Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1018 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - OCTOBER 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tschopp called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jonathan led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Dave Tschopp, Chairperson Jim Lopez, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Sabby Jonathan Members Absent: Cindy Finerty Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the October 18, 2005 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the October 18, 2005 meeting minutes. Motion carried 3-0- 1 (Chairperson Tschopp abstained). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell reported that there were no Planning Commission related items on the last Council agenda. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 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. PM 33996 - BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to allow the subdivision of a common lot to create a home site on Metate Place within the "Mountains of Bighorn" golf club. Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and background of the case. He stated that he spoke to one of the residents of Cahuilla Hills who requested clarification of one of the conditions of approval. Community Development Condition No. 5 says it is for emergency access only and CVWD maintenance. He recommended clarifying the emergency use only language by amending the condition to say for police, fire and paramedics. He said that through experience developing home sites in Bighorn, staff found there has been a tremendous blending of homes in with the surrounding area. Staff felt this could also be done in this case. As part of the overall plan for Bighorn Golf Club, what City Council worked out was an implementation agreement that allowed them to develop some extra home sites in return for the reduced density overall. At one time Bella Vista was approved with approximately 1,100 units. Rather than that, an 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 implementation agreement reduced the total to 344 units. Right now they have 300 units. The site under discussion was originally designated as open space, not so much to remain open space in perpetuity, but was a remnant parcel. Mr. Joy recommended that the Planning Commission approve this site for a homesite and recommend to the City Council approval of the parcel map and amendment to the implementation agreement. He noted that the resolution said it was approval, but should be changed to be a recommendation of approval to City Council and it would be a public hearing there as well. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on the proposed amendments to the resolution. Mr. Drell noted that the implementation agreement originally didn't show this piece of ground as a developable site, so the Council would have to add this as a developable part of the property. Commissioner Lopez noted that the amendment that Mr. Joy recommended regarding emergency access was to Community Development Condition No. 5. Mr. Joy said that was correct. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. CARL CARDINALLI, 535 Mesquite Hills in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. Regarding the emergency access condition, he thought it was appropriate. He also requested that their privacy department, as part of the homeowners association, have access through it in times of emergency. It wasn't for their regular use, but only in times of emergency that the HOA would access HOA areas. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Lopez asked if they were the in-house security. Mr. Cardinalli said yes, they are the Bighorn Security Department. Commissioner Jonathan reiterated that it was not for on-going needs, but for special needs or emergency access. Mr. Cardinalli concurred, explaining the access issues of using internal streets. taw MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for approval and add Condition No. 6 for Bighorn Security Department to use the gate. Commissioner Jonathan asked if she would want to just make that part of the amendment to Condition No. 5. Commissioner Campbell agreed. She also included the implementation agreement amendment. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2358, approving Case No. PM 33996, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. CUP 05-08 - DEBORAH KENT AND ANITA DRISCOLL, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2,000 square foot exercise/dance studio located at 74-133 El Paseo, Suite 6. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan noted that a letter from Mr. Rasmussen was received expressing some concern regarding the potential for overflow parking onto his property. He asked if that was considered. Mr. Stendell said yes, it was one of the first things addressed. Condition No. 4 stated that parking would be onsite and not in adjacent residential neighborhoods. He suggested amending the condition to also preclude overflow parking in adjacent commercial neighborhoods. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 MS. DEBORAH KENT, 73-500 Grapevine in Palm Desert, and MS. ANITA DRISCOLL, 73-835 West Harland in La Quinta, addressed the Commission. They were present to answer any questions. Chairperson Tschopp asked if they were aware of the conditions of approval. They said yes. Commissioner Jonathan wanted to make sure that they understood the proposed modification to Condition No. 4 limiting parking to their own site and restricting overflow parking from adjacent residential and commercial neighborhoods. They agreed. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lopez moved for approval and clarified that it would be as amended. t . Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2359, approving Case No. CUP 05-08, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). C. Case No. PP 05-21 - HSA DESIGN GROUP, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to construct two contiguous two-story office buildings with a combined floor area of 17,157 square feet on a 1.15-acre site located at the northwest corner of Sheryl Avenue and Melanie Place, 42-635 Melanie Place. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 Commissioner Jonathan advised that he did not receive a legal notice on this matter, but believed he had property near the limits, so in an abundance of caution, he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter. He left the room. Mr. Urbina reviewed the staff report and recommended adoption of the findings and the draft resolution approving Case No. PP 05-21. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. CHRIS McFADDEN, 72-925 Fred Waring, Suite 204 in Palm Desert, came forward. He stated that he reviewed all the conditions of approval and didn't see anything they couldn't live with. He said the project went through all the processes rather well and was present to answer any questions. He thought Mr. Urbina did a fine job on the presentation. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campbell said she was impressed with the architecture and thought it was a beautiful building. She said it would really do justice in that location and moved for approval. Commissioner Lopez concurred that it fit well on that property and seconded the motion. Chairperson Tschopp also concurred. He thought it was a nice looking building that met all the requirements. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained, Commissioner Finerty absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2360, approving Case 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 2005 %NNW No. PP 05-21, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained, Commissioner Finerty absent). COMMISSIONER JONATHAN REJOINED THE MEETING. D. Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and PM 33837 - TAYLOR WOODROW, INC., Applicant (Continued from September 6, 2005) Request for recommendation to the City Council to approve a general plan amendment, change of zone, precise plan of design, parcel map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a 758-unit residential project (608 condominium units and 150 apartment units) on 79.6 acres at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive, 76-000 Frank Sinatra Drive (the existing Emerald Desert RV Park property). Mr. Drell noted that Commission had the staff report that described the project and said the developer would be giving a rather lengthy presentation, so he would direct his comments to the general plan amendment and change of zone. He noted a map exhibit was passed out that showed the University Park area and brought them up to date on how the overall implementation of the general plan in that area is panning out in terms of both projects that have been approved and those in the application process. They could see every single residentially zoned property and every single one of them were in fairly advanced stages of design or application for approval. The sites in the general plan not currently designated residential included the project before them, and then the project on the far western edge near the freeway. The site before them was currently designated for Resort Commercial and the one on the far west side was designated for Planned Commercial. Referring to the table on the map, the general plan goal in this area was to develop between 4,000-6,000 dwelling units. The presumption had been that a fair number of them would be in the high density range. What is happening is they are coming in in either the medium density range averaging between 5-10 units per acre, or the lower part of the high range of 10-22 and coming in with something less than 15. The result is, in order to meet that goal of 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 between 4,000-6,000 units, it was appropriate to expand residential designations. The second goal of the general plan was to put appropriate housing adjacent to major destinations. The project before them would be adjacent to Cal State/UC Riverside site being developed and the hope was that eventually the Cal State property would be the single largest destination in the Coachella Valley. It would be the single largest employer in terms of people who work there and eventually would have up to 15,000 students. So in terms of the overall strategy of the jobs-housing balance and shortening trips, staffs hope was to provide high quality, appropriate housing adjacent to these major destinations, then a fair number of those folks would choose to live there, thus keeping them off the arterial system. Mr. Drell stated that the project primarily includes medium density between 5-10 units per acre single family ownership product and at the specific request of the Dean of Cal State, Fred Jandt, and Mike Webster of UCR, it also included a rental component of 150 units. He noted that the other thing they were finding is because of the lucrative nature of the ownership market, few people want to build rental housing. The typical balance in most moo e communities is about 30%. What they were finding is that they almost have to twist people's arms to provide rental housing. Around the university it was felt that it was essential that there be some rental housing. So that is why the 150-unit apartment component was included in the project. All in all, its proximity to Cal State, balancing the fact that they are getting mainly lower and medium density projects, justified the expansion of the residential designation in the general plan and the redesignation for medium density residential. In staffs view, that made this an ideal site for the project as designed. As a general overview of the project itself, he said it was somewhat unique in that it is probably our first master planned community not associated with a golf course. So it is a master planned residential community designed for permanent residences, not for second homers or retired persons. It was specifically oriented toward people who will be living full time and working in this area. He said they projected something approaching 15,000 to 20,000 employees being employed specifically in this region between Monterey and Eldorado. Staff felt the project would hopefully address that need in a level of design quality, both in terms of site planning and architecture, which is 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 2005 comparable to any of the country clubs built in Palm Desert. But with that sort of design, instead of being applied toward the tourist second home market, it would be applied to the permanent residential market. Mr. Drell recommended approval and said he would let the developer and his team describe the project. Commissioner Lopez noted that they had before them a letter from Ken Tatlow that urges the Emerald Desert RV Resort to remain. It sounded like his home. Mr. Drell agreed that it sounded like there was a whole group of people who live there full time. Commissioner Lopez asked if the park would stay if the project did go through. Mr. Drell explained that the owner of the park sold it and we have no ordinances that would require the preservation of the park. He said it was a conditional use and the existing zoning was for a manufactured housing single family subdivision originally, which is the base zone. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. low MR. TIM DAY, Taylor Woodrow Homes, 16745 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 140 in San Diego, California, 92127, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present their project. He said they had a dvd they wanted to show that would walk them through the product. As Mr. Drell explained, the project originally came forward with a single family development on the entire property at a density of about 9.22 units per acre. At the request of Cal State, UCR, and working with the City, they incorporated a partnership with Brook Street, a 150- apartment complex, which the Commission would also see some information on tonight. He said the proximity to the Cal State campus seemed ideal and they were on their way in developing a very strong relationship with the campus. He noted that they were on one single agenda tonight and there was a single staff report that discussed both projects, but they were two separate projects. They would have separate entrances, separate components, one is a rental, and the Taylor Woodrow project is a for sale project only. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 He said they put in a lot of time and effort into the architecture and theme, which he thought they would see with the dvd. They tried to maintain a strong pedestrian accent to the project; a lot of pathways. They tried to remove the garage door architecture from the front of the house and move it to the rear and make a more community feel. Each neighborhood within the development had some component of a recreational amenity, whether it was a passive park, pocket park or a larger community park with pools and some structures for special events and functions. He thought they would enjoy the dvd and wanted to move into that and then would like an opportunity to answer any questions. They had all of their professional and consultant staff, traffic and civil engineers and architect present, as well as representatives from Brook Street and Taylor Woodrow. He also said they had some conditions they wanted to discuss and how they would like to revise them. He asked when the appropriate time would be to bring them up. Chairperson Tschopp said it was the appropriate time right. Regarding Community Development Condition Nos. 13 and 14 on .� page 4 of the resolution, Mr. Day requested that No. 13 be deleted. He said in discussion with Mr. Drell today that they would contract maintenance services and those workers would have codes for the gates to get in and they thought it would be appropriate to delete it. Condition No. 14 said no part of TT 33837 shall record prior to issuance of building permits for the units in that particular phase. He thought it was the City's attempt for assurance if approval was given and the project lay fallow. He said they would like to revise it for approval of a mass grading permit prior to recordation. The third condition came in a letter form from the Public Works Department today and it was more of a clarification. The last bullet item under No. 16 said the project shall provide a signalized intersection at the project entry at the Gerald Ford Drive and pay half of the signalized intersection for Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford. He thought the first signal referenced was at the Frank Sinatra/Eldorado intersection. Mr. Joy confirmed he was correct. Mr. Day asked for any questions before going through the dvd. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 Commissioner Jonathan noted that for Community Development Condition No. 13, Mr. Day said there was an agreement with staff to delete that requirement because the project would contract out for maintenance services. He said they also needed a place to park. Mr. Drell indicated they would be able to park within the project in the proximity of the work they are doing. The project has street parking throughout the project and he thought the biggest problem was where there are country clubs that have a whole onsite crew and there wasn't sufficient parking associated with the yard. Commissioner Jonathan also noted that as part of their packets the Commission received a dvd and asked if they were intending to show the same one. Mr. Day said that was their intention. They wanted to provide it to them ahead of time to allow them extra viewing time. Commissioner Jonathan said he personally didn't need to see it again, but it was the Commission's pleasure. Other commissioners requested that it be shown and the dvd was played. At the conclusion of the dvd presentation Commissioner Campbell asked about the range of the home prices. Mr. Day thought they would be from the low $300,000's through the low $400,000s. Chairperson Tschopp said that throughout the presentation and in the CD presentation, they talked about the move-up home buyers and affordable price. He said there were no conditions that the housing project be that way and asked if it was the applicant's intent to market to the local market as stated. Mr. Day confirmed that it was their intention to market to locals. They already had some preliminary meetings with different local groups. They saw a wide variety of opportunity. Some would be move down buyers tired of the yard, move up buyers, and people who want to find something more reasonable within the Coachella Valley. He said there was a wide mix. In addition to the rental units, there was some opportunity for the local work force to be in proximity of work. 40W 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 Chairperson Tschopp noted that the Commission received a lot of information on the traffic impact and on the noise and asked if he could briefly touch on both of those issues for the Commission's benefit and those in the audience. MR. JUSTIN ROSSIS, the traffic engineer, stated that he is a licensed civil and traffic engineer. He indicated that the traffic study addressed the increase in traffic from this project while taking credit for the existing RV park. A slight variation to that was he looked at including total volumes on the project driveways, so no credit was taken at the project driveways. The distribution or assessment of where the project traffic would travel was based on discussions with City staff. No direct impacts were calculated due to project, but there were some agreements between the applicant and the City on participation for the need for a traffic signal at the project entrance on Eldorado and Frank Sinatra; 50% shared toward the future signal at Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra; and a future signal on Gerald Ford and the apartment driveway to be determined with the development of the university campus and when ..r the signal was needed. Percentage-wise, he thought it would be 50% or as determined later. At the build-out stage, he looked at the project's potential for cumulative impacts in the area based on volumes provided by City staff. There was one cumulative impact at the Cook Street-Interstate 10 eastbound offramp. Based on the proposed mitigation by a preferred alternative, the mitigation went away. The fair share for that was 3% from the project's trips to that intersection. It was his understanding that the condition said that in lieu of paying that 3%, the applicant would pay 50% toward the signal, instead of 33% originally discussed at Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. He asked for any questions. MR. JEREMY LOUDDEN addressed the Commission and indicated that he did the noise and vibration assessment. He said they went out and did existing noise and vibration measures of actual train events since that seemed to be the number one concern. He said there was some noise from the interstate which was nearby on the other side of 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 the railroad tracks. They also looked at the noise along Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford to see how that would impact this project. When looking at it, they noticed that most of the noise from Interstate 10 was blocked by the ballast of the rail line, so the only real concern was going to be from the rail line, from what's existing, and the proposed second track. They did an analysis of the future predictions of all the roadways and the rail line and used all of them against the project to see what the worst case sound loads would be and then to determine if mitigation would be required and if so, what that mitigation would entail. What they found was that the existing eight-foot wall currently between the rail alignment and the project would be sufficient to reduce the sound levels in the outdoor use areas of the ground floor. In the upper floors, the wall would not be adequate because it didn't break the line of sight, but instead they had to do architectural treatments to the structures to help reduce it and make comfortable living for the residents. He said that was the report in a nutshell and tow was present to answer questions. Commissioner Lopez asked if he could address the vibration to the structures. Mr. Loudden said they set up seismographs to take measurements of existing train events at 50 feet from the center of the tracks. The measurements they found ranged from one to six thousandths of an inch movement, which is barely perceptible for humans. And that was at 50 feet. This project is located approximately 160 feet away from the nearest residential structure. To propagate that out, they found that the vibration levels would be imperceivable to most humans. The mitigation for structures is they post tension slabs and that was pretty typical construction. They also found there wouldn't be any breakage of vibration until they reached two inches per second. They were at half an inch per second roughly. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they considered as an indirect mitigation a requirement to notify buyers and renters in the proximity of the railway train tracks and if it would be a DIRE requirement. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION_ OCTOBER 18 2005 Mr. Day said yes, there would be a full disclosure that they would make to potential buyers. He wasn't exactly sure how it worked for rentals, but believed it was the same. It would be disclosed in full prior to any negotiation. Commissioner Jonathan asked if it would also apply to resales. Mr. Day explained that it would be a recorded document against the property. Commissioner Jonathan asked how that would be communicated to potential buyers. He asked if it would only show up if they did a title search during escrow. Mr. Day said yes, during escrow all the title information and disclosures would be provided to the potential buyer for resales. Commissioner Jonathan asked the City Attorney if there was a method or if they were allowed to impose a methodology where notification would have to occur, not just through a title search, but in another more obvious manner, .. for both potential buyers and renters. Mr. Hargreaves said they have the ability and they could capture them on the first sale, but there was a problem with subsequent sales. It was very difficult to implement. The way they implement notice requirements is through recorded documents against the property. Supposedly people would get notification through the title search. There was also a disclosure requirement during the sale of residential real estate based on California law. Commissioner Jonathan agreed that if it was a condition on the applicant, it no longer applied after it was sold. He thought the problem they experienced in Palm Valley was that people don't read their title reports. They should, but they don't. But there is something recorded. He wasn't sure if there was an effective way to get around that on subsequent sales. Mr. Hargreaves noted that they couldn't protect people against their own omissions. If they are buying a house and they couldn't figure out that there was a railroad track there, there wasn't much they could do. Mr. Drell noted that the tracks have been there since 1870. Commissioner Jonathan asked Mr. Day if he knew the total number of bedrooms, including the homes and the apartments. He asked if they could tell them after the dvd was over. The staff report indicated that there would be 25 one-bedroom units and 583 two-bedrooms or greater. That didn't No 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 enable him to calculate them. He wanted to know how many total bedrooms there were between the homes and the apartments. Mr. Day said they would work it out during the dvd. He pointed out there were some local residents present and he wanted the Commission to know that they had gone out and met with their neighbors, including the university, and tried to make sure they all understood what the project was like and the quality of architecture. He said they were basically provided the same information as the Commission. The dvd presentation was shown. Chairperson Tschopp asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Commissioner Lopez noted that there was mention of a bike path that goes along the railroad tracks. Mr. Day said it was a multipurpose path. Commissioner Lopez asked what was between the bike path and the railroad tracks. Mr. Day said there was a 30-foot Edison easement that the bike path would be contained within and then there was the rail. Regarding Commissioner Jonathan's question on the total bedroom count, he said there would be 1,637 bedrooms of which 255 were rental. The rentals had 60 one-bedrooms, 150 two-bedrooms and 45 were within the three-bedrooms. There were no other questions of the applicant. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. There was no response. He asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the matter. MS. BETTY SCHAFFER, 38-330 Tandika Trail, said she lived a block or so from the proposed development. She said she was confused about the traffic signals that were talked about. There seemed to be a change in there. They were told there would be a traffic signal at Frank Sinatra and Eldorado,which would be the main entrance for the housing units. It seemed to be iffy about the Gerald Ford part. She was wondering if there was one planned for Frank Sinatra and Gerald 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 r�rrrr Ford, or for the Gerald Ford exit for the apartment section. There was not a lot of room between those intersections and traffic could very easily pile up there and it could be dangerous if there wasn't a signal. So she really wanted to know what the exact plan was for those intersections. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Tschopp asked if Mr. Day would clarify the signalization. Mr. Day explained that they have agreed through the traffic study to commit 100%funding for the signal at Frank Sinatra and Eldorado. So there would be a signal placed there. They were contributing 50% of the cost of the signal at Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra. There was a signal required there. The third signal, which would be north on Gerald Ford at the entry to the apartments,would be bonded for some portion of that now, but the City preferred that it not be implemented until the need actually existed with development of the university. Mr. Drell clarified that the signal at Sinatra and Gerald Ford had long been planned as part of the University development. Public Works liked to wait until the warrants justify the amount of turning movements. People didn't like stopping at right lights when there wasn't any traffic coming from the other direction. So those are all definitely planned to happen when the need is there. Commissioner Campbell noted that there was a signal on Berger Lane South that goes into the University. Mr. Drell agreed. He said it was midway between Gerald Ford and Cook Street. He indicated that the other signals were not needed at this time. The one that would be installed with the project would be the Eldorado signal. The applicant was contributing their share. The other signals would be installed when the need arose. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the answer to Mrs. Schaffer's question is that as part of the project, Frank Sinatra and Eldorado would receive a signal. At a later time they could expect signals at Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra and at Gerald Ford at the entrance to the apartments. Mr. Drell said that was correct. The apartment entrance was designed as close as they could get to the anticipated main accesses to the campus. Commissioner Lopez asked if there would also be a crosswalk. Mr. Drell said yes. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 �.. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Jonathan asked staff if ARC made a finding of aesthetic enhancement to justify the height exception that was being requested and if they addressed that issue. Mr. Drell said yes. He said part of it was to get the interior space and the diversity of the roof line. He noted that the project the Redevelopment Agency was building on Santa Rosa received a height exception for the very same reason. Commissioner Jonathan understood that there was precedence for it, but what he was asking was if ARC specifically looked at the aesthetics and said that the two-foot exception was necessary in order to accommodate the architectural design. Mr. Drell said he wasn't at the meeting and couldn't tell him that. It was something that was requested for them to rule on every time it comes before them, but he wasn't at the meeting. Mr. Drell clarified that they were talking about the apartments. Part of it was a unique site in that it is adjacent on the west to a planned industrial property with a height of 35 feet. When evaluating height, they not only looked at the architectural quality, but the potential impact of the height on views of surrounding properties. The university was on one side, the railroad tracks on the other, and the 35-foot high industrial buildings on the one side also went into their decision. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was saying that the height exception only applied to the apartment buildings. Mr. Drell concurred. All the residences would be 24 feet high or less. Chairperson Tschopp asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Campbell stated that she was impressed with the whole development. Reading the minutes from Architectural Review, their team went back a few times and they gave up two lots to create more pools that Architectural Review thought they should have. The project was impressive and she thought it would be an asset to the community. It would bring in more people to the desert and they needed an area where they could work in the university area. Looking at that area and the train noise, that railroad has been there since 1870 like Mr. Drell said. The impact from 1-10 would be more than the trains since the trains go slowly along and wasn't a high speed. She moved for approval. %NW 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 Commissioner Lopez said he had mixed emotions about it. He loved the plan and thought the plan was great. Architecturally it was very attractive and had an interesting layout with all the different communities and how they blended together and the sense of space. He thought the neighborhoods flowed very well. The apartment complex of 150 units was necessary for this area in terms of the university, whether it was for students or faculty or a mixture. He thought that was an important aspect of the project. He also thought it was a risk. Anything built this close to what continues to be a busy and what he thought would be a busier railroad access would be risk for years to come. He wasn't sure at the beginning. The demand right now is huge. He was concerned with the proximity of the railroad, the noise, and the vibration and how it would effect the structures in the future. According to the experts, it should be okay, so his concerns were minimized. Overall, he thought it was a good project. It was a lot in one space, but when they looked at the overall build out from the general plan standpoint, it fit pretty well and he thought it was a nice project and welcomed it. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Drell was suggesting the tandem parking be 37 feet instead of 40 feet. He asked if that length would accommodate two trucks or SUV's. Mr. Drell said it would probably accommodate two mid sized SUV's, but not a full sized truck. There was good news and bad news. The good news is that basically those units would be discounted by virtue of the fact that anyone who needs that extra room to park would obviously not be interested in them. Any parking issue that occurs would be confined to this project. There was no parking on Gerald Ford. So that was something they kind of agonized over, but would let the market decide what that unit was worth with that type of discount. If someone didn't want to live with that, they wouldn't buy that unit. Regarding the noise issue, as a result of complaints from Palm Valley and Regency, the City did their own comprehensive noise study of the whole corridor. The conclusion was the problem wasn't the train, it was the whistle on the train. The train was something you get used to. It turned out that even though we have no gate crossings, for whatever reason the engineers have gotten into the habit of blowing their whistle when they go by Palm Desert. There is a process they can go through, through the National Rail Board, where there are no gate crosses they can petition for a quiet zone and instruct the engineers not to blow the whistle, which they were pursuing. That ended up being the most disturbing aspect. Hopefully when they solve that problem, they'll be able to solve it for the whole city. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 2005 Commissioner Jonathan hoped so. He happened to be standing in the Frank Sinatra/Spyder Circle area and didn't know a train was coming and when it did, it startled him. He didn't recall hearing a whistle, it was just the noise of the train and the vibration. It is out there. He had a few concerns about this project and one of them was the noise, but there was also caveat emptor. He hoped people were aware and should be aware there is a railroad track out there and let the market forces dictate people's decisions. Unfortunately, sometimes they see people making those decisions, as they've witnessed in Palm Valley and Regency, and then perhaps are regretful or whatever and try to point fingers and get the City to solve the problems they themselves created or bought into. He guessed that was just a fact of life, but he didn't see it was this project's responsibility to solve the issue. They are aware of it and have done what they can. Hopefully it wouldn't be a problem that comes back. But he did have concerns about it. Commissioner Jonathan also had concerns about the parking because it is kind of a self-contained project. If they have a shortage of parking, there will be a problem. He found the bedroom count interesting at 1,637 bedrooms. He was assuming they are all drivers because they turn into drivers at some .. point. They're either college students or their families, moms and dads each have a car, then they get visitors and work people, so a one to one ratio would be his expectation. The total parking spaces would be 1,675, so they actually exceeded the bedroom count and there is some amount of street parking. He said he had some really significant concerns coming into the meeting tonight, but thought those concerns had been resolved. Overriding all of that to some extent was the excellent planning that went into the project if the actual product was half as attractive as what they saw on the dvd. But if they end up with anything close to that he thought it would be quite an addition to our beautiful city, particularly given that these aren't high-end homes. They were entry level, move down, affordable for students and young families and so forth. Given that, he thought this was really stepping up the curve so to speak and he complimented the architect in that regard. The circulation looked like it was smartly done. The development would add to the overall traffic in our community, but that was a fact of life and they couldn't keep a good thing a secret forever. People would come, so the key was to manage that growth intelligently and he thought this project did that. He also complimented staff in looking ahead in that regard. VMW 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 He said he liked the bike path and wished he could see more and more of it, particularly in this area. He thought bike use would be prevalent. He seconded the motion. Chairperson Tschopp commented that he also had a few concerns. One was noise. He lives somewhat in the vicinity and when the atmospheric conditions are right, they could hear the trains late at night. The tracks have been there a long time and would only get busier and he thought any buyers would be aware of that. There was also an interstate there. Most people would be able to see that it might have an impact on their quality of life if they like having their windows open to the north. He thought that was something that was mitigated as well as possible. He had some concerns on the traffic. There would be an increase in the number of cars entering and exiting this portion of the city. But it was located right on or adjacent to good arterial streets so it would give the person driving a car either in or out a lot of different opportunities to use different streets. He thought it was well located from a traffic standpoint. He also had some concerns about the density and the closeness of some of the units to each other. But looking at some of the other developments down here, this was no different from a lot of developments, only it didn't have a golf course. If they look at Palm Valley Country Club or Indian Ridge Country Club, some of those units were actually closer then some of these units would be. Given all that, he believed it was very well designed architecturally and hoped what they saw was what they would get because it would be a very nice looking project. He loved the rear garages. He hated driving up to homes and seeing the garages. He was glad to see them incorporating them in the back of the house where it needed to be. He liked the idea of the narrow streets; a little more intimacy for the people who live there and the streets being more intended for the interaction of the people who live there. He liked the idea and hoped the intent was for the locals and those people who work in our community to be able to live there. Whether that happens or not will be a market condition, but he believed this probably provided as good an opportunity for someone who lives in the area to live here as any. All in all he was very much in favor of the project and again, hoped it would go up just as it was presented tonight. Commissioner Jonathan requested clarification that the motion included the elimination of Condition No. 13 and amendment to No. 14. Commissioner 00 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 2005 tow Campbell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said his second to the motion did as well. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2361, recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. GPA 05-02, C/Z 05-02, PP 05-12 and PM 33837, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). E. Case No. ZOA 05-03 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 too regarding exceptions based on unconstitutional takings. Mr. Drell said that basically this ordinance provides an administrative procedure an applicant would have to follow if they intend to pursue what they call a "takings" as a result of one of our land use decisions. Chairperson Tschopp indicated that it seemed to basically be the procedure on how to do it. Mr. Drell said it forces the applicant to come out front during the administrative process and make the case that our decision is removing them of the economic use of their property. Mr. Hargreaves was in concurrence with the amendment to the ordinance. Chairperson Tschopp opened the public hearing and asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was none and the public hearing was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). %NW 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2362, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 05-03. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent). IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No. TT 30706 Amendment#1 - PALM DESERT PARTNERS, L.P., Applicant Per Planning Commission direction, presentation of a resolution denying a request to approve an amendment to Condition No. 9 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2207 to allow a height exception for 16 model homes with roof elements at a maximum height of 20 feet for property located on the west side of Shepherd Lane west of Portola Pointe Drive. The applicant submitted a letter withdrawing his request. Action: None. Letter of withdrawal received and filed. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that the next meeting would be October 19, 2005. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE None. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE None. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 2005 tow XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Lopez commented on the amount of information received in their packets and thought it was very well done by the applicant. Commissioner Campbell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan noted with the dvd and printed material it was a very professional presentation. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Chairperson Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. The motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. PHILIP DRELa Secretary ATTEST: C-4 _ - DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairpers n----, Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 23