are .28 and .33. His point was that other than one piece which is geographically challenged, the lots that he proposed are compatible with the neighborhood. With nine lots the average lot size is 13,000 square feet; whereas if the subdivision were reduced to six lots, the average lot size would be 20,000, which is much larger than the existing lots in the neighborhood as well as twice the size which is required. .ri Commissioner Tschopp asked if the proposed project includes sidewalks to integrate into existing sidewalks on Bel Air and Alamo. Mr. Morgan noted that there are no sidewalks on Alamo, and he didn't know if there were any sidewalks on Bel Air; however, if that is what exists in the neighborhood, he has no problem with a condition requiring sidewalks on the perimeter of the project as long as they continue on, as he didn't want to have the only four lots on the street with sidewalks. Mr. Morgan noted that the 24-foot access road will be a private driveway red curbed to preclude parking. Commissioner Tschopp asked about the sizes of the lots on Bel Air. Mr. Morgan noted that Lot 1 is 10,080 square feet; Lot 2 is 10,080 square feet; Lot 3 is 10,021 square feet; Lot 4 is 10,282 square feet; Lot 5 is 10,000 square feet; Lot 6 is 10,600 square feet. uri 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 Chairperson Campbell asked to what grade Lots 8 and 9 are proposed to be lowered. Mr. Morgan replied that the proposed pad height is 504 feet above sea level, and the current height ranges from 502 to 508 in one corner. He stated he is attempting to balance things out, as one existing pad height in the neighborhood is 512, while the Kavanaughs' property is at 500, and another property is at 504, so he didn't want to create significant grade changes between the properties. From Lot 9 to Lot 1, with Lot 1 being 497 feet, the positive drainage from Lot 9 must be maintained. The Public Works Department has been quite helpful in determining acceptable pad heights. The proposed pad height is currently 504, which was reduced from the originally proposed 506.5 feet, which represented an even balance between the Karlberg and Kavanaugh pad heights. Mr. Urbina pointed out one final amendment to the staff recommendation for approval of the tentative map would be that Public Works conditions in the resolution be replaced with the conditions in the Public Works Department memorandum dated June 20, 2003 so as to avoid confusion over which conditions to delete. He noted that the memorandum contains 17 conditions of approval, and staff recommends that they replace the Public Works Department conditions contained in the resolution. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the Public Works conditions in the memorandum differ from the Public Works conditions in the resolution primarily by the deletion of Condition Nos. 15 and 16. Mr. Urbina replied that Condition Nos. 15 and 16 would be deleted, and another condition would be added to require the construction of sidewalks along Alamo and Bel Air Road. Commissioner Jonathan asked if sidewalks currently exist on Alamo. Mr. Urbina responded that none currently exist; however, the Public Works Department wants to incrementally add sidewalks as properties develop, and it is hoped that grants will be received in the future which would allow the City to construct sidewalks to improve pedestrian safety; so this has been a standard condition. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 3 too Commissioner Jonathan asked if the Public Works Department would be agreeable to requiring that the applicant design the property to facilitate future sidewalks should sidewalks be installed over the length of Alamo. Mr. Drell replied that the policy is to require sidewalks for new developments, and the Council has supported that policy. Mr. Drell believed that six feet is too wide for a residential sidewalk and indicated that staff is working toward developing a five-foot standard width for residential sidewalks. Chairperson Campbell stated that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Finerty expressed appreciation to everyone for coming out to participate. She indicated it was beneficial for her to see how the subdivision would look with six lots, nine lots, and 10 lots, respectively. Although this meets the minimum requirements, it just didn't look right, and the configuration isn't something she would want in her neighborhood. She believed uniformity and compatibility are important. She understood that developers often build their project and leave the neighborhood to deal with .% what has been created, and the developers don't have the flavor of the neighborhood nor understand what it is all about. She believed that six lots would be best and would be compatible, and encouraged the developer to consider reducing the proposed projects to six lots. Commissioner Jonathan thanked everyone for coming out, including the applicant, especially for his attempts to address the neighbors' concerns. He commented that although he would love to see this property converted to a miniature version of The Living Desert, it would require the residents to purchase the land and maintain it, which is highly unlikely. People become accustomed to the views and quiet that comes with a lot like this, but eventually the property is developed, so the question is of quality and impact. He believed 10 lots is clearly too much. He was interested to know about the Portola project, which has attractive homes, but is very crowded, so that would be too much. He believed eight lots would be appropriate for this property because if Lot 5 was eliminated and access off Alamo was eliminated, it would go a long ways toward meeting the substantive concerns which have been expressed. He further suggested that all the rear lots, i.e., 6 through 9, be accessed via that private drive in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. This would limit access to Alamo to one 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 %NW access point, with driveways along Bel Air, which is consistent with the existing situation along Bel Air. Elimination of Lot 5 would enable the project to have average lots sizes of over 13,000 which is compatible with the neighborhood. He added he would also support six lots if the Commission so desired, but he believed eight lots strikes a reasonable balance between the rights of the property owner and those of the existing neighbors. Mr. Drell noted that if the project were reduced to eight lots, there would be no necessity for a variance. He pointed out that the Commission has the discretion to deny the requested variance based on the interpretation of the sufficiency of the findings, but the Commission doesn't have the ability to require the lots to be significantly larger than required by the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Tschopp felt the applicant has done a good job of trying to meet the needs of the neighborhood and noted his attempt to create a project which is compatible with the neighborhood. The zoning designation allows more lots which the applicant has proposed. The grade differences in the area are tremendous. He noted that this is a prime piece of property which will ultimately be developed, and hopefully by the right type of people. Currently there are four units, and the proposal to go to nine units would not significantly increase traffic, although he suggested that the engineer take a look at the 35 m.p.h. speed limit on Alamo to determine whether or not it is excessive. The proposed density, although it meets the minimum code requirements, is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. He agreed with Commissioner Jonathan's suggestion to reduce the number of lots to eight. He did not support the variance denial, but did support a lower density project. Commissioner Lopez stated he concurs with his fellow Commissioners on several points, but doesn't understand why sidewalks are needed; however, if sidewalks are to be installed in the future, he would support requiring this project to provide for that ability. The traffic on Alamo is difficult, and through the years speeds have become dangerous, so he questioned how much access should be allowed onto that road. The lot is in terrible condition. He agreed with avoiding a repeat of the Portola project, and noted that the acreage is approximately the same here, so he did not support nine lots and recommended denying the variance, but supported eight lots. Commissioner Lopez congratulated the applicant on addressing approximately 85% of the tow 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 community's concerns, and hoped that a compromise could be reached regarding the number of lots. Chairperson Campbell thanked Dr. Bergmann for his educational presentation. She believed nine lots was too much, and agreed that eight lots would be acceptable, and noted it would eliminate the need for driveways on Alamo, which is a busy street. She agreed with Commissioner Lopez with regard to the sidewalks, especially since there are currently no sidewalks, but indicated she would support a condition providing for sidewalks in the future. Commissioner Finerty asked if staff has prepared a resolution of denial. Mr. Drell suggested that the Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the requested variance, and continue the tentative map and direct the applicant to come back with a revised map which does not require a variance. Commissioner Finerty asked about the consequences of the Commission denying both requests. Mr. Drell replied that it would mean the applicant would have to start over from scratch, whereas submittal of an amended map that doesn't require a variance would be more expedient for the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan felt that enough work has been done by the applicant that he should not be required to start over, and he supported Commission action to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of the variance request and continue the tentative tract map. He suggested that the applicant modify it to reduce the number of lots to eight and eliminate Lot 5 such that there would be four lots on Bel Air and four lots along the private drive and create access via the private drive to all four of the rear lots, i.e., 6 through 9, and modify Public Works Condition No. 4 to not require a sidewalk on Alamo at this time, and that the sidewalk on Bel Air be consistent with existing sidewalks on Bel Air. Commissioner Finerty asked if it is possible for the developer to post a bond for the sidewalks, and when sidewalks are installed, the funds would be available. ri 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 Commissioner Jonathan suggested that the project be designed to accommodate sidewalks should one be required and an agreement by the developer to participate in assessment district should one be formed. Mr. Drell noted that bonds are good for improvements which will occur fairly soon, as they cost money to maintain, and after properties are sold, it becomes problematic. He added that the developer cannot commit future property owners to participating in an assessment district when the costs and details are unknown, so most developers prefer to go ahead and install the sidewalk. Mr. Drell noted that the right-of-way exists, so another way to provide for future installation of sidewalks is pursuant to a program which is either agreed to by 50% of the property owners as part of the assessment district or any other way the City may choose, so it's a matter of whether the City wants to save the expense or incur it. Chairperson Campbell recalled that the City Council has been adamant in requiring sidewalks for new development. Commissioner Jonathan thought it would be inappropriate to require sidewalks at this time because it doesn't benefit the neighborhood or anyone other than the City in the event the City decides to install for the rest of the street it in the future, with which Commissioner Tschopp agreed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying Case No. VAR 03-1 and to continue Case No. TT 31346 to November 18, 2003 and suggested that the applicant modify the map to: 1) reduce the number of lots to eight; 2) eliminate Lot 5 such that there would be four lots on Bel Air and four lots along the private drive and create access via the private drive to all four of the rear lots, i.e., 6 through 9; and 3) modify Public Works Condition No. 4 to not require a sidewalk on Alamo at this time, and that the sidewalk on Bel Air be consistent with existing sidewalks on Bel Air. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. TT 31071 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT, INC., Applicant (Continued from July 15, 2003 and August 19, 2003) Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 36.63 acres on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive 1,413 feet 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 west of Monterey Avenue into 153 residential lots and two additional lots, 73-400 Gerald Ford Drive. Mr. Smith reported that staff received the revised map late last week, so it has been amended since the last time the Commission reviewed it. The property owners in the area north of Gerald Ford have met and developed a plan that would implement specifically the staff recommended alternative, and to a certain degree, GPAC recommended alternative for this area. He noted that the map has been prepared in accordance with those guidelines. Mr. Smith explained that the basic difference between the revised map and the map presented in August is that the original map included 123 lots on 36.5 acres, whereas the revised map includes 153 lots on approximately 31 acres. The five acres at the northerly portion of the map has been set aside for the future acquisition by the School District. Prior to its acquisition by the School District, the land will be used as a retention basin for this map. Mr. Smith noted that the main concern expressed in the original staff report presented to the Commission in July was that the applicant was grading the site in a fashion which drained everything to the south to Gerald Ford, leaving a 13- to 17-foot grade difference at the north end of the property. With the changes to the plan, that grade difference no longer exists, and the property will, in fact, drain to the north following the existing natural terrain. The revised median density plan is now consistent with the staff recommended land use and circulation plan and is similar to the less intensive alternative analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mr. Smith pointed out that the plan still takes its major access from Gateway Drive, and it results in a new street running east/west toward the north end of the map, which provides access to the south end of the school site and connecting points to the north and east for those property owners in that direction. No access is proposed to or from Gerald Ford. Mr. Smith explained that the current residential development standards regarding setbacks have been designed for minimum lot sizes of 8,000 square feet. These lots have a basic minimum size of 5,000 square feet, and most of them are approximately 5,500 square feet. The Draft General Plan recommends that neighborhoods include a combination of low, medium and high density housing and anticipates that development standards for medium 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 density small lots single-family detached housing be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends setbacks that are a little less onerous than the current R-1 8,000 standards. Mr. Smith reported that architecture has not been submitted for the revised lots, and in order to provide the Commission with assurance that the proposed setbacks are appropriate, when staff comes forward with a resolution of approval, a condition will be included requiring that the architecture and the building site plans be confirmed by the Planning Commission once the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) has completed its process. The ARC has not yet seen revised building plans that would fit onto these 55-foot wide lots. Staff recommends that, based on the Commission's determination concerning land use alternatives, at the appropriate time the Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval subject to the usual conditions plus a condition relative to establishing assurance that the setbacks are acceptable. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there are several items on the agenda which are contingent upon adoption of the General Plan, and those items are being continued, so he wanted to know what direction the General Plan would take prior to giving staff direction on these four applications. Commissioner Finerty pointed out that the July 15, 2003 staff report indicates that the uniformly low density applicant is in direct conflict with land uses identified in the GPAC Preferred Alternative, and commented that Commission action on these cases prior to adoption of the General Plan would be premature. Commissioner Finerty recalled that the original map included 123 lots ranging in size from 8,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet, but because staff indicated that GPAC wanted the Preferred Alternative, the original map has been changed considerably to include much smaller lots. Mr. Drell explained that these items were specifically continued to this public hearing date, so staff had no choice but to bring them back and provide the Commission with a status update. Commissioner Finerty noted that the staff recommendation is to continue the matter to November 4th, but the Commission still has to decide on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, so November 4th would be too soon. 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 i Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would behoove the applicant for the hearing to be continued to November 4th with the understanding that it will probably be continued again, as opposed to having to re-advertise the public hearing. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing is still open. MR. JAY RICHARD, 44-600 Village Court, Palm Desert, stated that he is an employee of World Development, and is confused, because much work has been done to address the concerns of the neighbors, the School District, and City staff, and this revised map is the culmination of all that work. He wanted the Commission to go ahead and take action, because it has been difficult working with a moving target, as it was unclear whether the map would be required to comply with the existing General Plan or the Draft General Plan, and staff encouraged compliance with the Draft General Plan. Commissioner Jonathan remarked that he is regretful and embarrassed that the applicant has had to endure this process, but at this point, the City is in transition with the remaining undeveloped portions, and the goal is to better define the City and create a plan for the next 20 years. Unfortunately, the applicant is caught in the middle, but the fact is the Commission doesn't know in what direction the applicant should go because the Commission has not had a chance to discuss the Draft General Plan, and even when the Commission does reach consensus, the Commission will merely be making a recommendation to the City Council, as adoption of the draft General Plan is ultimately in the hands of the Council. Commissioner Jonathan asked what size homes are anticipated to be constructed on these proposed 5,000 and 6,000 foot lots, given the revised setback requirements. Mr. Richard replied that the development team has not proceeded beyond the map because it would not be prudent to go any further given the status of the Draft General Plan. Commissioner Finerty encouraged Mr. Richard to keep the original map which was submitted on July 15th which included lots ranging from 8,000 to 15,000 square feet, because it is conceivable that may still be appropriate, 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 and it is possible that adoption of the Draft General Plan could be as late as the first of next year. Mr. Richard requested that the Commission go ahead and take action on the application, because every month the hearing is continued adds considerable cost to the project. He noted that when the moratorium was imposed, Council member Ferguson indicated that there is nothing to prevent applicants from having their entitlement requests processed, and asked the City Attorney to confirm that statement. Mr. Erwin confirmed that Mr. Richard is correct, and there is nothing to prevent the process from continuing, but as Commissioner Jonathan says, the Commission can choose whether or not to act on the application. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the applicant has been working with the neighbors and other property owners to try to create a plan for the entire area, while the Commission is attempting to look at this entire area as well as how it fits into City as a whole. He stated that in order to effectively and properly take action on this application, he would need to know what the neighboring property owners are planning to do, and would also need to know if the setbacks as proposed for the 5,000 square foot lots are appropriate, and what type of homes would be built upon these lots and how they would fit into the neighborhood. He also had questions about traffic and access, and how the School District's facility would be integrated. Commissioner Finerty asked if the applicant would prefer that the Commission take action this evening or continue the public hearing to a date uncertain. Mr. Richards preferred that the Commission take action this evening. Commissioner Finerty concurred with the concerns expressed by Commissioners Tschopp and Jonathan, and indicated if the applicant prefers action, her motion would be to deny the application. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the proposed project is consistent with the zoning. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 i Mr. Drell responded affirmatively, noting that the area is zoned PR-5, and the overall density is less than five units per acre, which is consistent with the General Plan, and although the minimum lot size under this zoning designation is 8,000, that development standard is subject to exceptions that may be granted by the Planning Commission; thus, the Commission has the ability under the zoning and the existing General Plan to approve the project. Commissioner Jonathan noted that although the Commission has the ability to approve the project, there is insufficient information to enable that at this point, and pointed out that the Commission has never approved any lots as small as 5,000 square feet in the PR zone, and exceptions which have been granted in the past have only been slightly less than 8,000 square feet. Commissioner Finerty stated that if the applicant truly wants the Commission to take action, she would be inclined to move to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of the application as presented; however, an action of denial would require the applicant to start all over again. Mr. Richards indicated he would prefer not to have to start the application process all over again, and in that case, would prefer that the Commission continue the public hearing. Commissioner Tschopp encouraged the applicant to take the Commission's questions into consideration and be prepared to answer those questions when this matter comes back before the Commission for action. Commissioner Jonathan felt that a continuance is definitely in order, because he will not be in a position to vote either for or against these affected projects until the Commission has before it a resolution with regard to the Draft General Plan. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, to continue Case No. TT 31071 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-0. 34 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 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 (Continued from August 19, 2003) Request for approval of 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 to PR-13 (planned residential, thirteen units per acre), a Precise Plan / Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes to construct 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 27 feet in height and a Development Agreement which will include, among other matters, provisions for affordable housing units. Mr. Drell reported that this particular site is recommended for high density residential in the various alternatives of the Draft General Plan, primarily due to its proximity to commercial land to the west and north, proximity to a major collector to the east, and proximity of another large arterial. At the last hearing, the Commission received an introduction to the design of the project, and the Commission had questions about the design, circulation, amenities, and density. For this particular site, the land use, to a certain degree, is driven by compatibility with surrounding land use. Although this particular application is at the lower end of the range, although it must not always be assumed that building fewer houses is a positive benefit to the community, as part of the reason cities exist is to provide housing for its residents. Mr. Drell stated that the applicant has addressed the amenity issue by taking the large retention area proposed for the northeast corner of the property and incorporated that into larger common area in the center of the project with the two large pools. A second amenity area is proposed in the northwest corner of the project which still provides some retention, but is better integrated into the project. With regard to the issue of road width, there are no changes insofar as this is the same 24-foot aisle width that is included in all multi-family projects. When streets are made wider, they are not safer, but actually more dangerous because drivers travel faster on wider streets. The streets within the project are designed to accommodate parking 35 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 as well as sidewalks. Other multi-family projects within the City which have higher densities and more units, i.e., One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas, have 24-foot street widths, which is perfectly adequate. Mr. Drell noted that the Commission brought up the issue of number of accesses. One Quail Place, a 384-unit project, has two access points, and this 325-unit proposed project will have two access points, and staff anticipates no congestion problems. The proposed project has the ability to develop a third access on Gerald Ford, which is currently an emergency access, but it would be up to the Public Works Department whether or not it should be opened as a permanent third access point. Mr. Drell recalled that the Commission was positive about the general design and architecture of the project, and those elements have not changed. He stated staff is recommending continuance for the same reason a continuance was recommended for the previous project, but given the work the applicant has done, it would be useful to provide the applicant with feedback on resolving design issues. Chairperson Campbell asked if the number of units proposed has been changed. Mr. Drell responded that the number of units is the same, but the open space has been re-arranged so that it functions more effectively visually inside the project rather than being out on the edge. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report refers to a 320-unit residential condominium project, whereas the applicant consistently refers to the project as apartments. Mr. Drell replied that it is being developed to meet condominium standards, and therefore can potentially have a condominium map applied to it and still meet the City's condominium standards. Thus, it could be a for-sale project in the future if the developer so chooses. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that when the Commission reviews this project in further detail, that the condominium/apartment issue be addressed in the staff report. 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 Mr. Drell pointed out that the application includes a tentative map and thus should be reviewed as potentially an ownership project, but that doesn't force the developer to sell them, and it doesn't prevent an individual from buying a unit. Mr. Drell noted that it is common for an individual to purchase a unit and then turn it over to the property management company for rental purposes. Chairperson Campbell announced that the public hearing was still men asked requested the applicant to address the Commission. MR. MIKE WINTER of Sares Regis Group, located at 18-825 Harding Avenue in Irvine, stated that his intent was to present the new site plan and answer the Commission's comments and questions from the last hearing date. His team held focus groups with several citizens and community business leaders and university and college deans and staff, and that information was used to modify the plan. Commissioner Jonathan preferred that the applicant's detailed presentation be deferred until the point where the Commission can listen to the presentation with the objective of making a decision, as opposed to listening to it now and deferring action to later, with which Commissioners Finerty and Lopez concurred. Mr. Winter asked if it was likely that the Commission would be ready to take action on November 18`h Commissioner Finerty responded that it is not possible at this point to predict a date, given the status of the Draft General Plan, which is why the Commission continued the previous case to a date uncertain. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the Commission regarding this issue. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and said they would be continuing it a date uncertain. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, to continue Case Nos. GPA 03-05, C/Z 03-04, TT 31363, PP/CUP 03-06 and DA 03-02 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-0. 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 .ai E. Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, PP 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 03-03 - RICK EVANS, Applicant (Continued from September 2, 2003) Request for approval of a General Plan amendment from low density residential to planned commercial; a change of zone from PR-5 (planned residential, five units per acre) to PCD (planned community development); and a precise plan and tentative parcel map for a commercial/office project at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, 37- 001 Cook Street. Said project includes 111,880 square feet of retail (including drive-thru restaurants), a three-story hotel with up to 140 rooms; and one-story garden offices totaling 122,000 square feet. Project is generally located at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive described as a portion of 653-390-062. Mr. Drell reported that approximately half of this property is part of the Wonder Palms Development Agreement, where it is designated as District Commercial. Under that Agreement, it is specifically exempt from the moratorium. Under the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, this is a commercial corner, so he didn't believe there is a land use issue or debate as to whether or not this corner should have a commercial project. The Development Agreement provides vested rights for 11 acres of commercial development, but it is not configured very rationally. The developer's original intent was to develop a very conventional project consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, to include a Sav-On drug store, a fast food restaurant and a gas station. Staff felt that this valuable commercial corner deserved to be developed as something more than just an ordinary commercial project, and prevailed upon the applicant to develop a very unique project. The applicant responded with a proposal which meets all the unique characteristics, demands and opportunities of the site, which is in essence a combination of office/retail/restaurant/hotel project that responds both to the resort quality of the community as well as future opportunities and demands of the college and adjacent residential, and it is phased in such a way that it can be built to respond to today's market and evolve along with the development of the college. Mr. Drell recalled that the Commission raised the issue of medical use and 3 how it fits into the City's ordinance standards and whether or not the project aid 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 as designed would contain sufficient parking. He stated that staff believes that it provides sufficient parking and would prefer that the Commission not require more parking than is actually needed so as to avoid the appearance of an asphalt jungle. The River project in Rancho Mirage has a parking problem because it is dominated by similar uses with identical peak hours. An advantage of a mix of uses such as the ones proposed for this project is that it enjoys efficiencies of off and on peak hours for the various businesses, and therefore, more businesses can be accommodated by fewer parking spaces. Mr. Drell stated that since the project was last reviewed by the Commission, the project was twice reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the project now has an architectural style which is appropriate given the types of uses. Important features include storefronts which actually look like storefronts with full windows. He noted that the key to architecture for small shopping centers is to have simple, understated overall project architecture which allows the storefront to be the prominent feature, and this plan accomplishes that. Mr. Drell noted that the features of the project are still in design evolution, which is why staff recommends continuance, but based upon the unique circumstances of the existing entitlements on the property, this project is in a different category than the residential projects which are significantly impacted by the density discussion. Therefore, staff encouraged the Commission to provide the applicant with as much input as possible so that the project can continue to move forward. Chairperson Campbell announced that the public hearing was still open asked requested the applicant to address the Commission. MR. RICK EVANS, 57-745 Interlaken, La Quinta, stated that he is one of the project owners, and noted that since the last hearing, much has been accomplished, and he would echo Mr. Drell's comments. The design team has attempted to open up the plaza, lower the pavilion buildings and offer a stronger vista throughout the project, and then line up an arcade in the middle, and also present a main street storefront appearance. Regarding the issue of medical office parking, the previous design was short by 60 spaces based on code requirements for medical office uses. At that time, he pointed out that access parking of 40 "swing" spaces nearby on the site would be 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 available during the day because of the staggered peak hours of the various uses on the site. Since that time, the design team has found another 23 additional parking spaces, so instead of being 60 spaces short per the code, it is now an issue of only 37 spaces, and he believes it may be possible to reduce that to an issue of 29 spaces. MR. DAN ALLRED with American Realty Trust, 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 300 in Dallas, Texas, addressed the Commission. He mentioned that his company is selling this property to Mr. Evans, and the original acquisition was to be 100% within the Development Agreement; but through staff and the GPAC, they were directed to create something more fitting for an entry to the City, and that is what the design team has attempted to do. It was his hope that since this project is not subject to the moratorium that the project could be processed. MR. ALIBABA FARZENEH, 39-902 Newcastle in Palm Desert, stated that the project looks sensible and should be approved. Mr. Drell stated that staff has not yet prepared a resolution of approval, but it would be useful to provide the applicant with feedback since there was very little feedback at the previous hearing. Chairperson Campbell commented that it is a wonderful project, and she is glad to see progress toward meeting the medical parking requirements. The hotel architecture does not appear very impressive compared to the rest of the project, and she noted that the ARC has requested changes in that regard, but overall, it was an excellent project. She asked if the first phase will be retail, followed by office. Mr. Evans replied that Phase One will be comprised of 55,000 square feet of office and approximately 50,000 square feet of retail, all nestled in the comer. He added that he appreciated the fact that the ARC did not approve all the architecture of the hotel because he believes as the project evolves, the architecture will be further augmented based upon a blend of the hotel brand's particular style of architecture with the architecture of the rest of the project. Mr. Evans indicated that he has been meeting with several hotel developers, and they are comfortable with that direction. 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 Chairperson Campbell commented favorably on the developer's agreement to having only one entry off of Cook Street, as it is a major improvement. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there will be access on Berger Drive with Phase 2. Mr. Evans replied that the timing of the hotel phase with the retail phase may force some part of the retail for Phase 3 to move forward prematurely because he didn't want that to be a desert access; however, he has planned an access off Berger Drive, so should that be an issue, then Berger would be completed all the way up to the intersection with the spine road and that access implemented to serve the hotel. The Cook Street access is intended to serve Phase 1 only, so if the hotel comes on line prior to Phase 2 retail, then access for the hotel could be provided via Berger Drive at that end of the site, and it would be right in, right out at that particular entrance. Commissioner Tschopp felt that the design of the project is moving in the right direction. r.. Commissioner Finerty asked how many additional drive-thru's are being requested. Mr. Evans remarked that three additional drive-thru's are being requested, with one on Gerald Ford and two on Cook Street. Commissioner Finerty asked what type of restaurants and hotel are anticipated. Mr. Evans replied that he anticipates traditional fast food restaurants such as McDonalds, although he is also meeting with a coffee purveyor as well. The type hotel has always been designed as a suite style hotel rather than a resort style, so he anticipates something along the lines of a Hilton Gardens with no dining room. Commissioner Jonathan stated he is concerned that granting a reduction in required parking may lead to insufficient parking when the project is built out and the businesses are successful; so he preferred that the required parking be provided, especially with regard to medical office uses, which could start 41 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 as a less intensive medical use such as a cosmetic surgical suite, but later evolve into a more intensive urgent care facility. Mr. Evans replied that there is a point at which the quantity of the parking needs to be before it can be successful, and based on his experience, anything under 600 is not a mixed use parking lot, while anything over 1,100 generally works very nicely. This project will be an all-season center, and the medical office will work as long as it is strategically located. Commissioner Jonathan suggested that more detail be presented on the corner element because it is a highly visual and important component in terms of the entrance to the City. Mr. Evans replied that they are considering whether or not to add a water feature, and the design team is also working on windows, landscaping and various other details for the corner element. 3 Commissioner Jonathan recommended that careful consideration be given to the project's internal circulation, especially due to the large size of the project. Mr. Evans indicated the intent is that the internal circulation lend itself to village type use where patrons can park in one space and then access all businesses on foot. Commissioner Finerty echoed Commissioner Jonathan's concerns regarding parking and the gateway to the City, and indicated that her idea of a gateway to the City is not three fast food drive-thru restaurants. She indicated that there is a lack of coffee shop type restaurants in town, and noted the enormous success of Mimi's in Rancho Mirage. Mr. Evans directed the Commission's attention to the two pads in front of the hotel and indicated that one is intended to house a sit-down type restaurant which serves three meals per day, and the other is intended to be a sit-down type restaurant which serves one meal a day. The two pavilion buildings will most likely house sit-down restaurants. Thus, he believed this project will provide the type of restaurants to which Commissioner Finerty is referring. 42 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 Commissioner Finerty suggested that the developer consider including a Claim Jumper restaurant, as she believes that type of restaurant is lacking in Palm Desert, and would most likely be quite successful. Commissioner Lopez expressed concern about use of too much fast food, and liked the coffee shop concept. He noted that high winds are a problem in this area, so wind needs to be taken into consideration. He believed this project had great potential. Mr. Evans noted that the design team includes a wind consultant. He commented that his anxiety is that, because he is a small developer who creates centers for small businesses, and he cannot really commence design development until the Commission approves the application, and time is running out, so if this project cannot be approved in a reasonable amount of time, he will be forced to abandon it. His resources are limited, and he hoped they don't expire before the project is approved. Legally, this project is not subject to moratorium. He urged the Commission to consider this project outside the realm of the General Plan Amendment, even though the o.�. Commission has already indicated it does not want to do that. Even though some of the Commissioners may not want fast food, he believed it is a necessary retail component. He hoped that the Commission would be ready to approve the project on November 4th. Mr. Drell noted that staffs recommendation is to continue the case to November 4th. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp to continue Case Nos. GPA 03-07, C/Z 03-10, P 03-11, TPM 31515 and DA 03-03, to November 4, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. F. Case Nos. C/Z 03-13 and TPM 31730 RBF CONSULTING, Applicant Request for approval of a zone change from PR-5 (planned residential, five dwelling units per acre) to PCD (planned community development) and a tentative parcel map dividing 306 +/- acres into five lots. Property is generally located south 43 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 ; of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, 37-500 Cook Street. Mr. Drell reported that the change of zone and the parcel map relates to the master plan which was presented to the Commission at its last meeting as part of the General Plan discussion, which has now been incorporated into the staff recommended General Plan Land Use. Based upon the Commission's previous comments, he didn't believe the Commission was prepared to approve anything relative to this master plan. At the applicant's request, the parcel map has been submitted with the condition that the applicant cannot record it until the master plan is approved, although he was not sure what that does for the applicant because it would not be possible to sell parcels until the map is recorded. He stated staff is supportive of the master plan and is willing to recommend approval of the parcel map if the Commission is in concurrence with the land use for that master plan. Typically the master plan is approved first and the parcel map is the implementing tool of the master plan. Short of that, he presumed the Commission preferred a continuance. Mr. Drell indicated that the developer has worked very hard to respond to GPAC's desires and feelings about the importance of creating a variety of housing so that people who can only afford a lot which is 5,000 square feet in size may find housing in Palm Desert, and added that a large portion of City Hall employees would fall into this category. Chairperson Campbell announced that the public hearing was open asked requested the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BOB ROSS of RBF Consulting spoke on behalf of the property owners, ART and Desert Wells 237 LLC, and expressed disappointment that a resolution of approval was not yet prepared for this application. He stated that it is open and debatable what the right mix is between low, medium and high density uses. He believed the general circulation is set by the approved roadways to the north, Berger Circle to the east and Shepard to the west, which really sets the intersects around the remaining property that was left after the purchase by the City of the Desert Willow 3 land. He noted the intent of the map is to take one small step forward and get something moving, and acknowledge that the General Plan Amendment is taking longer than everyone would have liked. The parcelization on the 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21 2003 r.. proposed zone change was created approximately five years ago to help financing of the golf course project. The intent of this map is to clean up all those parcel lines and make it something more manageable. Mr. Ross commented that the change of zone is to allow for some kind of mixed use, and although there may be disagreement on what the amounts are, he believed everyone supports a mixed use zone. He stated that the PCD zone is more applicable than the PR-5 zone for a mixed used type project. He was not looking for land use approval tonight, but was looking for the ball to be moved ahead rather than being static. He preferred that the project be continued to November 41h rather than a date uncertain. There being no further public comment, Chairperson Campbell opened the floor to questions from the Commission. Commissioner Jonathan felt that it would be premature for the Commission to take action on this project prior to adoption of the Draft General Plan, with �.�. which Commissioners Finerty and Tschopp concurred. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty to continue Case Nos. C/Z 03-13 and TPM 31730 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Chairperson Campbell reported that the Committee met on October 15, 2003, but the meeting was solely informational in nature and no action was taken. 45 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21, 2003 ..i B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE (No meeting) C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE (No meeting) XI. COMMENTS Chairperson Campbell asked about regulations regarding casitas with regard to the rear yard setback. Mr. Drell replied that both the rear yard and front yard setbacks for a casita are the same as those which apply to the main structure. Commissioner Jonathan recalled that Augusta's restaurant had a problem last tourist season because they blocked off their parking lot, and after staff approached them, the problem was corrected; however, the situation is now being repeated. He indicated that one of his pet peeves is people who behave as if they are above the law and are rather arrogant about it, so if this restaurant is operating under a CUP, he is ready to revoke it. two Mr. Drell assumed the cones being used are associated with a valet service, and a permit is required for a valet parking operation, and stated staff will look into it and report back. Commissioner Jonathan announced that he will be out of the state on November 4`h, and he would like the opportunity to participate, although he would not suggest postponement of the General Plan meetings. He requested that the Commission not resolve the matter on that particular date so that he may review the tapes and minutes of the November 41h meeting and then participate fully in the process. Chairperson Campbell stated it is highly doubtful that the General Plan will be ready for the Commission's recommendation of adoption by November 4th Chairperson Campbell recalled that Commissioner Finerty had earlier suggested the Commission meet at 8:30 a.m. on November 41h regarding the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Finerty stressed the importance of the presence of the full Commission when land use is discussed, and suggested that the 8:30 a.m. meeting be postponed to November 18th at 8:30 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 21. 2003 a.m., and further suggested that the Circulation Element be addressed at 6:00 p.m. on November 411, as well as Mr. Evans' project. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, to continue tonight's meeting to November 4, 2003 at 6:00 p.m., and to then start again at 8:30 a.m. on November 18, 2003. The motion carried 5-0. The session concluded at 10:35 p.m. 11�-- PHILIP DRELL, Secretary ATTEST: SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /kc 47