Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0306 /'—"T�"""'� MINUTES �,�R� V PA�M DESERT P�ANNING COMMISSION . ;��-� . . TUESDAY - MARCH 6, 2007 * * * * k * * * * * k * * * * * * * * * * * * * Y * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * * * * * * * * * * * * Y * * L CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Schmidt Ied in the pledge of allegiance. 111. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chair Dave Tschopp, Vice Chair Connor �imont Mari Schmidt Van Tanner Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steve Smith, Acting Dir. of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Tony Bagato, Acting Planning Manager Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the February 20, 2007 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the February 20, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCI� RCTION Mr. Smith summarized pertinent February 22, 2007 City Councii actions. rwirvuTEs PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VIL CONSENT CA�ENDAR A. Case No. TT 32655 - PALM DESERT FUNDING COMPANY, �P, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension for a tentative tract map subdividing a 69-26-acre into 270 single- family lots with modified setbacks and Iot sizes for property located between Portola Avenue and Cook Street south of Gerald Ford Drive, Parcel 9, PM 31370. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUB�IC HEARWGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be Iimited 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 35333 - BOURESTON DEVELOPMENT, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 3.27-acre Iot into one parcel for condominium purposes for property located at 44-651 Village Court (APN's 625-100-027, 047 and 049). Mr. Stendeli reviewed the staff report and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Commissioner Tanner asked if any negative comments had been received regarding this request. Mr. Stendell said no; he received cails from some of the neighbors within the Hidden Palms development who were confused about the term "condominium." After receiving clarification from staff, he believed aIl probiems had been resoived. 2 MINUTES PAI.M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 Commissioner Schmidt asked if it changed the footprint or square footage requirements. Mr. Stendell confirmed that it only recorded a map on the property for condominium purposes; it changed absoluteiy nothing physically and was a mechanism to allow the owner to seli interior space. Commissioner Schmidt asked if he had to do that once it was recorded. Mr. Stendell said he didn't have to sell them, but he wouid have the ability to sell them. Chairperson Campbell o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. WARREN SANDBERG, 21091 Skylark Drive in Lake Forrest, stated that he was present to answer any questions. There were no questions. Chairperson Campbeli asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for Commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2436 approving Case No. TPM 35333, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. TT 35271 and TT 35272, PALM DESERT GREENS ASSOCIATION, Applicant Request for approval of two tentative tract maps to subdivide 7.58-acres into 331 lots for property at 73-750 Country Club Drive, also more particuiarly described as APMs 620-272-014, 620-261-050, 620-251-039, 620-241-027, 620-094-026, 620- 082-035, 620-131-031, 620-141-OQ1 and 620-151-034. Mr. Smith informed Commission that there was a legal noticing glitch on this item. Staff sent out in excess of 850 Iegal notices; however, one was not to the immediate property owner to the west and to the south. He said that property owner (Mr. Gerhard Befeld}was in attendance and Mr. Smith spoke to him prior to the meeting. Before proceeding with the hearing, Mr. Smith requested that Mr. Befeld waive his right to that notice, then they could proceed with the normai course of the hearing events this evening. If nat, he � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 suggested that the matter be continued two weeks and the legal notice would be sent aut and the hearing would take piace then. Mr. Smith said that if Mr. Befeld wouid ciear up that matter, staff could proceed with the staff report. MR. GERHARD BEFELD, the owner of Suncrest Country Club, stated that he was willing to waive the legal notici�g. He said this was not a staff mistake; they traced it to the County where they have their assessor numbers mixed up. He was willing to waive that and continue on with the hearing. He just wanted to get into the record that they were not noticed and that staff has taken care of that. Mr. Stendeli reviewed the staff report and said he had a couple of additional conditions. He said that the Iots being created by this map were non- conforming and the condition was that they can only be developed or used if inerged with tne adjacent Iots. They were very thin lots, but the intent is that they can only be useful if the individual owner buys it back and merges it onto their existing parcel. As well, Mr. Stendell said they had some requests relative to the non- conforming wail structure bordering Suncrest Country Club to the south and west of this project. There was a chain-link fence with a 10-foot high very mature hedge running the length of the border. He stated that in some areas it could use some improving. At a public hearing like this on a new subdivision, staff would typically require that the appiicant provide a five-foot high minimum wall around the new project. This is an existing condition, but staff was using this as an opportunity to bring up the fence, get rid of the chain-link and require a masonry block wail. This would be a condition that staff was requesting; that aiong Lots 14-97 of Map 35272 the applicant shall construct a five-foot high masonry wail bordering the Suncrest Country Ciub. With those additional conditions, Mr. Stendeil recommended a continuance to March 20 to deal with some issues with the City Attorney. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Hargreaves said yes. Mr. Stendeil recommended a continuance to allow staff to clear up some issues relative to the street widening, as well as the block wail bordering Suncrest Country Club. Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff knew the original purpose of the easements. Mr. Stendell said no, but hoped the applicant could shed some light on that. Commissioner Schmidt asked far clarification regarding the Portola Avenue easement and the location of the properties that would not be subdivided. Mr. Stendell pointed out Lot 26 and a portion of Lot 25 thru �ot 66 that run along Portoia Avenue where the Public Works Department has indicated that 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 20Q7 they need future street widening capabiiity. The condition in place in the draft resolution would eliminate any subdivision along Portola for that purpose. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it was called out in their application. Mr. Stendell said that was correct; however, with the condition, the final map would not be able to record unless they removed the specified lots. With the future widening, Commissioner Schmidt asked for confirmation that the people who back up to or have that easement would have to give that up for the street. Mr. Stendell said it was unclear how much wouid be needed. Mr. Joy clarified that right now the property is owned by Palm Desert Greens and not individuai property owners. The map as proposed would convey the property to individual property owners. The City was requesting at this time that the property not be conveyed to individuals and be left as one parcei which could be purchased at ane time. Commissioner Limont indicated that the individual property owners would have the ability to buy the property and those who chose not to, she asked for confirmation that the property would be maintained by Palm Desert Greens. The City's obligations were within keeping with the city, for instance, the wall along Frank Sinatra and that type of wali with regard to Suncrest. Mr. Stendell stated that the findings for the map's approvai could be made and they would try to bring things as much up to current standards as possible. The issue of seliing and not seiling is interior only, but they would do what they could to bring the project as much up to code as possibie, leaving the other issue aside. Commissioner Limont said she was looking for the City, Suncrest and Portola to have continuity with regard to the wall design so they didn't have a fence in one place, a wall somewhere else and then oleanders. Mr. Stendell thought that was what they were trying to do by proposing that a wall be built and they would get rid of a condition that hasn't been allowed for a long time, the chain Iink fence. That was why the condition was added. Commissioner Schmidt noted that the future wall, if it happened, actualiy borders Suncrest. There is an existing wali already around the perimeter of Paim Desert Greens. Mr. Stendell said that was right. Commissioner Schmidt asked wha would build that wall. Mr. Stendeii said the condition was on this map, so the condition was being required of the Paim Desert Greens Association. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2d07 MR. ROY CRON, 39030 Cutty Circle in Paim Desert, stated that he is the President of the Paim Desert Greens Homeowner's Association. He explained that the original purpose of putting the map together was called a revenue enhancement program, a revenue enhancement program to a community that is now 35 years oid with buildings and infrastructure that are actually up to 38 years old. It badly needed repair and redesign. That was the purpose of this map; gaining funds to do that work. He said they certainly had not planned on building a wall between their property and Suncrest when over the years they have requested ' of Suncrest Country Ciub to go in with them on a wall that would be ' not only an enhancement to them, but for their property owners, not necessarily for the association. He said Suncrest is owned by a corporation or by one person; it is administered by that one person whereas each one of the Palm Desert Greens' Iots are owned individualiy by 1,922 homeowners. The easements on their property are owned by 1,922 homeowners. When they Iooked at doing this program, tney knew they needed to raise some money to help this aging community and this was one way of doing it. If they have to buiid a wall at whatever cost, that isn't a good option for them. The wall would cost a tremendous amount of money and from what he just heard Mr. Stendell say, the burden would be on Palm Desert Greens to build the wall. Suncrest, although benefiting of it, and a private ownership benefiting of it, at this point he would not be required to pay any portion of that. He stated that he could not make any decisions for the Paim Desert Greens commu�ity, oniy the Board of Directors could do that in a Iegally called meeting. Regarding Portola Avenue, their homeowners there were in Iimbo. If the property owners that back up to that wish to seil their properties, they must divulge to any perspective buyer that that easement would at some time be taken by the City of Palm Desert to widen the highway, which virtually made those properties unsellable. Also, no realtor would bother to show property. They were opening a can of worms here. He asked if the City was going to take the Portola property, to please sit down with them and tell them what they want, how much that road wili take, teli them where the new barrisr wall wili go, and then deai 6 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 with them in a fashion that they would expect to be dealt with. He said their praperty is worth money, no question about that. Mr. Cron reiterated that they were not prepared to build a wail right now between Suncrest Country Club and Palm Desert Greens. They would take it into consideration if they have communication with Suncrest, which they have not had in the past; their phone calls go unanswered. He thanked them. Chairperson Campbeli invited testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. She started with those that filled out blue Request to Speak cards and asked Mr. Sinciair to address the Commission. MR. MA� SINC�AIR, 73-691 Oak Flint Drive in Palm Desert Greens, stated that he is on the Paim Desert Greens Board of Directors. He thanked the Commission for giving them the opportunity to be involved in the planning process of the City of Palm Desert. It was pleasure to see what a wonderful step it was when they annexed to the city and now they could really contribute and help improve this city as much as they can. With regard to the tract map conditions, he said the agenda talks about requesting two tentative tract maps, but on a previous correspondence there were two conditions that were listed and it dealt with Portola Avenue and the one on the corner and all they were asking was that they trust them; that if they were to agree not to seli any of these properties until such time as this whole thing is resolved, then that would really help them by not holding up this whole process. He was asking them to approve the whole process without excluding these two so that it would not be heid up Iater on and if they were to somehow sit down and agree with them that they were not going to sell any of those properties to perspective buyers, he hoped that wouid help them tremendously. He thanked them. Chairperson Campbell asked for clarification on which particular pieces of property Mr. Sinclair was talking about. Mr. Sinclair ciarified that he meant the ones ali the way down Portola and the one on the corner of Frank Sinatra and Monterey. Those were the two mentioned in other carrespondence that they saw and they wanted to sort of exciude them; they want them to be inciuded in the approvai process and then they would agree to not seli them until such time as the City came to them and said they were ready to widen 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 Portola and what they wanted to do. He hoped that wouidn't take too Iong, but thaYs kind of what they wouid Iike to go along with. Chairperson Campbeil asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. MR. DON CUSKE��Y, 39-480 Desert Greens Drive East, said that his property abuts Portola and had a question for the Public Works Department. He indicated tnat there is a new subdivision going in just north; they hadn't started developing yet, but he imagined that they already ascertained a setback on that new subdivision. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Joy said yes, that new subdivision was approved with a right-of-way dedication for the extra roadway width. Mr. Cuskeily said that Mr. Joy would know what that width is right now from the centerline. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Joy said yes. Mr. Cuskelly asked what the construction setback is for Portola based on that subdivision and asked what they had to do. Mr. Joy said from centeriine to the street would be approximately 78 feet for an arteriai street section. Mr. Cuskeliy asked about the total width. Mr. Joy clarified that it was 150 feet total right-of-way width, so that would be 75 feet for haif the street. Mr. Cuskelly reiterated that it was 75 feet from the centeriine to the new right-of-way line. Mr. Joy said that was correct. Mr. Cuskelly thanked him. He indicated that on the original tract map that they made, the easement wasn't referred to as an easement, it was referred to as Iandscaping. That was it. He knew that for a while because when he moved in there in 1981 they did nothing and some oleanders were growing. For all practical purposes it has been abandoned and left up to the caretaker or the owner and ne had no objection pro or con either way. He was just curious about the 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 widening. What he has seen Palm Desert do in otlier areas witn street widenings, the walls were buiit extremeiy well and maybe at this point in time would afford a Iittle less noise than there currentiy is right now. He has seen what they did on Fred Waring and he thought they did an excellentjob. That answered his questions and he thanked them. Chairperson Campbell asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. MS. PAT McFARLAND, 39-700 Desert Greens Drive East, said that the property she and her husband owns backs up to Portoia. She said they discussed widening of the street and maybe opening the streets all the way to I-10. Her question had to do with the other side of the street where the City of Palm Desert has sold property to build buildings and if they wouid also have to expand that side as well. Mr. Joy believed it would be expanded on the east side of the street. It was probably going to be a retrofit situation where they would try to get everything they could and go from there. Ms. McFarland said once they pass the goif course at Santa Rosa where it makes that wide turn, from that point ail the way to Country Club, that would be straight going down Portola. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Joy said that was why they wanted to acquire the property from Palm Desert Greens at the same time so that it would be a nice long straight away stretch like that. Ms. McFarland asked if they were taking property from both sides of the street. Mr. Joy wasn't sure; they were taking what they could get and if they could get one Iong straightaway from Palm Desert Greens, they would certainly take that. When the maps went through on the east side of the street, they didn't envision six lanes of roadway at that time. Ms. McFariand pointed out that it wasn't envisioned when they built Palm Desert Greens Country Club either, but that didn't alieviate taking land from them as well. If they were going to buiid and if they needed a Iane for the other side as weli, how much property were they talking about? 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 Mr. Joy expiained that there wasn't a finai study yet on how much would be needed on the east side, but they would certainly be able to provide that information in the future or at the next meeting. Ms. McFariand stated that not everyone living on the perimeter lots got notification of tnis meeting, nor did the notification say anything other than approving these tracts; there was nothing about making Portola bigger or taking a piece of the community. She received calis from some people who said they didn't even know about this meeting, so she was assuming that only certain groups were targeted because there were people who Iive in the middie of the community who received Ietters who weren't involved in this. She thanked them. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak. There was no response. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any rebuttal comments from the appiicant. Mr. Smith indicated that Mr. Befeld turned in a Request to Speak card to staff and suggested hearing from him prior to the rebuttal comments. MR. GERHARO BEFELD came forward and informed Commission that he has owned Suncrest Country Club for 24 years. He said Palm Desert Greens was built in 1970 and the corporation that buiit it was called Avco Development. Rather than pay for a block wall, they entered into an agreement with the County to have ten-foot, but someone eise said 14-foot, oleanders around the complete perimeter. That could be seen on older maps. But to be fair to them, and he has been in property management for 30 years, cutting oleanders in someone's back yard is a complete nightmare because people get mad when crews show up at 6:00 a.m. As testimony has come out, they cut back and it became an option of the homeowners; the Association no Ionger takes care of it. He turned in some exhibits (map and pictures) and said he wasn't opposed to this project in the sense that it really was crazy having that 14-foot strip back there. Nis problem was his perimeter road runs next to their backyards. The second exhibit showed the east side where the oleanders had been replaced with pyracantha. According to his engineers, Mr. Befeld said the problem they were facing is that the fence Iine was one of the mast accurate fence iines in the Coachelia Valley; it didn't vary over an inch over half a mile. He asked what they wauld be looking at if they went through with this. Referring to one of his pictures, he said that the person who built the block wall could take out that post and do whatever they want, but he 10 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 20Q7 thought it was similar to the old Santa Ana freeway where peopie went by 30 feet of pink block, 30 feet of wood, and it was just a disaster. In talking with staff, Mr. Befeld said the one thing that came to mind was if people don't decide to buy, what was this going to look like from his side? ThaYs what the last two exhibits were about. One showed a property whose owner was not cleaning up his lot. He was not being critical of Palm Desert Greens, but no one looks into somebody's backyard and that was facing one of our major streets. That's why he believed the issue of the block wall was important to keep it consistent and Palm Desert Greens has built walls; they have nice walls on Monterey, Frank Sinatra and Portola. He thanked them. MS. BARBARA MUL�ICAN, 73-149 Adobe Springs Drive in Palm Desert Greens, addressed the Commission. She said she was quite uncertain now about who owns the property line between Palm Desert Greens and Suncrest. According to the property manager of Suncrest, he was saying that Palm Desert Greens put in the fence and oleanders and it was her understanding that it belonged to Suncrest. They made many attempts to contact the Suncrest property manager to have the oleanders taken care of, trimmed down and have had no luck in contacting the gentleman at ali. So whether he has been a property managerfor 30-some years, he has been an elusive property manager. Tney have had concerns with rats because of the debris that fills the bottom of the oleanders on the Suncrest side, as well as the dead oleanders. She stated that there have been many attempts by the property owners along Adobe Springs to have those oleanders trimmed and they have had no success in doing that. She was glad to hear that he said he couid go in with attempting to put up a wall between their properties. As far as looking into a backyard, if he wants to look into a backyard, she wouid invite him to look at hers because it was beautiful. Mr. Cron expiained that it wasn't the intent of the Nomeowner's Association of Palm Desert Greens to allow individuals to buiid biock walis on a perimeter where their easement now runs. Tnat was not something they would do. He heard the Suncrest property manager say he didn't want a bunch of different looking block walls or wooden fences. Mr. Cron said the Palm Desert Greens architectural committee wouid not ailow any fence to be built back there at this particular point untii the entire issue is resoived to their satisfaction and they have one continuous type of structure. What he was asking the Planning Commission to do was not hold up their map pian 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNWG COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 because of an issue with the perimeter wall, It appeared that Suncrest Country Club now wishes to talk to Palm Desert Greens about this issue and they would be happy to discuss it with him. What they didn't want to have happen is to have the entire map plan not okay'd because of a wali that Pubiic Works might think needs to be built between their properties; iYs a neighbor to neighbor situation. They certainiy understood the exciusion of the properties on Portola and that property Iisted at the corner of Monterey and Frank Sinatra. Ne was okay with those taken out of the plan and set them aside, but he asked that they be allowed to start the discussion process with the Public Works Department so they couid give these peopie who live on the perimeter of Portoia some answers. ThaYs alI he was asking. Chairperson Campbell reiterated that staff was requesting continuance of this application and noted that they would have an opportunity to talk about it with staff. Mr. Befeld stated that he was wiliing to talk with his neighbors; he was not totaily happy that people say he is not responsive, but this issue has been going on so long. In his view it is Palm Desert Greens' responsibility to maintain the chain-link fence and the oieanders so he didn't see it. They started pulling out the oleanders and he started pianting stuff on his side, but this is a hodge podge that needs to be resolved. He was sorry to bring this before them, but thaYs where they were at. Chairperson Campbell said that with the continuance, they wouid have an opportunity to talk with each other. She asked if staff had any other comments. Mr. Smith said he spoke with the Public Works Director this afternoon and he felt there might be some benefit to a continuance to allow the parties to meet aiong with Pubiic Works so they can firm up the issue with the Portoia widening and the location of the future wali and those types of things: timing of the acquisition, timing of the wail construction, the splitting of the cost for the wall construction, that type of thing. StafF's suggestion was to continue the matter to the first meeting in April to give approximately a month for the parties to meet and come back and hopefully some of these issues will have been resolved. Chairperson Campbeli stated that the public hearing would remain open and asked Commission for a motion of continuance. 12 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2407 Commissioner Tschopp commented that it was a good time for the City to faciiitate a conversation between the two owners to move this forward. He moved for continuance. Commissioner Tanner seconded the motion after encouraging the neighbors and staff to work together, get some understanding, and get the issues of concern resolved. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, by minute motion, to continue Case Nos. TT 35271 and TT 35272 to April 3, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. C/Z 06-06 and PP 06-14 - OLEN PROPERTIES CORPORATION, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a change of zone from Service Industrial (S.I.) to Pianned Residential 19 units per acre (PR-19), a precise plan of design to construct 782 apartment units on 40.53 gross acres, a height exception to allow a 35-foot 1-inch maximum roof height, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The property is Iocated at the northwest corner of Dinah Shore and Portola Avenue, 35-250 Dinah Shore Drive. Mr. Smith informed Commission that a letter was received from the applicant earlier that day requesting a continuance. It was at the discretion of the Chair as to whether staff would present the matter now or hold the entirety over to whatever date they chose to continue the matter to. He said staff was prepared to outline the project. It had been staff's intention to go forward with the nearing at this point and then continue the matter after hearing from the public and Commission. He said this is a very significant project in the city and staff knew there were going to be some issues relative to tne Portola overpass at the freeway and how it will impact the eastern end of the property, but if Commission had other issues they wanted to see added in or taken from the project, staff thought it wouid be a good opportunity for the appiicant to assemble aIi those changes at once. But they did have a letter seeking a continuance. Staff was prepared to proceed; it was up ta the Commission. Chairperson Campbell said they could just continue the whole matter to hear it at one time. One person in the audience said they would Iike to speak (Dan Allred) and Commissioner Schmidt said she had some concerns and questions for staff. Mr. Bagato said he could do it either way. The applicant just feit that if the issues couldn't be worked out and was a deal breaker, they 13 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH fi 2007 didn't want to get into the details yet, but he could do a quick report. Commission concurred with a quick staff report. Mr. Bagato showed the location of the property. Ne said it was one project area for the 40.53 acres on the north side of Dinah Shore just west of the future Portoia overpass. Ne said that currently the property is zoned Service Industrial in the Zoning Ordinance, but is designated in the General Pian as Medium Density/High Density overlay zone which allows between 4-22 units per acre. He said he included in the staff report the minutes from the General Plan update process. In 2004, Tom Noble, the property owner at the time, was against the property being used as residential. It was designated industrial at the time in the General Plan, Industrial/Business Park, but when Iooking at the need for more residential units in the north because of other properties that were redesignated to open space, the City Councii determined that this area would be appropriate for perhaps some apartment housing in this area near the freeway. The property owner at the time was against residential. The overiay gave him an option to seek industrial or some kind of residential use between 4-22 units per acre. Today, the property owner is Olen Properties and they put together an application which inciudes 38 buildings clustered around the project site. There was a total of 782 units proposed. The back five-acre parcel was part of the retention area that would be dedicated as part of the overall easement drainage pian for that part of the freeway. He stated that the project had two access points off of Dinah Shore; there was a main entry toward the northwest end with full signalized access onta Dinah Shore that wouid connect to 35th across the way with full exit and entry. The second driveway was iocated closer to Portola and was a right-in right-out only driveway. There would also be a future landscape median along Dinah Shore which would prevent Ieft-turn movements. It was considered the secondary access. Pulling out of the properties, each property would have an entry gate that was gated toward the community access only which would include service vehicles and emergency vehicles. There was access to basically one internal 24-foot wide driveway with no street parking. The driveway circulated around the perimeter of the project to aIl the residential units. Mr. Bagato said there were two large amenity areas that inciude a clubhouse. There is a large muiti functional pooi, half basketbali court, a tot iot which was added per the discussion at the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, as weli as a second tot Iot, and some open turf area. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CQMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 The second part included a putting green and there was another large multi functional pool. They had them design larger pools that wouid allow laps and general swimming. Staff thought they would act as four pools instead of two, so the kidney-shaped poois originally proposed had been redesigned. Ne said there was another half basketbail court and there was a sand volieyball court in one of these areas and another tot lot. Mr. Bagato said the amenity area totaled 665 square feet per unit, which given the large size and the scaie they were seeing, it might appear that it wasn't that much, but when they did the numbers, they were surprised. In other projects that have been approved, there were approximateiy 290 square feet of open space per unit, or 350 square feet, like The Vineyards on Frank Sinatra, Summit Properties and Falling Waters on 35th. So landscaping-wise and for open space areas, this project provided a great deal of amenities. The exact Iocation might change, but they were going to tie into a bike path that would run along the whole stretch along the freeway. The City is working on putting together some projects and general plan amendment to put a bike path from Monterey to Frank Sinatra. The bike path would have access underneath the bridge, would be connected to our future park site on the other side of Portola, and would be approximately 20 acres or more. In the overall project, Mr. Bagato said they were proposing three types of buildings; two are two-stories and one is three-stories. He showed Building C, which was three-stories with a maximum height of 35'1". He described the architect as desert contemporary. He said they were using low roof Iines, some recessed windows and stone veneer columns. The project was designed to siope down. He indicated that the property naturally slopes down 20-25 feet between Dinan Shore and the back end of the property. They strategicaliy placed the higher buildings toward the back to be lower. He showed a cross section from Dinah Shore and said that basically the curb height is about 205 feet. The proposed pad for the first two-story buiiding (type A at 25 feet) is three feet below the street. As they go further down the property, tne second row of two-story buildings (type B) were further below, and as they get to the back end of the property to the first Buiiding Cs at 35 feet tall, they were actualiy only 17 feet high from the curb on Dinah Shore. From Dinah Shore and public view, they were lower than the two-story buildings in front of them, so from a visual impact of the height exception, staff was in favor because there was no visual impact from Dinah Shore. Mr. Bagato said they would be adjacent to a future Portola interchange which would be approximateiy 20 feet higher tnan tnis property. They would also be next to an industriai project to the narth that ailows for 3d-foot high 15 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 building. Across the street the general plan ailowed for Medium/High density as well. The appiicants there were looking at doing a two-story product that wouid be on the other side of Dinah Shore, which was even higher than this Buiiding A, so they wouid have two-story buiidings that would be higher than this projecYs three-story buildings. Given the overall area and from a visual standpoint, Mr. Bagato said staff was in favor. As well, the Architecturai Review Commission was in favor of the project. Parking-wise, the applicant is proposing 1,336 spaces; the code requires more. Tne average came out to 1.7 spaces per unit and the code requires two spaces per unit. The applicant provided some parking surveys which showed a justification for that, but those were some of the issues staff wanted to talk about Iater, in addition to affordability. He said the project is looking at providing 20% affordability and they were working out a housing agreement that would give us about 152 units. Affordable housing in this area would be in high demand in this area in the future and getting 20% from them would be crucial to meeting future housing needs. There was also a condition about the City being able to buy down an additional 20% of the units, which could add more affordable units to meet city needs. Mr. Bagato said that given the Portola alignment and overpass issues could impact the overall design of the project, staff was recommending continuance. The applicant was not present, but a representative was, the property owner, and he could answer any questions. Commissioner Schmidt and Mr. Bagato discussed the exact location of the site. Mr. Bagato explained that a person would have to hike a pretty good distance off the street to get to this property, unless they had an off road vehicie. Commissioner Schmidt ciarified that it would be to the north of any existing homes. Mr. Bagato concurred. Commissioner Schmidt pointed out that there is a construction yard right where that street cut is at Portola. Mr. Bagato said that was right; the project property was further nortn toward the railroad. Commissioner Schmidt asked how many cartrips this project would generate a day at build out. Mr. Bagato indicated that the applicant provided a traffic study. Commissioner Schmidt said she read it, but didn't see the number of car trips. Mr. Bagato said there were some modifications requested to include that, but staff knew that initialiy when the general plan traffic models were done for the environmental impact report, the property was designated Industriai at Planning Commissian and those models ran higher numbers than what this project wouid demand. He indicated that Mr. Diercks from Public Works told him this project would have fewer trips than what industrial wouid require, so he didn't ask for those specific numbers given that 16 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COM@flISSION MARCH 6 2407 industrial uses have a highertrip generation than apartments. It was basicaliy stated that this project wauid generate fewer trips than the numbers projected in the general plan EIR. Commissioner Schmidt asked for and received confirmation that these are rental units, not condominiums, and there were over 400 units that would be one bedroom. Commissioner Schmidt said there appeared to be above ground utiiity Iines that are the high power lines. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Those would have to be moved with a Portola realignment and that was part of the issues that had to be resolved. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they would be buried. Mr. Bagato said probably not; they are very expensive. Similar to Wai-Mart and Lowe's at Monterey, due to the nigh cost from a City and developer standpoint, they didn't require those heavy duty lines to be underground. Commissioner Schmidt asked who would buiid the overpass over the freeway. Mr. Bagato said it was the City. Commissioner Tanner asked if staff had a time line for the overpass and when studies would be done as to the effect of the overpass to that area. He wasn't concerned just about the Olen project, but that entire surrounding area. It would be a major mess. Mr. Bagato said that Mr. Joy could add more information, but did indicate that there is a pretty significant plan in place that shows the right-of-way designation needed for the bridge, the grade and the siope, and that was why they could get further down the road with the developer of this property. The street to Portola where the bridge wouid begin has already been designed and is part of the assessment district to be buiit. He said there were preliminary pians aiready showing where the right- of-way will be and how the grade wili come up. Commissioner Tanner asked for confirmation that the overpass wouid have no effect on the grade of the plan before them because of the overpass. Mr. Bagato said it wouldn't affect the overall grading of the project, but it would potentially impact the east side where they have parking; they might Iose parking because of the power poles and the type of easements needed for the power poles. It wasn't necessarily going to impact the grade, but potentiaily the project and parking. Commissioner Tanner asked why they were looking at it now when there could be a significant impact because of the overpass. He understood that economically it had to be presented to the Planning Commission, but it might not be done the way it is being shown in the pian. Mr. Bagato said that because this is one of the largest apartment projects we've done at 782 units, even though it is only 19 units per acre and less than the maximum ,� MINUTES PALM DESERT P�ANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 thaYs been done, given the overall scope and size of the project, the City and the applicant last week thought it was best to come forward, both do a presentation because they are asking for parking reductions, height exceptions, and other issues that would factor in for them. But as of yesterday and today, the applicant felt that the Portola issue was that big of a deal that it couid be a deal breaker and they might not move forward with the project. Until they got that resoived, they didn't want to discuss anything eise. He said the report was written and the next staff report should be minimal because they had pretty much everything handled except that issue and they thought it would be positive to talk about the overall height, amenities, and other design features. But the applicant wanted a continuance and didn't show up for the meeting. Chairperson Campbeil reiterated that was why staff was recommending continuance, as well as Olen Properties, until that is resolved. Mr. Bagato concurred. Commissioner Schmidt asked for a potential date for the overpass. Mr. Joy said staff was aiming for 2012. Mr. Bagato explained that with the preliminary design plans with right-of-way designations, they could move forward with property development. Even though the bridge wouldn't be built for another seven years, staff pretty much knew where the poles would need to be moved. There were issues of who pays for the cost of moving the poles because right now the poles are technically on the deveioper's land. They could still move forward with the project maybe in a month if the appiicant is comfortable with whatever comes out of the meetings with Public Works and still be able to meet the future widening of the bridge. Commissioner Tanner wanted to make sure that the applicant doesn't go any further in from a financial standpoint. If Pianning Commission can't make a decision on whether this goes forward, irregardless of height, if it didn't make sense, they didn't want the applicant to spend a lot of money and start tne project and then look back and wish we hadn't suggested they do this. That wouidn't make sense. There were no other questions of staff and Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Ailred to make his presentation. MR. DAN A�LRED with Cornerstone Investors, 5005 Calle Raphael in Palm Springs, addressed the Commission. Ne stated that the overpass was the issue for everybody. There was a meeting scheduled at 2:00 p.m. on Friday with Engineering and Pianning to try and work through this. Ne said he worked very ciosely with Oien Properties and sort of selected them to work on this property because 18 MINUTES PA�M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 they buiit their first project in 1973 and they still own it; they've never sold anything. Ne wanted to bring in someone who would invest in the community and not just build and sell. They were very careful about seiecting a deveioper. Regarding the overpass situation, and he has been invoived in a lot of freeway locations over the Iast 25 years, if they say it will be built in 2012, his guess was it wouid probably be 2017; things never happen early, they happen late. He informed Commission that this project will develop in two phases; it wouldn't be built ail at once. The second phase will be the piece next to Portola. MSA Engineering, a Iocal engineering firm, and everyone has aiways said this overpass and interchange will be exactiy like the Cook Street Interchange because it works realiy well and is mostly right-hand turns instead of left-turns. If they compared Monterey to Cook, Cook works better because it is designed better, so that was the footprint aligned on this property. His understanding was that some consulting engineers made some minor changes and sort of made things up in the air and created a different slope on the side of the overpass that comes onto this property and thaYs what they want to try and resolve. They were hoping to get some sort of agreement with Public Works and Engineering to say they wouid work this out before the second phase was started, or work through the design issues before the map recorded. As of yesterday, they felt that there were too many things up in the air; that was why they respectfully asked to just continue this so they couid have this meeting Friday and work some other things out. That was the reason they were sort of holding back; to see if they couid get some things resolved with the overpass. To answer Commissioner Schmidt's question, Mr. Allred said the transmission lines (they weren't service lines) go way up north and south and he didn't even think Edison liked to bury them because they need easy access to them occasionally. Those would be relocated and there had been an adjustment in the site plan to allow for that. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they would be adjusted further into Mr. Allred's property. He said yes. They basicaily have an agreement with Edisan on how they would line up; it was just that this last change that came out last week with the overpass sort of caught everybody by surprise. He hoped that could be resolved next week and then they would come 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 back to Planning Commission and be comfortable that they know how the impacts wiil eventuaily affect the property. Chairperson Campbell reiterated that the request was to continue the public hearing for a month, until April 3. Mr. Allred concurred. He didn't get a copy of their letter, but was told about it. He asked if there were any questions he could answer. Chairperson Campbell noted that there was no one eise in the audience to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. Mr. Smith said that staff and the applicant would be interested in any comments that the Commission might wish to make at this time. Commissioner Tschopp thought it was a Iittle preliminary; he didn't feei like they were given a Iot of information. It sounded like the project could be stalied andlor modified greatly, so for them to make any comments might be premature. Commissioner Schmidt asked if Mr. Smith was looking for input. Mr. Smith said yes; if they were going to be making modifications to tne east end of the project due to the power lines and the overpass and if Commission was looking for other simiiar types of modifications, they could be handled in one step rather than two. Chairperson Campbell said she would feel more comfortable when they have all the cards in front of them and know exactly what they are talking about instead of making comments right now when they really didn't know what will be happening. Commissioner Schmidt said she would make a comment, because in studying this, and she wasn't unfamiliar with these kinds of projects, it was absoluteiy terrifying to her the density and the impact on that particular area. W ith the overpass situation being vague, she thought the developer would really want that resolved before spending a penny more. The sheer logistics of the power Iines running along Dinah Shore wouid eat into their planning. She also had concerns about the height and thought they should know it now; it wasn't their purview to delay anybody if they could give them some input right now to lower the buiiding. She thought the density was scary and did want to hear the number of vehicle trips; she wanted to know the traffic impact on that particular Portola intersection and she was sure tl�ey could 20 MINUTES PA�M DESERT P�ANNING GOMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 project them for when the overpass was buiit. That was a very significant number to her. Chairperson Campbell said that stafF could have some answers at the next meeting. Mr. Smith concurred. There were no other comments and Chairperson Campbeil asked for a motion of continuance. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner �imont, by minute motion, continuing Case Nos. C/Z 06-06 and PP 06-14 to April 3, 2007. Commissioner Tanner asked for ciarification on the motion. There were some suggestions on the height issue; before it comes back, it should be deait with. He asked if that was the intent. Commissioner Schmidt stated that the motion was just to continue the pubiic hearing. Commission concurred. Commissioner Schmidt noted that the discussion and concerns would be in the public record. Chairperson Campbell indicated that there would be more public testimony and a staff report at the next meeting. She calied for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Bagato advised that if the project does move forward, the potential out- of-state trip to view similar projects was changed to March 28 and 29. He said there were two Councii members planning to attend. Chairperson Campbell asked if Commissioners were interested, to please contact Mr. Bagato. IX. MISCELL.ANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A, ART IN PUB�IC P�ACES No meeting. B. �ANDSCAPE COMMITTEE No meeting. 21 MINUTES PA�M DESERT P�ANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6 2007 C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE No meeting. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reviewed March 6, 2007 Parks & Recreation Commission discussion items. XI. COMMENTS A. Mr. Smith indicated that after the last meeting during the discussion on the Desert Willow timeshare development project, it became clear that perhaps they would Iike to schedule either a study session with people from Redevelopment and the Housing Authority to have them discuss the overall Desert W illow fiscal impact to the city and that type of information. If they didn't care for a study session, he said they might want to meet with members of Redevelopment staff one or two at a time so that they could have a better understanding of the overall development concept for Desert W illow. They had that offer from both Redeveiopment staff and from Housing. As an exampie, earlier Tony indicated that there wouid be a housing agreement for 20% of the units. There were also two other sites around the clubhouse that would come before them. Typicaily at these hearings they don't get into the details on that, but if they wanted to have that understanding, the offer has been presented. It was up to them on how they might want to approach either one of these issues. Chairperson Campbell thought it would be better presented in a study session. Commission agreed. Mr. Smith asked if they wanted to have it before the meeting on March 20 or if it should be put off. Chairperson Campbell requested that it be put off for another month. It was high season for her right now and 6:00 p.m. was pushing it. Mr. Smith said that the item would be put back on the agenda for Aprii 3 to set a date for a study session. B. Mr. Smith announced that he was retiring and March 23 would be his last day with the City; March 26 Lauri Aylaian would be moving into his chair. Commission congratulated him. C. Commissioner Limont informed Commission that she had an opportunity to visit the Palo Alto Planning Department when she was in the Bay area. They gave her a copy of their zoning ordinance, the names of peopie they can talk with and their web page. She and 22 MlNUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING GOMMISSION MARCH 6. 2007 � Steve would be taking some time to see what they are doing and see if it could apply to Palm Desert in any way, shape or form to see if it would be practical to take up. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Limo�t, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. --=-_=?��� .7��c� STEPFiEN R. SMI , Acting Secretary ATTEST: ? �� � ' ��"`�%(�-L�'�'Q ONIA M. CAMPBE�L, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm 23