Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0929 MINUTES . � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 29, 1975 City Hall Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by the Chairman at 7:02 p.m. on September 29, 1975 in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL wow Present: Commissioners GEORGE BERKEY, ED MULLINS, WILLIAM SEIDLER, MARY K. VAN DE MARK, S. ROY WILSON Others Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner . Sam Freed Assistant Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of September 15, 1975 were approved as submitted. Commissioner Mullins moved, Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion which carried unanimously. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Seidler noted that all items on the Agenda had been reviewed and discussed prior to the meeting by the Commission for the purpose of obtaining a full understanding of staff's reports. No decisions are made during Study Session; and they are open to the public. Chairman Seidler explained the public hearing procedures and opened the hearing'. , A. Case No. CUP-07-7,5 CITI.NATIONAL BANK: Request for a parking lot on property in the R-3 district on the north side of Larrea, between Portola and San Luis Rey. Paul Williams advised that staff recommended Items A and B under Public Hearing be continued to October 6, 1975. Chairman Seidler noted that both items had been noticed and called for comments from the audience. There were no comments regarding either case. Commissioner Mullins moved that Case No. CUP-07-75 be continued until October 6. Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion which carried unanimously. B. Case No. CUP-06-75 EUCLID-BALL: Request for a home sales office in a new residential subdivision on the south side of Haystack, between Highway 74 and Portola. Commissioner Berkey moved that Case No. CUP-06-75 be continued until October 6. Cornnissioner Wilson seconded the motion which carried unanimously. C. Case No. GPA-01-75: Consideration of Environmental Impact Report on various amendments to the Palm Desert General Plan, new Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, Grading Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Chairman' Seidler announced a change from the usual public hearing procedure. After Staff's report and after the Planning Commission has a chance to ask questions, anyone wishing to speak could do so. He did ask persons wishing to speak to give specifics when addressing the Commission. Paul Williams presented the staff report. Since the adoption and subsequent affirmation of the Palm Desert General Plan, the City Staff, in conjunction with the Planning Commission, Wilsey & Ham, Inc. and a great deal of local peuple, the implementation tools to the General Plan were. developed which included the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, Grading Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and some General Plan Amendments. MINUTES -2- September 29, 1975 The Environmental Impact Report for the implementation tools and the General Plan Amendments was finalized and circulated to approximately 83 different organizations and/or individuals for review and comment which included the various documents. As a part of the legal requirements under State law, it was necessary that this infor,;,.ation be conveyed to technical , professional , and other, interested groups and individuals affected by the proposed documents and plans, 30 days prior to the beginning of the Planning Commission review process starting with the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Williams proceeded to review letters received from the California Regional r% Water Quality Control Board; and the County of Riverside, Department of Fire Protection. The comments contained in these letters required no response for the Final EIR. He summarized by describing the secondary effects of the documents relative to the development in the City of Palm Desert. After Mr. Williams' report, there were no questions from the Commissioners. Chairman Seidler asked for comments from the audience. There were no comments. Commissioner Berkey moved adoption, recommending to the City Council , that the EIR was complete and should be certified by Planning Commission Resolution No. 83. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Commissioner Wilson commented that the EIR was very well done and was quite an improvement over previous EIR's prepared. The Commission concurred. D. Case No. GPA-01-75: Consideration of various amendments to the Palm Desert General Plan. Paul Williams gave the staff report on this item. He advised that Section 65361 of the California Government Code provided that any mandatory element of a General Plan may be amended three (3) times during any calendar year. The proposed amendments represented the first adjustments to the Palm Desert General Plan for 1975. These changes were being proposed as a result of many hours of careful study and analysis; and reflected several changes that were the result of a change in philosophy, while most changes were made to correct errors; and for clarity. If anyone felt there should be additional changes in the General Plan other than those proposed, Mr. Williams asked for recommendations at this meeting. He advised that staff would note the recommended changes; and when it came time when the City was ready to prepare the next set of amendments, these changes would be considered. The City would advise those persons recommending changes of upcoming meetings when they would be reviewed. Commissioner Berkey asked if the City had a definite date or specific schedule by which to adopt General Plan changes. Paul Williams replied, no. The City Council had not yet established any procedural time table, but this might be a good time to recommend the establish- ment of such a schedule. He further suggested that the Commission consider reviewing this matter when reviewing the General Plan procedures as a supplemental resolution to the Zoning Ordinance. Perhaps the schedule of Palm Desert could be coordinated with the County's schedule. The proposed changes to the General Plan were as follows: 1 . Land Use Map - Chan e 38-acre, high density residential (7-18 dwelling units per acre area west of the College of the Desert to medium density residential (5-7 dwelling units per acre) . - Change area west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel from medium density residential and core area commercial to Planned Commercial Resort. - Change area adjacent to San Pablo and north of State Highway 111 from medium density residential to core area commercial . MINUTES - 3 - September 29, 1975 Change area north of Shadow Mountain Drive from medium density residential (5-7 dwelling units per acre) to low density residential (3-5 dwelling units per acre) . Change area adjacent to State Highway Ill and west of Palm Desert/ Indian Wells boundary from core area commercial tc,, Planned Commercial Resort. 2. Land Use Element - Add a designation of Planned Commercial Resort which would permit hotels, entertainment facilities , and related core area commercial uses. - Add an objective of providing a buffer between residential and commercial areas. 3. Circulation Element - Revise the designation of Monterey Avenue to a major highway. Show change on Figure 5. 1 . - Delete reference to tram system on page 5.P.2 and revise Figure 5.3. - Add a pedestrian sidewalk along Portola Avenue, between Highway 111 and the Middle School site. 4. Housing Element - Page 4.B.l .b. —Change to "Palm Desert Tennis Club. " - Change phrase throughout element from "low" income housing to "Lower" income housing. - Page 4.B.7 - Last line on page should read. . . "improve living conditions in the City, including housing." - Page 4.P.3 —Last line of second paragraph should read. . . "its ac- tions may have an important impact on Palm Desert's housing needs. " 5. Urban Design Element - Several changes which add line-of-sight "sight plane" requirements. - All diagrams illustrating 2 and 3 dimensional line-of-sight con- siderations. Mr. Williams commented that the main concern to the people in the audience would perhaps be the changes to the land use map. In conjunction with this map, Staff had received a letter from Mr. Bowie, requesting the relocation of an equestrian center designation to the Cahuilla Hills area. Staff felt that the parcel sizes, existing uses, terrain and location made this area an excellent location for an additional equestrian center; and therefore recommended the addition of this amendment. He also indicated that the owner of the property at 44th Avenue and Highway 111 was concerned with the designation of Planned Commercial Resort in that an approval presently existed on the property for a shopping center. The applicant had submitted a secondary application for the shopping center with a slightly modified design. It was discussed in the staff report, the Oros and cons of the two designations, the conflict with regards to the Redevelopment Plan; and staff felt there was merit for both concepts. However, they did tend to favor changing the property designation to District Commercial . MINUTES -4- September 29, 1975 In terms of procedure, staff prepared Resolution No. 84 which described all the changes as indicated in the document labeled Exhibit A. To make changes to Exhibit A or add any minor additional amendments deemed appropriate, Exhibit B was provided to amend the amendments. The Planning Commission and staff then discussed the various restrictions relative to Dr. Kahn's property if the zoning designation were District Commercial versus its present designation. Chairman Seidler then asked for comments from the audience. Robert ,H. Ricciardi ,73-700 Highway 111 spoke on behalf of Dr. Kahn, the owner of the property on Avenue 44 and Highway 111 . He described the history of events which lead up to the present request. He indicated that he would • like to see this area zoned as District Commercial . He summarized by des- cribing the benefits of having a shopping center at this site and how the project was related to the Redevelopment Plan. George Ritzau, Vice President of Interstate Shopping Centers, developer for this project spoke on behalf of Dr. Kahn. He reviewed the results of his study with regards to the feasibility of this project and felt that the development was most appropriate and would be beneficial to the City of Palm Desert. Chairman Seidler suggested that the Commission come back to this item after all the General Plan Amendments had been reviewed. He then asked for further comments on the amendments from the audience. Val Litchfield, 43-155 Portola Avenue asked for clarification of the General Plan Amendment on page 4.B.4 with regards to correcting the term "low income housing" and "low cost housing". Chairman Seidler commented that the intent of this paragraph was meant to say that the City should keep aware of all programs whether they were regionally, locally, state or federally initiated; and to take advantage of those programs that the City felt would benefit the community. The City did not want to close the door for funding housing that might help the overall goals of the City which was to provide for housing for all people, all levels of people who wanted to work and live within the community. Ms. Litchfield had no further comments. There were no further comments regarding the General Plan Amendments themselves , therefore, Chairman Seidler directed the meeting back to the items discussed relative to Dr. Kahn's property. He reiterated the two alternatives open to the Commission which were as follows: 1 . Change the designation on Dr. Kahn's property to Planned Commercial Resort. 2. Change the General Plan by approving Dr. Kahn's request and forward the amendment to the City Council , which was also the acting Redevelopment Agency, for their approval or denial . After a lengthy discussion, the Commission asked if Dr. Kahn had any comments to make. Dr. Kahn of Covina, California and owner of the property commented that he felt Mr. Ricciardi had explained most of the beneficial environmental impacts that a development of this sort would have on the City of Palm Desert. He felt the project had a unique location and explained the positive studies done by Mr. Ritzau. He summarized by asking the Commission to consider strongly the positive aspects of his project. There being no further comments, Chairman Seidler closed the public hearing. MINUTES -5- September 29, 1975 The Planning Commission then reviewed the changes proposed and suggested further amendments which were as follows: Amendment #1 The deletion of the page titled View Planes from the Urban Design Element. Amendment #2 The deletion of page 2.B.l .a. from the Urban Design Element. Amendment #3 To include the designation of the equestrian center in the Cahuilla Hills Area (#6) on the Land Use Map, Subsection B. After further discussion regarding Dr. Kahn's request (Area #2 on the map) , Commissioner Berkey felt that if area #2 was changed to District Commercial it would downgrade what was planned for that area. Therefore, he moved that Area #2 be designated as Planned Commercial Resort. Commissioner Mullins seconded the motion. Commissioner Wilson expressed a concern that he felt the City was getting too much resort in the General Plan. Motion carried 4-1 with Commissioner Wilson voting no. After Mr. Williams reviewed Planning Commission Resolution No. 84 including Exhibit A and the additional amendments contained in Exhibit B, Chairman Seidler entertained a motion for a vote on all General Plan Amendments including the addition of the area designated as #6 on the Land Use Map (Equestrian Center) . Commissioner Mullins moved for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 84 with the revised amendments as stated in Exhibit B. Commissioner Berkey seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Chairman Seidler then explained the appeal procedures to the City Council and the time parameters involved relative to Dr. Kahn's request. E. NEW ZONING ORDINANCE: Consideration of adoption of Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code. Sections 25.1 thru 25.14. After a review of the Zoning Ordinance, section by section, the following changes to the Zoning Ordinance were proposed: PAGE TYPE OF CHANGE CHANGE 25.2 (1 ) Addition Alley - an access roadway or drive that provides service access to the rear or sides of a parcel . 25.2 (5) Change Duplex - An attached permanent building. . . 25.2 (5) Deletion Dwelling Group - delete the words "and one half" . 25.2 (9) Correction Line of Sight - Correct spelling of"ground". 25.2 (11 ) Addition Motel - add to the definition "The word Motel shall be referred to hereinafter as "Hotel , Inn, Motor Inn, or Lodge". 25.5 (1 ) Change 25.5-3 Notwithstanding. . .required for any land use heretofore. . . . .Palm Desert or the County of .Riverside. . .provided substantial construction has begun on a portion of the project. 25.9 (2) Changes 25.9-5.01 Minimum Lot Area - Minimum of forty thousand (40,000 square feet. 25.9-5.02 Minimum Lot Width - One hundred fifty (150) feet. 25.9-5.03 Minimum Lot Depth - Two hundred fifty (250) feet. 2.5.9-5.04 Minimum Front Yard - Fifty (50) feet 25.9-5.05 Minimum Side Yard - Twenty-five (25) feet MINUTES -6- September 29, 1975 PAGE TYPE OF CHANGE CHANGE _ 25.9 (3) Change 25.9-5.08 Maximum Building Height - Thirty (30) feet. 25.9 (3) Addition 25.9-5.09 Minimum Dwelling Unit Size - The minimum dwelling unit size as specified in Section 25.32-8.01 shall not be less than two thousand (2,000) square feet. Change 25.9-5.09 to 5.10 Change 25.9-5.10 to 5.11 Change 25.9-5.11 to 5.12 Change 25.9-5.12 to 5.13 25.10 (2) Change 25.10-5.02 Minimum Lot Width - Seventy (70) feet. 25.10 (2) Addition 25.10-5.08 Minimum Dwelling Unit Size - The minimum dwelling unit size as specified in Section 25.32-8.01 shall be 1 ,000 sq. ft. on lots less than 10,000 sq. ft. in size. Addition 25.10-6.01 Minimum Lot Width - Ninety (90) feet. 25.10 (3) Change 25.10-7.01 Minimum Lot Width - Ninety (90) . feet. Change 25.10-7.02 . Minimum Lot Depth . - One Hundred twenty-five 125 feet. 25.11 (1 ) Deletion 25.11-3 Delete words of condominiums (at bottom of the page) . 25.11 (2) Change 25.11-5.02 Minimum Lot Width - Seventy (70) feet. Addition 25.11-5 Development Standards - The following development standards, except for minimum lot width, depth and setbacks not applying to Planned Residential Districts, shall apply to all develop- ment. 25.11 (3) Addition 25.11-5.09 (except where the property is adjacent to the R-1 district). 25.12 (3) Addition 25.12-5.10 (except where the property is adjacent to the R-1 district). 25.12 (1 ) Deletion 25.12-2 delete words (row houses) Deletion 25.12-3 delete words (and motels) Change 25.12-3 change to eighteen (18) units 25.12 (3) Deletion 25.12-6.01 delete sentence. . ."The free standing trash. . . ." �%W 25.13 (2) Change 25.13-4.05 Minimum Project Lot Width - Change to 500 feet. 25.14 (7) Change 25.14-6.02 (.5) change single family detached to. . ."as approved by a development plan." MINUTES -7- September 29, 1975 Chairman Seidler advised that the remaining sections of the Zoning Ordinance would be reviewed at the continued hearing of October 14, 1975. VII. OLD BUSINESS - None VIII. NEW BUSINESS - None IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. Review of cases heard by the Design Review Board at its meeting of September 23, 1975. There were no cases called to the floor for discussion by the Planning Commission. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - None C. Planning Commissioners - None XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m, until the continued meeting of October 6, 1975. PAL A. WILLIA S, SECRETARY ATTES R. SEI , CHAIRMAN