Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0804 MINUTES PLANNING COT.MMISSION MEETING August 4 , 1975 City Hall Council Chambers I . CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by the Vice Chairman at 7 : 01 on August 4, 1975 in the City Hall Council Chambers. II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III . ROLL CALL Present : Commissioners GEORGE BERKEY, ED MULLINS , S . ROY WILSON Absent : Commissioners WILLIAM SEIDLER, MARY X. VAN DE !.MARK (Excused Absences) Others Present : Paul Williams - Director of Environmental Services Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Commissioner Berkey moved, Commissioner :Mullins seconded the motion to approve the minutes of June 30 , 1975 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Corrections to the minutes of July 14 , 1975 were outlined by Steve Fleshman as follows : Page 2 - Mrs . Valerie was changed to Mrs . Mallory Page 3 - After the last sentence of paragraph 7 , the following sentence was added : The reason for Commissioner Wilson' s no vote was that he felt the matter should be continued to allow the staff to gather additional information and input from property owners in the El Paseo area. Page 4 - Paragraph 4 , second sentence was revised to read as follows : Motion carried 3-0 with Commissioner Nilson abstaining. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion for approval of the minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. VI . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VII . PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. CUP-04-75 ELDON PROCK: Request to allow a small animal veterinary hospital on a 1/4 acre parcel on the north side of Highway 111 , between Monterey & San Marcos . (C-P-S) ern. Vice Chairman Wilson explained the public hearing procedures and opened the hearing. Paul Williams introduced the case to the Commission ; and Steve Fleshman presented the staff report . After Mr. Flesh- man reviewed the plot plan , he outlined in detail the con- ditions of approval. He summarized by advising that staff recommended approval of this case by Resolution No. 66 subject to the conditions as outlined. Minutes -2- August 4, 1975 There being no questions from the Commissioners, Vice Chair- man Wilson invited those who wished to speak in favor of the project to the podium. DR. ELDON PROCK, 1850 North Main Street , Salinas , California- applicant , presented a colored rendering of the proposed veteri- nary hospital . He emphasized that the structure would be built so that everything would be totally enclosed, avoiding noise and odor nuisance factors. The only time animals would be out- side the facility would be when they were being brought to and from the hospital . Commissioner Berkey questioned whether there was a condition re- garding the control of possible nuisance factors such as noise and odor. Mr. Williams indicated that a condition regarding noise and odor nuisance factors was not presently included, but should be added to the conditions of approval . He suggested that some measurable level , in terms of the number of complaints received, be established whereby the Commission would set the matter for hearing to de- termine if the complaints were valid or invalid, in order to justify remedial action. Dr. Prock approved of such a condition. If any nuisances were to arise, he assured the Commission he would take immediate action. He added that he objected to conditions #16 & #17 . At this time complaiance to these conditions would place a financial burden upon him. Dr. Prock indicated that he would gladly pay his share of the cost for undergrounding when the entire area was to be undergrounded in the future. He felt that paving the alley as stipulated in condition #18 would be unfeasible. He again advised that he would gladly pay his share when the entire area was to be blacktopped. Outside of these two objections , he agreed to the remaining conditions. %"W Commissioner Berkey commented that Condition #16 was a standard provision. Paul Williams added that the City Council had not established a waiver procedure related to undergrounding at this time. The matter would have to be appealed to the City Council , whereby the City Council would give new direction or uphold the policy. Vice Chairman Wilson then asked for comments against the project . MR. THOMAS TEAKLER, 44-810 San Antonio Circle, Palm Desert spoke against the project by relating to the Commission , his previous experiences with regards to noise and odor violations when he lived near an animal hospital in Orange County which resulted in his moving. He was afraid the same situation would result again and that a hospital of this nature did not belong near a resi- dential area. He also added that several of his neighbors were away for the summer, but he was certain they would be concerned with the location of this veterinary clinic. Dr. Prock emphasized that the animal hospital in Orange County was probably built several years ago; and since then several significant changes had occurred in -the construction of veterinary hospitals so that nuisance factors would be totally alleviated. OW He then explained in detail , the safety factors built into the building to cut noise and alleviate odor. MR. LLOYD MOUNT, with Walker & Lee in Palm Desert , spoke on be- half of this project . He emphasized the environmental control factors which were proposed to be built into the structure as well as the type of clientelethat would be patronizing the veterinary hospital. Minutes -3- August 4 , 1975 Mr. Teakler asked if there would be any recourse if it was determined there was a sound problem. Vice-Chairman Wilson advised that a condition would be added as previously suggested by Mr. Williams that in case there was a violation , there would be an appeal process. Mr. Teakler stated he would not make an objection if such a condition were added. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Berkey indicated that if this case were approved , the most important condition would be the nuisance condition ; and how the matter would be handled. Paul Williams recommended that the Planning Commission consider the following: 1 . That the DRB be directed to more carefully review plans in this specific area to make certain that every possible alternative in development of the construction of the building is analyzed in an effort to minimize noise and sound problems. 2 . That a condition be added that states if a complaint is received, the life of the Conditional Use Permit is revokable as a part of a Public Hearing, if it is deter- mined that sufficient cause exists to create a nuisance for the neighborhood. Legally , the matter should be continued and the two conditions consider- ea and written by the City Attorney. Commissioner Mullins indicated that the Commission should definitely add those two conditions as recommended by Mr. Williams. He felt it was a beautiful building and was certain it would be an asset to the neighborhood, but he was concerned with the nuisance factors. After further discussion, it was the general consensus of the Com- missioners that there was a need for additional input with regards to the environmental concerns of this case. Commissioner Berkey moved that this matter be continued to the August 28, 1975 Planning Com- mission meeting, at which time the August 28 , 1975 Planning Commission meeting, at which time the staff would submit appropriate nuisance con- ditions to be added to the conditions of approval . Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion which carried unanimously. B. Case No. VARIANCE 06-75 DR. MARK WILLIAMSON: Request for a variance from Section 18 . 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, parking; for a reduction from 90 to 65 parking spaces for a 20, 000 square foot medical building on El Paseo , between Highway 111 and Portola Avenue. (C-P-S) Paul Williams introduced the case to the Commission ; and Steve Fleshman presented the staff report . Mr. Fleshman explained that sub- sequent to the applicant ' s original request for variance, the struc- ture was redesigned to 17, 750 square feet with 65 parking spaces . He the proceeded to outline the background and justification for denial of the original request and approval of the second request . Mr. Fleshman cited several studies done on parking requirements for medical/professional buildings done by The Planning Advisory Services , Community Builders Handbook, and the Urban Land Institute. He indicated it should be noted that the standards as described were arrived at by studying developments all across the country and the driving habits were different in each region . Studies indicated that parking lots conforming to the Urban Land Institute standards , nation- wide, were full or overflowing less than 1% of the time the businesses Minutes -4- August 4, 1975 were in operation . They also reported that parking lots should not be designed for the maximum amount of cars that could be using the lot . It was a much better use of land in an urban area to design for the average usage of that area. Staff recommended that this application be a guideline for future office parking in the City. Also, the combination of medical and professional offices was a good mixture in that both generated different types of traffic and had very different turnover rates . After considering the area and surrounding uses; Staff recommended the following revised parking standards for medical , professional , and general office buildings . 1 . Medical Buildings - 5 parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, allowing the developer to exclude stairways , elevators , landings , mechanical rooms , and a main lobby , with the total of the above not exceeding 15% of the gross floor area. 2. Professional Offices other than Medical : (Architects , Engineers, Law Offices, Accountants , etc. ) 3. 5 parking spaces per 1 , 000 square feet of gross leasable floor area allowing the developer to exclude stairways , elevators, landings, mechanical rooms, and a main lobby, with the total of the above not exceeding 157o of the gross floor area. 3. General Offices - 4 . 0 parking spaces per 1 , 000 square feet of gross leasable floor area allowing the developer to exclude stairways, elevators , landings, mechanical rooms , and a main lobby, with the total of the above not exceeding 157o of the gross floor area. The public hearing was opened. FRANK GOODMAN, 77-900 Avenue of the States , Palm Desert , felt the studies done by the Urban Land Institute were very important and applicable to this case. He expressed an objection to the location and enclosure of an incombustible trash enclosure, and based upon the studies done, he felt the applicant met an intelligent criteria for parking requirements as compared to other areas. Paul Williams asked if Mr. Goodman found an objection to condition #19 regarding undergrounding. Mr. Goodman replied no. ROBERT RICCIARDI , 73-700 Highway 111 , Palm Desert commented that this public hearing was not the time and place to change or allow reduced parking requirements which were presently in effect under the current Zoning Ordinance. The parking requirements of this case should be reviewed in light of the present Ordinance. He felt the Planning Commission should not deviate from the current Parking Ordinance until it had been property reviewed at Public Hearings where the public could give their input after they had been notified. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mullins advised that the Commission was faced with a problem of adhereing to the Zoning Ordinance and to not grant a variance for large amounts of parking. He felt a change was feasible in the parking ordinance which would provide a better ratio based upon these uses. ..+ Commissioner Berkey was pursuaded that the standards the staff had suggested were more reasonable than the present standards. Under those circumstances, he recommended an amendment to the current Zoning Ordinance regarding parking requirements as soon as possible . Vice Chairman Wilson was in agreement with Commissioner Berkey & Commissioner Mullins. The parking requirements as proposed by staff were more realistic. He felt this issue needed additional study, appropriate public hearings and public input . He recommended that staff take immediate action to study the proposed amendment to the parking ordinance and to not start implementation until the new standards of the ordinance had been established. Minutes -5- August 4, 1975 Commissioner Berkey moved that the request for variance by Planning Commission Resolution No. 66 be denied; and that the staff be instructed to take immediate action to make recommendations for modification to the present parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance so that the Commission could resolve the issue before approving this variance. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion which carried unanimously. C. Case No. VARIANCE 04-75 TERRY HILL: Request for a variance from Section 18. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, parking; for a reduction from 20 spaces to 10 spaces for a commercial building located on the south side of Palm Desert Drive , between Portola and San Luis Rey. (C-P-S) Paul Williams introduced the case and advised that this item was continued from the hearing of June 30, 1975 . Steve Fleshman presented the staff report . Since the last hearing this request had been reviewed at study session with the City Council in light of the city ' s recently adopted Redevelopment Plan and was found to have unique circumstances . As a result of the meeting, staff recommended approval of this variance by Planning Commission Resolution No. 67 , subject to the attached conditions, which he outlined in detail . Vice Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing. Mr. Ricciardi indicated he could not say whether or not the applicant agreed with all the conditions , but he could say the applicant was very interested in working with the city and hoped for approval of the project . The public hearing was closed. Commissioners Berkey and Mullins agreed with staff ' s recommendations. Commissioner Mullins moved that Resolution No. 67 with the attached 19 conditions be approved. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion which carried unanimously. D. Amendments to Ordinance No. 72 : Proposal to amend certain sections of Ordinance No. 72 relating to the procedures , jurisdiction and membership of the Design Review Board. Paul Williams introduced the case and recommended that the Planning Commission , after review, approve the proposed amendments by Resolution No. 68 and recommend to the City Council that they amend Ordinance No. 72 accordingly. After a review of the proposed changes , Vice Chairman Wilson opened the public hearing. Robert Ricciardi thought all the changes as recommended were basically very good. He felt the DRB should be in an advisory capacity to the Planning Commission, which was the current role of the Palm Springs DRB. He advised that an increase in membership to 7 would be very beneficial , however, he objected to staff members on the DRB becoming voting members. He felt it would be a conflict of interest . Discussion then turned to allowing staff to approve single family residences. Mr. Lloyd Mount felt that the city was placing a tremendous burden dw. on the builders due to the long time process involved in hearings before their cases were approved. He felt that if single family residence approval was left up to a staff function to give guidelines , the builders would be much happier. The public hearing was then closed. Minutes -6- August 4 , 1975 A lengthy discussion then ensued regarding major changes to Ordinance No. 72 and were agreed upon as follows : 1 . Designation of the two staff members as voting members . 2 . Making the Design Review Board completely advisory to the Planning Commission and City Council . 3 . Allowing the staff to evaluate and approve single family projects . These changes would have the following ramifications : 1. Single family projects would be processed in less than a week. 2. The DRB would be able to spend more time on larger, more complex projects . 3. The increase in voting members would make it easier to obtain a quorum. 4. By making the DRB advisory, the Planning Commission would see multi-family projects and provide one more check point . It also added six days to the application process , increased staff load and would lengthen the Planning Commission meetings. Vice Chairman Wilson clarified that these items were not in force , but were merely being recommended to the City Council for their consider- ation. Commissioner Berkey moved that Resolution No. 68 be approved recom- mending the adoption of Ordinance No. 81 as revised to the City Council . Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion which carried unanimously . The Planning Commission meeting adjourned for a 10 minute break and reconvened at 9 : 00 p.m. VII . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Tentative Parcel Map 6912 , ELDON PROCK: Request for approval of a tentative parcel map and request for waiver of final map. Steve Fleshman recommended that the Commission confer with the appli- cant at this time to determine whether he would like the parcel map continued and if he does he must agree on the 15 day waiver of action. Vice Chairman questioned if the applicant wanted to move ahead and consider this request or continue the matter until the same meeting as the Conditional Use Permit . The applicant wished to move head. Mr. Lloyd Mount , representing the applicant , explained that the applicant , in this case, was an estate. The reason the applicant was applying for the parcel split was to take an existing subdivi- sion and make a larger lot out of a smaller lot . Since the land was vacant , they felt that the condition of undergrounding utilities should be made a condition of the CUP for the 90' lot . Since the lots were vacant , the city would have control over the development of the westerly lot through obtaining a building permit . Therefore, Mr. Mount requested a waiver of the undergrounding of utilities required for the parcel map. Steve Fleshman explained some of the parcel map requirements which had been recently changed under the State Subdivision Map Act . JACK GHORMLEY, 82-640 Highway 111 , Indio , engineer for the project , commented that he was familiar with the recent changes in the Map Act that gave cities the authority to impose the same types of require- ments on parcel maps. The Map Act did not state it was mandatory for Minutes -7- August 4, 1975 the city to impose those requirements. The Map Act was modified to give the city the right of authority to consider these conditions. Steve Fleshman commented that the City Council had adopted Ordinance No. 38 specifically stating that all new construction had to have its utility lines undergrounded. Jack Ghormley advised that the Planning Commission was dealing with a parcel map that was unique in that the applicant was not requesting additional parcels They were requesting the city to approve the emergence of 2 parcels . He added that the existing parcel map require- ments might not be appropriate when considering this application. To the best of his knowledge the city had no definitive plans for ... undergrounding in that area. Economics would prove undergrounding to be not feasible . He did not know exactly how the city intended to underground this area. It would seem to be appropriate for the City to impose upon Doctor Prock, the alternative of requiring his being responsible for that part of the undergrounding which had to be done in the future undergrounding program, but no more. He hoped that the City Attorney, at the same time, would work up a condition for an agreement to be entered into that would preclude Dr. Prock from posting a bond and indicated that the doctor would agree to participate in his share of the undergrounding. After further discussion , Commissioner Mullins suggested that this matter be continued until August 18. Commissioner Berkey was sympathetic with the situation and felt that the required improvements at this time were a little unreasonable. As far as the undergrounding, he felt this was a pretty standard condition. The estate would be required to post a bond on half of it . Service lines would not be installed until there was development . Discussion then ensued with regards to the undergrounding requirements as specified in Ordinance No. 38. Vice Chairman Wilson was not sure that the intent of the Ordinance was to include parcel maps. Commissioner Berkey suggested that both the Conditional Use Permit and the parcel map be considered at the same time. He felt the city was perhaps too stringent on requirements of making lots larger. Commissioner Mullins moved that the Commission continue this matter until the meeting of August 18 , 1975 and that staff be directed to work with the City Attorney to come up with the appropriate way of handling this matter of undergrounding utilities in a land agreement . Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion which carried unanimously. B. Case No. 16C LASZLO SANDOR: Request for approval of a 11 , 900 square foot commercial/professional building at the southeast corner of Sage Lane and Palm Desert Drive. Steve Fleshman presented the staff report and outlined in detail the conditions of approval , recommending that condition #13 be modified to read that instead of a bond, all utility lines be undergrounded. LASZLO SANDOR, 1500 S. Palm Canyon, Palm Springs, applicant , stated he agreed with the conditions of approval with the exception of #13 . Mr. Sandor state he would like to post a bond rather than having undergrounding being required as a part of construction. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Mullins moved that Planning Commission Resolution No. 69 be approved, subject to the attached 13 conditions with condition #13 as originally worded. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Minutes -8- August 4, 1975 C. Request by Coachella Valley County Water Department to find that a proposed water main extension on Fairway Drive is in conformance with the Palm Desert General Plan. Steve Fleshman recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 70 finding that the proposed construction was in con- formance with the General Plan and that the City Staff should be directed to coordinate proposed road improvement on Fairway Drive with the Coachella Valley County Water District . Commissioner Mullins moved for approval of Resolution No 70. Commis- sioner Berkey seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Steve Fleshman advised that Paul Williams had been elected the interim Chairman and Frank Urrutia the Vice Chairman of the Design Review Board; and that the changes as proposed in Ordinance No . 81 were dis- cussed in detail at their last meeting. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI . COMMENTS A. Planning Commissioners - None B. City Staff - None XI . ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10 : 24 p.m. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY A ST. IIr� A SE , CHAIRMAN mom