Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0301 /�"���"� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION � _ TUESDAY - MARCH 1, 2005 . . 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE � * � � � � � � * � � � * � � � � � � * * � � � � * � � � � � * * � � � * * * � * i. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tschopp led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell � Cindy Finerty Jim Lopez (arrived at 6:10 p.m.) Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Phil Joy, Associate Transportation �'lanner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secr�tary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent February 24, 2005 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS �,,, N o ne. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1 2005 ¢ � � VII. CONSENT CALENDAR � None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. TT 32655 - DESERT WELLS 237 BY PALM DESERT 124, INC., Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 69.26 +/- acres into 270 single family lots and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for property located between Portola Avenue and Cook Street south of Gerald Ford, Parcel 9, PM 31730. � � Mr. Smith pointed out the location of the property and reviewed the salient points of the staff report. He recommended approval of Tentative Tract 32655 and the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. As well, he said today a request was received from the Redevelopment Agency in that they are in the process of negotiating with the applicant what they were describing as a "Release and Easement Agreement." He explained that Redevelopment owns the property along the west side and at some point there may be a golf course there, so they were looking for some limit on liability relative to golf balls going into people's backyards. (Commissioner Lopez arrived at this time.) So a condition was drafted and circulated, which he put under the Redevelopment Agency, which would require the applicant under a separate document to record an easement over all the lots in the tract in favor of the Redevelopment Agency for purpos.es delineated in the Release and Easement Agreement, which is to be executed between the parties. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty noted that this was discussed at length with the General Plan Update, but asked what other changes other than the lot g coverage there were between this project's standards, the University Park standards, for low density versus the R-1 standards for low density. � � 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2005 � Mr. Drell said this would allow two-story homes, but two-story homes were also allowed in the PR zone. Mr. Smith said they took out the one other change with respect to tower elements and the Council had taken them out of the medium density, so he thought it was appropriate to take it out, otherwise, that would have been different. Mr. Drell said it all falls within the Exceptions, so the function of these is to provide a base line standard of discussion and the Council prefers to look at exceptions on a case by case basis. Commissioner Finerty indicated this is PR-5, which does allow two- stories. Mr. Smith confirmed two-stories and 24-feet. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification as to why they were imposing a new set of standards that were not approved by the Council for low density in this area and not just going with the regular standards for low density. Mr. Drell said that the zone allows people to propose alternative standards. The Council didn't approve these not because they didn't like them, they didn't approve them because they weren't associated with a specific project. They didn't approve any of the standards in that document because they wanted to see individual projects. This is an individual ,,,,,,, project like Rilington, and the medium density projects, and they were in essence approving what's on the map. Either they liked it or not. If they didn't like it, they could criticize it; if it's okay, approve it. But the Council wanted to see specific projects and review specific projects. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Smith if the only two differences had to do with lot coverage and the tower element. Mr. Smith said that was correct, but they didn't propose the tower element. Mr. Drell said the tower element was deleted. Mr. Smith said if they looked toward the back of the report, there was a copy of it. It said projections/architectural features five feet above primary structure no more than 10% of the roof area. Staff took that out and was not proposing it one way or the other. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there is a freeway interchange planned for Portola. Mr. Drell said it is being worked into the City's long-term program. Chairperson Jonathan commented that it is not approved and funded, so it is a long-term project. Mr. Drell concurred. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that at the last meeting they were told that they might be a year away from extending the Dinah Shore Mid Valley Parkway to Cook Street. Mr. Smith said it would be sooner then that. Chairperson Jonathan said it wasn't extended to Portola yet. Mr. Drell +�.. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1 2005 said the City Engineer hinted it would be sometime in the next year. A year or less. Chairperson Jonathan explained that his point was as they develop this area, the infrastructure was maybe not keeping up with it in terms of getting these people east-west to a street that runs north-south to the freeway. It might be kind of difficult until they get some of those planned streets in place. Mr. Drell noted that this project wouldn't be done for about a year. Chairperson Jonathan said that's why he was looking at the timing. So it was Mr. Drell's thinking that by the time this project has people moving in, they would at least have the additional east-west access so people can get to Cook Street and/or Monterey to access the freeway. Chairperson Jonathan ooened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Consulting, representing the applicant, .� addressed the Commission. He said they reviewed all the � conditions and felt they were acceptable with one minor � exception. That was Public Works Condition No. 18 where it talked about the slopes of the tract not to exceed 3:1 and 4:1 being desirable. He requested wording to be added at the end of the sentence, "or as determined by the City Engineer." He explained that they've been working with the slopes and thought they would be between 2:1 to 3:1 , but may be 2.3:1 , not 3:1 . So they were working with that and it was ongoing. Mr. Drell said the applicant was proposing to use a special soil stabilizer. Normally out there with the sand they don't like 2:1 , but he is using a soil cement which allowed plants to grow on and that would allow in certain areas steeper slopes. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Mr. Ross's suggested modification is as determined by City staff and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Mr. Ross said that was correct. � Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith confirmed that was acceptable. `�� 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1 2005 � Regarding Portola, Mr. Ross informed Commission that Caltrans was working on the PSR (Project Study Report) for Portola right now. Caltrans wouldn't give a very definitive schedule, so it probably was the 10-year period as mentioned by Mr. Drell. He said they were also working on a CFD, a Community Facilities District, which would provide for the infrastructure, the back bone, within this project. They were working with RDA on that. That was ongoing. He knew they were working on another CFD for Dinah Shore, but didn't know their schedule, but that was in process as well and would help provide the infrastructure for all these projects in the area. Chairperson Jonathan said it was obviously to their advantage as well. Mr. Ross said that was correct. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be any two-story homes in this development, or if they would just be one-story. � Mr. Ross stated that the house plans had not been prepared at this time, but thought it was likely there would be two-story homes proposed on it. That was his educated guess. He was guessing they'd like two-story homes for the size of the lots. Commissioner Campbell said he probably didn't know the price range of the homes. Mr. Ross said no. Mr. Drell noted that they couldn't find a condo in Palm Desert for 5300,000 any more. His understanding is that the Ponderosa homes are in the 5700,000 to 5800,000 range. Basically, the single family homes on conventional lots are now above 5600,000. The small lot product they are approving, they hoped to bring those back, some of them into the 5300,000 range, but if they got anything below that, they would be attached townhouse condominium types. Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Ross had any idea how many of the� 270 proposed homes would be two stories. � 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1 2005 Mr.� Ross said no. ' Commissioner Finerty asked when they proposed to have that information. Mr. Ross said as of today, they hadn't started on any specific house plans, one story or two stories. He thought it would be speculative for him to answer what percentage that would be. He guessed it would be market driven and if the market is for two- story homes. There being no other questions, Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He asked for Commission comments. Action: Commissioner Finerty moved for approval. She liked the fact that it is low � density with an average square foot lot of 91 -92. She was hopeful that � there weren't quite as many two-story homes as she thought there might ,,,� be. These standards caused her concern. It just happened that this particular project is exceeding the minimum standards for what they have here, so with that she felt a level of comfort with approving the project. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the motion included the modification to Public Works Condition No. 18, as well as the addition of the Redevelopment Agency Condition No. 1 . Commissioner Finerty said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a second. Commissioner Tschopp said he would second the motion and concurred with Commissioner Finerty's comments. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2326, approving Case No. TT 32655, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1 2005 � X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the meeting was informational. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty informed Commission that the meeting would be March 2. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was canceled. XI. ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE LIAISONS A. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson � Action: It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, electing Commissioner Tschopp as Chairperson and electing Commissioner Lopez as Vice Chairperson by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Appointment of an Art in Public Places Representative, Appointment of a Landscape Committee Representative, and Appointment of a Project Area 4 Committee Representative. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Chairperson Tschopp, by minute motion appointing Commissioner Campbell as the Art in Public Places representative, appointing Commissioner Finerty as the Landscape Committee representative, and appointing Commissioner Finerty as the Project Area 4 Committee representative. Motion carried 5-0. � 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1 2005 Commissioner Jonathan turned the meeting over to Chairperson Tschopp. Chairperson Tschopp thanked Commissioner Jonathan for his hard, steadfast work as the Chairman. XII. COMMENTS 1 . Commissioner Finerty said she needed follow-up from City staff on Case No. CUP 03-17. She was in contact with Tony Bagato and he had been unable to meet with Mr. Owens with regard to the landscaping as conditioned. He is the gentleman who had the building put behind his house on Robin Road with landscaping. She asked Mr. Owens specifically if he had any problem putting in the same landscaping that he had on the east side and he said no. That was the condition. Tony Bagato has been out there and indicated to her that the landscaping fell short. Tony was supposed to go out there on January 21, but Mr. Owens canceled and as of right now Tony had been unable to reschedule and the landscaping was still not taken care of. Mr. Drell said he would find out what was going on. He assumed it hadn't been finaled. Commissioner Finerty said no, but he was using the building, although Tony assured her he had not signed it off because the landscaping was inadequate. And it was Tony's determination that the landscaping was inadequate. Mr. Drell said staff would give Commission a report at the next meeting. 2. Following up with the valet parking issue at Augusta's, Commissioner Finerty dined there a week ago Saturday and they had everything ��locked off. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there had been any action in that regard. Mr. Joy said it was his understanding that it had been referred to Code Enforcement Department for a report. He hadn't received word from them yet. Commissioner Finerty asked whose responsibility it was to revoke their permit because customers have to park on the street. They left no portion of the lot available. Mr. Drell said the Public Works Department could revoke the valet permit. The permit is issued by Public Works and they can simply revoke it. Commissioner Finerty asked at what point and how many times before it is revoked. Mr. Drell said the direction to Code Enforcement has been to document the violations that have been observed. Once that is done, then 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1 2005 � the City notifies them that they are in violation and they either comply or they have no valet. There were all sorts of legal issues if they continue to ignore the City's direction. Then they would turn it over to the City Attorney to get an injunction to cease and desist their valet parking. Mr. Hargreaves said they could either go with an injunction or they could start fining them. Mr. Drell said they were also pursuing complaints relative to their outdoor music. Chairperson Jonathan said it was a little frustrating for some of them. Last season they went through this with that particular property. This year they brought it up to staff's attention and they seem to sit there meeting after meeting and talk about it and there isn't any action. He'd like to direct Public Works, if that is the appropriate agency, to take action between now and the next Planning Commission meeting, whatever that action is. If it means notifying the property owner, then observing their violations, then moving forward with enforcement action, he thought it was high time they do that. � Mr. Joy added that he believed the restaurant is a conditional use permit and that's where the Planning Commission has a say, on the conditional use itself. He recalled when he wrote the ordinance regarding valet parking that the two were tied together, the valet parking permit and the CUP for the restaurant. They could come in at a later date to work on the valet parking, but the valet parking permit is really tied to the CUP itself and it's a term and condition of the conditional use permit on the restaurant. Mr. Drell stated that it was a lot easier to revoke and enforce the valet parking permit then to go through the process of revoking a CUP and shut down a restaurant. Chairperson Jonathan wanted to start with that then. Mr. Drell said it was far easier to say, here are the terms and conditions of your permit, you are in violation, cease and desist operation of the valet period. To go through a CUP process is a long, involved hearing process. Chairperson Jonathan said they should try the easier process first. He asked if they could do that between now and the next meeting so that when they sit here at their next meeting staff could show the Commission and tell them what they've done. Mr. Joy said he � 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1 2005 { � � couldn't give any promises. He knew it was referred to Code Enforcement Department to take those actions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was Code Enforcement or Public Works. Mr. Joy said Code Enforcement is the department that has been assigned the task to work on this. Chairperson Jonathan asked what they as a Planning Commission had to do to deal with the situation that is in violation of what they approved. They went to a great deal of trouble with that property. They made a variety of concessions. They didn't have adequate parking, so they bought property north on Portola and built that parking lot. The Commission really went out their way to accommodate their needs and it is an asset to the community, except when they violate the conditions of approval. So what did they have to do as a Planning Commission to get some action? Mr. Drell said they've already done it. It's up to the departments who issue the permit to enforce the permit. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they could have a representative of ; Code Enforcement present at the next meeting. Mr. Drell said they ,�„� would have Code and a full report on the steps being taken to enforce the permit. Chairperson Jonathan said he would appreciate it. Commissioner Finerty agreed. If they don't enforce this, then what is the point of approving any conditions? 3. Chairperson Tschopp noted that with Tuscana being built right now, he understood there was supposed to be a road from Hovley to Fred Warin�. Mr. Drell said there was an idea that there was a road to be built. There had been various complications and it was turning into an $8 million or $9 million project. Relative to right-of- way, they conceivably would have to demolition 1 1 houses in Desert Rose. There was an analysis done by Terra Nova for both the physical feasibility and the traffic circulation benefits that it might generate. The conclusion to a certain degree was the cost was horrendous and the ultimate benefits to traffic were not that significant. Since they would be adding two new signals (at Fred Waring and at Hovley), it was designed to somehow relieve traffic on Cook Street, unfortunately it was degrading the Level of Service on Hovley and Fred Waring to the same extent it was improving the service on Cook Street. There were all those aspects 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1. 2005 � of it and he didn't think a final decision had been made. Given the high cost of it, the conclusion of implementing it was questionable. Chairperson Tschopp said that was too bad. Commissioner Finerty agreed. Mr. Drell said the problem is it is so close to Cook Street. Where it really belonged was on the other side of Tuscana. There was some thought that if someone really wanted to avoid Cook Street, they would go to Portola. It was a matter of all those combinations of things and our money might be better spent elsewhere. XIII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:34 p.m. . �,.�/t�_� PHILIP DREL Secretary � ATTEST: ��, y r-----__:__.._._.._._ a �--- � s� DAVE TSCHOPP, Chairperson Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm � 11