Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0404 �''�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION "� �� TUESDAY - APRIL 4, 2006 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER " � 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * � * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Lopez called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanner led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jim Lopez, Chair Cindy Finerty, Vice Chair Sonia Campbell Van Tanner ... Dave Tschopp Members Absent: None Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Steve Smith, Planning Manager Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the March 21, 2006 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the March 21, 2006 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent March 23, 2006 City Council actions. ... MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 .. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 05-10 -BIGHORN PARTNERS, LLC AND BIGHORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for property at 888 Crescent Fails, Palm Desert. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VII1. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be {imited 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. TPM 34211 -WILSON JOHNSON CRE, INC., Applicant (Continued from March 21, 2006) Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide 83.2 acres into 22 parcels for property located befinreen Portola Avenue and Cook Street north of Gera{d Ford, more particularly described as APN's 653-280-035, 653-390-091 and 653-390-071. Mr. Drell informed Commission that a continuance was being requested to April 18 to allow time for one unresolved issue. Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left o en and Chairperson Lopez asked for action by the Commission. 2 �r MINUTES PQLM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4 2006 ... Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing Case No. TPM 34211 to April 18, 2006 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 - SINATRA& COOK LLC, Applicant Request for recommendation to the City Council of approva! of a change of zone, precise plan of design, tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for 268 condominium units and a 39,792 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 19.6 +/- acres north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and College Drive, 37-755 Cook Street. Mr. Drell said that staff wanted to review this case along with the University Park application, but there were some unresolved items. Staff requested a continuance to April 18, 2006. � Chairperson Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. The public hearing was left o�en and Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. C/Z 06-02, PP 06-01 and TT 34304 to April 18, 2006. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. CUP 06-02 - TERRY AND CARLEY CECHIN, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit allowing a detached accessory structure/ motor home garage with a rear yard setback of 15 feet to property line at 77-717 Mountain View. Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to conditions. �-- 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2006 ..r Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TERRY CECHIN, 77-717 Mountain View in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. He was present to answer any questions. He said the neighborhood was pretty much set back that way and assured that the project would be nice when done. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITlON to the proposed project. There was no one and he cl sed the public hearing. He asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty said it was a job wefl done and moved for approva{. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting P{anning Commission Reso{ution No. 2384, approving Case No. CUP 06-02, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. � D. Case No. C/Z 06-04 and University Park Master Plan - PALM DESERT FUNDING LP, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the City Council of the University Park Master Plan, a change of zone to add the Planned Community Development Ove�lay Zone (PCD) to the existing PR-5 zoning, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto for 190 +/- acres generally located south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue, 74-500 College Drive. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report, noting a correction to the total acres of park land as being 11.2 acres, not 8.3. He recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Case No. C/Z 06-04 and � the University Park Master Plan. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the Community Facilities District (CFD) would also contain a maintenance fund or if the park maintenance would be 4 �' MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 picked up by the City in the future. Mr. Smith replied that the City would maintain the parks after acceptance of the parks. Mr. Drell said no, the parks are city facilities and maintained by the City, like all public parks. Commissioner Tschopp asked if the height exception on the units would only go to ARC (Architectural Review Commission). Mr. Smith explained that the way it was structured at this point was that all actions of the ARC were available for Council review and call up. That was the normal process it would go through. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many, what percent, of the models were anticipated to be requesting height exceptions. Mr. Smith said the applicant would have to address that question. Commissioner Tanner noted that interior setbacks were usually 14 feet combined with a minimum five feet on one side, but the applicant was requesting 10 feet combined. He asked for the purpose of the smaller setbacks. Mr. Smith said bigger houses. Commissioner Tanner asked if it was bigger houses or more homes. Mr. Smith clarified that the map at that standard had already been approved for 270 lots. "� Commissioner Campbell asked about the price range of the homes. Mr. Smith said the applicant could answer that question. Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that there would be a homeowner's association. Mr. Smith said yes, that all the streets would be private but not gated. Mr. Drell said no, they were public. Mr. Smith noted that they were only 33 feet wide. Mr. Drell said that didn't matter. Chairperson Lopez indicated that in the information given to them, these were considered private streets. Mr. Drell said the main spine streets through the project were all public. Commissioner Finerty asked if those would be maintained by the City. Mr. Drell said that was correct. They were being installed through the CFD and maintained by the City as a public street. The smaller streets would be private and maintained by the HOA. He thought there would be multiple HOA's; one for each of the neighborhoods. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be any gates. Mr. Smith said no. Mr. Drell noted that landscape maintenance of the parkways would also be the responsibility of the HOA's. ... 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 ..r Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TOM HOVER, 3 San Joaquin Plaza in Newport Beach, said he was the representative for Palm Desert Funding Corporation. He said they worked closely with staff to prepare the document they had before them and he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Finerty noticed in the book they were given that there were four styles: Tuscan, Spanish Monterey, Santa Barbara and Desert Prairie. She asked which architecture would require the 28 feet in height. Mr. Hover informed Commission that they were the master developer. They would be selling these different sites to merchant builders who would come before them with their prospective product. The product being shown was a prototypical product designed by their consultant to show typical product and architectural styles. It would vary depending on the product the builder wanted to bring in. The lots were narrow in nature and additional height would allow more square footage, but also provided a lot of diversity in architecture. So as far as the different styles, it would really depend on the lot size and the architecture that went with the builder's submittal. � Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that they wouldn't know what percentage would require a height exception. Mr. Hover thought it would be fairly high given that the percentage of the preponderance of the product was pretty small. There were smaller and larger lots and the higher height would allow higher square footage. The other thing that was popular today was a 10-foot plate on the first floor because people like more vertical space inside the house. On the two-story houses, there would be nine feet on the second floor, a foot in between for the floor joist, so right there with 10, 9 and 1 they were at 20 feet. That would only allow for a very shallow roof. The elevations in terms of the illustrations by the architect in the book primarily reflected a steeper pitched roof. He offered to take the Commission out on a project tour. He noted that the property has a lot of topo on it and there was quite a bit of fall, approximately 100 feet. It was now mass graded. So in terms of location, there weren't any preexisting communities nearby or 6 ■■r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2006 ... adjacent to the property, so when driving by the property, it was difficult to discern whether it was a 24, 26 or 28 foot height because some were below street level and some were elevated above the slope, so it was pretty hard to discern height differences with the topo. It was harder to ascertain the height difference because of the varying topography. In those areas Mr. Hover pointed out where the medium density would be, Commissioner Finerty asked if he was saying that was where the 100-foot fall was and that it was also below street level. Mr. Hover replied that the 100-foot fall went all the way across the site and identified on the map the location that was below street level (the area east of Portola, Portola and Gerald Ford). Commissioner Campbell asked if he would have any idea of home prices. Mr. Hover said he could give them a range. He guessed today they could range from the mid $300,000 to $900,000 depending on the size and lot size, amenities and so forth. ` Commissioner Finerty asked if the$900,000 would fall under the low density. Mr. Hover said yes. Commissioner Finerty asked about the square footage. Mr. Hover said they ranged from about 1,300 to 3,500 square feet. Commissioner Finerty asked in the triplex, other than the low density, the range of square feet. Mr. Hover said it was in the book, but thought it was 1,700 to 2,600 square feet for the triplex. Chairperson Lopez said the plan itself was in front of them, which was a very attractive booklet. The booklet went through the site plan and was pretty self- explanatory and gave them the criteria regarding the streets, the overall look of the potential building, and the landscaping. He asked for confirmation that the architecture was an example and was not what was going to be built. �. 7 . I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2006 ..r Mr. Hover said they were showing styles encouraged for the builders to provide diversity within the community and diverse architectural style. The styles were very popuiar right now. They encouraged that diversity instead of having everyone come in with a straight forward Mediterranean with barrel top roofs and stucco. Chairperson Lopez stated that the "meat" of this document was really going to be the criteria and the site plan along with the landscaping. That was really the "meat" of the proposal. Mr. Drell said those were the standards by which the plans would be judged. So they do set a standard for the level of detail and authenticity of architecture. Part of the function was when one of the merchant builders design something, they have this document to see what is expected. They expected something as good or better in terms of the architectural examples. Commissioner Finerty said she knew that was what they expect, but the problem was the Planning Commission didn't get to look at the project when it is sold off to merchant builders. It would go to ARC and if City Council didn't like it, they could call it up. That bothered her. She would feel better if it could come back to the Planning Commission so they could see if what was represented to them was what they were actually going to get. Mr. Drell said they could make that recommendation relative to the process. He said � it didn't need to be a public hearing, it could be a Miscellaneous agenda item with a recommendation to the Council if they wanted to review it. Commissioner Finerty said she really liked what she saw; she hoped it wasn't lost in communication from what they were shown and what merchant builders wanted to build. Mr. Hover thanked her and said for what iYs worth, the product on page 24 was an actual builder's product. That was their preliminary design on a 10-acre site. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification if it was page 24 or page 25. What she was seeing on page 25 wasn't as nice as on pages 58 forward. Mr. Hover said that was preliminary and was actually done by another architect. They weren't as far along on their design process as they were on the other product types. He thought they would see it enhanced in the submittals. 8 .r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 .�. Commissioner Finerty hoped he was right. Mr. Smith assured the Commission that that project would be coming through Planning Commission with the precise plan review. They just received the apptication this week. In six or eight weeks they would be seeing that project specifically. There were no other questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. MS. MARYJO KALAMON, 74-083 Scholar Lane, said she lives at the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola. She said this was the neighborhood to the east. When she moved in, there was supposed to be more green area then she was seeing at this point, so her question to the Commission was looking at the big picture here, what was left of the public green areas. She could see the lot divisions drawn in the middle, but not in the other areas. She asked what exactly was going to be on the corner of Portola and Gerald Ford, the southeast corner. She asked what kind of housing it was proposed to be. Her last question was the traffic problem. She asked if traffic was going to get crazy on Portola. She asked if everyone went either east "' to Cook to get on the freeway or west to Monterey to get on the freeway. She asked what was going to happen with all the traffic and how they were going to get all these people moving in out to work and so forth. She also said parks were important. Chairperson Lopez asked Mr. Drell to address Ms. Kalamon's concerns. Mr. Drell agreed that the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola should have a little more green. It didn't really show up that well on the exhibit. He thought the depth of that landscaping on Portola was 30 feet. (Mr. Bob Ross from RBF spoke from the audience and said it was 15-16 feet.) Mr. Drell asked if that map was before the Commission. Mr. Smith said yes, it was the next map on the agenda. Mr. Drell said that question would be answered then, but the speaker should take a look at the book. She was handed a book and he explained that it described a variety of unit types. He also said there were 11 acres of park included in the plan. One of the other developments that would occur, when they look at that master plan of the general plan map, they were going to have a big park at the corner of Gerald Ford and Portola, but that had actually shifted north and the City, in association with the parcel map that was continued to April 18, had one of the parcels the City was buying. r. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 .r It was a 30+ acre parcel which would be another community park similar to Freedom Park which would be built there. Not on the corner, because the price of that land was a little prohibitive, but toward the north up against the freeway. Mr. Drell explained that the depth of landscaping at the corner needed to be at least 50 feet from curbline to project perimeter wall, but he said they would be able to see that when they got to the next map on the agenda and what those exact dimensions were. If they were not that width, they should be. But again, the projects on Portola on the other side have about eight feet of landscaping. Hopefully they were doing much better than that and had at least twice that depth on this side and the 24-foot parkway. But they would look at that map next. Chairperson Lopez noted there was a question regarding traffic and how it was going to be addressed. Mr. Drell said it was studied as part of the general plan. One thing this project had, which was unusual in terms of developments they were used to which have very limited access where they end up with a concentration of access that create bottlenecks. As seen in this plat, there was a street out to Portola, � two major streets out to Gerald Ford, a street out to Cook Street and a street out to Frank Sinatra. So the project had five major accesses to allow people to go in every direction instead of concentrating tra�c. He used Palm Valley Country Club as an example. He thought they had a similar number of units and only two driveways. This had a similar number of units with five driveways to disperse the traffic. In terms of the recreational facilities, they hoped a lot of the trips would be internal. A certain number of the trips would be internal to the commercial areas which would be developing on Cook and Gerald Ford. So in the analysis in getting origins and destinations closer together,that would reduce traffic and congestion. That was also why they were widening Gerald Ford to six lanes. Portola would also ultimately be widened to six lanes. In the long term, there would be an interchange built at Portola. In comparison to the rest of the city, this was going to be a very intensely circufated area with lots of alternative options for people to get from place to place, thereby reducing the traffic at any one point. 10 �rr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 � There were no other questions. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. Mr. Drell had another comment. He believed that ultimately there would be a signal at Julie where College hits Portola. That would allow people on Shepherd to have a signalized access going north and south. There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Lopez Ic osed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments or action. Commissioner Finerty stated that she liked what she was seeing and liked the layout, but as stated before, she was concerned about the difference in the book in architecture on pages 23, 25, 27, 29, 31 and 33 versus what they were seeing on pages 58 through 65. For that reason, she would feel better and have a level of comfort if the projects� came before the Planning Commission after ARC review and perhaps before going to Council, especially if there was a height exception. Commissioner Campbell noted that this case was asking them for a recommendation to City Council. As Mr. Smith stated, the other individual sites, homes, etc., would come in front of the Planning Commission anyway. ""' But this was a recommendation to City Council. She said she would go ahead and move to recommend approval to City Council. Commissioner Tschopp said he would second the motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, recommending approval to City Council. Commissioner Tschopp commented that the proposal was consistent with the general plan and it was on the lower side of inedium density. He understood there was a considerable topography change there that could give some latitude to different height limits on the houses. But he shared Commissioner Finerty's comments on the expectation of extremely superior architectural design and quality given what they were shown as examples that would behoove the granting of those requests for heights and setbacks. But that was the kind of standards they were looking for. So he was in favor of this, but he would also like to see the project come back before them given the height if it was granted. Mr. Drell said the project architecture. Commissioner Tschopp said yes. �, 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 200� � Commissioner Tanner stated that he, too, was in favor of the project. He asked for a clarification from Mr. Smith who said this would come back before the Planning Commission as the merchant builders buy the parcels. Mr. Smith clarified that when he responded to that he was talking about Parcels A and B specifically in the master plan, which were cluster and triplex units which go through a different process. Unless they specifically specify that the architecture come back through Ptanning Commission on the single family lots, the three maps before the Commission next on the agenda would not through the normal course come back to Planning Commission. That being said, Commissioner Tanner thought the project was great and was something that particular area needed, but he too would like to see and be able to control what goes there, as opposed to looking at a variety of different architectural schematics. He concurred with Commissioners Finerty and Tschopp. Mr. Drell said this got back to their perennial discussion of architecture versus site planning and the authority of the architectural commission and authority of the Planning Commission. They were not going to control the a�chitecture. That was the statutory purview of the Architectural Commission, appealable to the City Council. They could still request as pa�t of the process the ability to review and comment on it, which is what they normally do. � Commissioner Finerty noted that they've had this discussion before and stated that Planning Commission does have the authority to review what ARC does and she has had that confirmed by members of the Council. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that they were being asked to grant exceptions on something they hadn't seen that would be on the actual plans. Mr. Drell said they weren't. Commissioner Tschopp said they were in terms of height exceptions. Mr. Drell said they weren't granting exceptions. They were providing the opportunity for exceptions. The exceptions wouldn't be granted until they actually see the actual architecture. What the applicant was suggesting and what they were obviously taking issue with was that the exceptions would be handled through the architectural review process, which is Architectural Review and (if called up) City Council. Commissioner Tschopp asked for correction if he was wrong, but the way he read this was the general plan was for 18 feet and this was granting 24 feet with a 28-foot approval by ARC. Mr. Drell said no, in the general plan the PR zone is 24 feet. So they are asking for, and in reality they could always ask 12 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 i for the exception, the PR zone has a very generalized exceptions section in it. They've approved an eight-story hotel in the PR zone, which was a little higher than 24 feet. So this was narrowing the exception a little bit. It was a wink to the developer. The purpose of this document was to provide guidance to a developer. It is saying that as a matter of right they are only guaranteed 24 feet, which is what the ordinance said. If they make the case that the various factors of interior and exterior architecture justify 28 feet, they can ask for 28 feet. In fact, they could ask for 28 feet without this. But again, the language in the existing PR zone allowed them to ask for anything they wanted. This provided a little bit of an acknowledgment that there will be reasonable consideration of heights up to 28 feet if their architecture justified, it. If the Commission wanted as part of the process, which it sounded like they did, in essence they wanted to provide input on that decision and that was a recommendation they could make to be included in this document as part of this process. Then if there was a controversy, the Council could decide. Chairperson Lopez asked if it would be a recommendation on the University Master Plan and on the following items coming up. Mr. Drell said it would be in the book because the process describes the height as being part of the �.. architectural review process, which was ARC reviewable by City Council. Commissioner Tanner asked if the recommendation for up to 28 feet was for the entire project, not just Parcels A and B. Mr. Drell said that any unit in the entire area would be eligible to ask for 28 feet. Again, there was no obligation on the City to grant anything over 24 feet to anybody. So again, it was a matter of them making the case. He noted that Falling Waters made the case for 32 feet. Marriott made the case for 80 feet. Over the last three or four years, mainly generated by the market desire for these larger interior spaces, it has been more driven by the interior and the 10-foot and 9-foot plates that people want. That adds three feet right there and gets them from 24 to 27. And then there was staff's desire to get variety. One of the criteria, and in all the projects they have approved exceptions, he didn't think any project has had uniformity of 28 feet or any exception, it has always been justified by creating some ups and downs in the ridge heights and peaks that has been a justification. If they read the exceptions section in the book, it talked about the sort of things that would warrant an exception. But again, if they wanted to participate in that discussion they needed to insert that as a recommendation in the language to go to Council, in the booklet document, to say that it would be reviewable by both ARC and Planning Commission. They could ask for that and was why it was before them. -- 13 _ . MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 ..r Action: Commissioner Campbell amended her motion to include Planning Commission review. Commissioner Finerty appreciated that and also pointed out that the applicant stated that the majority of the units would requi�e the 24 to 28 feet. Commissioner Tschopp seconded the amended motion. He noted that they all have a very high comfort level with ARC and the Council, but they were looking at something nice here and wanted to see that; even if it was just four feet, it could make a big difference and they have seen good architecture in the past and expect it on this project. So it would be nice to have a say on it in the future. Chairperson Lopez commented that the plan itself and the need for this recommendation to City Council was one that gives the entire project a guideline for builders and developers in the future. He liked this document and the meat of it; obviously, there was a lot written into the statistics than in the pretty pictures, but thought it was a great idea and agreed with the rest of the Commission that they would like to be active in what does go there in terms of the heights and height exceptions. The topography could allow a lot of variations in that area because of the flow of the land. He personally would like to see a lot of different things going on in there instead of just having a tract of homes with flat roofs and that would add a lot to that particular area. � He was in agreement to recommend approval to the City Council with the amendment. Chairperson Lopez called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2385, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. C/Z 06-04 and the University Park Master Plan as amended, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. E. Case No. TT 34055 - PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY LP, Applicant Request for approval of a 244-1ot residential tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact on property located at the southeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue, 74-255 Gerald Ford Drive. 14 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 ... Mr. Smith described the map and location and reviewed the staff report. As indicated in the report, he said they currently don't have plans for dwellings on the lots. The conceptual architecture in the master plan was reviewed and granted conceptual approval. If they include an exception and if the City Council concurs with Planning Commission's recommendation, then the height exception would be coming back through the Planning Commission. Regarding the question as to landscape widths along Portola and Gerald Ford, Mr. Joy advised there was 24 feet. It was considerably in excess to the west side of Portola. Mr. Smith recommended approval of the project, subject to the conditions. Mr. Drell stated that there would not be a separate Negative Declaration for this map in that the CEQA process would be completed with the Master Plan, so the individual maps would not require the additional CEQA analysis. Chairperson Lopez asked if this applied to all three maps. Mr. Drell said yes. Since they didn't have any plans for the dwellings, Commissioner Campbell asked if it was correct they didn't know how many would be single-story and how many would be two-story homes in this particular area. Mr. Smith said that was correct. ~ Mr. Drell said that in theory these could be custom homes by individual builders. Again, if they wished to review the architecture when it is submitted to ARC,they could relay it onto Planning Commission as well. Commissioner Finerty said that would be great. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. TOM HOVER, Palm Desert Funding Corporation, indicated that this map was part of the master plan previously presented and he was present to answer any questions. There were no questions for the applicant. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was clos . Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. � 15 , MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 � Action: Commissioner Finerty moved for approval with the amendment that the plans come back through the Planning Commission after Architectural Review Commission review. Commissioner Campbell asked if it was known yet if these were going to be individual lots or custom homes. Mr. Drell said he was sure they would not be custom homes. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Mr. Smith noted that Public Works conditions of approval were distributed to the Commission, but were not included in the draft resolution and needed to be incorporated into the resolution. Staff indicated that they were stapled to the staff report. Mr. Drell said they were the usual list of suspects. Chairperson Lopez noted that they had before them a motion and a second. He asked for any other comments or questions. There were none and he caNed for the vote. The motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2386, approving Case No. TT 34074, subject to the conditions as amended. � Motion carried 5-0. F. Case No. TT 34057 - PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY LP, Applicant Request for approval of a 141 residential lot tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact on property located south of Gerald Ford Dcive east of the future Pacific Avenue, 36-200 Pacific Avenue. Chairperson Lopez noted that this would not include the Negative Declaration. Mr. Drell concurred. Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and with the addition of the Public Works conditions of approval recommended approval. Chairperson Lopez o ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. The applicant (Mr. Tom Hover) was present, but did not have any additional comments. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. 16 � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNlNG COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2006 ... There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell to approve the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Finerty requested the addition of a condition for project review by the Planning Commission after approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tschopp. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2387 as amended, approving Case No. TT 34057, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. G. Case No. TT 34074 - PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY LP, Applicant Request for approval of a 72-lot residential tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact on property � located south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of the future Pacific Avenue, 74-300 College Drive. (The Negative Declaration was removed and the CEQA determination changed to previously assessed under Case No. C/Z 06-04 and the University Park Master Plan.) Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the addition of the Public Works conditions into the draft resolution. Mr. Drell said he had one minor clarification relative to the public/private street question. In that these parks are public parks, although the streets will be privately maintained, there will be public easements on the accesses to the public parks guaranteeing that those public parks would be available within the city, as well as to the people on Shepherd Lane. He said that would include a dog park in the middle which would be a public facifity like all of our public facilities and available to all residents in the city. Commissioner Finerty asked how it was that there was going to be private funding, she assumed through HOA dues, for public streets. Mr. Drell said � 17 f � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 .r there wouldn't be. It would be a private street with a public easement on it as opposed to public streets owned by the City. Most all other streets are actually dedicated in fee to the City. The anomaly was the fact that these are public parks which they had to insure public access to, but it didn't make sense to have some streets within the project publicly maintained and privately maintained. So the developer agreed to keep them all private, maintain them all, but agreed to place a public easement. It was no different then the parking structures at the mall that have public easements on them, yet they are privately owned and privately maintained. Commissioner Tanner asked Mr. Smith if the exterior would be walled or an open community. Mr. Smith said it would be walled along Gerald Ford, Portola, Pacific, College and University. Mr. Drell said that as designed, all the lots back on and will have pretty generous 24-foot parkways with a curbside street tree program, off the curb sidewalks, and all the main streets would have a bike path. Commissioner Tanner said that the public parks would not really be accessible except through entering into that neighborhood using those streets. Mr. Drell said that was correct. That was why they were ungated and why there were public easements. In function, the streets accessing the parks would be public streets. The�e would be public easements on them in perpetuity. From the City's point of view, it was the best of all possible worlds. "� With this development being walled and the development to the west being walled, Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that the requirement for the bus shelter, but had no access from the interior of the development out to that bus shelter on Gerald Ford. He asked if it was anticipated that other bus shelters would be built on Pacifica or College Drive. Mr. Smith said that Sunline was in the process of coming up with a plan. Unfortunately, they were working on the best available information at this point. Commissioner Tschopp said it seemed that being the pedestrian friendly area they were trying to encourage, to have a bus site out on Gerald Ford without access to the interior units being built that would house the people that would use the bus seemed to be somewhat out of line. Mr. Drell said that was a good point and there probably should be, especially in that first tract (TT 34055), pedestrian access because they have almost a quarter mile along Gerald Ford. College has numerous access points. Where there was little access was onto Gerald Ford or Portola for that tract they already looked at. Commissioner Tschopp thought the bus stop should be 18 �r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4 2006 ... on College Drive. Mr. Drell agreed that it should be on College Drive adjacent to one of the access streets or both access streets. They've anticipated, although staff hadn't seen it yet, that College Drive would be an ideal route for the bus and it would get people to Berger, which accessed the commercial and the residential, one side of the street or the other, and it would keep the bus off of the congestion of Cook and those intersections. They were trying to make the case to Sunline that College is where the bus should be going to maximize the ability to pick up both residences and commercial patrons and college students. He asked how that condition was worded. Mr. Smith said they got one memo from Sunline asking them not to do anything and then a memo from the City's transportation person requesting it on Gerald Ford saying that if there were no buses there when the tracts go forward, then the condition may be waived. Chairperson Lopez said the Sunline memo stated that they were reviewing it. Mr. Drell agreed and indicated that it said not to start putting bus stops in places until they know thaYs where they want them. Mr. Smith said they have a philosophical difference relative to bus pullouts. They were going in with both hands tied behind their backs. Mr. Drell said that Sunline's position was for 24 feet. They have room to put in bus stops. Sunline's other position is that over time bus stops change as areas develop. The locations shift around � and they aren't in a position to say this is where they want investments. He said current costs of a turnout shelter combination was approximately $50,000 and was a considerable expense until they know where they want it. Chairperson Lopez opened the pubiic hearing and asked if the applicant had any additional comments. Mr. Tom Hover spoke from the audience and said no. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was close . Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbeil, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2388 as amended, — 19 _ � �, �� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 2006 � approving Case No. TT 34074, subject to conditions as amended to include project review by the Planning Commission after Architectural Review Commission approval relative to height exceptions. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Campbell reported that there was no meeting. B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Finerty reported that the Landscape Committee would meet on April 5. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE .r Commissioner Finerty reported that the meeting was canceled. XI. COMMENTS None. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.mr—� �-- . _ /�,�.� PHILIP DRE L, Secretary ATTE : � JAME . OPEZ, C ai rson Palm D s rt Planning o mission /tm 20 rrr