Loading...
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