HomeMy WebLinkAbout0715 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 15, 1974
MIDDLE SCHOOL, 7: 00 P.M.
I . CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission
was called to order by the Chairman at 7: 00 P.M. on July 15, 1974 at
the Palm Desert Middle School.
II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III . ROLL CALL
Present : Commissioners : JEAN BENSON, JIM McPHERSON,
CHUCK ASTON, HENRY CLARK
Absent : Commissioners: NOEL BRUSH
Others Present :
City Manager - Harvey L. Hurlburt
Director of Environmental Services - Paul Williams
City Attorney - Dave Erwin
Planning Assistant - Sam Freed
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 1 ,
r.. 1974 were approved as submitted.
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - Paul Williams introduced the
recording secretary
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. To consider the establishment of a Specific Plan
for the commercial area of the City of Palm Desert .
Chairman Clark asked the public hearing on this matter
be postponed until later in the evening to permit additional per-
sons to arrive.
B. Change of Zone No. 02-74-PD - To change the zone on
the property within the Sun King Annexation, located
east of Portola Avenue and north and adjacent to the
Whitey=pater Storm Channel, from County R-T (Mobilehome
Subdivision and Mobilehome Park) to City R-T (Mobile-
home Subdivision and Mobilehome Park) .
Commissioner Brush arrived at 7 : 10 P.M.
Staff recommended approval of the change of zone based
upon conformance of the zoning to the proposed development .
Chairman Clark opened the public hearing, and Frank
Bonivicci, 72-500 Portola Avenue, representing the applicant ,
spoke in favor of the rezoning.
Chairman Clark asked if any other people wished to speak.
No one responded. He then closed the public hearing.
Page 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1974
Commissioner McPherson moved and Commissioner Aston
seconded that the change of zone request be forwarded to City
Council for approval. The motion was unanimously carried.
VII . OLD BUSINESS
A. Case No. 5MF - El Dorado Home (Deep Canyon Tennis
Club) - Request for Plot Plan Approval to permit
construction of the final 180 units in this 360
unit condominium project . Review continued from
Planning Commission meeting of June 17, 1974.
The matter had been continued to permit resolution of
two major problems by the applicant . The problems were : 1) the
10 buildings along the north side of the project which were two-
story in height . The applicant has revised the building eleva-
tions and has reduced these 10 buildings to single-story; 2) to
resolve the drainage problem with the project . The applicant
has submitted revised grading plans which provide for some re-
tention basins.
Mr. Williams indicated that the single-story now pre-
sented were acceptable, however, with regards to the drainage
revisions he indicated that he had reviewed the proposed reten-
tion basin location with the County Road Department and he was of
the opinion that other areas within the project should be studied
.for additional basins. He pointed to a revised map which indi-
cated the areas that should be studied in yellow.
Inw Mr. Williams indicated that staff was recommending ap-
proval of the project subject to some five conditions, and he has
indicated that Condition No. 4 would allow for the indicated addi-
tional study of drainage basins.
Chairman Clark asked if the applicant was in attendance.
Mr. John Van Daele, of El Dorado Homes , appeared as the applicant .
He objected to the staff ' s requirement of additional retention
basins within the development . He felt that they had adequately
provided for drainage with the basins on the revised plan. Beyond
this problem he could accept the 5 recommended conditions as pro-
posed by staff.
Chairman Clark asked if any other person wished to speak.
No other persons spoke and he closed the public hearing.
After some discussion regarding the feasibility of re-
quiring the applicant to install additional retention basins. Com-
missioner McPherson moved and Commissioner Aston seconded the pro-
ject be approved subject to the 5 recommended conditions, and the
inclusion of the Attorney' s statement .
City Attorney Dave Erwin requested that any motion for
approval of this project should include the statement that this
r approval does not constitute approval by the City Council of the
previously approved by .the County of Riverside of the surface run-
off system.
f
t Chairman Clark inquired as to whether the maker of the
motion would accept an amendment to request that an additional
study of other areas for possible installation of retention basins
G
Page 3
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1974
could be attached to the conditions of approval . Both Commis-
sioner McPherson and Commissioner Aston indicated that such an
amendment was not acceptable.
Chairman Clark called for the question and the motion
was denied by the following vote:
AYES: ASTON, McPHERSON
NOES: BRUSH, BENSON, CLARK
After some discussion, staff recommended the following
motion subject to the recommended condition of the City Attorney
that the project be approved subject to the five recommended con-
ditions and the addition to condition No. 4 of the following sen-
tence:
Possible additional retention basins near the tennis
court shall be studied by the applicant and resolution
of the problem shall be worked out between applicant
and staff prior to the issuance of any building permit .
Commissioner Brush made such a motion, Commissioner
Benson seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Justifica-
tion for the approval was based upon the reason outlined in the
staff report .
Case No. P. P. 1066 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES - (Iron-
wood Country Club) - Submittal of final building plot
plan , landscape plan, floor plan, and elevation draw-
ings for Planning Commission approval as per condition
No. 3 of the Plot Plan approval granted April 8, 1974.
Mr. Williams explained that the applicant had sub-
mitted all the plans to comply with requirements of condition
No. 3 of the original approval. He indicated that said condi-
tion required submittal of detailed building elevations , land-
scape plans, etc. He stated that the plans as submitted would
comply to the condition and therefore, would recommend that the
Commission accept the plans as being complete with the exception
that the landscape plan for the golf course area may be submitted
prior to occupancy of any unit . The Planning Commission , by min-
ute motion, accepted the plans as being in compliance with the
original conditions of approval.
Chairman Clark recessed the meeting at 8 : 10 P.M.
At 8: 20 P.M. Chairman Clark reopened the meeting and
went back to Item A under Public Hearings, the Specific Plan for
the Commercial Area of the City of Palm Desert . He indicated
the procedure to be followed in the consideration of this Speci-
fic Plan. He stated that the representatives of Wilsey & Ham
would present the proposed Specific Plan , then the City Staff
would make comments on the plan and then he would open the pub-
lic hearing for comments from the general public. Mr. Larry
Morrison and Mr. Hunter Cook, of the firm of Wilsey & Ham, Inc. ,
presented a description of the recommended Specific Plan for the
commercial area of Palm Desert .
Page 4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1974
Mr. Morrison discussed the elements of the plan, such
as the general pattern of land use, traffic circulation , and ur-
ban design. He indicated that conceptually the plan attempted to
provide for a residential image at the entry-way into the city
from the west . He indicated that such housing would be set back
some 40 to 60 feet from Highway 111. This would allow for hous-
ing of high quality and such housing would extend north of High-
way 111 to the area of the College of the Desert .
He then discussed the proposed regional commercial area
adjacent to the intersection of Monterey Avenue and Highway 111.
He indicated that the plan provided for landscaped areas with the
provision of locating buildings closer to the road at one point
to further improve the image of this area from Highway 111. In
addition, he indicated that the parking in the regional. commercial
area should be developed around the buildings to improve circula-
tion . He also indicated that mounding was recommended adjacent to
the parking areas along Highway 111 to improve the appearance of
these parking areas from the street.
He said that the Specific Plan as recommended, would not
affect the zoning of these areas at this time. The plan should be
considered as a guideline for the development of these areas. The
city would be using this to evaluate requests in these areas and
that the objectives of the plan were the most important element
to be met by any development .
Mr. lVilliams, of the city staff , indicated that staff
had notified by legal notice , all the property owners within the
study area. In response to the legal notice, staff had received
a number of letters commenting on' the proposed plan. In addition,
the Citizens Advisory Committee had submitted written recommenda-
tions on the plan. All this information was submitted to the Com-
mission prior to the meeting.
Chairman Clark then opened the public hearing by indi-
cating that a lot of work had been put into the development of
this plan. The Citizens Advisory Committee had assisted the Plan-
ning Commission in their work and that the Planning Commission
must now decide whether to accept the plan in total or to deter-
mine whether changes should be made. He asked for comments from
the public at this time.
Mr. Harry Schmitz, 43-900 Primrose Drive, indicated his
concern with regards to the preciseness of the plan. He inquired,
was the indication of malls and locations of the buildings in the
regional commercial area precise? He said the plan indicates that
there should be a mall, however, such a mall :could bisect property
lines and in addition, the proposed Desert Mall would not conform
to this layout . He wanted to know how flexible is this plan?
Chairman Clark indicated that the plan does have elbow
room.
.. Mr. Morrison responded that first of all , the Commission
should not try to decide if a specific building does or does not
fit into the plan at this meeting. In general , the Specific Plan
should be considered a set of guidelines and in specific terms a
project should be evaluated on the basis of whether it achieves
the objectives of the Specific Plan or whether a project does im-
prove the objectives. It will be the responsibility of the appli-
cants of projects to prove that their projects meet or exceed the
objectives or to justify where, projects deviate from the plan, to
i
Page 5
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1974
I
prove that the deviation is a better way to go than what is in-
dicated in the plan.
Mr. Schmitz indicated that the plan is then a general
concept , but his project is specific and precise and he wanted
to know does his project fit into what is being proposed.
Chairman Clark stated that the Specific Plan is a fairly
precise plan. If an alternative plan comes in that achieves the
same objectives or improves them, then the staff and Commission
would have to make that judgment at that time. He stated that
anyone wanting to deviate from the Specific Plan would have to
make that a part of the normal processing of a Plot Plan Approval.
Mr. George Ritter, 73-345 Juniper Street , Palm Desert ,
recommended that the city restudy the plan and not accept it in
its current form. He felt that the Commission should spend more
time in evaluating all alternatives. He was not in favor of the
a proposed bicycle paths because they caused a loss in parking
space. The Commission should restudy the parking issue. He in
dicated that the addition of golf carts would compound the park-
ing problem. He felt the tram system was great , but it does not
serve all the businesses and does not go anywhere. He went on to
say that he was concerned about the various elements of the plan,
such as the proposed one-way circulation, etc .
a
Mr. Jim Abbott , City Lumber & Building Supply, indicated
that it was his opinion that this plan is an architect ' s dream but
a businessman' s nightmare. He wanted to know who was going to pay
for all these improvements. He felt the plan may be too ambitious.
t...
Chairman Clark indicated that before a vote was taken
on the plan, the Commission would know how much all the improve-
ments would cost .
Mr. John Cody, 75-750 Altamira Drive, Indian Wells, who
� indicated he was part owner of the property at 44th Avenue and
Highway 111, stated that he would hate to be limited to such uses
as a restaurant and theater. He felt that he should be able to
have the permitted range of uses as outlined in the C.P.S. Zoning
as it presently exists.
Mr. Lyman Martin, 73-986 Highway 111 , Palm Desert , com-
mented on the traffic aspects of the proposed plan. He indicated
the one-way system, in his opinion, would not work. He also com-
mented on the various elements of the plan and wanted to know why
only one plan or alternative was before us tonight.
Chairman Clark stated that Wilsey & Ham had looked at
many alternatives but that the city had hired them to present the
plan, which in their judgment , would work. He further indicated
that Wilsey & Ham had kept City Council and the Citizens Advisory
Committee fully informed of other alternatives. The plan before
the Commission tonight represented the final recommendation of
Wilsey & Ham for the commercial area of Palm Desert .
Now
Mr. Dave Bond , 44-532 San Pasqual , commented on the
proposed one-way traffic circulation. He indicated that Wilsey
& Ham had demonstrated by the plan that they have a great deal
of knowledge and ability with regard to traffic flow and traffic
problems. Ile felt that the one-way circulation was the only way
to go to solve the traffic problems that exist in the area. He
Page 6
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1974
felt that we should not continue to delay but to go forward with
the one-way system to relieve the traffic congestion that exists
at this time. He felt this was a good step and that later on, when
the congestion again increases, we could then proceed with the rest
of the elements of the plan, such as channelization at the inter-
sections. At that time other alternatives could be considered.
However, with regards to the concerns expressed tonight by the
r. businessmen, that they would have to pay for these improvements,
we all know that any cost would be passed on to the consumer and
everyone would pay, not just the businessman.
Mr. Harry Schmitz again indicated that he felt that a
flexible plan should be adopted, not a rigid one.
Mr. P. E. Kirkpatrick of Kirkpatrick Electric , asked
how would the improvements be paid for. The City Manager , Harvey
L. Hurlburt , explained that the plan provides for various methods
of financing. That at this time the most feasible method of finan-
cing appears to be tax increment financing. He went on to explain
how this financing method worked.
Mrs. Elizabeth McAfee, 73-302 Highway 111 , asked where
her customers were going to park if parking were eliminated along
the frontage road.
Mr. Morrison responded that there would be a series of
mini-parking lots throughout the north side with a maximum dis-
tance of 1/2 block from any business and these would provide the
parking for the businesses along the frontage road.
Mrs. McAfee stated that people won' t walk any part of
a block to go shopping and there was not enough parking now for
her business. If the parking were eliminated along the frontage
road she would be out of business.
Mr. Morrison said that the parking lots would be lo-
cated on the existing vacant lots along the frontage road. Peo-
ple would be able to either walk to the businesses , or to ride
the proposed tram.
r Mrs. McAfee stated that if part of the street were used
for bicycles and trams and no parking was provided on the front-
age road, there was going to be a serious parking problem.
Mr. Dave Fuller, 73-150 Shadow :Mountain Drive , Palm
Desert , stated that the proposed regional commercial area between
44th Avenue and Monteray Avenue along Highway 111 , would have ser-
ious congestion and that further in-depth study of this problem
should be made.
Chairman Clark indicated that circulation would again
be studied as a part of the general plan which will be coming to
public hearings around.October.
Mr. Ed Benson, 1106 Sandpiper, Palm Desert , indicated
tow that he did not understand the increment tax financing. He in-
quired how the city could freeze revenue.
Chairman Clark explained the procedure whereby the city
would receive the revenue from the county.
Page 7
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15 , 1974
George Ritter inquired whether the money that we
would get would have to be spent in the specific area where the
taxes were frozen.
Chairman Clark responded, yes.
Mrs. Mary Kay Van de Mark, 73-420 Grapevine, Palm
Desert, said that the parking situation in this area has been
critical for the last five years. Any reduction in parking
would adversely affect the businesses and that should be con-
sidered.
Chairman Clark then asked if there were any more ques-
tions, comments, or suggestions.
Mr. Morrison stated that he would like to comment in
two areas. First, he would like to state that this plan is not
the final plan, that with each meeting there will be an addi-
tional input that will cause refinement of the plan . Secondly,
he would like to comment on the recommendations of the Citizens
Advisory Committee. Regarding the proposed transfer of the com-
mercial service area to the intersection of Highway 111 and 44th
Avenue, he felt that that was as workable as recommended by
Wilsey & Ham. Regarding the change in density of the residen-
tial areas from the recommended 7 to 11 , to 3 to 4 as proposed
by the committee, he indicated that this was as workable as they
proposed. With regards to the proposed changes in land use, he
felt that either their recommendation or the committee' s would
work. Regarding parking, he indicated that the Specific Plan
suggested does reduce the amount of parking, but attempts to
redistribute it based upon the objective that the areas around
the buildings are not just for cars, but are also for people.
With the redistribution of the parking, people would walk as
far as they could and then could ride the tram. Finally, with
regards to the recommendation of additional commercial land uses
along the north side of Alessandro, he indicated there would be
major problems in the change of land uses in this area.
In general, the Citizens Advisory Committee ' s comments
were very good and would be helpful to us. He then commented on
the statement that the plan did not provide for the difference
in character of the north side vs. the south side along Highway
111. He stated that he did agree that there was a difference in
the parking systems in these areas , however, the plan provides
for these differences. The tram system and the parking system
is different in the two areas.
Mrs. Van de Mark asked whether the plan provides for
decrease in parking. She asked whether the parking would be re-
distributed.
Mr. Morrison explained that the plan as presented tonight ,
shows additional parking lots along the north side of Highway 111.
However, after discussion with the council in study session, he
i would agree that it would seem more appropriate to put some lots
± , along the south side of El Paseo.
i
Chairman Clark stated that the city is dedicated to
providing comfortable and adequate parking.
i
r Mr. Fred Bonivicci inquired whether in addition to
getting the proceeds from the increased tax assessment , would
we also get an increase in the tax rate under the ta% increment
financing program, if the county raised the tax rate.
Page 8
Plannjng Commission Meeting
July 15, 1974
City manager, Harvey Hurlburt , responded affirmatively.
City Manager, Harvey Hurlburt , indicated that since the
staff has not been able to fully evaluate all the written comments
received, he recommended that the public hearing be continued to
8: 00 P.M. on July 22, 1974.
too Commissioner Brush moved, and Commissioner McPherson
seconded a motion to continue the public hearing to July 22, 1974
at 8 : 00 P.M. and the motion was unanimously carried.
VIII . NEW BUSINESS - None
IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
X. COMMENTS - None
XI . ADJOURNMENT
At 10: 50 P.M. the meeting was continued to July 22,
1974, at 8: 00 P.M.
a:- hleen C. Widmar, Secretary
ern
ATTEST:
f V '
HENRY B. CL iRK, MAYOR
w
�i
t
k
}
i
l
i
i